meet hagar the horrible....

[ 10 November 2004: Message edited by: ShyViolet417 ]

As well, Mr. Bush was abundantly clear that he opposed abortion and even stem cell research. As well he had already made the decisions about international funding of family planning clinics. He made those decisions almost immediately after getting his presidency last time. He was a known prolifer and he won with the majority of people casting a vote for him. Americans also knew that the composition of the Supreme Court would be changed during Bush's presidency. It wouldn't have taken a brain surgeon to realize that it would be with conservative minded appointments. It would appear that given the level of support given to Bush and to the Republican party that he will be able to move nominations through relatively easily.

as does the guttmacher institute...

it makes me sick that they want to deny birth control to women. we are not walking talking wombs. we are people...

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: ShyViolet417 ]

I would have to hear differently from an unbiased source that there is no evidence of the one child policy. I would support staying away from anyone that was endorsing that country's policy.

I also think it's important to note that he is talking about how international efforts are funded. He is not taking steps to remove contraceptives from american women.

This part caught my eye more - In the past, he has refused to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. I have mixed feelings about whether or not he has the right to do that though I don't respect it at all. There is a difference, however, with not feeling comfortable with prescribing it and making it illegal nationally. I would be shocked if anyone thought that was even realistic. I would certainly opposed to that.

quote:

---

he also thinks the pill causes abortion. and you, as a nurse, must realize that the pill is used for things other than birth control. things like pcos and endo. i'm more upset about the banning of birth control than i am abortion, to be honest. and to say a woman can cure her pms by reading the bible? please...
oh, and just an fyi, bush never made it apparent that he supported anti-family planning people. never. so don't say he made his position totally clear. he didn't.

---

He is not the only person who believes that the pill is an abortificiant as one of the features of the pill is that it makes the lining of the womb hostile to implantation. I, personally, think that that represents a very incomplete understanding and I don't agree with it but he's hardly alone. I also agree it is used for reasons other than contraceptive. Ultimately though I see that as irrelevant - it should be legally available.

In terms of healing I would urge you to realize, even though I know you will disagree, that this is about a view of healing. This isn't about diminishing these illnesses because they are gender specific and suggesting a different line of treatment. Fundamentalists respond to all medical conditions including cancer with prayer.

what's the "one child policy"? can't say i've ever heard of it...

as for bush & family planning... that is true about laura bush. so, i'm not sure what to make of his personal life vs what these sources say. none were pulled from prochoice sites. one's from a newspaper in minnesota, one's from the guttmacher institute, and one is from snopes (disproving urban legends..though i'm not sure of how good of a site it is. i've found it to be accurate though.)

contraceptives for umarried women: well, much as i would wish otherwise, people will have sex outside of marriage. it's unrealistic to think otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
I love how they shape Mr. Bush as an extremist.

---

quote:

---

Hailey, most of the birth control for third world nations is done via corporate black-ops, such as Nestle encouraging mothers to give formula instead of breastfeeding, or via stealth viruses in vaccinations. Welcome to the real world

---

What Nestle's does is detestable.

quote:

---

Hailey, did you write this? I heard that
bachelor Shrub once had a girlfirend whose shrublet was ripped from her womb - for the good of his future.

---

Huh?

quote:

---

well, the guttmacher institute has a rep for being unbiased...i did provide a link for that.

---

The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of planned parenthood and is expressingly in favour of abortion rights. It is not unbiased.

quote:

---

what's the "one child policy"? can't say i've ever heard of it...

---

The one child policy in China is best represented in the book "A mother's ordeal" which I started to read and could not finish because of the horrors of it. It talks about the steps that China has made to make sure that every couple only has one child. We always hear a sanatized version of it where that small of a family is encouraged, not forced, but it portrays the significant sanctions and pressures that a family feels and that some women have been forced to abort even in their final trimester.

quote:

---

as for bush & family planning... that is true about laura bush. so, i'm not sure what to make of his personal life vs what these sources say. none were pulled from prochoice sites. one's from a newspaper in minnesota, one's from the guttmacher institute, and one is from snopes (disproving urban legends..though i'm not sure of how good of a site it is. i've found it to be accurate though.)

---

I intend to try to do a bit more study because this birth control issue has struck my curiousity. I can't imagine anyone thinking this would fly in this day and age so I'd be shocked if it was serious. The minnesota newspaper is credible, guttmacher is biased even if they end up being right, and I can't comment at all on snopes. It's certainly the most clear in terms of the accusation.

quote:

---

True -- compared to YOU he's not

---

and i had heard of the china thing..i just didn't know the name. that's pretty horrible...but they're paying for it now. they have a shortage of females thanks to sex-selective <--*shudders* abortions.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: ShyViolet417 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:

Your cyber hugs are so warm and loving, RB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShyViolet417:
hailey about the guttmacher institute...
are you sure it's prochoice biased??

---

From the website:

quote:

---

The Institute's mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation.

---

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: ShyViolet417 ]

quote:

---

hailey about the guttmacher institute...
are you sure it's prochoice biased?? b/c i've seen heritage house, an extremely prolife organization, use their statistics..
why would a prolife org use prochoice stats to support their argument? that makes no sense....
and i had heard of the china thing..i just didn't know the name. that's pretty horrible...but they're paying for it now. they have a shortage of females thanks to sex-selective <--*shudders* abortions.

---

I'm very sure it's prochoice. Heritage House is very prolife and they quote them at times which I can't really explain. I know that they use them to meet their own purposes though.

Seriously, read the Mother's ordeal - it will haunt you. And it's not bible thumping kind of material - the person is not a fundamentalist Christian or a prolifer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:

I'm very sure it's prochoice. Heritage House is very prolife and they quote them at times which I can't really explain. I know that they use them to meet their own purposes though.

Seriously, read the Mother's ordeal - it will haunt you. And it's not bible thumping kind of material - the person is not a fundamentalist Christian or a prolifer.

Why shudder at sex selection? If you believe it's not a human being and it's a woman's choice why would you balk at it?

---

i jsut added their mission statement to the post you jsut responded to. if it does advocate choice, then it covers every option not jsut abortion, so i do not consider it abortion baised.

yes, i intend to read that book. i've already written it on my christmas list.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
It certainly appears pro-choice to me. I couldn't find anything there to indicate otherwise.

---

quote:

---

i balk at sex selctive abortions b/c i don't think it's right to abort a child just b/c it happens to be "the wrong sex" not to mention the problems that causes..look at china! call me inconsistant, but that's what i believe...
it's not as if i'm in love with abortions. it's not as if i think every pg mom should abort. i think it should be legal for those who need it for whatever reason. and to abort a baby b/c of it's sex is not a valid reason in my book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
Guttmacher Institute is not necessarily of the view that every pregnancy should end in abortion. They are against the prolife movement though and are fairly open about that. They had a very close working relationship with most organizations lobbying for abortion rights. I'd say they are biased but I'm not trying to suggest that they are crazed lunatics looking to grab women off the street for abortions.

I don't think abortion is right. I can understand the specific reaction to sex selection abortions. I guess my point is are you prepared to make abortion illegal in those situations where you don't think it's valid? And if so why do you get to decide what's valid instead of me?

---

i've never heard this about the guttmacher institute...i still find them to be good though. can you prove them to be anti-prolife?

quote:

---

Why shudder at sex selection? If you believe it's not a human being and it's a woman's choice why would you balk at it?

---

Because it is for the wrong reason. Either you want a child for all the reasons people do, or you don't. Making a serious choice like abortion because the potential child is of the wrong sex is vanity in North America. Or in the case of China, extremely sexist social pressure.

quote:

---

There are valid and invalid reasons for abortion, like there is for anything.

---

Do we do anything differently in the case of invalid reasons? For example, if a woman openly declared her intention to abort a female fetus, would we or anyone else prevent this?

quote:

---

Because it is for the wrong reason

---

Wrong reason? I had always understood from everyone that I have spoken with who is prochoice that the only person that can determine if a reason is right or wrong is the expectant mother.

quote:

---

Making a serious choice like abortion because the potential child is of the wrong sex is vanity in North America.

---

Serious? Why would it be serious? If it is not a human being why does it matter to you?If the issue is that it's surgery and shouldn't be considered casually well, the mother can consider that risk independently without community help I'm sure.

I don't know that I'd frame it as vanity. Perhaps the family is only in a position to parent two children and they feel that they would function best with a male and a female child and they already have a daughter and don't want a second. Perhaps they feel that their skill set would be better with a male child versus a female child. The list goes on.

quote:

---

Just because one supports abortion doesn't mean the choice is a wholesale heartless one. There are valid and invalid reasons for abortion, like there is for anything. The comparison between supporting abortion and not making the distinction between sex-selective or a legitimate reason is disingenuous

---

quote:

---

I just still am stuck on the whole idea of why you would care if you don't believe it's a human being worthy of consideration and if you believe women can make decisions independently. If it is not a baby or a human life worthy of interest then who cares what the mother does?

---

And you will be stuck, for a long time, because you believe that all of life's complexities have to be reduced to clear rules that fit every situation. I don't know if there is any discussion that can help you with this. I suspect greater experience and wisdom might to the trick, in the end.

quote:

---

And you will be stuck, for a long time, because you believe that all of life's complexities have to be reduced to clear rules that fit every situation. I don't know if there is any discussion that can help you with this. I suspect greater experience and wisdom might to the trick, in the end.I vehemently oppose abortion for sex selection, and I don't think I need to change any other of my feelings about this issue to say that. I personally think revealing the sex of the child (in the absence of any compelling reason to do so) before birth should be outlawed.

---

I don't know that I believe that there has to be clear rules. I am a person that gets "stuck" a bit more often than most because I tend to re think things which is a flaw. I just find it inconsistent - the position of a prochoice person that doesn't want to allow abortions that they disapprove of. But, you are right, I don't know that any conversation will aid me in better understanding that inconsistency.

Kee-rist. Sounds like kindergarten. . .

Usually I don't read her idiocies, but that was the last line. Then it dawned on me why she's here. FD is too rough for Ms. SweetnessandLight.

quote:

---

I desperately want to know and would be so disappointed if I wasn't allowed.

---

Now, talk about inconsistency. Since it doesn't matter to you one way or the other, and you wouldn't act differently knowing the gender of your unborn child (unless of course, this means getting a jump on painting the nursery pink or blue), why should you be so disappointed?

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Hailey ]

We can't have it both ways.

As a side note, in terms of cautioning women about undergoing a surgical procedure for abortion, we wouldn't have to worry about that if the abortion pill were legal in Canada as it has been in Europe for many years. Non-surgical abortion is safer for the woman, doesn't expose her to risk of infection and frees up hospital/clinic space for other procedures. It's not enough that abortion is available in Canada: why isn't the best, safest version available?

quote:

---

If we are to accept that the pregnant woman, and no one else, is the ultimate authority on whether or not her pregnancy is carried to term, then we must accept that some individual women's choices, such as sex selection, will be repugnant to many of us.

---

But our acceptance of this is likely predicated on the "It's my body" argument, and the fact that there's a world of difference to that body between having a child in it and not having a child in it. No such thing can be argued from the point of view of having a male child or a female child in it, nor a "potentially fat" child, nor any other criteria specific to that child.

Forcing a woman to carry a child when she doesn't want a child is barbaric. Accepting anyone's argument that a boy child is OK, but a girl child is unlivable is stupid and short-sighted.

quote:

---

If we are to accept that the pregnant woman, and no one else, is the ultimate authority on whether or not her pregnancy is carried to term, then we must accept that some individual women's choices, such as sex selection, will be repugnant to many of us.

---

What an astonishing thing to say. I don't have to accept this particular reason at all, precisely because it is repugnant. All other reasons I can think of for a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy (even just because she does not want to have the child) seem valid to me, but not this one. This isn't abortion, this is eugenics.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:

What an astonishing thing to say. I don't have to accept this particular reason at all, precisely because it is repugnant. All other reasons I can think of for a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy (even just because she does not want to have the child) seem valid to me, but not this one. This isn't abortion, this is eugenics.

---

but down's syndrome is a disability, a potentially severe one in some cases. being born female is not a disability.

do we allow for testing for a genetic defficiancy? for hereditary diseases? which diseases life thretening only? what about hereditary diseases that cause discomfort but "can not kill you"

or what about sickle cell anemia do we test for that?

quote:

---

I should be allowed to have an abortion because I think my baby's hair won't match my shoes. I should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason I damn well please, including sex selection.

---

Then the whole "It's my body" argument gets diluted to the point of absurdity. If the real issue is "I don't want a girl", then say so. Don't pretend that it's an issue of being forced to bear an infant against your will, if in fact you want a baby, and want to give birth, so long as that child is perfect.

I was under the impression that it was about being forced into a childbirth you don't want, not a child you don't want because it's not the "right" child.

quote:

---

Abortion on demand" means exactly that - not "abortion when I give someone a reason that's good enough".

---

And "Free Speech" means I have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Except I don't. Rights aren't always absolute and infinite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting we need to start championing abortion counselling or abortion inquests or anything intrusive, but I think that at a theoretical level it is OK to say "we can't agree with this". What difference, if any, do you see between aborting a child who's not the right sex/hair colour, and eugenics?? What are we saying about females or children whose hair is a certain colour if we declare open season on them?

---

quote:

---

As I see it, access to abortion is a right only because we as a society have decided it should be, and even many pro-choice advocates will say they'd rather there were another way, but this certainly shouldn't imply that it's a right with absolutely no restrictions on it whatsoever. At that point I think all of society would have the right to say "we can't participate in that; that's not what we agreed to. This is to save you from the horror of a forced childbirth and forced parentage, not the 'horror' of a girl."

---

quote:

---

but down's syndrome is a disability, a potentially severe one in some cases. being born female is not a disability.

---

So...it's wrong to abort a baby because the baby is a girl...but it's not wrong to abort the baby because they have down syndrome?

quote:

---

I should be allowed to have an abortion because I think my baby's hair won't match my shoes. I should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason I damn well please, including sex selection. If I want to have an abortion, I should be able to have an abortion, and I shouldn't have to come up with "good" reasons for it. "Abortion on demand" means exactly that - not "abortion when I give someone a reason that's good enough".

---

I don't agree with Michelle's position on abortion but I think she has the most admirably consistent one. To me that's the only authentic prochoice position. It just seems to me that when you bring up the question of sex selection abortion it becomes evident about divisive it is and people show their true colors around whether or not they believe in women making independent decisions or whether they just like a more limited scope of influence. I've been asked to use the term "prochoice" by some and I would almost think there are two categories of prochoice people - "prochoice" and "prochoice, but only for male babies".

I'm expecting and my physicians partner is a female who performs abortions. I dislike this a great deal and am trying to sort that through but I was thinking if I end up having to have her serve me one day I'm going to tell her with a straight face I want to have an amniocentesis done to determine whether or not I'm carrying a girl and what her political beliefs will be.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: andrean ]

quote:

---

To me that's the only authentic prochoice position.

---

Only if you assume that abortion must necessarily be an absolute right or an absolute non-right.

quote:

---

I'd never seriously do this but it's almost tempting just to see her face.

---

That's sick and immmoral, even to be tempted.

quote:

---

I believe people like you shouldn't be able to procreate, but it doesn't mean I will act up on it that feeling, or start 5 million threads about it, or protest in front of your house or pamphlet your neighbourhood about what a lousy parent you will be. I respect your right to what ever the hell you want with your body even if I disapprove of you and your choices. It's too bad you are incapable of having the same respect for others. Is any of this getting through to you? Do you get it yet?

---

I appreciate that you probably don't want persons with more traditional values to raise families. I'd assume that you would prefer that persons who are like minded are responsible for bringing the new generation into the world.

If you don't wish the babies and I well that's perfectly okay. I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that receiving positive developmental feedback from you, having well wishes from you, or having you recognize the worth and value of my babies was something that I needed , required, or placed undue value on.

If you feel that someone, including myself, is a bad parent then you have a responsibility to report any abuse to child protection or the police. I would also not interfere with your right to picket my house or pamphlet my neighbourhood if you felt that was in the best interests of any child, including my own.

I appreciated that you closed indicating that you wished that I demonstrated an equivalent level of respect to you. I am not sure where in your profanity inclusive post that was critical of my anticipated ability to parent I was supposed to feel respected but it eluded me.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Hailey ]

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Hailey ]

quote:

---

one day I'm going to tell her with a straight face I want to have an amniocentesis done to determine whether or not I'm carrying a girl and what her political beliefs will be.

---

quote:

---

She will probably be completely professional, show nothing outwardly but think what a cold, calculating, little bitch you are, and write you off as a waste of skin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

We typically assume our right to free speech, however we have to also be able to defend it while acknowledging that it cannot extend to libel, slander, harrassment, threats, or the classic example of yelling "fire" in a theatre. If you try to pigeonhole free speech into "absolute right" then we have a problem. If you try to pigeonhole it into "absolute non-right" we also have a problem. Sometimes we need some grey to go with the black and white.

---

I worry when we start saying that rights aren't absolute. I go back to the slippery slope; as soon as rights aren't absolute, it becomes very easy to erode them. If reason 'a' isn't enough to demand an abortion, then how long will it be before someone decides that reason 'b' isn't good enough either?

Your free speech analogy is a good one, though the difference that I see is that libel, threats, etc, impact other people while your decision to have an abortion impacts only yourself. It goes back to your rights ending where the other person's start, which is not a factor in abortion.

quote:

---

I worry when we start saying that rights aren't absolute.

---

And yet with the exception of freedom of thought, most are mediated by the state in some circumstances. Freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of the press... how many of these do you believe are absolute?

quote:

---

while your decision to have an abortion impacts only yourself.

---

I would argue that once you start practicing home eugenics, it's no longer just a personal decision. When people monkey with the gene pool and the population, I think we have a right to start sticking our noses in.

quote:

---

It would be preferable to work at developing a society in which sex selective abortion isn't an option, not because it isn't permitted, but because female babies are valued equally with male ones.

---

Or, as an interim measure, we could stop telling parents the sex of their fetus. What possible need could they manufacture for that information anyway? I don't really give a damn if some parent has already painted the nursery blue, then gets a girl.

The beauty part is, women still get unfettered access to abortion on demand.

the usa has roe v wade. who brings the "new"case to the supreme court to try to repeal it? the us government? and idividual?

also what is the canadian version of r.v.w?

also does either country have a legal precident for or against stem cell research?

because i am wondering where freedom of choice intercepts current legal precidence and laws

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: miles ]

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

Nevertheless in the interest of a free society I would not seek laws establishing that religious brainwashing can't start till the age of 18.

quote:

---

If a religious fundamentalist has a child chances are that child will be indoctrinated with "religion" and most likely with intolerance and I consider this child abuse.
Nevertheless in the interest of a free society I would not seek laws establishing that religious brainwashing can't start till the age of 18.
I wonder then why the fundamentalists find it neccesary to try to invoke laws telling me what to do with my uterus?

---

May I ask would you apply that to all religions? Secular humanism? Paganism? Buddhism? United church philosophies? Judaism? I'm just wondering where that begins and ends for you.

Does this apply to politics or just faith?

Certainly, if you believe that a parent sharing their faith is abuse then you should approach your MLA and MP and have that opinion known and make lobbying efforts to change the laws.

However, that doesn't change my view that abortion is both neccesary at times and a right of all women.

quote:

---

Here's a shocker for ya Hailey in the simplist terms I too believe life begins at conception and you can access old threads I've posted to to affirm this.

---

I take you at your word. You don't need to trace back old threads. Why would you lie about that?

Also, I know prochoice people that believe that life begins at conception and they reconcile that with their prochoice views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:
ok so here is a question.

the usa has roe v wade. who brings the "new"case to the supreme court to try to repeal it? the us government? and idividual?

also what is the canadian version of r.v.w?

also does either country have a legal precident for or against stem cell research?

because i am wondering where freedom of choice intercepts current legal precidence and laws

---

Thread proliferation ... sigh. Some of these questions were being discussed elsewhere.

quote:

---

I appreciate that you probably don't want persons with more traditional values to raise families. I'd assume that you would prefer that persons who are like minded are responsible for bringing the new generation into the world.
If you don't wish the babies and I well that's perfectly okay. I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that receiving positive developmental feedback from you, having well wishes from you, or having you recognize the worth and value of my babies was something that I needed , required, or placed undue value on.
If you feel that someone, including myself, is a bad parent then you have a responsibility to report any abuse to child protection or the police. I would also not interfere with your right to picket my house or pamphlet my neighbourhood if you felt that was in the best interests of any child, including my own.

---

You missed the point totally. I knew you would. And made everything abot yourself and shit I don't care about.

quote:

---

I appreciated that you closed indicating that you wished that I demonstrated an equivalent level of respect to you. I am not sure where in your profanity inclusive post that was critical of my anticipated ability to parent I was supposed to feel respected but it eluded me.

---

I used the word “hell” once; “profanity inclusive” is whiney and juvenile. You weren’t supposed to feel “respected” in your one-dimensional limited world-view of the word. You have disrespected other woman on this board regarding their ability to be parents.

quote:

---

You weren’t supposed to feel “respected” .....You have disrespected other woman on this board regarding their ability to be parents. By “respect” I meant you won’t see me lobby to outlaw fundies like yourself from procreating. I may disapprove of you and your choicesa but that’s as far as it would go. I wouldn’t vote for anyone who would suppress your rights no matter what, you can’t say the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

Thread proliferation ... sigh. Some of these questions were being discussed elsewhere.

We need to have a seminar on thread proliferation soon. It has become most frustrating lately.

---

as i stated in my post, no i do not feel it is right to abort a baby because it has down's syndrome. i clearly stated that. i just wanted to make that point that there is a clear distinction between being mentally retarded, as well as any other problems associated with down's (ex. heart defects), and having a vagina.

in my mind, though neither form of abortion is right, you can't compare a disabled baby to one that is not disabled but happened to born female.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: ShyViolet417 ]

LET THIS BE CLEAR; GIRL RMBRYO - ABORT; MALE - PRESERVE

Some provincial medical plans and many ,ocal hospital boards found this offensive ( not to mwntion just plain evil) and prohibitted disclosure of gender information. The provlem is now arising through those who cross the border gor the ultra-sound unformation; then come back here for the appropriate abortion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
We don't have a federal law or a supreme court ruling on abortion because no one wants or needs one. Is that right?

---

Morgentaler went to the Supreme Court, where the abortion law was struck down in 1988. A new version, requiring the consent of two doctors, rather than a hospital committee, was passed by the Commons but rejected by the Senate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Over the past few years, it came yo light that it was common for families of some cultural groups to seek ultra-sound examinayions solely to determine gender. Depending on the result; they would abort; or not.

LET THIS BE CLEAR; GIRL RMBRYO - ABORT; MALE - PRESERVE

---

I think the practise will be self-limiting- it's not likely to last more than a generation. Cultural groups in which the practise is common will be diluted by intermarriage, as their sons are forced to find wives from other ethnic groups. The next generation will see much less.

It's a deeply disturbing practise, but stopping it would set a deeply disturbing precedent. Since it's self-limiting, it's probably best to let natural selection take care of that particular meme.

[ 11 November 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

A person who believes that; life begins at conception and that a foetus should be entitled to every human right, should understand under the very same premise, they must believe that to take pictures of a foetus in the most private and secure space that it can have in life, the womb, is a violation of said foetus’s human right to privacy, freedom from child pornography and gender exploitation.

Indeed, under pro-life’s human rights claims for a foetus, if they really believed their own human rights and religious mumbo jumbo, ultra sound pictures are child pornography. Because said “pre-born child” is being taken pictures of in a naked state and then put forth for public view, without it’s permission. Indeed under fundamentalist definitions that taking of a picture of a “pre- born child” naked, and sharing it for public consumption would be considered to be “pre-born child” molestation. This mind set is of course best exemplified by the religious fundamentalists definitions and accusations levelled against the PM during the election campaign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
The fetus isn't your body, Hailey. Why would you believe you had a specific right to know its body as though it were your own?

---

quote:

---

Cultural groups in which the practise is common will be diluted by intermarriage, as their sons are forced to find wives from other ethnic groups.

---

Except that that's not happening. They are going back to their home countries to find wives from their own ethnic groups, and bringing them here under immigration laws.

quote:

---

The fetus isn't your body, Hailey. Why would you believe you had a specific right to know its body as though it were your own?

---

Of course it's not. It's the prochoice movement that's always framing it that way. It was sarcastic.

quote:

---

It's a deeply disturbing practise, but stopping it would set a deeply disturbing precedent. Since it's self-limiting, it's probably best to let natural selection take care of that particular meme.

---

If it is a nothing, if it is a sub human expendable, if it is a production of conception, a clump of cells....if it is truly that meaningless then it just shouldn't matter. It should only be deeply disturbing if we are talking about another human life.

quote:

---

they must believe that to take pictures of a foetus in the most private and secure space that it can have in life, the womb, is a violation of said foetus’s human right to privacy, freedom from child pornography and gender exploitation.

---

Getting an ultrasound is a part of getting medical care. To have an ultrasound for the exclusive purpose of knowing the gender would be wrong but there are other more medically based purposes. It's a valuable tool for the physicians treating expectant mother.

Child pornography you say? I'll have to ask the technician whether or not they use the ultrasound pictures for sexual stimulation. I'd suggest the probability is low.

quote:

---

if they really believed their own human rights and religious mumbo jumbo, ultra sound pictures are child pornography. Because said “pre-born child” is being taken pictures of in a naked state and then put forth for public view, without it’s permission. Indeed under fundamentalist definitions that taking of a picture of a “pre- born child” naked, and sharing it for public consumption would be considered to be “pre-born child” molestation.

---

Ultrasound images are taken for medical purposes. That would be no different than a child being partially or fully disrobed for an examination or diagnostic testing. Unfortunately, God failed to provide hospital gowns for the unborn to address the modesty issues of prochoice women such as yourself. Even within prochoice circles I think that concern about the right of the unborn child to be clothed is low.

I am sure that the reason that abortion providers turn the screen away so the mother doesn't see the baby when they haveto do ultrasounds is because they are concerned about the right of the fetus to modesty and privacy. More like they don't want the mother to see fingers and toes!

An ultrasound is a window into the womb. It allows the unborn child's mother and family to see the living reality of their humanity. Parents are thrilled at the opportunity to see their baby. I've also noticed that women who want to be pregnant never say "Look at our fetus honey". They always, always, always refer to it as their baby.

[ 12 November 2004: Message edited by: Hailey ]

quote:

---

Ultrasound images are taken for medical purposes. That would be no different than a child being partially or fully disrobed for an examination or diagnostic testing.

---

However, my analogy was based upon basic human rights, as from a pro-life perspective. The underlying argument or position, which pro-life peoples espouse for being against pro-choice, and apparently now, birth control, is the foetus’ human right to life no matter what. Fully entrenched rights from conception onwards, or indeed as we see from the news that started this thread it is now thought, by others than the Catholic Church, to be from pre-conception.

If pro-lifers are willing to afford a pre-conceived foetus human rights status, enforced by law, before a sex act even occurs to cause conception, then they must also ascribe to a foetus’s every human right. This would of course have to be inclusive to privacy from public or parental scrutiny. After all, have we not heard from the pro-life group that just because technology is available does not mean we have a right to use it, for instance stem cell research and birth control.

Parents want to know the sex of their foetus for a variety of reasons, however, as they cannot ask said foetus, if it wants anyone to know prior to the event horizon of birth, one has to under pro-choice human rights absolute determinants, enforced by law, afford it absolute privacy. If God or a foetus, wanted the process to be watched and its sex disclosed a foetus, would have been born outside of the uterus, would it not? As such, as a Christian pro-lifer, you should be able to see if absolute human rights were followed, that only the professional diagnostic staff would have the right to look into the window of the womb and a foetus’s human right to privacy and health care would be ensured.

Now, I will support the human rights for inter-uterine privacy violations premise that all pro-lifers must have, if they want an un-united ovum and sperm to have human rights., by using your example of an examination and diagnostic testing of a child. My granddaughter has very sensitive skin, which led her to have when she was a baby, many rashes. In fact, she cannot have a bath even today without her skin breaking down or getting a urinary tract infection. As such, she has to attend a Dr to receive treatment, from the time she was a baby to just last month, she has fought with the DR about invading her privacy. And most Drs have respected her sense of being violated and only ask for a clear description of what the breakdown looks like in order to prescribe a treatment. To do other would be breaching her rights to privacy and her perceptions of being violated.

Hailey, what my analogy is saying, if people profess they believe in pre-conception human rights for ovum and sperm, upheld by law, then they must adhere to all the encompassing human rights too, that a born foetus is entitled to. The points about child pornography fall into this realm as well, after all how does a trained professional diagnostic person and the Dr know what the person holding a picture of the foetus is going to do with it, nor do the parents know what the technician/Dr might do?

If human rights, as wanted by pro-lifers, are going to be protected by the state, then the state is duty bound to protect every right, for first the ovum and sperm, then the foetus, and then the child. After all, there are all sorts of sick “strangers” out there who do utilize baby porn, just how far back would they go to look at nude baby pictures is up for debate, but that is not the point I was making.

The point is based upon absolute human rights applications that pro-life peoples want, and the issue of absolute human rights as applied to a foetus, or apparently to some, sperm and ovum. You can see, can you not, there would/will be no shades of grey regarding human rights if ovum, sperm, zygotes, and foetus rights as a born human were granted? Public and parental release of ultrasounds and foetus sex determinants would have to remain undisclosed according to privacy laws granted under human rights.

Heck, pictures of sperm and ovum would be banned and removed from public view if they were given human rights such as a born life force has.

[ 12 November 2004: Message edited by: remind ]

I am creating an analogy of for a visual model of what absolute human rights means if it would be given to a "preconceived" life force, a zygote and a foetus, as some in pro-choice circles want it to.

After all, there cannot be a breach/space where such an empowered life force could/would come under the control of the host parents, if it's human rights were recognized before even conception. As the banning of birth control does this. It strips the rights of the host mother, or potential host mother, and gives it to a life force not yet conceived.

However, I am glad to see you understand the ridiculous nature/premise of those who would ban birth control, because they consider it to be depriving said potential life force of it's "human right" to life. The same thing would apply to giving a zygote the same human rights that are applied after it is developed and born.

quote:

---

Anyone who thinks abortion rights aren't in serious jeopardy should consider the plight of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Specter has been a Republican for 40 years. He's in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. He has voted to confirm every single one of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Despite that record, angry conservatives are determined to block his rise to chairman. Why?

Because Specter supports abortion rights. And because he had the temerity to state the obvious: That Bush would have trouble winning Senate confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee who is notoriously anti-abortion rights. That's a simple mathematical fact.

It takes only 51 of 100 Senate votes to confirm a judicial nominee. But it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and move to a confirmation vote. Come January, there will be 55 Republicans in the Senate. Do the math. That's not enough to derail a determined Democratic filibuster. Specter said he was alluding to that numerical reality when he made the remark that has haunted him all week.

But conservative foes of abortion rights have been emboldened by the perception that they provided Bush's margin of victory Nov. 2. They aren't of a mind to tolerate even the barest hint of resistance to their agenda, which is reversal of Roe v. Wade. That would be a tragedy. It would strip women of the right to control their bodies and turn the clock back to the grisly days of back-alley abortions.

Bush has a choice to make. Option 1: He could opt for polarizing political warfare by nominating anti-abortion absolutists for the top court. He could push for a change in Senate filibuster rules to deprive Democrats of that time-honored tactic and rely on raw political power to beat back all opposition. Option 2: Do what he promised during the campaign - impose no abortion litmus test for judicial candidates, while nominating people who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench. That's the better course.

---

I worried all weekend (I was told just the basics on the phone on a Friday, that the blood test came back with abnormal levels of whatever), and as it turned out, when I saw the doctor, he told me that there was a one-in-150 chance rather than the usual one-in-1500 or whatever for my age group. I worried over a less than one-percent chance.

But that weekend, I'd decided that unless the baby was actually dead or had no chance for viability (e.g. missing half its head, which is one of the conditions they test for), I would have the baby. And, they did an ultrasound and sure enough, the baby was two or three weeks younger than they thought he was.

And btw, at that ultrasound, they told me his sex. I really wanted to know, and they told me. My doctor sent me to a place where he knew they would tell me - likely because he knew I was so thrilled to be pregnant that I wouldn't be doing any sex selection. Or maybe he didn't care whether I was going to. Who knows.

Just so that people don't think I actually advocate practising eugenics. But I agree with RB - I'd rather see a female fetus aborted than to force a family who WOULD abort a fetus simply because it's female to raise a girl.

quote:

---

House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered.

"I am willing to stand on my feet and slow this thing down," Ms. Boxer said. "Everyone wants to go home, I know that, and I know I will not win a popularity contest in the Senate. But they should not be doing this. On a huge spending bill they're writing law, and they're taking away rights from women."

The spending measure, called an omnibus bill, was the main reason Congress returned to Washington after the election, and members of both parties say that despite Ms. Boxer's warnings, it is likely to pass with the abortion language intact.

The alternative is to let government funding for a wide array of agencies - like the F.B.I., the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency - run out, in effect causing a partial government shutdown.

Louise Melling, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has opposed the provision, said it would effectively strip states of their right to "enforce laws that were designed to protect women's health."

For instance, she said, there are four states - Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Washington - that pay for some abortions for low-income women through their Medicaid programs. Under the language included in the omnibus bill, hospitals would not have to comply with those requirements.

---

What Mr. Bush does or does not do has no relavance. If he wants to keep his support he must pander to the likes of Jerry Falwell and his ilk.

Mr. Bush could care less about the good of anyone, he and his minions only want enough control of the county to turn the US into a dictatorship.

Womens's rights is just one of the items on the list. There will be a lot of others.

Anyone who does not look at the obvious agenda of these people is allowing themselves to get bogged down, just what they want to happen. Break everyone up into groups and take over. Women are the largest group and they are obviously first.

The change to loss of freedom has been going on for more than Mr. Bush's presidency. It's just the next step in the program.

How do you separate the issue of reproductive rights from a social safety net?

In reality, for me economic inequality already exists because very simply, I am a women. And I see any attempt at the eroding of a women's reproductive rights as eroding our rights of equality and furthering our economic inequality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Despite the "around the edges" legislation cited, I'd be a lot more worried about the social safety net and programs designed to reduce economic inequality disappearing than reproductive rights. That is the Republicans' real agenda despite all the strum and drang on the left about social issues. But that seems to be another way the right, at least in the U.S., is beating the pants off the left. While too many on the left and in the media are preoccupied with the social issues, the right is dismantling the social safety net and enacting policies which reward the wealthy and punish the poor and, in many instances, the middle class.

---