Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Can We Do Abortion Next?

The Next Big Fight — Bryan Lambert

Memo to America: CAN WE DO ABORTION NEXT?

First, the good news. We're winning the gay marriage thing. It'll still be a while before you can get gay-married in Alabama, but we have clearly reached a tipping point that four years ago I would have said we were about six years away from. Obviously we need to keep fighting.

So as we collectively have to spend less and less progressive energy on this cultural issue, I'd like to propose we put that energy into a long-neglected cultural issue: abortion. Because we're losing on abortion just as surely as we're winning on gay marriage, and we really, really don't want to lose on this one.

And the main way we're losing? Republican new-found love of regulation. Conservatives go on and on about "job-killing regulations", and there's an aspect truth to that. You can in fact over-regulate a business out of existence, and so a number of southern states have imposed or are trying to impose epic, onerous regulations to try to close down their states' few remaining abortion clinics.

Alabama is the latest to try this. There are five whole places to get an abortion in Alabama, which, for the Bible Belt, is a lot. If my research is right, that's as many as we have in Minnesota. The same type of regulation may well close the only abortion clinic in all of Mississippi.

Basically, the trick is to require a board-licensed physician with admitting privileges at a local hospital present for every abortion. Neither precaution is necessary, especially the latter one. Getting admitting privileges is complicated and costly, and there's nothing stopping hospitals from denying those privileges just because they don't like abortion. But the regulations SOUND helpful, and that's the sneaky part.

Like many things in the world, this is largely the fault of weak-ass Democrats from the last two decades. It's long past time we stopped being ashamed of abortion and started embracing it. The "legal, safe and rare" line sounds good on paper, but it maintains the stigma on abortion that keeps doctors from learning to perform them, medical facilities from wanting to provide them, and women from being able to have them.

Abortion is a method of birth control. It's an effective method of birth control. It's a perfectly valid method of determining when and if you will have children. That's a message you never hear, and should, because it's true.

It's also true that abortion is an incredibly inefficient form of birth control. It's resource-intensive, which is why conservatives have been able to attack it by attacking the resources required to perform it. So abortions should be rare in the sense that it should be used when other, more efficient, more available methods of birth control fail, but that's a purely pragmatic argument, not an emotional, ick-factor, trying-to-find-a-middle-ground-with-religious-nuts argument.

The emotional argument shouldn't be "Enh, abortion, I guess." It should be "FUCKING YES, ABORTION." We should be working to make abortion less resource intensive. More research on abortifacient medicines. RU-486 is TWENTY THREE YEARS OLD. Twenty three years ago we were using Commodore Amigas, but now, in the age of the iPad, we're still using a 16-bit abortion drug? You know why? Because of the stigma.

The stigma is cultural. Cultural stigmas can be reversed. And it needs to be reversed, because otherwise, Roe V Wade will continue to become irrelevant. I'm sure private dodo ownership is legal too, but it doesn't matter how legal it is if you can't actually get one. And when you can't actually get an abortion, women become slaves to their reproductive cycles, second class citizens relegated to womb duty in deference to the all-important fetus.

It's a battle we can and should win, but only if we actually fight it.

by Anonymousreply 15203/07/2014

R1:

Is your opinion that attitudes are changing anecdotal or do you have a polling source?

The surveys I have read show continued support, and opposition, for that matter, to legalized abortion holding steady, see link.

On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, one poll showed support for legalized abortion now over 50% for the first time, according to an NBC/Wall Street poll.

May I ask why your opinion has changed?

by Anonymousreply 202/21/2013

Let's start by making your abortion retroactive.

by Anonymousreply 302/21/2013

There has always been a pro-choice majority in the US.

And R1 is trolling.

by Anonymousreply 402/21/2013

"Babies" are not aborted R6.

by Anonymousreply 602/21/2013

Good news if you're in the knitting needle business!

by Anonymousreply 702/21/2013

The people that talk about 'killing babies' are absolutely ignorant to the facts.

Their moral outrage is a dangerous ignorance, manifested into an uninformed opinion, fabricated by men, to control women and allow forced pregnancies and rape. Period

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

by Anonymousreply 802/21/2013

I'm uncomfortable with abortion but still pro-choice.

I just wish we had free, easy access to effective birth control like Norplant and IUD's which would cut down on the need for abortions. It's galling that for most teenagers seeking abortions they were using no birth control at all.

by Anonymousreply 902/21/2013

I drive past a Planned Parenthood clinic everyday on my commute to work. A few days a week there is a handful of people out there protesting (never mind the fact that in my state, Planned Parenthood does not perform abortions). Its always the same people out there, a collection of old men who probably have not seen a vagina in decades.

by Anonymousreply 1102/21/2013

I hate to burst your bubble R11 but most of the men know and don't give a shit or when told the woman is pregnant are never seen again. Abortions are usually embryos that are unwanted and wouldn't have a great life anyway.

by Anonymousreply 1202/21/2013

When it is capable of life outside the womb R14. An embryo cannot survive on it's own. It's basically a parasite feeding on it's host at that time.

Sounds harsh but it's the truth.

by Anonymousreply 1402/21/2013

If you don't approve of it, don't have one. But leave everyone else alone.

by Anonymousreply 1702/21/2013

R17 you sound like Albert in his Babs Bush drag in the Bird Cage.

What is an "unconditional" abortion?

by Anonymousreply 1902/21/2013

Why would a teen have her tubes tied R21 if she could even find a doctor to do that? Many women cannot take the pill because it has side effects? The man is also responsible. If he isn't sure if the girl is on b.c. he should wear a condom. He should anyway for health reasons.

by Anonymousreply 2302/21/2013

[quote]Because we're losing on abortion just as surely as we're winning on gay marriage, and we really, really don't want to lose on this one.

Big leap, full of assumptions. They're two separate issues. I'm pro-choice but even I can recognize my right to marry has nothing to do with abortion.

Gay people have had unprecedented success fighting for their equality and gaining acceptance for the enormously unpopular cause of same sex marriage rights, a fight which for too long we had to manage on our own with few, if any, allies.

Call me when it's over and we gays are fully equal, and I'll be glad to consider supporting your cause. But not til then.

by Anonymousreply 2402/21/2013

What about married couples R22? Do you think all women who get abortion are single sluts?

My own mother had a pregnancy scare after all three of us kids were teens and she would have aborted with Dad's wholehearted support.

by Anonymousreply 2502/21/2013

R21, you're a dumbass.

by Anonymousreply 2602/21/2013

R24, men shouldn't be fucking "girls."

by Anonymousreply 2702/21/2013

Quit quibbling R28. Men, boys, women, girls.

by Anonymousreply 2802/21/2013

R23 You're wrong.

[quote]Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, according to new data from a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll...That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989.

by Anonymousreply 2902/21/2013

Why R32? So we can have the scenarios played out here like that poor woman in Ireland who was allowed to suffer and die because she couldn't get an abortion? Does a fetus have more importance than a living, breathing human being? Why do you hate women so much?

by Anonymousreply 3202/21/2013

Link for you R32. Not pretty.

by Anonymousreply 3302/21/2013

Str8 men never make any sense to me. Aren't they always complaining about women "trapping" them with pregnancies? If that's the way they really felt, you'd think they'd be more than happy to wear condoms, get snipped, or give away free abortions on every street corner.

by Anonymousreply 3402/21/2013

R22 Most women who have abortions were using birth control only to have it fail. The majority of women who have abortions already have children. I know those facts do not agree with your preconceived and rather narrow notions, but they are facts.

by Anonymousreply 3502/21/2013

As always, this comes down to an all or nothing argument. One side wants no abortions under any circumstances, and the the other wants abortions under any circumstances. I am fine with abortions in the first trimester. After the first trimester, there should be some restrictions. Abortions in the last trimester should only be in certain cases.

by Anonymousreply 3602/21/2013

R35 many of men who oppose abortion are the sorts women are not interested in. A man who wants to control a woman this way is probably not going to be given the chance to breed.

by Anonymousreply 3702/21/2013

[quote]the the other wants abortions under any circumstances.

That is not true. Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will is not what those who support choice believe.

by Anonymousreply 3802/21/2013

R37 very, very few abortions are done in the last trimester unless the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has a major problem. Some of you seem to think that scads of women are getting abortions in the last trimester. The majority of abortions are done in the first trimester.

by Anonymousreply 3902/21/2013

Repeat R41 no "babies" are aborted. An embryo does not equal baby.

by Anonymousreply 4102/21/2013

R41, you sound creepy as well. Get another cause, creepy "straight" (yeah, right) guy.

by Anonymousreply 4202/21/2013

People who are "aggressively" supportive of a woman's choice with what to do with her body are concerned that some may view them as nothing more than a vessel and walking incubator with no soul. People who value a fetus over a living, breathing human being are creepy.

by Anonymousreply 4302/21/2013

R41 is exactly the kind of ignoramus I talked about in my post - R23.

by Anonymousreply 4402/21/2013

agree with r44. I think abortion is morally wrong, but necessary. Same with euthanizing animals.

You can't force a woman to serve as an incubator if she doesn't want to be pregnant. That's why it's deemed pro choice, not pro abortion. No one gleefully goes in to have a fetus sucked out of their vagina.

by Anonymousreply 4502/21/2013

I swear that there are fat, old republican men and uneducated, fundie frauen trolling the internet for any mention of their pet cause and they will descend on a board like locusts.

by Anonymousreply 4602/21/2013

If pregnancy is not an option, a man and woman should use multiple forms of birth control to prevent it. The number of abortions would decrease dramatically.

r48, I don't fight for it either, but I do vote Democrat across the board.

by Anonymousreply 4802/21/2013

[quote]I'm unsure if I can support unconditional abortion at will, particularly if the impregnating man hasn't been told.

Ha, ha, ha. Clap, clap, clap. Seriously?

Straight men are the biggest fucking hypocrites when it comes to shit like this. I can't tell you how many (from college to work settings) I've heard go on about how they're opposed to it. Put them on the spot and ask about their willingness to provide half of a child's expenses until the age of 18 and the story changes. They'll go, "Oh, yeah. Of course," but they haven't the slightest idea what this means in terms of $$$. Give them a monthly figure in child support (that increases as the kid gets older and has all sorts of needs) and they blanch. We're just talking about money here, not participating in a child's life. They're simply too selfish to think in those terms.

In a sense, their opposition to abortion is selfish. It's all about them and their egos. I honestly don't think a lot of them would have been disturbed by the thought that there's a fatherless child of theirs out there in the world.

My sense of these men is that if they do indeed get a women pregnant, they hope they're never told. That way there's a possibility that their selfish genes are out there in the world if she decides to have a kid without his knowledge. They can selfishly go on with their lives without another thought or responsibility for their progeny. And if she does get an abortion and doesn't tell him, well, no responsibility for the kid and no moral dilemmas that could disturb their beautiful minds.

Anyway freeper men are probably the worst offenders like this lovely fella who wanted it all (wife, mistress, other mistress), including a congressional seat, but just not the fetus.

by Anonymousreply 4902/21/2013

The people that talk about 'killing babies' are absolutely ignorant to the facts.

Their moral outrage is a dangerous ignorance, manifested into an uninformed opinion, fabricated by men, to control women and allow forced pregnancies and rape. Period

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

by Anonymousreply 5102/21/2013

No, only you r52/r41.

by Anonymousreply 5302/21/2013

So much ignorance on this thread -- on both sides of this issue.

And regarding r34, the Catholic Church has the Rule of Double Effect which allows for actions that will save the life of the mother even if a foreseeable effect is negative. No Catholic institution that understands its own catechism would have allowed that woman to die. Of course, most Catholics (like most people) are just so uninformed.

by Anonymousreply 5402/21/2013

I'm pro-choice, but...we have babies surviving at 20 weeks now. When is that foetuz/baby line is crossed.

Will always be pro-choice, but it still makes me sad.

by Anonymousreply 5502/21/2013

Good lord, my typos. It's 5am here...

by Anonymousreply 5602/21/2013

[quote]And regarding [R34], the Catholic Church has the Rule of Double Effect which allows for actions that will save the life of the mother even if a foreseeable effect is negative. No Catholic institution that understands its own catechism would have allowed that woman to die

The doctors in Ireland failed their Hippocratic Oath and were more concerned about saving their own hides vis a vis Irish law. I really hope they lose their licenses to practice.

The case of the 9 year old girl in Brazil is another example of the church's failure to observe its own teachings. She'd been raped by her stepfather and was pregnant with twins. She could not have carried them to term or delivered without risking her life. Her mother and the doctor were excommunicated by the bishop who thought that risking the child's life in the hopes of delivering was in accordance with canon.

by Anonymousreply 5702/21/2013

Religion, the speed bumps on the road of humane progression.

by Anonymousreply 5802/21/2013

Here's my question:

If the operative principle is "her body, her choice", why aren't more straight people talking about how infant circumcision violates the principle of "his body, his choice"?

The boy who has the body should have the choice when he is old enough.

by Anonymousreply 5902/21/2013

This thread is about abortion, not circumcision. Would you like me to start a new thread for you, R61?

by Anonymousreply 6002/21/2013

Yes, please R62. Thanks in advance.

by Anonymousreply 6202/21/2013

R63 you are welcome to your opinion but I do not equate a first trimester fetus with a fully formed "baby". As pointed out earlier, late term abortions are rare and only done when the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is so damaged that it won't have any quality of life.

by Anonymousreply 6302/21/2013

How should I phrase the subject line, R64?

by Anonymousreply 6402/21/2013

When the bones don't yet crunch when you bite into it, it's still a fetus, generally less than 22 weeks.

by Anonymousreply 6502/21/2013

R62 - If it's "her body her choice," why not "his body his choice" re circumcision?

and then your narrative can just be "Discuss."

Much obliged.

by Anonymousreply 6602/21/2013

The title of this thread makes me laugh. Come on girls, we're doing abortions in Judy's office from 3 - 4, after birthday cake.

by Anonymousreply 6802/21/2013

I hope so. We need to focus on abortion. There are some red states that are cray out there.

by Anonymousreply 6902/21/2013

R69 who is asking you to pay for their abortion?

by Anonymousreply 7002/21/2013

R69 abortions are paid for in cash by the person getting the abortion. This is one of those little facts that anti-abortionists ignore and they always bring out the "no one else should have to pay for it" b.s.

A D&C maybe be partly paid for by insurance and those are pretty routine for women suffering miscarriages and they have a co-pay.

by Anonymousreply 7202/21/2013

R74, I'm not talking about what's currently done.

by Anonymousreply 7302/21/2013

An in-home kit would really alleviate the controversy. Where is James Dyson with the Cyclonic Load-Lightener™?

by Anonymousreply 7402/21/2013

Then what are you talking about R75?

by Anonymousreply 7502/21/2013

r59, again, "excommunication" would not be in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church and the case of the 9 (or 13) year old (whatever her age, it was rape) who gave birth. The Rule of Double Effect would have taken precedence when/if a woman's life is in danger.

by Anonymousreply 7602/21/2013

The author is absolutely right - and I'll admit, I've kind of been rolling my eyes at all the talk coming from BOTH sides about abortion for the last few years, mostly because I'm fairly certain that Republicans on the national platform have no real intention of overturning Roe v. Wade, as much as they squawk about it. They NEED to be able to squawk about it in order to keep securing votes from a large contingent of single-issue voters. I hadn't thought a lot about all of the increasingly strict state regulations that have been passed though - I had no idea there was only ONE place in all of Mississippi to get a legal abortion, for instance. I live in a town of 70,000 that's the largest town around for hours in a very rural state, and I know of at least two clinics within easy driving distance of my house that perform abortions. I drive past one of them of them almost every day, and lately it seems like there's always one or two assholes outside picketing with these cringe worthy "Please pray to end abortion" signs (always the same assholes standing there for HOURS, of course - nothing to do folks?), but still, I highly doubt the place is closing down anytime soon. Still, I think the author is spot on that these piddly regulations here and there need to be a topic of national concern for those of us who are fortunate enough to live in more evolved areas.

Oh yeah, and also:

[quote]And when you can't actually get an abortion, women become slaves to their reproductive cycles, second class citizens relegated to womb duty in deference to the all-important fetus.

"Pro-lifers" should be forced to read this one sentence over and over again until it fucking sticks. Jesus fucking Christ.

by Anonymousreply 7702/21/2013

R77, By process of elimination: what is generally desired.

by Anonymousreply 7802/21/2013

Let's not forget also those type who picket also kick said baby to the curb once they're born. For some reason they fixate on the fetus and ignore the kids living in poverty.

by Anonymousreply 7902/21/2013

[quote]And when you can't actually get an abortion, women become slaves to their reproductive cycles, second class citizens relegated to womb duty in deference to the all-important fetus.

by Anonymousreply 8002/21/2013

R73 I guess it has to be asked again, when has someone asked you to pay for their abortion? You made that statement, so why is it so hard for you to answer? And when have pro choice advocates said they don't expect women and men themselves to foot the bill?

by Anonymousreply 8102/21/2013

R80 is quite a bizarre little troll.

No one is asking anyone to pay for abortions. We'd just like it kept legal.

by Anonymousreply 8302/21/2013

Who wants to take dumbass r84 on?

by Anonymousreply 8402/21/2013

From R84 earlier:

"Gays & lesbians have no obligation to fight for abortion rights. That is the business of straights. Frankly I don't give a fuck."

He's craving attention.

by Anonymousreply 8602/21/2013

R87 that is a ridiculous argument. If you had never been born you wouldn't know it and as far as your in utero experience do you remember it? I think not and a fetus is not self-aware or even sentient at that time.

by Anonymousreply 8702/21/2013

You are forgetting those older married couples who may have an "oops" moment due to bc failure. A lot of married women get abortions too.

by Anonymousreply 9002/21/2013

R84 Most women who get abortions used birth control only to have it fail.

by Anonymousreply 9102/21/2013

R91 unfortunately the "rights" of a fetus do not trump the rights of a living woman much as you'd like to reduce them to walking incubators.

by Anonymousreply 9302/21/2013

R83/85, How is it bizarre to expect that the ideals of abortion activism include making the procedures paid for? Or what if they want many more actual clinics to be built? It seems many do. The money for that had better come from private benefactors. It IS, as the author said, "resource intensive."

For me, this article didn't lean toward "keeping it legal" so much as what should be done to advance the cause. I have my ideas about what should be done, but there are always residual problems caused by advancements.

People on here just want to pick out the stuff they don't like in others' opinions and cause straight-up drama. Trust me, even those us who seem to agree on every point will eventually find a point of contention about issues like these.

by Anonymousreply 9402/21/2013

Here's the problem with that philosophy, r87, it's not realistic.

Making abortion illegal doesn't achieve your utopian ideals. Women will still have them, women will die from botched jobs, there will be no counseling, no discussion on alternatives or birth-control.

You see, this is merely a wedge to dismantle women's rights. So, it's great you feel women shouldn't desire abortions, and it's great if there wasn't any. However, without safe, legal abortions there is actually more at loss than an undeveloped fetus.

R91, You're logic is skewed, read above.

by Anonymousreply 9602/21/2013

There's no way of proving that, R93, but there should be better birth control, in addition to more effective abortion pills.

There is no doubt some less useful medication research going on.

by Anonymousreply 9702/21/2013

See, I told you. R84/90 is craving attention.

F&F

by Anonymousreply 9802/21/2013

R94 like abortion euthanizing animals is an ugly business but at this point necessary because there are simply too many idiots not getting their animals neutered. I don't like it but until people start caring for animals and careless breeders are shut down it's necessary. What else should we do with the animals no one wants?

by Anonymousreply 9902/21/2013

R99 what do you mean it can't be proven? My third brother was proof that bc fails. Birth control is only effective 99.9% of the time which is good but still allows for failure.

by Anonymousreply 10002/21/2013

Why am I not surprised that in that mess of a word salad R96 wrote, no where can be found the answer to the questions they were asked?

by Anonymousreply 10102/21/2013

R99 Read it and weep:

[quote]The Guttmacher report shows “54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method *usually condom or the pill...

by Anonymousreply 10302/21/2013

Ok, R103. You asked me when someone has asked me to pay for her abortion. She hasn't. I predict it would come to that if all ideals were realized. And no, obviously no one will be personally summoned to pay for an abortion in the manner that one is summoned for jury duty, if you were asking literally.

by Anonymousreply 10402/21/2013

[quote]How is it bizarre to expect that the ideals of abortion activism include making the procedures paid for?

Again, you don't pay for them. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

by Anonymousreply 10502/21/2013

Not necessarily R108. Just as some woman know their child will be severely handicapped and have it anyway when they could choose to abort.

I wouldn't worry about it though.

by Anonymousreply 10802/21/2013

[quote]I'm unsure if I can support unconditional abortion at will, particularly if the impregnating man hasn't been told.

I'm so sick of this argument. When science makes it possible for an unwanted embryo to be implanted in the responsible male if he wants to demand that the pregnancy be brought to completion against the woman's will, then we'll talk (although you just KNOW that suddenly every "pro-life" man in the country would change his tune if that were really possible).

I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but I know of at least one case where a young woman made the unfortunate mistake of being knocked up by a major asshole with rage issues (she's a family member of my partner's). She knew there was no way she could afford a child, so she had an abortion. Somehow, the asshole found out about it and maturely responded by breaking into her house at night and beating her with a baseball bat while yelling "This is for killing my baby." He's a jobless prick who still sponges off of his parents and I'm sure he would have done NOTHING to support an actual child, but he had the fucking gall to refer to an expelled embryo as "MY baby." I'm sure that anyone with half a brain could see that deep down, he clearly didn't give two shits about anyone's "baby" and was merely enraged that this lowly female had the fucking nerve to refuse to carry, give birth to, and forever be tied down to the result of him blowing his load into her one drunken night.

by Anonymousreply 10902/21/2013

And you have proof of this R109?

by Anonymousreply 11002/21/2013

R108 Is your argument really based on some hypothetical situation that will a) probably never happen or b) if it does happen it will occur long after we are all dead? Really? That's the route you're taking?

by Anonymousreply 11102/21/2013

R109 please provide your proof to back up your claim.

by Anonymousreply 11202/21/2013

R108's argument is straight out of the anti-abortion handbook. I've seen freepers using that argument on other blogs.

by Anonymousreply 11302/21/2013

[quote]It's funny that so many of you scream, march, blog, protest, fight, and give money to gain equal rights, and yet, you don't give a flip about the rights of unborn babies.

I give a huge flip about the rights of women to decide what to do with their bodies.

by Anonymousreply 11402/21/2013

Yeah R11? The whole point of abortion is that it is a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body.

Thinking that it's a man's right to decide that as an entitled owner sort of defeats that. So you're saying it's all right for men to choose what a woman does with her body?

by Anonymousreply 11502/21/2013

Oh, I don't know, R97 - Maybe because carrying a pregnancy to term and going through childbirth are extremely fucking invasive, life altering things, and maybe, just maybe, a woman should have the choice to not have to subject herself to that if she doesn't want to? And let's not forget that an older woman like in the proposed example you were responding to happens to be much more at risk for potential complications. Miscarriages occur at a rate of about 1 in every 4 pregnancies, and that rate is even higher in older women. A miscarriage is an extremely painful experience that requires immediate medical attention as soon as it occurs, and the end result is the same as an abortion, but I guess you'd rather subject a practically menopausal woman to that than to allow her to merely choose to get an abortion at her own comfort and convenience.

I'm fucking sick of these clueless "Why not adoption?" dolts acting like a pregnancy is NOTHING. And even if you do believe that human rights begin at conception - Name one other instance in which a human has the right to parasitically live off of another human's body in order to remain alive, fully against the will of the other person. NO ONE has that particular right.

by Anonymousreply 11702/21/2013

Anyone who can't discuss reproductive issues without calling women "sluts" is not to be taken seriously.

Some of you sound like a GOP state rep from the Deep South.

by Anonymousreply 11902/21/2013

R120 What is it about you? You make these insane statements and then when asked to provide proof to back it up, you refuse to do so? Do you really think no one here doesn't see through what you're doing?

by Anonymousreply 12002/21/2013

You posters whining about adoption must be white, with no black friends/associates.

Have you any idea how hard it is to adopt out perfectly healthy, beautiful black infants and toddlers? Too many white and Asian couples would rather adopt trananstionally than adopt a black child in their own county.

It's one of the many reasons gay and single-parent adoption rights are so important. Those two groups in general have less blinkered bigotry in terms of cross-racial and special-needs adoptions. They do the work of the angels.

by Anonymousreply 12102/21/2013

R123 I know three gay couples who have adopted children. All of them are white. They all adopted black children.

by Anonymousreply 12202/21/2013

[quote]Straight women won't give a fuck, especially hypocritical liberal women

Oh, shut up, troll. My sister (straight and liberal) is thrilled to have a possibly gay son. Not everyone is a homophobe like you.

by Anonymousreply 12402/21/2013

R125 I provided the proof. You are the one who is saying the proof is not accurate so it's up to you to provide that evidence. You refuse to do so. We can draw only one conclusion. You have no proof.

Everyone here sees what you are. You are fooling no one.

by Anonymousreply 12502/21/2013

Developing better methods of birth control really needs to be at the forefront of this discussion too. Morons like R84 who says things like "I don't understand why these sluts can't just pop a pill" obviously have no fucking understanding of the side effects involved with using any form of hormonal birth control, and the fact that a LOT of women can't use it for those reasons. As for condoms, let's be real - Nobody really likes using them, and just like gay men, straight people sometimes fuck up and skip them while in the heat of the moment. (I'm not trying to say that the condom isn't a wonderful invention that's done a LOT of good, but I don't think it would kill anyone to be a little bit more honest about the sacrifice in personal pleasure for both parties that occurs when they're used, and the realistic effect that this has on their usage.) IUDs are a promising thing, but from what I understand they're almost prohibitively expensive for a lot of women. We have a long way to go before birth control is truly affordable and easy enough for all women that "Why don't sluts just use birth control?" becomes the slightest bit reasonable as an argument.

by Anonymousreply 12602/21/2013

No, there is no way to prove whether abortions occur because of failed protection. I'm sorry. I hate when people try to use "stats" about these things. They don't help.

R128, agreed, in addition to a cheap and effective abortion pill.

P.S., R103, talk about word salad.

by Anonymousreply 12802/21/2013

R124, did you not read my entire post? You were looking to be insulted. Please go back and read my last paragraph.

by Anonymousreply 12902/21/2013

R117, if they are in a committed relationship, yes, the impregnating man should have input beyond 'sperm donation'. That doesn't mean I am not pro-choice.

But let me ask you: if a man and a woman are in a committed relationship and the woman becomes pregnant with his child, is it okay for her to have an abortion without letting him know she's pregnant, or letting him know she is going to have an abortion?

by Anonymousreply 13002/21/2013

Most committed relationships have open communication and most of the men I'm sure are told. It would be hard to hide an abortion because you can't have sex for about 6 weeks. I'd like to know what kind of stories women could make up to explain that away.

by Anonymousreply 13102/21/2013

For the sake of consistency, I'd say no, R132. Men, married or committed or not, should not have legal rights to the decision. It doesn't take two people to make a decision. That should be a personal understanding between the husband and wife, subject to no legal ramifications either way.

by Anonymousreply 13202/21/2013

R125 demonstrates the typical way regressives operate. Say to them, "here is the evidence the earth's climate is changing" or "here is the evidence Iraq had no WMD program" or "here is the evidence that supports evolution" and their answer is always the same. "It's a lie!" Ask them for evidence to back up their claim and they brush it off and say they don't need proof. Their gut tells them everything they need to know. Facts and evidence are meaningless.

by Anonymousreply 13302/21/2013

Anecdotally, most women I know who've had abortions were on the pill, but if it works 99% of the time, that's still several opportunities a year for the pill to fail. Which it does. A lot.

by Anonymousreply 13402/22/2013

r135 gets it.

by Anonymousreply 13502/22/2013

lo

by Anonymousreply 13602/22/2013

R135:

Here is one way to respond to these people:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have not even provided ordinary evidence.

Those who do not know the evidence on a subject should be ignored."

Fox News has mastered this tactic.

by Anonymousreply 13703/08/2013

"...Preserve the dignity and sanctity and respect of human life." - Reasoning given behind an amendment to the Minnesota bill establishing Minnesota's Obamacare insurance exchange.

The amendment? Banning any of the private insurance purchased by private individuals using their private money through the public exchanges from covering abortion, unless that abortion threatened the health of the mother, or was the result of incest or rape reported to police within 48 hours of the event.

The bill's sponsor? Faribault Patti Fritz (Democrat). The vote on the amendment in the Minnesota House, recently turned over to Democrats in the 2012 elections? 71-58 in favor.

This is some bullshit. The sanctity of human life is not at issue here. Nor is the dignity. And certainly not fucking respect. The exchanges are what poor people got stuck with after Obama negotiated away the public option.

The exchanges "allow" poor people who can't afford health insurance to shop for cheaper plans from insurance companies that they might be able to afford, since Obamacare's going to require you to afford one anyway.

So, in order to preserve the dignity of human life, Patti Fritz wants to make sure poor people's abortions aren't covered by private insurance, in the hopes that they won't be able to afford abortions out of their own money, so they can be forced to have a baby they can't afford either, just because the government's gonna make an Expedia-style webpage and be sort of involved.

I expect this kind of embryo-fetishizing, poor-kicking crap from Republicans. That's their brand. But what's the point of handing the state government over to Democrats for the first time in decades if the Democrats we turn it over to are going to pull shit like this?

Poor people should be able to have abortions. Rape victims should be able to have their insurance pay for abortions even if they wait THREE WHOLE DAYS to tell police about it. If you're not on board with that, don't let the big tent's flap hit you in the ass on the way out, thanks. -- Bryan Lambert

by Anonymousreply 13803/08/2013

Grow up.

by Anonymousreply 14003/08/2013

How odd is it the same people who want a smaller, less intrusive government want the government to keep track of what a woman does with her vagina, her eggs, and her embryo.

by Anonymousreply 14103/08/2013

Marriage equality AND reproductive choice are both just and good fights, r141, whether you find one of them personally repugnant or not. Both are branches of the same tree, the right to privacy and to non-interference of the state in the private lives of the people.

by Anonymousreply 14203/08/2013

I've had more children pulled out of me than a burning orphanage!

by Anonymousreply 14403/08/2013

Pro-life & Pro-choice here.

This has been done and it really should be over. Why the wing-nuts cling to this abortion thing is beyond me. Advocate abstinence, birth control, and/or RESPONSIBILITY. Messing around with this is a time bomb and a slippery slope.

by Anonymousreply 14503/08/2013

Good for you, R145.

Your beliefs are your beliefs. Don't put your belief in what is right for you onto other people.

There are plenty of people who think the state should execute homosexuals because they think that is in their holy books. Some people deny evolution and while that's OK to believe, we don't let their religious beliefs decide what gets taught in public schools.

Different religions have different attitudes about abortion, some lenient, some strict. Some religions deny evolution. We don't write either of those beliefs into our statutes.

Some religions believe that adults can let their children die because they think modern health technology is prohibited in their book. We don't allow them to write our laws.

The same people who oppose abortion rights want the state to protect embryos and to enforce capital punishment. They want to force women to have children but want to deny the children any state aid from food to schools.

They love life when it isn't here yet and scorn it when it arrives.

Any law is a compromise. Every law has consequences beyond its intent. Abortion laws are on the books for many reasons, but one reason is that unintended pregnancies throw many mothers and children onto hard economic times.

If people who oppose abortion rights would also support socialized medicine, free and easy access to contraception, free daycare, full employment starting with heads of families, at least they would be arguing morally consistent positions.

Keep your hands off our bodies.

by Anonymousreply 14603/08/2013

R145 and R149:

Do you support Head Start, free daycare, free school lunches, free and easily available birth control?

Do you support an increase in the SNAP program including a lowering of income eligibility and an increase in the allotment so no child will go hungry and no child's family will either?

Do you support active state intervention into homes where children are at risk?

Do you support full financial support for mothers who have children instead of an abortion until they can find decent, secure jobs?

If you don't support these things, and most opponents of abortion rights do not, how do you distinguish the right of the fetus to be unharmed from the right of a child to grow up to be all he can be? So he is less likely to have children who might be aborted?

Should legal protection of human welfare stop after a live birth? If so why?

Are you against the death penalty? If you are not, isn't it a rationalization of murder?

by Anonymousreply 14803/08/2013

Why Does Spain Love Gay Marriage But Hate Abortion? Spain’s about to become the most repressive country in the EU when it comes to abortion rights—even as it has embraced gay marriage. It’s a disconnect that is the canary in the coal mine for Europe’s women.

With an extremely restrictive abortion ban heading towards a vote, Spain is on the verge of becoming the first country within the European Union to actually move backwards on abortion rights.

For a country that has enjoyed a fairly liberal social and sexual culture in recent decades, the backtracking on abortion—the proposed law would make the procedure illegal except in cases of rape or endangerment to the mother’s life— is all the more shocking. And it comes only four years after Spain dramatically expanded the original 1985 law permitting abortion, easing restrictions on abortion access.

And the country hasn’t just been progressive on women’s issues, either. Spain became one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage way back in 2005.

However, abortion laws have become a major target of the ruling conservative Partido Popular, which took power in 2011 after nearly a decade of Socialist Party rule. The current Justice Minister, Alberto Ruiz Gallardón, has been unwavering in his commitment to rolling back the 2010 abortion provisions. In December of 2013, he announced the party’s goal to ensure that a “woman can only abort if she is in danger, and if it is due to a sexual assault.” To add to the restrictions, under that proposed bill a woman would have to file a prior complaint even in these two allowed cases before she is permitted to have abortion.

Yet the rest of Spain has not become so socially conservative overnight. “The polls show they [Partido Popular] are completely out of touch with population at large,” says Johanna Westeson, the Regional Director of Europe for the Reproductive Rights Center. In fact, one survey showed 80 percent of the population disapproved of the proposed restrictions. Even Celia Villalobos, who is a member of Partido Popular and is the deputy speaker of Spain’s Parliament, criticized the proposal, saying “We’re not in 1985 anymore. We’re in 2014, and things have changed.”

In contrast to the extreme and apparently unpopular battle against abortion rights in Spain, gay-marriage rights have survived there.

Yet, in contrast to the extreme and apparently unpopular battle against abortion rights in Spain, gay-marriage rights have survived there. Though attempts to end gay marriage were made, Partido Popular ultimately left it up to the Constitutional Court, which upheld gay marriage. In fact, Gallardón went out of his way to say that he did not think Partido Popular should interfere with gay marriage.

Against the backdrop of their tolerance, if not embrace, of same-sex marriage, Partido Popular’s fervent decision to go after abortion rights might seem peculiar. However, the schism between Spain’s treatment of the two controversial issues is not that unusual, at least in recent years. Westeson said “The notion that opposition to liberal abortion laws and LGBT rights go hand in hand in Europe does not at all hold.” As an example, she cited how Ireland, which has a near ban on abortion, is fast moving towards legalizing same-sex marriage.

She believes that one of the reasons LGBT rights appear to be advancing faster in Europe than abortion rights is because of the policies of the European Union. “The EU has very strong protections against discrimination, including sexual orientation, whereas issue related to health and reproductive health are completely outside of the EU,” she says. “If a country is interested in restricting rights for same sex couples, it’s much harder in the EU context.”

Gillian Kane, a Senior Policy Adviser at Ipsas, an international reproductive-rights group, has also noticed what she sees as the “mainstreaming” of LGBT rights in recent years while abortion rights are facing a backlash in many countries. “My own pet theory is that abortion is a women’s issue. It’s gendered. Gay marriage isn’t, and it involves men. That makes it more mainstream,” she says. “You see it in the States, too.”

Whether it’s for the gendered reasoning that Kane suggests, the United States does reflect a similar discrepancy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, between 2011 and 2013, more abortion restrictions were enacted than in any previous decade. At the very same time, same-sex marriage enjoyed a rise in positive public opinion.

Abortion-rights advocates by no means seek to detract from LGBT movement or begrudge it victories. But purely from a policy perspective, it is a bewildering pattern. Kane believes conservatives like Partido Popular have pushed abortion restrictions because, unlike same-sex marriage, it is “framed as an issue of life, not an issue of rights,” she said. “In terms of wedge issues, it’s a way to get people on board.”

And mobilizing the masses may be what’s of greater concern to Partido Popular than the issue of abortion itself, especially as the country still struggles with a bad economy.

“What we see now in many countries is to use it [abortion] to distract from the very real economic matters that are very serious, and Spain is one of the hardest hit,” said Westeson. “Morality issues surrounding women’s bodies tend to be a distraction from other issues that are critical now.”

Ana Prata, a professor at the California State University, Northridge, also suspects that conservatives in Spain may be playing abortion politics as “smoke and mirrors to distract from debating things that could be more challenging.”

Regardless of the exact motives, with Partido Popular in control of Spain’s government, the abortion bill is likely to pass in at least some form. That could be bad news not only for women seeking abortions in Spain, but all over Europe.

“I am afraid we will see a snowball effect in other countries,” said Westeson. “Conservative groups in many countries are looking towards Spain, and they will get motivation if the law passes. I’ve heard that groups in France and Germany are eagerly following what’s happening.”

Still, even if Spain’s proposal passes Parliament in its full form, it is unlikely to silence the national and global community. Thousands have protested in Madrid, and FEMEN already staged a topless protest chanting, “Abortion is sacred.” By all accounts, these women are ready for a battle.

“Womens’ rights over their bodies aren’t usually given for free by the government,” says Prata. “They usually have to fight.”

by Anonymousreply 15003/07/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.