I start this conversation with this caveat : As a gay man I have never felt I had a say in the abortion debate because I thought a) I will probably never a girl pregnant, and b) a woman's body is her own property and matter. I wouldn't want anyone telling me how I should run my body, unless it there was a major health concern at issue. I don't like the killing of a living thing but it's not my right to judge.
But abortion, it seems is making a comeback. Lots of states are trying to severely limit access to abortion, or criminalize it out right. In fact I think North Dakota has outlawed it. And some back alley quack in Philly was performing late term abortion( or alleged late term abortions) in the worst and most unclean way. It would have been cleaner to do it in the bathroom in " Trainspotting". Now he is on trial. And should the morning after pill be available to my thirteen year old niece? Or will that access lead to fewer abortions or more randy sex.
It seems that this culture is still confused about a woman's equality and her sexual repercussions . Women carry a greater burden having sex. Both from a physical strength point of view and an after effects one. Why on earth would a free country entertain the notion that you can control a woman's body,and ultimately her sexual desire, if you close off a safe exit plan? And rich woman in America, as early as the 1800's, were able to get safe, clean abortions. There is also a class problem underneath the bigger question.
But I want to hear your thoughts about abortion. What do you think?
FACT: The anti-abortion forces are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE as the anti-gay forces.....
...So ALL gay men have to side with those who also fight our enemies.
You said it already -- in your first paragraph.
You don't have a dog in the fight -- and neither do I.
There is no debate, OP, only demands, and it's gone on for decades. Since Roe v Wade is federal law, what's going on in ND is ILLEGAL.
The Kemitt Gosnell case is what we used to read about routinely BEFORE Roe v Wade.
Legal, accessible and between a woman and her doctor.
I'm pro-consistent ethic of life and pro-marriage equality (as are most of the people I know).
Many Christian organizations in the USA today, are on the verge of become home grown terrorist groups. Anti-Abortionist, Anti-Gay, Pro-Home Schooling etc.
R5 what does pro consistent ethic of life mean?
It's straight people murdering their own children and getting away with it. They should be put in prison.
2013 Liberalism = gay marriage and abortion. That's it.
Wrong, R8. If straight people want to kill their children they give them guns.
No mentally healthy gay person would even defend these anti-gay bigots, so I guess there are lots of fundies on DL today.
Abortion will happen whether or not it's legal. The question is, will it be happening in licensed medical facilities under the auspices of authorized medical professionals, or is it going to happen via do-it-yourself methods or illegal Dr. Gosnell house of horrors type situations, as was common before Roe v. Wade? It's very easy to be "pro-life" if you refuse to face the realities of the situation and embrace the delusion that you can just make abortion go away if you pass enough laws and spurt enough antiabortion propaganda.
r7, it means you protect human life along the continuum from conception until death. Proponents are anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-choice, anti-euthanasia and work for solutions regarding each of those issues. Many proponents (myself included) are adoptive parents and most live very simply so that our money can go to support the most vulnerable in society.
Protect human life... unless that human life is gay and then.... round them up and put them in prison or force them into quack medical therapy.
R13 that is why everyone in the gay community thinks, rightfully so, people like you are violent, dangerous loons.
"2013 Liberalism = gay marriage and abortion"
2013 conservatism = whining about gay marriage and abortion
R13. Thank you. Nice to see someone thinking about consistency and continuity. However, I am sure you are prepared for the venom about to flow on DL.
R14. You and the basement dweller ilk are not the entire gay community. Get over yourself. Oh, and the part about rounding up gays....M.A.R.Y!!!!!!'
I feel much more strongly about the right to terminate one's own life under medical supervision. The concept is really no different, yet all types of people still freak out about the notion of legal, accessible physician-assisted suicide.
Oh, and abortions should never be free of charge. That's the only reservation I have about folks who currently flail over its lack of accessibility.
R18, where is abortion free of charge and who's saying it should be? "Covered by insurance" does not equal "free of charge," and in any case that procedure ISN'T covered.
These self declared "pro-life" people are a collection of Tea Party Terrorists, Pedophile Defending Catholics and Exorcism Engaging Evangelicals.
What R20 said.
R19, Your unreasonable, infantile, and highly unfortunate intolerance is showing. Did I say all people want abortion to be free of charge? No. I know people who do.
R20/r21. I assume you fly off the handle when the all gay men are drag queens, femmy, and kid fiddlers generalizations are made, right?
One bad generalization in R23 is the one the author made in his description of the poster of R21. What does "kid fiddlers" even mean?
R24. Pedophile, child molesterer, Chester, you get the idea.
R14/20, as I said above, in addition to being pro-consistent ethic of life, I (and most of the people I know) are pro-marriage equality. It's about giving all life a chance at a full, rich experience.
Add to the R20 typical pro-lifer types list.....
Military Assault Rifle Hording NRA Nutcases
Middle Aged Mormon Men with Multiple Teenage Wives.
I love how people who strive for equality generalize and demonize anyone who doesn't agree with their views, no matter how extreme.
I respectfully disagree with R13 but I appreciate the clarity of the reply. I can't agree personally with being anti-choice, as it's not my business, and I certainly can't agree with being anti-euthanasia. I've seen too many people suffer undignified, painful deaths that have nothing to do with living. If the dying sought their own end on their own terms, it is not for me to impose the horror of what constitutes living upon them.
But again, I appreciate the clarity and candour of how you stated your position.
Can I ask, though, R13, why you're anti-euthanasia? Is it that you belief life in any form is more important than the quality of the life being lived? Or do you fear the slippery slope?
No one is FOR abortion.
r30, a small part of it is the slippery slope. But mostly (from having worked in hospice and for Calvary Hospital in the Bronx), I've seen, with good end-of-life care, people turn away from euthanasia. So I put my energy and resources into supporting those good efforts.
Organized religion is destroying humanity.
R32. Thank you again for your posts on this thread.
We'd find another excuse for destroying each other, R33.
R13, I also respect you POV, though I simply don't believe life begins at conception. I just don't. That's why I'm pro-choice. It's a tough issue, however. I get Pro-lifers - and it's the only conservative stance I have any tolerance for.
This is why abortion should be legal and left up to the individual woman to wrangle with. Let her decided what's right for her.
I favor relatively easy access to abortion, at a woman's discretion. It has made it much easier for me to defend this position because so many opponents of abortion are apparently incapable of advancing good arguments. So thank you!
How about we just incarcerate all the Jesus freaks.
Even The Republic of Island is having to debate this, since doctors recently let a woman die rather than carry out an abortion and risk facing the catholic church, who in Ireland are backed fully by the law.
"I love how people who strive for equality generalize and demonize anyone who doesn't agree with their views, no matter how extreme."
You are the one demonizing people. Anti-choice people claim to value life but they sure don't value our lives.
And your views are the "extreme" ones. Most first world countries have legal abortions.
R40. What makes you think I, as an out and proud, gay man doesn't value "our lives"? You seem to suffer from an inability to separate issues and make your own decisions and instead rely on a platform and agenda handed to you for you to consume.
Don't generalize. It makes you seem "special."
r41 - are you going to address the fact that women are allowed to die in countries where abortion is illegal or not?
R42. Nobody asked, but ok I will. I don't know of many people that would deny abortion in case of rape, danger to the mother, or even severe defects. The rampant use as a method of contraception is disgusting.
[quote]The rampant use as a method of contraception is disgusting.
Forcing women to have babies they don't want is more disgusting.
Pro Life = Men Controlling Women
Maybe so, R46, but I feel this is a good time to point out that men will always control women anyway.
[quote]I don't know of many people that would deny abortion in case of rape, danger to the mother, or even severe defects.
The Republican Party Platform of 2012 seeks to deny abortion in all of those cases.
Bottom lime is it's not a human until it can live on its own - until that it is part of the woman. It's called science.
That's what gets me about this whole "Gosnell" trial anyway - dumb as freepers, if it's legal inside the womb all the sudden it is "murder" if you have to complete the procedure when the fetus is on an operating table? What happens when the fetus is delivered or extracted is an intimate decision between a woman and her doctor. I don't care if it's having involuntary muscle contractions or whistling dixie - it's not a human being. Period.
R39, the catholic church has, as part of its moral theology, the "rule of double effect." If a mother's life were in danger if she were to carry a baby, doctors are morally able (and mandated, actually) to treat the mother (e.g. use chemo if she has cancer) even if a foreseeable effect is the death of the unborn child. But many catholics, including those in Ireland, do not know their own moral theology.
I'd love to see as many pro choice women in the world as possible (in countries where they can safely do so) get together and become impregnated and and then have a mass abortion on the same day - it would send shockwaves through the last remnants of the old guard to the extent that it could shut down the debate almost completely.
Loving the Mass Abortion idea!!!
Make the fundies implode!
It's not about you not having a say because you're a gay man. Not at all. It's about you not having a say because you're a man.
There. Fixed that for you.
Am I reading this right? Women don't even want men who support abortion rights to speak up? Crazytown.
Not only should men not get a say but men should be required (as a group) to fund all abortion, contraception, and other womens' health as well as to support all unwanted children.
Just as the tea partiers have hijacked the republican party, I believe that - starting with the abortion issue - feminists hijacked the democratic party. By that I mean the democratic party has been synonymous with the liberal belief of giving a voice to the powerless, etc. Yet feminism was borne out of advancing the interests of women, no matter the consequences to others. I will always be pro-life - just as I will always be anti-death penalty - because that is truly the liberal position (and was the generally accepted liberal position in the early part of the 20th century) as no one has less of a voice than the unborn. Yet modern feminism has long defined what it is to be an acceptably liberal Democrat.
Men have the ability to not be a sperm donor through condoms and vasectomies. They don't even have to give up sex with women.
All they have to do to get off the abortion crazy train is stop creating babies women don't want in the first place.
Personal responsibility much? One can only dream.
No one is touching on the reality of what women face when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of the cause (rape, incest, accidental misapplication of birth control, et. al.). It's not like we have millions of women just willy-nilly having sex and thinking, "oh, I'll just get an abortion!" if they conceive. Yes, in a society of 320 million people, I can find one or two who advocate for this position; nevertheless, they no more account for the overall consensus than saying all evangelicals should be condemned for the actions of the Westboro Baptists.
Pro-lifers want to say that there is no reason whatsoever to have an abortion, and want to paint pro-choicers as saying the fetus can be killed at any point. The inverse is also true. However, the truth is somewhere in between. Hence we have a concerted movement on the Right trying to pass so-called personhood amendments and defining conception as the beginning of life, which we all know is capricious at best and dangerous to the health of the mother (and child). And that's where mixing public policy with religious conviction invariably leads to conflict. Who gets to determine what is black and what is white in the world of varying shades of gray? And do you want people who don't know the difference between consenting behavior between adults and child rape making that decision?
As a society, we have outlawed, for the most part, third-trimester abortion (there are very few exceptions to this). The Right has been agog over Kermit Grosnell, the Pennsylvania abortionist and the atrocities he committed. Make no mistake, what he did was not just illegal, it was reprehensible. But just as the NRA says that we don't need new gun control laws but just enforce the existing laws, I have to ask where the pro-life community was with regard to this clinic of horrors? Why weren't they calling for increased inspections -- or any inspections at all -- of this facility? Of course, when you're busy slashing budgets to the point of dysfunction, you can't exactly complain that existing regulation wasn't enforced.
Moreover, the Right has a varying take on abortion as it relates to themselves. To whit, Rick Santorum's wife had an abortion when they were faced with the choice of saving the mother's life or possibly losing both mother and child should the pregnancy go to full term. Or, there's a well-documented case of an anti-choice activist literally picketing in front of a clinic, stepping out of the protest line to go into the clinic and have an abortion, and then rejoining the protest line upon release. Funny how these people want their freedom of choice respected when they need an abortion, but want to take that freedom from everyone else.
The bottom line is, of course, control, and specifically men controlling women. This is most evident by the fact that pro-lifers don't really value life; otherwise, they would apply a consistent ethic to all life. But they don't; it's the same crowd that screams about gun control, Obamacare, and welfare when the overwhelming evidence shows that most gun deaths are at the hand of someone the victim knows, preventative care is a fraction as expensive as emergent care, and the majority of welfare recipients are parents just trying to feed their kids. It's all too easy in modern America to point fingers and deny culpability. Otherwise, we'd have a sane and sensible policy of making abortion legal, safe and rare.
You're out of touch R56. Get with the times. Anti choice freepers want to set back the clock to the 1950's on women's healthcare. You're either with that or against it. A fetus is not a baby at the first month or the ninth month. Human rights are not "god given" they are earned by surviving outside of the womb. Women have gotten a raw deal since the beginning of time and are only now starting to become happy and fulfilled - free from the social construct of "motherhood."
Until first wave feminism in the 1960s in many states women could still be spanked by their husbands and had to legally ask permission to go do errands, etc. No culture has ever been more intrusive and offensive to womens' rights than USA. It is still legal to devise pay rates based on gender, do you realize that? Abortion is the key to womens' success and happiness and freedom - it is saying to men "you can rape me but you can't make me a baby momma." That's powerful shit and it means that abortion needs to safe, legal, free, and encouraged in all 50 states from conception until the fetus comes out on the operating table - whether that's in the early in the first trimester or late in the third.
I love you R58 and I would go one step further - I think we should require doctors to *presume* that all pregnancies are intended to end in abortion unless the woman can prove that she is not being used or coerced by a male to be a baby factory.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot, make termination the norm, and flip the script on peoples' expectations. It's women who are allowing their bodies to be used by men for breeding who have explaining to do , not women who want to do the natural thing and terminate so they can get on with their lives.
There is something wrong to me about 'encouraging' late term options. And if a woman can't get her shit together to terminate a pregnancy before late in the third trimester - exceot in cases of threat to her life should the pregnancy continue - at that point there are other options. I'm pro-choice to the extent I think it should be available, free and between a woman and her doctor. But late term abortion is not something I support.
A lot of women don't even know they are pregnant til the third term, R61. Men may be trying to convince them they are not pregnant in order to get them past the date. Anti-late term is anti-choice.
Also some women (especially rape victims) cannot psychologically be expected to tolerate the intrusiveness of an internal abortion - is there any REAL reason (not arbitrary social construct) why these women should not be able to induce/deliver/abort?
[quote] You're out of touch [R56]. Get with the times. Anti choice freepers want to set back the clock to the 1950's on women's healthcare. You're either with that or against it.
In answer to the thread that asks what emotions people have that animals may lack, you can add rationalization to the list. It's a uniquely human gift that somehow allows us - so-called liberals, no less! - to treat the unborn as mere chattel - not unlike slaves - to be disposed of at will. All at the altar of feminism. But it's not liberalism to deny the right to life - a right we have been allowed to enjoy - to defenseless creatures.
R62. Fucking really? What brain dead Sea cow doesn't realize it has skipped 6 periods? You are either stupid or misogynistic.
R56, when suffragettes were the feminists, access to BIRTH CONTROL was the issue. Are you against birth control too?
Dan Matthews of PETA was once interviewed about his opposition to some kind of spraying that killed insects. He lightly chuckled, saying in his defense that he was a knee-jerk liberal. How very odd it was, I thought, that in today's culture you're considered a liberal if you want to protect insect life, but a reactionary right-winger if you wish to protect human life.
None of the women I know that have had abortions have ever wanted to have one, they did it because having a baby was absolutely not an option for them.
Making it harder for a woman to have an abortion isn't going to change the number of women having abortions, it will only change the number of women who are having safe abortions.
Maybe if sex ed and free birth control were things that every one had access to, the need for abortion would be less. But no, we had 8 years of teenagers being taught nothing about sex or birth control.
I went to a Catholic school (all boys) where they made us watch an ultrasound of an abortion. It was a pretty awful thing to watch, but the counter argument that restricting access to birth control would reduce abortions didn't fly.
Personally, I can't understand how a medical practitioner could actually perform abortions everyday and not be completely fucked up. But to each their own.
I'd probably be a little more supportive of the "pro-life" agenda if they accepted that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to have a full and frank sex education program in school, and to provide access to birth control. But they don't.
[quote]But abortion, it seems is making a comeback.
OP, you don't pay much attention, do you?
A lot of women don't even know they are pregnant til the third term - show me some documentation that credibly quantifies this or it's just laughable.
Men may be trying to convince them they are not pregnant in order to get them past the date - pure, unsubstantiated projection. But of course we all know 'honey, you're not pregnant, you're just getting fat' fools 'em every time.
Also some women (especially rape victims) cannot psychologically be expected to tolerate the intrusiveness of an internal abortion - is there any REAL reason (not arbitrary social construct) why these women should not be able to induce/deliver/abort? - perhaps because there's something unseemly by any sane definition if you're essentially proposing live delivery of a viable fetus which is then chopped up, which your sequence implies.
In any event, the majority women aren't so hopelessly stupid to not know they're pregnant or be duped into thinking it's something other than pregnancy.
I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to arguments this specious.
R55. Fuck off. They opened their cunt, they are in for half. Unless of course you think their only purpose is as a cum dumpster.
[quote]Bottom lime is it's not a human until it can live on its own
So sometime after being born. I thought this was about abortion. Infanticide is way different.
[quote]Bottom lime is it's not a human until it can live on its own
With the economy the way it is, that sometimes doesn't happen until the kid is in his 20s.
The pro-lifers are nutcases because their position against abortion is only one of their many opinions. They are ALSO 99% anti-gay, racist, violently Christian, Mitt Romney Republican, pro-guns and Christian homeschooling
(AKA: keep the kids away from the government and programmed for hate, just like us, for generations to come)
It is the entire package which tags them all.
"Pro-life" is just a warning flag on the surface of what is underneath.
R74. You are well and truly delusional and in need of psychiatric care.
[quote] A lot of women don't even know they are pregnant til the third term - show me some documentation that credibly quantifies this or it's just laughable.
There is an ENTIRE series based on this, R70 - all based on documented, verifiable cases. Scary how the anti-choice freeps are so ignorant about womens' bodies.
"Since Roe v Wade is federal law, what's going on in ND is ILLEGAL."
Since the Supreme Court is made of up of 4 conservative judges and Kennedy who tends to vote conservative, any fight against those states would lead to a case being brought up to the Supreme Court which could lead to overturning Roe v Wade or at least leaving it up the states. And that is why Planned Parenthood and their allies don't fight this fight.
Now if one of the conservative justices would either retire or die, Obama could fix that, even though the fight in the Senate would be like no fight ever seen before.
With a Senate election coming up next year and a very good chance of the Democrats losing control, Obama would have a real tough time replacing a conservative judge with a liberal one.
Yeah and there's twenty movies about the Titanic but it only sunk once.
Of course it happens, but on a statistical basis it's bullshit to try and hide behind that as any kind of an argument.
And can the anti-choice freeps.... I support abortion right out of respect for women but there can and should be limits on all things. I'm comfortable with them because I don't live in fantasy land. If your strawpersyn actually manages to go to the third trimester not knowing she's pregnant or talked into ignoring it by these Svengalis running rampant, she can have the child and give it up for adoption. She doesn't have to raise it.
To abort in the third trimester is a choice, an ugly, indefensible one.
Save the Fetuses -Hate the Gays -Vote Republican
[quote] perhaps because there's something unseemly by any sane definition if you're essentially proposing live delivery of a viable fetus which is then chopped up, which your sequence implies.
"Chopped up," R70? Really? You've been reading too many freeper chain emails. There is a humane way to induce/deliver/terminate and it is basically the same process that goes on in the womb (cutting the spinal cord), but it is not as invasive to the woman.
Do you honestly believe that women should be required to allow a doctor go into her body there and risk damaging her uterus etc. just because YOUR moral code says that it is somehow suddenly wrong if you deliver the fetus out of the womb first???
This false dichotomy is just one of many tricks and tactics the anti-choice crowd uses to keep women from a fully array of basic health-care options. They know a lot of women don't want to feel that going on inside them, so they make a big deal of whether or not the fetus comes out before or after. Anti-choice. Anti-woman.
For you, R76. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Patrick O'Brien, a consultant obstetrician at University College London Hospitals and a spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), says an obstetrician would see such a case about "once a year" - but there are no accurate figures.
[quote]Do you honestly believe that women should be required to allow a doctor go into her body there and risk damaging her uterus etc. just because YOUR moral code says that it is somehow suddenly wrong if you deliver the fetus out of the womb first???
I honestly believe past six months it's a decision I couldn't live with and one I would be comfortable with being strictly governed.
What you describe sounds as horrific than any of the bullshit from the pro lifers. You have the fucked up moral code here.
[quote] she can have the child and give it up for adoption. She doesn't have to raise it.
Spoken like a man (or a woman who is less sensitive than most). To many women, they have said that they cannot give a child up for adoption because they will always wonder what happened to it and always feel responsible. So a woman is supposed to be subjected to a lifetime of that because a bunch of men though that one of her healthcare options was an "ugly, indefensible one?"
This ain't the 1950's anymore.
Tough enough to terminate at seven months but too sensitive to give up a child for adoption? Yeah, sounds plausible.
[quote]So a woman is supposed to be subjected to a lifetime of that because a bunch of men though that one of her healthcare options was an "ugly, indefensible one?"
Funny thing about life, sometimes it requires sacrifices. Ideally not human.
[quote] Save the Fetuses -Hate the Gays -Vote Republican
Just wait! Soon these anti-choice 1950s men will want to make an exception and allow it (encourage it even) if the fetus carries the "gay gene." Just wait - it's coming. Uggghhhh.
Out of sight, out of mind.
[quote] Funny thing about life, sometimes it requires sacrifices. Ideally not human.
I guess the big problem a lot of people have is men telling women which sacrifices to make. Not at all cool. Women can make their own healthcare decisions.
[quote]Do you honestly believe that women should be required to allow a doctor go into her body there and risk damaging her uterus etc. just because YOUR moral code says that it is somehow suddenly wrong if you deliver the fetus out of the womb first???
Why does YOUR moral code say the woman should live? Maybe we should allow the woman, with her fetus, to humanely and naturally expire. That'd be sweet. Your woman sounds like a helpless idiot who knows nothing about herself and must be just as dependent on men as a hypothetical woman a pro-life person might make up.
You say that this abstract idea you call "human rights" is earned by surviving outside of the womb, but statistically speaking, your hypothetical woman probably didn't earn it herself. Modern medicine did, by examining and vaccinating her as a baby and child.
[quote] You say that this abstract idea you call "human rights" is earned by surviving outside of the womb, but statistically speaking, your hypothetical woman probably didn't earn it herself. Modern medicine did, by examining and vaccinating her as a baby and child.
Incredible. Incredible. Did I just read that?
A woman earns her keep every in this world every bit as much as a man - every bit. Referring to her years as a baby and a child is a transparent attempt to infantilize her and imply that she is not responsible enough to make basic healthcare decisions for herself.
Do people really still think like this? Really?
I usually just ignore this question, not having a dog in this fight either. But why are there so many abortions? Can't these women take the pill? Also, late-term abortions are grotesque. Shouldn't abortions be limited to the first trimester?
[quote]A woman earns her keep every in this world every bit as much as a man - every bit.
Okay. I know. Then re-read the paragraph you quoted and replace it with masculine pronouns instead of feminine. It doesn't change my analysis of what you originally said. You seem to have very poor critical thinking skills, or are very distracted. Could you be pregnant?
[quote]Do people really still think like this? Really?
I can only speak for myself: people like you are irresistibly fun to make even more annoyed.
R82, are you a woman? I'm not, still I don't see how that is horrible. Women - and only women - should be voicing any opinions and concerns, and preferably only for their own person. What is disgusting is how people whose business this is not (except healthcare professionals, obviously) are allowed to influence legislation or public opinion in any direction.
I'm Pro Choice.
[quote] I usually just ignore this question, not having a dog in this fight either. But why are there so many abortions?
Why not - what is wrong with them? They are LEGAL. Fact: statistically many abortions tend to be inner city women whose children would tend to grow up to be a drag on society or criminals.
[quote] Can't these women take the pill?
What should a woman be required to follow your preference. Abortion is LEGAL. Some women may be allergic. What if a woman meets someone or gets horny all of the sudden out of the blue - like instant attraction. Too late for the pill. Takes days to kick in and is only available with prescription. A woman should not have to justify her erotic life, her sexual freedom, or her healthcare options to you or anyone else. Her vagina, her life.
[quote] Also, late-term abortions are grotesque. Shouldn't abortions be limited to the first trimester?
Who decides this? That's what this is all about. Who decides women's basic healthcare decisions. You? Old white men like Biden is Washington DC? How about leave it up to a woman. Yeas, that.
R91 When you say "so many abortions", what do you compare it to? 300,000 compared to 4 million live births in America? You can't imagine young women who don't have easy access to birth control, birth control that fails, irresponsible women or girls? Like another poster said above, I've never known anyone who used abortion as birth control though I know there are women who have had multiple procedures. But so what? Ban it for everyone else? Here's my personal position: Life really isn't that damn valuable. My life (or anybody's life) is valuable to those who love or need us, as theirs are to us. But "Life" in general, no.
R74..., you appear to be a sociopath. I'm disturbed by your extreme lack of empathy. I just can't relate to that.
[quote]Can't these women take the pill?
They do, and it fails. The majority of abortions performed in the US are on women who used birth control only to have it fail.
"FACT: The anti-abortion forces are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE as the anti-gay forces....."
The Republican running for the Senate in the special election in Mass is Pro-life and Pro-gay marriage.
A columnist in the conservative Boston Herald calls him a liberal democrat but the better of two evils.
R97 You appear to not understand what the word sociopath actually means.
[quote] Women - and only women - should be voicing any opinions and concerns, and preferably only for their own person.
Would that logic extend to the era of conscription (of males only)? That is, by this myopic thinking only men could have any say about matters of war & peace because only they could be drafted.
[quote] But why are there so many abortions?
I live in Manhattan which supposedly has the highest abortion rate in America (if not the world) and I can tell you even with that % there are still way too many of little bastards running around who probably should have been aborted. I am not racist at all, but come on enough is enough - we don't need any more of certain types. Not a racial thing, a cultural thing.
We need more abortions, not less.
No, R100, I have a very clear understanding of what the word means, and based on your ( sickening) posts in this thread you are the very definition of a sociopath. So try another weak insult in an (failed) effort to shut people up, people who aren't disturbed as you are.
But I thought it was the pro-life side who were racist? R102 doesn't sound very pro-life to me.
R103 I have only one other post here, one where I provide a link to how the majority of abortions are sought by women who became pregnant after their birth control failed. If you really think sharing a verifiable fact is the same as being a sociopath then I stand by my earlier statement. You have no clue what the word means.
R105, if you think that I believe that you have only one post in this thread, then you are the one without a clue. Try that BS with someone else.
Not racist, R104. I have many many friends of all shapes, sizes, and colors. I do believe believe (as a progressive) in not multiplying spreading ignorant and backwards cultures. How is that racist? It's true (non-PC) progressiveness. To whatever extent whites fall into that inner-city criminal element, I feel the exact same way about them. Not my fault most criminals are minorities with a serious breeding addiction - I got my education.
R105 Do you know how trolldar works?
Tell me more r107. This sounds like a trend I need to be part of.
R107, you're racist. Don't waste your time writing that drivel, you aren't going to change my mind. You are what you are.
One more question, can you detect midgetism in the womb?
R108, do you know how numbers work?
R112 I asked first. Please provide links to all the disgusting posts you claim I created or be branded a liar.
Yawn. Not a gay male issue. Punch. Delete.
R108 is the talks to self troll. He's R108 & R105.
And R107, if you were a true progressive you'd be advocating for equal access to a quality education, jobs within these destitute communities, and an overall improvement in quality of life, which would then improve your and everyone else's ( near these communities) quality of life. However, you just want to abort more brown babies. You aren't a progressive, you're a bigot. End of discussion.
Mrs. Betty Bowers Bible Study: The Lord simply LOVES abortion:
R115 Both of those posts were directed at the same person, so your point is....?
Yes, sure, R115. You are grasping, desperately. But I understand, it's because you have to save face ( on a message-board. Now that's the very definition of a basement dweller).
[quote] Tell me more [R107]. This sounds like a trend I need to be part of.
The trend, R107 is that true progressives going back to Rockefeller have recognized the need to reign in the breeding habits of certain types. It's always been the case. Even Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood recognized this as one of the biggest benefits of safe legal abortion. I'm not ashamed to say I agree with her, that's all.
The most important benefit of safe legal abortion is and always has been women's freedom to control their healthcare needs. Weeding out the dead weight is, however, a nice ancillary benefit.
Only in this anti-choice freeper day and age is that even a scandalous thought. Many states had entire eugenics departments back in the early 20th century and it was generally accepted.
R101, I don't understand. Are you saying terminating pregnancy and war are the same thing, or what?
I'm not sure that women and children were asked for their input in matters of war and peace when only men were drafted, or in any other matter. I don't see how the two are equatable, though, or that my thinking is myopic. I think it's fairly certain that men - it might not apply to every single man - still retain control of very many spheres of society, of which fertility is one. Since a man is unable to, himself, conceive and abort a fetus, why should he be asked? War and peace affect all affected in different ways, some good, some bad, and at various levels ranging from local to global. So I don't quite see how, whether or not anyone is actually asked, it is the same as a woman aborting a fetus. If you're implying a man's responsibility as a father somehow should afford him a say in the issue, I would suggest such a man find himself a woman who wants and appreciates his input to have as many children as they both agree upon. The only extent to which men should concern themselves with abortion is as taxpayers.
R115, please disregard that last post, it wasn't meant for you, it was meant for someone in a completely different thread. Sorry.
You mean you play hall monitor on [italic]every[/italic] thread, R119? What fun you must be.
R122 Still waiting for a links to all the sickening posts you say I created. If what you said is true, it should be easy for you to provide the proof.
I think it's INSANE for a supposed "progressive" to speak of eugenics positively. This feeds into the pro-lifers hands, given that they already accuse those who are pro-choice of desiring to murder black/brown babies. Disgusting. I think someone people think that being gay automatically makes them a progressive when in reality they truly aren't.
R124, do you think that we are so stupid that we don't know that you are also R123? You're a sociopath which explains your desperate attempts to manipulate and lie. As R115 said, you are indeed the 'talk to herself troll.' And I'm done talking to you.
Shorter version of R126: I have no proof because as troll-dar clearly shows, there was only one other post from him. So I have to make up even more lies in order to save face. Telling lies is all I have.
[quote] This feeds into the pro-lifers hands, given that they already accuse those who are pro-choice of desiring to murder black/brown babies.
The point is to take the debate out of THEIR framework. Right now the anti-choice freeps have a stranglehold on the debate because they've created the boggey-man of late term abortion.
Instead of backing away, we must embrace it. Choice is choice - why do so many so-called pro-choicers (such as on this thread) get all "lifey" when it comes to third trimester abortions? Not helping the cause.
Same with eugenics - they use this against us - I say reclaim the narrative. I'm proud that the pro-choice movement has vague origins in the eugenics movement because I think that social engineering is progressive and the right thing to do. It's good for society and it's good for the planer.
Stop letting THEM define the debate, and we'll start to win it.
[quote] I don't understand. Are you saying terminating pregnancy and war are the same thing, or what?
Decisions re: life and death - like war and peace - cannot be viewed so narrowly that only those directly impacted would have an exclusive say in the matter. Everyone is ultimately affected and it's wrong to try to limit debate.
I don't agree with you and I never will agree with you, R128. I think your ideas would end up being a disaster for progressives, a flat out disaster. Poor people didn't ask to be poor, especially poor people of color. There have been policies, practices, and structures that have systematically excluded them and thus creating an unequal playing field. I agree with the other poster who said the solution is improving poor people's quality of life, not encouraging them to have more abortions. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. And your position is enough to make me pro-life.
And if you guys want to see the derange "Talk to herself troll" in action check out the Amanda Knox thread. DERANGED. She is what's wrong with feminist.
No, they are not, R101. It is absolutely not narrow to restrict the debate to those who are directly impacted. The issue is not about life and death, and that's why people who have no stake, besides the one they imagine in their minds, should be excluded from the debate. It is entirely about women's healthcare and fertility.
I'm not attacking you directly R101, but you must understand that some things do not concern everyone and there is no need for self-important imposition. Again, not directed at you as a person, but at the thinking that every issue needs debating and everyone must necessarily be invited to add whatever irrelevant positions they hold.
Now it is time for me to pull out, so to speak.
troll-dar r105, and you can see insanity at work
[quote] It is absolutely not narrow to restrict the debate to those who are directly impacted. The issue is not about life and death, and that's why people who have no stake, besides the one they imagine in their minds, should be excluded from the debate. It is entirely about women's healthcare and fertility.
How very convenient - and anti-constitutional -that you choose to restrict debate on terms that just happen to track with your own position!
And nice parroting the abortion lobby that abortion is ENTIRELY about women's healthcare and fertility. It's not like we're talking about removing tonsils. At the very least, we're talking about terminating potential human life ... life that has every much right to be developed as we all enjoyed.
R133, it is not my position, as I stated: I am not a woman, therefore I don't have a position.
[quote]And nice parroting the abortion lobby that abortion is ENTIRELY about women's healthcare and fertility.
What other function does abortion serve if not to control fertility and aid women in the care of their bodies and health?
The value of potential life is something you are welcome to ponder, but I still don't quite see why men should regulate the use of the female anatomy based on potentialities.
R131. Men did not benefit from getting the right to vote, but women sure wanted help then. White people weren't directly impacted by the civil rights movement, but their help and input was needed. Not sure your argument there holds water.
Abortion will never disappear. It has been around since women figured out how to terminate. Ancient Egyptians had many recipes for tonics to end pregnancy. Abortion should be legal and performed in a medical facility. In the past, rich women had access to them but poor women suffered from back alley abortions and could even be arrested (watch Vera Drake). Forcing birth on poor women has always been about keeping them down. The anti-choice crowd wants to return to those days. BTW, tax dollars are not used for them. It's a cash up front operation.
Most of these screeching anti-choice folks don't give a shit about these "babies" once they're born and bitch and moan about welfare queens and their tax dollars going to house and feed these underprivileged kids. Besides which we are already overpopulated with growing underclass. Sorry to be so cynical but it's true.
[quote] What other function does abortion serve if not to control fertility and aid women in the care of their bodies and health?
R134, let me ponder - to use a word you use in your post - the possibilities. Like, for example, destroying - at a minimum, at least - potential human life!
Anti-Abortion = Anti-Woman
Anti-LGBT = Anti-Diversity
Anyone who is Anti-Abortion and/or Anti-LGBT is Anti-Human.
[quote]she can have the child and give it up for adoption. She doesn't have to raise it.
Force her to give birth and then take the baby away? Ever read A Handmaid's Tale or seen the movie?
I'm "pro-choice," but I still think abortion is reprehensible. I'm more sympathetic about a woman terminating a pregnancy in the cases of rape or incest; however, people who have no moral objection to abortion are veering into "callous asshole territory" when they try to glamorize it.
I could have used the words "Anti-Choice" but people know it's Anti-Abortion.
Overly sensitive fools are the ones who think that it has to be articulated as "Anti-Choice" when, in reality, a woman contemplating abortion isn't doing it for kicks.
That says more about the callousness of those who accuse women -- who are the ones who can become pregnant, abort, carry, go into labor, give birth -- because it's an attempt to demonize as a means to win the argument for "Pro-Life." And Pro-Lifers are as in favor of life as the Republicans are conservatives -- in other words they're frauds.
The Pro-Life people aren't high on life when it comes to children being gunned down or soldiers killed in war. Those people lives don't matter. But fetuses are their obsession.
[quote] Anti-Abortion = Anti-Woman
How exquisitely simple-minded. Those who took the pro-abortion position will, over time and with the benefit of improvements in science, be viewed as every bit on the wrong side of history as those who were pro-slavery.
It's realistic, unlike yourself, R142.
And pro-lifers, such as yourself, are not in support of science let alone history.
I suppose you'll next say that you're in support of marriage equality. (Oh, my sides!)
Troll-dar R142 and you'll find she is also R56 with this pathetic display (among many others):
[quote]Just as the tea partiers have hijacked the republican party, I believe that - starting with the abortion issue - feminists hijacked the democratic party. By that I mean the democratic party has been synonymous with the liberal belief of giving a voice to the powerless, etc. Yet feminism was borne out of advancing the interests of women, no matter the consequences to others. I will always be pro-life - just as I will always be anti-death penalty - because that is truly the liberal position (and was the generally accepted liberal position in the early part of the 20th century) as no one has less of a voice than the unborn. Yet modern feminism has long defined what it is to be an acceptably liberal Democrat.
Yes. Anti-Woman. That's R56/R142 (etc.)
Yes. "Potential life."
R142 is a Pro-life asshole who thinks a fetus is a life.
R144/half of this thread is why "participating" in "feminism" isn't worth it to me.
[quote]The Pro-Life people aren't high on life when it comes to children being gunned down or soldiers killed in war.
The Catholic Church is against abortion, against war, against the death penalty, against euthanasia, etc. etc. etc. Hell, they're even against birth control and masturbation because of the loss of potential life. So I'd say they're "high on life."
I don't happen to agree with them, but I don't like these glib generalizations when it comes to the abortion argument. Just like the idea that it's men driving the anti-abortion movement. I live in an area that is very religiously conservative (Protestant) – and it is most definitely women leading the battle to roll back the protections their sisters have long enjoyed.
[quote]I live in an area that is very religiously conservative (Protestant) – and it is most definitely women leading the battle to roll back the protections their sisters have long enjoyed.
State and county, please?
"Recent news stories about the new vitality of the antiabortion movement and its legislative achievements — more than a dozen states enacting record numbers of abortion restrictions this year — have glossed over one crucial fact. The most visible, entrepreneurial and passionate advocates for the rights of the unborn (as they would put it) are women. More to the point: They are youngish Christian working mothers with children at home."
From linked articles within that linked article you had referenced … those are politically Republican-voting states with little exception (such as bellwether states Florida and Virginia). And the push is coming from Republican leadership with numbers.
Also, nationally white women are in the Republican column due to their numbers being skewed with GOP support from states which are among the Old Confederacy.
It's not enough of a picture which would support what you're claiming.
Also, R146/R148: You haven't stated your state and county. I ask because you seem to be a witness to this.
[italic](P.S. Sorry for referencing R142 @ R147 as myself. A mistake from me.)[/italic]
R149, I live in Ottawa County, Michigan. Very white, very Republican, very Christian Reformed. Nowhere near the Old Confederacy, though.
You live an area that is not much representative of women in this country.
In 2008, Ottawa County, with over 137,000 votes, carried for John McCain with about 61 percent. In 2013, Ottawa County, carried for Mitt Romney with about 66 percent.
The state of Michigan voted for Barack Obama with 57 percent (in 2008) and 54 percent (2012). You are in a neighboring county just west of Kent County (Grand Rapids), which Obama won over in 2008 (a first for a Democrat since 1964) and which flipped for Romney in 2012. It's the Pete Hoekstra area of losing Republicans who are not well-representative of the state of Michigan let alone the nation.
I'm sorry you suffer as a witness to those fucked-up white women. But don't look to them as some sort of measure to all women on the issue of abortion nationwide.
The person who's writing most of this thread is as bad as a Christian missionary.
I agree, R151. If anti-choice conservatards don't want abortion in their county or their state fine - why must they try to dictate women's health care choices for women everywhere?
No one tries to glamorize it R140.
Why the hell should it matter to any other woman that some of the most vocal anti-abortionists happen to be young mothers (who are gullible enough to be Christians, no less)? No one is telling them how to live their lives, so why are they trying to legislate how other women live theirs? It smacks of having some kind of smug, self-righteous moral objection to the idea that there are women in the world who don't want to make all of the exact same choices they did. And I can assure you, pro-choice people do not give a single shit what anti-choice young mothers think anymore than they care about some celibate old man condemning it.
[quote]It smacks of having some kind of smug, self-righteous moral objection to the idea that there are women in the world who don't want to make all of the exact same choices they did.
That's exactly what it is. The "only selfish women don't want kids" and "I'm special because I squirted out a fuck trophy" crowd.
Anyone who has an abortion gets sterilized, Problem solved.
Rape is a myth.
Right, R157 - Because a 20 year old college student with plans to build a career and establish financial stability should be denied the choice to have children of her own later on due to an unexpected birth control failure. Yeah, that sounds fair.
This is why it's called pro-CHOICE and not pro-abortion, fuckwit. Holy shit, you people do a better job of establishing yourselves as woman-haters who would prefer it if women have no agency of their own and were condemned to a life of being barefoot in the kitchen than pro-choice people ever could even attempt to.
And I really hope R158 is trolling, unless they think that forcible rape of men is also a myth and something to be dismissed and mocked.
[quote]Anyone who has an abortion gets sterilized, Problem solved.
Only if the man who knocked her up also is sterilized.
nearly all people - men, women, and children, need annual abortions.
And it should go without saying, I am being sarcastic. But then again, as Ben Franklin said, "whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
This is such a tiresome topic. Women need control of their bodies to be free. Birth control and abortion should be freely available. Men and women need to be concerned about their own bodies and butt out with regard to anyone else's.