babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Oh abortion is illegal in South Dakota now, by the way.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Oh abortion is illegal in South Dakota now, by the way.
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 23 February 2006 06:17 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
---
Lawmakers in South Dakota overwhelmingly approved legislation Thursday that would prohibit almost all abortions in the state. House Bill 1215 passed 47-22, after representatives voted against inserting amendments that would exempt women impregnated as the result of rape or incest. The bill, which now goes to the state Senate, makes an exception if the women’s life is in danger.

...

Representative Roger Hunt (R-Brandon), the chief sponsor of the South Dakota bill, said the timing is right for the "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act," in the wake of the new Supreme Court appointments: conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
---

Full story.


And even creepier!

---
Rep. Kraus was asked about the $1 million which has been offered by an anonymous donor to the general fund to help pay for the expected legal battle to defend HB 1215. Kraus said the donation is completely legal, but that she and even Rep. Roger Hunt (R-Brandon), the sponsor of the bill, did not know the identity of the donor. She did say, however, that she understands the offer is legitimate.
---

Full story.


OH AND ALSO:

---
Indiana women seeking an abortion would be told life begins at conception under a proposal that would give the state one of the furthest-reaching abortion consent laws in the country.

...

The Indiana bill also would require abortion providers to tell women that a fetus may be able to feel pain. Such notice is required in Arkansas, Georgia and Minnesota, but those states specify that it applies to fetuses at 20 weeks gestation or later, while Indiana's proposal does not specify a gestation period.

...

Doctors also must offer to show women an ultrasound of the fetus.
---

Full story.

From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 23 February 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
absolutely disgusting.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 February 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Holy fuck. They're hurtling toward 1960. Blacks, vote while you still can! Homosexuals, don't get too comfy — you're next!
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 23 February 2006 07:20 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Predicted for the last few weeks.

I won't post the links on a feminism thread because I don't know if that's kosher to do but on the web looking at many right wing sites their happiness can't be understated.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 23 February 2006 08:23 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It will no doubt be fought to the Supreme Court.

Bad news for women if Roe v.s Wade is overturned. Bad news for the Republicans too, because suddenly it would become a political issue again, and the majority of americans are in favour of choice. That would be in the silver lining category - I'd rather the status quo than see women lose the use of their rights.*

I suspect it might motivate a few more women to get out and vote, too. I hope so.

*I say 'use of rights' because the rights exist regardless of their legal standing. A few podunk wingnuts, no matter how much law is on their side, do not take away basic rights, they just suppress them if they can.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 23 February 2006 08:36 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I don't think Roe v. Wade being overturned is an if, it's a when. This law is intended to do just that.

As for opening it as a political issue, legislators in state after state have already placed huge restrictions on abortion - without an outcry. However if so-cons try to restrict it in blue states it will be a struggle - but with referendums they can do it. They are stronger and more organized, and they care passionately. Just as with marriage, supporters are fewer in number and huge numbers of people are indifferent.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723

posted 23 February 2006 08:55 PM      Profile for MartinArendt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand US law, but how in the name of sweet heaven can a state pass a law that so flagrantly violates a supreme court precendent? How does this happen? In any state?

I don't get it. Could somebody please explain how South Dakota can pass this law?

And...yeah...Bush is going to do everything he can to overturn Roe v. Wade...that bastard.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
solarpower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7609

posted 23 February 2006 09:00 PM      Profile for solarpower   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not that abortions will stop. Back to the good ole days of seedy rooms with a kitchen table for operating on by someone who doesn't have a medical degree. Or better yet, the self inflicted coat hanger.
China and USA, one extreme or another.

From: that which the creator created from | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Evil Twin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11561

posted 23 February 2006 09:01 PM      Profile for The Evil Twin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't understand US law, but how in the name of sweet heaven can a state pass a law that so flagrantly violates a supreme court precendent? How does this happen? In any state?

My guess is that this law was specifically tailored to be challenged in the SC. Once at the court, the dinosaur so-cons who framed this law are obviously hoping for the new VERY RIGHT-WING majority to uphold it...thereby striking down Roe v. Wade. I weep for American Progressives.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Euhemeros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11067

posted 23 February 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for Euhemeros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bad news for the Republicans too, because suddenly it would become a political issue again, and the majority of americans are in favour of choice.

Depends what reason the abortion is for. Most Americans are against abortions due to unwanted pregnancies 56-42%. 69% are aginst partial-birth abortions and 86% are against abortions past 6 months.

http://tinyurl.com/8b5aa


From: Surrey | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 23 February 2006 10:04 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't understand US law, but how in the name of sweet heaven can a state pass a law that so flagrantly violates a supreme court precendent? How does this happen? In any state?
I don't get it. Could somebody please explain how South Dakota can pass this law?


I don't think there is a mechanism in place to prevent the state from passing an unconstitutional law PRIOR to the law being reviewed by the courts. They can pass any law they want, and opponents have to wait for a court challenge to get the law struck down. I would assume the same is true in Canada.

Someone with a better grasp of law can correct me if I'm wrong.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 February 2006 10:35 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Euhemeros:
Depends what reason the abortion is for. Most Americans are against abortions due to unwanted pregnancies 56-42%. 69% are aginst partial-birth abortions and 86% are against abortions past 6 months.

Just the general use of this term -- the fact that it's been adopted even by people who are in favour of abortion rights -- shows how much trouble those rights are in, at least in the US (and potentially, given our new government's predilictions, in Canada).

As I understand it, there's no such thing, medically, as a "partial-birth" abortion. The anti-choice crowd invented the term to conflate several kinds of admittedly distasteful, but also extremely rare, late-term abortions (undertaken only in extreme circumstances).

They judged -- apparently correctly -- that they'd have more credibility were they seen to be defending "complete" birth, rather than merely opposing abortion.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 23 February 2006 10:46 PM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The legislatures can pass any laws that they like but they are subject to review. It's a political battle to begin with and opponents of various measures will argue that it will never pass supreme court muster (like here in Canada with the same sex marriage reversal, although there is the notwithstanding complication that does not exist in the USA).

However, the court has a broad lattitude to declare the statute void from the beginnning (ab initio), and force the government to pay the people's legal costs of fighting the law, in addition to the govenrment's own costs, particularly if it is a flagrant violation made in bad faith.

I'm not sure if the Indiana law runs afoul of USSC jurisprudence to date. Everyone goes on about Roe, but the later Planned Parenthood case really set the law.

It is, of course, a different ball of wax in Canada where there is absolutely no law regulating abortions. The Supreme Court of Canada did not enshrine abortion as a Charter Right, it merely said that any abortion laws must conform with section 7 (liberty and security of the person). Some provinces have tried to regulate abortion as part of "health care" but the Supreme Court shut that down on the basis that abortion has always been a criminal matter beyond the jurisdiction of the provinces.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 February 2006 07:46 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

Just the general use of this term -- the fact that it's been adopted even by people who are in favour of abortion rights -- shows how much trouble those rights are in, at least in the US (and potentially, given our new government's predilictions, in Canada).

As I understand it, there's no such thing, medically, as a "partial-birth" abortion. The anti-choice crowd invented the term to conflate several kinds of admittedly distasteful, but also extremely rare, late-term abortions (undertaken only in extreme circumstances).

They judged -- apparently correctly -- that they'd have more credibility were they seen to be defending "complete" birth, rather than merely opposing abortion.



This has also long been my understanding, and I think that BH, one of our babble house physicians, has confirmed that understanding, at least as far as medical practice in Canada goes.

These rare procedures are done only to save the life of the mother, I believe. In the past, some hospitals (Catholic, eg) were free to refuse to do them and women would be rushed by ambulance to another hospital. I don't know whether that situation is still allowed in Canada.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 24 February 2006 08:43 AM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
Read this article from Harpers: Gambling with Abortion.

Here's a quote:

quote:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban does not prohibit what most people think it prohibits. It is not a late-abortion law. Apart from a single quoted remark in its “findings” section, which is a kind of declaratory preface, the ban contains no mention at all of third-trimester abortion, or of any gestational point in pregnancy. It criminalizes only by method, outlawing some actions during a pregnancy termination but not others, meaning that as practical legislation—isolated from its mission, that is, and considered solely as a directive on what physicians may and may not do in a procedure room—it makes clear ethical sense only to people who don’t spend much time thinking about abortion. Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban in court, as teams of Justice Department lawyers were dispatched this spring and summer to do, requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman’s body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.

This article is originally from November 2004 about the federal law, Bush signed, but it explains exactly how the term 'partial birth' arose, became politicized and has hand-cuffed pro-choice supporters.

I found it really eye-opening. Also the savvines of the the anti-abortion crowd surprised me.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 24 February 2006 08:45 AM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is Roe v. Wade already collapsing?

“This is the only clinic in the state and this is the only day in the week when a woman can get an abortion in South Dakota. Today, they'll be treated by one of four doctors flown in from Minneapolis because it's impossible to recruit locally. Today's doctor is Miriam McCreary, a mother of four and grandmother of nine, who graduated from medical school in 1958. At 70, she still knows "how desperate women are to end their pregnancies."

One clinic, one day, one doctor. This is what it's like in South Dakota right now under Roe v. Wade. It's also like this in North Dakota and Mississippi, and not very different in Arkansas or a dozen other states.”


Article

South Dakota is strange place, driving into Rapid City the signs that greet you say "if you bring drugs to South Dakota, plan on staying". A friend who lives there gets regular phone calls from recruiters looking to enlist her 16 and 17 year old daughters thanks to the "No Child Left Behind Act". Nothing they do surprises me anymore.

Clearly it is all about control and those who are controlled are those who are limited financially. This law will not affect the wealthy.


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 24 February 2006 08:48 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The anti-choice crowd is savvy. The above discussion of the so-called "partial birth" term shows just how savvy they are. Which is why I think we need a strategy to regain control of the public discourse. Right now it seems like we're playing catch up. I'd like for us to develop a strategy to set the agenda. To make the issue about women again.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 24 February 2006 09:37 AM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The way to regain control of the discourse is as it has always been: adopt and advovate a position that resonates with the majority. Neither unfettered abortion as it exists in Canada nor draconian measures that are being brought forth in the USA meet this test.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 February 2006 09:49 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What an odd notion of principle for a citizen of a democracy.

My body is not now and never has been up for approval in a referendum.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 February 2006 09:50 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban in court, as teams of Justice Department lawyers were dispatched this spring and summer to do, requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman’s body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.

I just had a horrible vision. I'm going to personalize it simply for ease of expression. Last year, a good friend of mine lost her baby to Spinal Muscular Atrophy. They didn't know anything was wrong with baby until a few months after her birth. She died a few months later. My friend and her husband were so very devastated.

They've gone through genetic testing and are going to try again. This conception will be highly medicalized, invasive and draining in every way imaginable. Still. the odds of them conceiving another child with SMA is quite high. They may have to have to face the choice of whether to terminate the pregnancy or not. Now, without getting into debates about how early in the pregnancy the genetic defect could be found, when the abortion would be necessary ... all of these things are unknown to me.

What I know is what I would want for my friend. If she has to lose another child I would wish that she and her husband could have the option of holding their baby in their arms at least once. If "pulling out a fetus intact" is deemed illegal that option vanishes. There's no chance to say goodbye.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 24 February 2006 09:51 AM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Neither unfettered abortion as it exists in Canada

Unfettered?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 24 February 2006 10:00 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seriously. Trying telling that to any Canadian woman who doesn't live in a major metropolis.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 24 February 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
double-post

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: kuri ]


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 24 February 2006 05:24 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Backers of the bill say they intend for it to reach well outside the state's borders.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: kuri ]


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 24 February 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
What an odd notion of principle for a citizen of a democracy.

My body is not now and never has been up for approval in a referendum.


Absolutely, Skdadl. This is the central issue - the right of the state to intrude on our inviolable (in a real democracy) bodies. Which is to say, no right whatsoever, except in rare and carefully-specified exceptions such as medical emergencies and so forth. This basic right is now under challenge. It is a large salvo in a war that will destroy most other freedoms and rights we take for granted. At some point, the Left is going to have to become re-energized and come together if we are to avoid catastrophe. Everything is on the table - Liberal - NDP merger, whatever. We have to again, get organized.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Evil Twin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11561

posted 24 February 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for The Evil Twin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Absolutely, Skdadl. This is the central issue - the right of the state to intrude on our inviolable (in a real democracy) bodies.

What I find especially mind-boggling in this debate is that it is the right-wing think-tanks which are constantly harping about "an all-intrusive state" and "individual rights". However, these same right-wingers have no hesitation about intruding on the liberty of women or for that matter gays or POC. It would appear "government off our backs" means "government off the backs of corporations and rich white, straight, males". Fucking hypocrites.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 24 February 2006 10:50 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
"Blaw Blaw"...

No one -- no man, woman, organization or government -- has the right to tell a woman what she is going to do with her own body. No one.

A government might give themselves that power, but they do not have the right to do so. Not morally, no how, no way.

As for this...

quote:
Everything is on the table - Liberal - NDP merger, whatever.


NEVER!

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 25 February 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An update

quote:
If signed, the bill would be the most stringent anti-abortion measure adopted by a state. Several other states are considering similar measures that are designed to force the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

"There is momentum throughout the United States for the Supreme Court to look at this issue," said Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, the bill's author.

Those on both sides of the issue expect it to pass the House easily and then go to Rounds.

"We still have a couple of steps left in this process, but I think we're all encouraged by the fact that the Legislature in South Dakota is willing to stand up to the plate to become involved and make a difficult decision," Hunt said Wednesday.

Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said Thursday that if the bill is signed by Rounds, the organization won't wait until the law takes effect in July to fight it. The group's actions wouldn't be simultaneous with the signing of the bill, Looby said, but they would be started soon after.

"We expect (Rounds) to sign the bill in the relatively near future," Looby said. "There will be a small time lag as we prepare to take this to the court and ask for an injunction to prevent it from ever taking effect in South Dakota."


'Could take years'

The battle against the bill "could take years" to eventually reach the Supreme Court, Looby said, but there are no guarantees the court would take the case. The last similar case on broad abortion restrictions before the Supreme Court was Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.


And...

quote:
Supporters' hopes for the future of the bill hinge on the idea that a changed Supreme Court - with the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito - might be more amenable to reconsidering Roe.

Abortion opponents also speculate that Justice John Paul Stevens could retire within the remaining years of Bush's presidency and that the president could appoint a judge who could swing a decision reversing the law.

"There are now five pro-Roe justices - that is a fact," Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark, told the Senate this week. "But I hold out hope that the court might be receptive to hearing our arguments and upholding this law by the time it makes its way through the judicial process."


And...

quote:
A legal battle over the ban could potentially cost the state millions in legal fees, and Hunt recently testified to the House State Affairs Committee that the governor has received a pledge of $1 million from an anonymous donor.

Rounds said he doesn't know who the donor is and that he's only heard a rumor that such a donor exists.


And...

quote:
On MSNBC, Rounds said that while he thinks "the best way to approach the elimination of abortion is one step at a time," he acknowledges many others feel the best approach to overturning Roe is a "frontal attack."

"I do think that this court will ultimately take apart Roe v. Wade one step at a time," Rounds said.


I wonder who the $1 million donor is. I hope it gets revealed.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 25 February 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
Mike Pulizzi looks like a bit of a band leader..and has military ties to large dollars...I was curious and googled.

How strange that its always men telling us whats good for us..no offense to men of the 21st century.

[ 25 February 2006: Message edited by: eau ]

[ 25 February 2006: Message edited by: eau ]


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 25 February 2006 03:32 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you have a link?
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 25 February 2006 03:36 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
Google Mike Pulizzi abortion..and you will get a number of PDF files. If I remember the company was Pulizzi Engineering..I spent quite a bit of time finding it..but the words are key. I did some cleaning up on my computer this morning..so thats the best I can do for links.
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 25 February 2006 04:32 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
I mentioned this before, but it is time to deconstruct the very discourse that constructs what life is on a formal basis at the moment. That would be liberalism. When you try to give life a fixed moral package where life is defined is it really suprising that the anti-abortion movement exists? They are simply pushing the moralistic dynamic of life to its conclusions. The nonhuman-animal rights people do the same thing.

One thing that is clear to me is that the result of women's bodies being controlled is not nessesarily the modus operendi of the anti-abortion movement due to the fact that women as far as I can see are the engine of the movement. The men may sign the deals and shoot the guns, but they are social reasons for that.

I also remember Hailey, she is someone who had a fairly existential social conservatism that she did not force on people, she drew the line at abortion however. I doubt that someone like her wants to control womens bodies(seeing that she was pretty live and let live), however she does genuinly care about Fetuses and wants to see them have the same rights as others.

The problem is of course rights as well as the general decontextualizing of life from its amoral contingency. When you cut away the moralistic bullshit, the question of a fetus or fly being equal to a post-birth human is all in all abstract.

[ 25 February 2006: Message edited by: Vigilante ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 25 February 2006 04:35 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Live and let live"? That's a very generous interpretation.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 25 February 2006 04:45 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
Of Hailey? She seemed pretty libertarian on social things from what I remember of her.

Not being a reactionary person, I might actually have a drink with her over the issue. What I say might be more shocking(life being amoral with death involved) to her and others like her, however someone eventually has to make this point and ultimately challenge this faulty discourse on life as such.

Of course anthropocentrism plays a roll in this too.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 25 February 2006 05:13 PM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
[QB]"Blaw Blaw"...

No one -- no man, woman, organization or government -- has the right to tell a woman what she is going to do with her own body. No one.

A government might give themselves that power, but they do not have the right to do so. Not morally, no how, no way.
[QB]


So seatbelt laws are immoral? Suicide prevention laws? Controlled substances? Trespass? Bicycle helmets? Or the prison system as a whole? All of these involve the government telling people what they are allowed to do with their body.

And I mention that abortion is "unfettered" in Canada because there are no laws regulating it specifically; that is, other than laws of general application concerning medical treatment.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 25 February 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So seatbelt laws are immoral? Suicide prevention laws? Controlled substances? Trespass? Bicycle helmets? Or the prison system as a whole? All of these involve the government telling people what they are allowed to do with their body.

Immoral no, abstract and should not be, yes.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 25 February 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sickening. Heading back to the bad old days on rollerskates.

I am very concerned about the apathy in Canada on this issue. Very few people with whom I speak in civilian (non-academic) life seem to have the slightest inkling that this is likely about to become an issue here.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 25 February 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry if I rattled you with my NDP-Liberal alliance speculation, Heph, but this is advanced as an example of the kind of new thinking and consensus building we will have to do on the left to survive. I am envisioning here a merger of those on the left of the Liberal party with the NDP which would remain true to the goals and principles of both groupss. I mean, here we are in Canada, a nation where two thirds of the population share left of centre/liberal values, being governed by the 37% or so who voted for neo-con power clowns. The left is very diverse and fragmented, when you think about it - feminists, labour advocates, social justice workers, peace workers, Quebec nationalists, aboriginals, ... this is healthy and progressive most of the time, but in times of crisis and existential threat, which we seem to be entering, an ability to draw together is of paramount importance.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 25 February 2006 09:52 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I mean, here we are in Canada, a nation where two thirds of the population share left of centre/liberal values, being governed by the 37% or so who voted for neo-con power clowns. The left is very diverse and fragmented, when you think about it - feminists, labour advocates, social justice workers, peace workers, Quebec nationalists, aboriginals, ... this is healthy and progressive most of the time, but in times of crisis and existential threat, which we seem to be entering, an ability to draw together is of paramount importance.

1. The Liberals are not, in general, left.

2. Neither Quebec nationalists nor aboriginals are, simply by deign of their disadvantaged positions, left. You will find a diversity of opinion in both communities.

3. A Liberal-NDP merger would like further fragment the left, especially those who hold their nose and support the NDP because, despite its flaw, it's better than the Liberals. I'm quite confident they would leave.


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 25 February 2006 10:07 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've sounded this note before, but I think it bears repeating: for USian gay men who think that abortion couldn't possibly be less 'about us,' think again.

The legal reasoning in Lawrence v. Kansas (the SCOTUS case that struck down sodomy laws in the US) devolves directly from Roe v. Wade. No Roe means the potential for homosexual acts of every sort to be positively criminalized.

More and more, it looks as if my boyf and I will eventually have to leave this country.

[ 25 February 2006: Message edited by: Crippled_Newsie ]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 February 2006 07:44 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't know of that link, CN: hell.

I'm really hanging on to the faith that these things are cyclical and that Americans can and will wake up from the current nightmare.

If not, though, there's always some space here for you guys. All I have to do is finish unpacking all those books ... *mutter mutter*


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Carter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8667

posted 26 February 2006 08:05 AM      Profile for Carter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
So seatbelt laws are immoral? Suicide prevention laws? Controlled substances? Trespass? Bicycle helmets? Or the prison system as a whole?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES.

From: Goin' Down the Road | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 26 February 2006 02:54 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, maybe not trespass, but that involves someone besides yourself.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 01 March 2006 11:39 AM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://tinyurl.com/n2l4u

Den of the Biting Beaver.

we mail coat hangers to the governor's office.

I've got a pile of wire hangers and am hunting for a box as we speak. Everyone should be doing this. Preferably with a letter that says something like "We realize that after you sign the anti-abortion bill, your state health agencies will need vast stockpiles of these to handle the demand. Here is our meager donation."

The address for the governor's office is:
Office of the Governor
500 E. Capitol Ave.
Pierre, SD 57501

If you think this is as awesome an idea as we do, post it on your blogs and messageboards and anywhere else you go. The more, the merrier!

This blog is simply the greatest place to go, when your feeling really venomous!


From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 01 March 2006 07:09 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bush disagrees
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 March 2006 08:54 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How to set up a DIY Clinic when the fundies get their way.

For abortion to ever stop (as opposed to being banned), fundies will have to prevent people from learning to read, as well. The link above links (in turn) to several sites that provide information and how-tos on ending a pregnancy. Not all of them necessarily a good idea of course - much better with a doctor in a clinic - but proof positive that women will and can control their bodies, regardless of what the assholes try to do.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 01 March 2006 10:53 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow. Thanks Arborman. Even though the very concept of dilation and curettage gives me the heebie jeebies I've followed the link and am determined to learn!
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 March 2006 10:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another, perhaps easier way is for women's groups to start mobilizing on a large-scale level and provide funding for travel for any woman who wants an abortion in a state where it's illegal. Kind of like the abortion ship that travels to Ireland, picks women up, goes into International waters, performs the abortion, then drops them off again.

Those fundy creeps can't have our bodies yet.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 01 March 2006 11:19 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
http://mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/2006/02/for-women-of-south-dakota-abortion.html

Is it true that support for abortion is 61% in SD? It shows how pharsical representitive democracy is(along with democracy in general of course)


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 01 March 2006 11:43 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Kind of like the abortion ship that travels to Ireland, picks women up, goes into International waters, performs the abortion, then drops them off again.

I've never heard of this. Tell me more, please.


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 01 March 2006 11:50 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Women On Waves.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 02 March 2006 02:11 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
Bush disagrees

quote:
Asked about the provisions in the state law, Bush replied, "Well, that, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother."

South Dakota's legislature passed the bill last week and Gov. Mike Rounds has said he is inclined to sign it.


Holy shiite! Rounds, and the SD legislature is making Bush look moderate.

Here's an intresting article:

quote:
Abortion foes split on tactics

WASHINGTON – South Dakota has reignited the battle over abortion - and not just the usual one between opposing camps. A long-simmering debate has also heated up within the antiabortion movement.

Here's the question: Is it smarter to try to undo the nationwide legal right to abortion with one sweeping law - a "full-frontal attack" - or via a series of smaller laws that chip away at abortion rights and severely restrict access?

The easy passage last week by the South Dakota legislature of a bill banning nearly all abortions in the state has moved the question to center stage. The bill contains no exceptions for rape or incest; it allows abortion only when it is deemed necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. Backers of the bill across the country are urging the governor to sign it, thus sending it on a legal journey they hope will eventually reach the US Supreme Court.

[snip]

He rejects the argument that the South Dakota legislation could backfire. If the justices don't believe the time is ripe to reconsider Roe, they don't have to accept the case. Lower-court rulings would presumably strike down the ban, and so the South Dakota effort could wind up being symbolic. But as a symbol, Mr. Schenck says, it could be powerful - emboldening other state legislatures. Already, at least six are considering their own abortion bans.

Ultimately, the "chipping away" approach that has been the main strategy of antiabortion forces since the 1980s is likely to remain the movement's major focus.

[snip]

"South Dakota has been just a tremendous wake-up call across the country," says Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. It is a reminder, she adds, of "how important it is who serves in state legislatures and who serves in the governor's office."


link

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 05 March 2006 01:29 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Holy shiite! Rounds, and the SD legislature is making Bush look moderate.

That's the point, isn't it? Move the centre - so that people who claim dominion only over the bodies of naughty women, rather than all women, seem moderate. Move the centre far enough, and Bush's position is the compromise position.

Not that compromise is acceptable in this case - I'm just pointing out the political tactic at work here. We do it on the left with other issues as well.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 05 March 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This makes me wonder if the lobbyists for adoption industry aren't major, behind the scenes, players.

[ 05 March 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 05 March 2006 03:36 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting link. Loretta. I have seen a lot of good come from adoptions so I am hesitant to be negative about it. At the same time, I have noticed that the women I know who are the most active in anti-abortion politics are adoptive mothers: ones who wanted children and were unable to bear them, and were/still are extremely frustrated by the difficulties and expenses they faced in trying to adopt a white infant. They are good women so I hate to point that out, but it's become enough of a pattern in my life that it gives me pause. I thought this was a thought-provoking quote from that link:

quote:
Adoption was created to provide homes for orphans. These by definition are children without parents. Car crashes, war, natural disasters. It was never created to provide children to 'poor infertile couples'. When did the wires get crossed? I guess when someone started making money.

[ 05 March 2006: Message edited by: v michel ]


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 05 March 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of the merits of adoption. My point was to consider other possible motivations behind the push to restrict/prohibit abortions.

My first question is always "in whose interests is this happening", regardless of the story. Many have questioned the motives behind the war in Iraq, for example.

I think that the virtual prohibition of abortion, combined with restricted or unavailable social programs, is a prime scenario for making more babies available for adoption. Pro-birth groups do not hesitate to promote adoption as "the loving option" so even they see it as the alternative to abortion for those who are without the supports needed to raise their own child.

The question needs to be asked -- "Who is served by this? because I think that you'll find a whole other agenda besides the "right to life" one going on.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 05 March 2006 10:27 PM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:

The question needs to be asked -- "Who is served by this? because I think that you'll find a whole other agenda besides the "right to life" one going on.[/QB]


Loretta, I apologize for not paying closer attention to this thread, being diverted by so many other duties and interests.

I would throw out the answer to your question is bottom line "another generation as a tax payer base." Indeed disgusting, I know, but I actually did read something about that recently with the conservation party being front and centre. Alas, I did not save the piece, not thinking I'd need it; to me it was just one more nail in the indictment. And I moved on. I do apologize, if I see it again, I will be sure to post it.

It's hell being uneducated with a social conscience I tell you. Again, if I see it in my travels, I will post it. On the other hand, I get the feeling you know this already.


From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 06 March 2006 02:26 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

That's the point, isn't it? Move the centre - so that people who claim dominion only over the bodies of naughty women, rather than all women, seem moderate. Move the centre far enough, and Bush's position is the compromise position.

Not that compromise is acceptable in this case - I'm just pointing out the political tactic at work here. We do it on the left with other issues as well.


True, its almost like a labour negotiation, demand 21% over three years but end up with 12%. I'm not trying to minimize the issue or anything, but I think you make a really good point.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 07 March 2006 03:00 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MartinArendt:
I don't understand US law, but how in the name of sweet heaven can a state pass a law that so flagrantly violates a supreme court precendent? How does this happen? In any state?

I don't get it. Could somebody please explain how South Dakota can pass this law?


A legislature can pass any law it wants. Whether the law is enforceable, however, is a completely different story.

The application of the law will (with near certainty) be enjoined by a trial judge and will not be enforced unless the Supreme Court (several years from now) overturns Roe v. Wade. If Roe stands, then the law will have zero applicability (it could stay on the books but could never been enforced). If the court reverses Roe, only then may the law become enforceable.

So, the short answer is that a law that flagrantly violates Roe is simply unenforceable unless the court reverses (or significantly undercuts) Roe.

ETA: So, the title to this thread ("abortion is illegal in South Dakota now") is not quite correct.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 March 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interestingly, after all sorts of rhetoric about how a fetus of any degree of development is exactly the same as a living human being, the South Dakota legislature has made abortion a "fifth degree felony."

Other fifth degree felonies include " setting up a second internet gambling site, placin a bug on someone's phone line, or possession of a half pound of marijuana.

http://www.dailykos.com/


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 07 March 2006 03:23 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aah! If this goes through, the number of states willing to criminalize abortion may even be as high as 30.

ETA:

quote:
The 21 states considered at high risk of banning abortion were: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

[ 07 March 2006: Message edited by: Serendipity ]


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 08 March 2006 01:35 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the link, Serendipity.

It was my impression that in the years leading up to Roe, more and more states were passing legislation liberalizing abortion rights. And, given that a solid majority of Americans support at least some degree of abortion rights, I think it's doubtful that we'd see a lot of states outright banning abortion (if Roe is overturned).

I may be wrong but I don't think that there would be a sweeping change in abortion laws throughout the country if Roe is overturned.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 08 March 2006 11:01 AM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I may be wrong but I don't think that there would be a sweeping change in abortion laws throughout the country if Roe is overturned.

Get ready to test that theory.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 08 March 2006 11:08 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For those of you who never check out rabble's front page, this fantastic piece is from Netted News...

Long Arm of Law Reaching Up U.S. Women's Skirts

quote:
When one man puts an uninvited hand up a woman's skirt, it might be considered harassment, molestation, assault, perhaps even rape.

But when one U.S. government puts an uninvited hand up all women's skirts, these days it's considered business as usual.

Whether it's Sam Alito trying to get the nod from the Senate Judiciary Committee, or a candidate vying to win an election to represent a tiny constituency somewhere in this country, the One Big Question, repeated until we're blue in the ovaries, is "What are your views on abortion rights?"

Abortion, abortion, abortion.

Like prospective home buyers during a Sunday open house, it seems everyone's entitled to barge on into women's private parts and take a good, long look around. It's "a womb with a view." However, the view is theirs, not mine. My property, yet their view.

If this were terra firma, I'd be able to call on the Fourth Amendment to legally defend my property rights. But since this is terra "femma" I'm expected to simply lie there, gracious hostess to the last, while all manner of judges, legislators and doctors probe at will. Gracious me, there's so much traffic going on, I'm surprised they haven't put up a stoplight.

Where's the legislation that concerns itself with men's reproductive anatomy? Perhaps I'm being walleyed, but I can't find a thing.

The big issue is, well, "issue." It's about who issues the babies into the world (that would be women), but who controls that process (with the executive, legislative and judicial branches currently dominated by males, that would be men).

...

I took my concern to many female friends, and their reactions boiled down to one word: "control." At this late date, there is still the overarching need for the male to control the female, even if it means laying hands on her most private of possessions.

Why should I be surprised? Women only achieved the right to vote 86 years ago. Before the middle of the 19th century, the property rights of a U.S. woman went to her husband upon her marriage. It wasn't until the years between 1839 and 1895 that this tradition was gradually reversed by a series of Women's Property Acts passed in each state. Yet right of separate ownership of women's most "real" of individual real estate is now under severe scrutiny once again.

We're advancing so far, we're coming full circle. I can't wait to see the results when we attempt to reinvent fire.

When I was young, when both Roe v. Wade and I were in early bloom, there were nights of passionate wrestling with my boyfriend in his VW bug. Sixteen years old and as excited as he was, I knew myself, and knew I wasn't ready. While his hands kept groping me, mine kept slapping them away. When I was finally ready--and when it was entirely my choice--I stopped slapping.

What I'd give to be able to slap those government hands away today.

To the boys who currently dominate Washington, here's a message from one of the girls: It's my choice, not yours. You can legislate and adjudicate till you drop, but you can't control me. Control yourself. Seriously.


"Happy" International Women's Day.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 12 March 2006 03:21 PM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's funny, I remember re-reading A Handmaid's Tale in the nineties and thinking -- naively, as it turns out -- that wasn't it great that the more extreme religious fundamentalism, as embodied by such charmers as Falwell, the Bakers, ad nauseum, had largely dissipated.

Too soon, too optimistic.

One meagre point of consolation is that this South Dakota legislation is so very extreme that it might wake people up a bit on the need for continued activism around women's rights. But it's so damned tiring. How many times does this fight have to be fought? And are there not other feminist issues that we could rally around?


From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 12 March 2006 04:15 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven I am betting that in 5-10 years abortion will be illegal or heavily restricted in half of the USA states.

States that have unrestricted access to abortion i.e. no parental consent, no gestiational limit, etc are going to be less than 10.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
Sven I am betting that in 5-10 years abortion will be illegal or heavily restricted in half of the USA states.

As a threshold matter, this bet is predicated on Roe v. Wade being overturned. If Bush doesn't appoint another nominee before he leaves office in 2009 and if the GOP loses the 2008 election, then its very unlikely that Roe will overturned in the next 5-10 years. At most, there are four votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe (assuming both Roberts and Alito would vote to overturn Roe).

Even if Bush gets another nominee before 2009 or the GOP wins the 2008 presidential election, it will be much more difficult for the President to obtain confirmation for an anti-Roe appointee (because it will involve the presumed swing vote on Roe and that will galvanize the pro-choice voters much more so that the last two confirmations).

But, assuming that Roe is overturned, this will put, as many observers have long noted, the Republicans in a very difficult political position. Most Americans support a right to an abortion to protect a mother's health or in the case of rape or incest. As long as Roe was in place, it was easy for Republican candidates to say they were pro-life and would vote to ban abortion. Why? Because they had no legislative authority to do so (because the decision was made by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds), so it was an empty promise and easy to make (it satisfied the pro-life voters and didn't piss off the pro-choice voters too much because they knew the legislatures couldn't do anything about it anyway). If the Republicans have to actually cast a vote to ban (or restrict) abortions, then they will have to face the majority of voters who favor at least minimum levels of abortion rights.

Although I don't agree with the judicial reasoning in the original 1973 ruling, I do think that because it has represented precedent for over a generation, it should remain the law of the land. And, given the practical difficulties of legislatively banning abortion, I'm not as pessimist as others may be that abortion will be widely banned or restricted if Roe is overturned.

quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
States that have unrestricted access to abortion i.e. no parental consent, no gestiational limit, etc are going to be less than 10.

If by "gestational limits" you are referring to the third trimester bans on abortion (except under limited circumstances), I think the number will be zero.

[ 12 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 05:06 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As an aside, I think it is in the mutual interest of both pro-choice and pro-life forces to work together towards a common goal: Reduce substantially the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I think it's safe to say that essentially all pro-choice voters and a significant percentage (a majority?) of the pro-life voters would agree we need to do what we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (free birth control, accurate and helpful birth control information, etc.). Unwanted pregnancies will never be eliminated (no birth control is 100% effective) but it's an area that there should be substantial agreement between the two groups.

I think that if those kinds of efforts were employed, there are a lot of people who are pro-life who would side with pro-choice legislation with the knowledge that all practical steps have been taken to reduce the number of abortions needed.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 12 March 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I think there are a lot of people who are pro-life who would side with pro-choice legislation with the knowledge that all practical steps have been taken to reduce the number of abortions needed.

With all due respect, Sven, I think you've got your head up your ass. There is a hard core of anti-abortion people (and please don't call them 'pro-life') who wouldn't side with pro-choice people if their souls depended on it. They don't want women to have any autonomy. They don't want more access to birth control. The very words 'planned parenthood' are anathema to them.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
There is a hard core of anti-abortion people (and please don't call them 'pro-life') who wouldn't side with pro-choice people if their souls depended on it.

I agree completely with you. There is a hard core group in the pro-life camp that wants to ban all abortion under all circumstances. And, that group may very well represent the majority of people in that camp. That being said, there are those in that camp that aren't maniacally against abortion rights and common ground can be found to work with them, if we are willing.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 12 March 2006 05:24 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I ran into a few South Dakotans on the weekend. They were having a drink or two at my local watering hole. The one guy to whom I spoke said he was in agreement with the law. "Well, I think you're outnumbered in this part of the world," I said, trying to sound welcoming and cautionary at the same time. He mumbled something forgettable. Then I asked him why he and his friends were in Manitoba.

"Oh, the drinking age is higher here."

Apparently the drinking age in South Dakota is one law that he doesn't agree with. So presumably he would not be able to find fault with someone who broke another law in South Dakota, say the recently passed anti-abortion law, for example, by someone who couldn't afford to drive out of state to do so. The irony or whatever you want to call it was lost on him.

[ 12 March 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 12 March 2006 05:33 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

That being said, there are those in that camp that aren't maniacally against abortion rights and common ground can be found to work with them, if we are willing.

I'm really trying not to be snarky. But, ya know, Sven, we feminists have been working to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, for, like, a real long time now.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 05:37 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
I'm really trying not to be snarky. But, ya know, Sven, we feminists have been working to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, for, like, a real long time now.

Why are you jumping on me about the issue of feminists working to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?

Like I said, “I think it's safe to say that essentially all pro-choice voters...would agree we need to do what we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies”. I said that only “a significant percentage (a majority?) of the pro-life voters would agree we need to do what we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies”.

Maybe I misunderstood your point?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 12 March 2006 05:48 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
My point is that the work that needs to be done to reduce unwanted pregnancies is thwarted everywhere by the anti-abortion crowd. The work includes: sex education, easily available and cheap contraception, morning-after pills, etc. etc. etc.

Of course you're right that pro-choice people would love to see the need for abortion to magically disappear. We'd also love seeing all children wanted, well cared for, educated, etc. etc.

You are simply wrong to think there are enough 'pro-life' people who would be somehow satisfied that taking 'all practical steps' to reduce abortion was sufficient for them to support abortion rights.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 05:55 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
You are simply wrong to think there are enough 'pro-life' people who would be somehow satisfied that taking 'all practical steps' to reduce abortion was sufficient for them to support abortion rights.

Are you essentially saying there is no room for cooperation with any people who do not now support abortion rights?

ETA: I think one of the sad things about politics today is that on any given issue both camps often refuse to look for areas of common interest to work on. Everything is "all or nothing". Now, I'm not suggesting that the pro-choice voters lessen their commitment for abortion rights. What I'm saying is that it may be worth looking for those pro-life voters who would be amenable to changing their position (yes, I'm convinced that many exist) if the pro-choice camp would reach out to them to work together on issues that they do agree on. Otherwise, we're rejecting potential allies.

[ 12 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 12 March 2006 06:01 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's clearly not what she said.
From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 12 March 2006 06:03 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
Sven, you're the one who said that 'pro-life' people would support abortion rights if 'we' worked to reduce unwanted pregnancies. So, do you know of any so-called pro-life groups that are actively working to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Like by supporting contraception, sex-education, morning-after pill?

If there are such groups, then certainly they are worth working with.

But I doubt they exist.

Between anti-abortion and pro-abortion there is and always has been a hard line. And I think it's getting harder, not softer.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 12 March 2006 06:04 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[QB]Everything is "all or nothing". Now, I'm not suggesting that the pro-choice voters lessen their commitment for abortion rights. What I'm saying is that it may be worth looking for those pro-life voters who would be amenable to changing their position (yes, I'm convinced that many exist) if the pro-choice camp would reach out to them to work together on issues that they do agree on. Otherwise, we're rejecting potential allies.

Oh yeah Sven, sooo many potential allies among the anti-abortion crowd.


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 06:09 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
Sven, you're the one who said that 'pro-life' people would support abortion rights if 'we' worked to reduce unwanted pregnancies. So, do you know of any so-called pro-life groups that are actively working to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Like by supporting contraception, sex-education, morning-after pill?

Where did I say anything about pro-life groups or organizations that would be swayed? I did not. I'm talking about voters.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 06:11 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
Oh yeah Sven, sooo many potential allies among the anti-abortion crowd.

You're viewing voters in a binary manner: either they are absolutely for abortion rights or absolutely against abortion rights.

That is simply not reality.

There is a spectrum of views among voters with varying degrees of commitment to their stated positions, in both camps.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 12 March 2006 06:14 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

You're viewing voters in a binary manner: either they are absolutely for abortion rights or absolutely against abortion rights.

That is simply not reality.

There is a spectrum of views among voters with varying degrees of commitment to their stated positions, in both camps.


Hey, Sven, this is the feminist forum. Why don't you back up and consider for a moment that we feminists have talked to more people about abortion rights than you have had hot meals?


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
Hey, Sven, this is the feminist forum. Why don't you back up and consider for a moment that we feminists have talked to more people about abortion rights than you have had hot meals?

Okay. You're right. The current approach to abortion rights is perfect. Nothing can be done differently...or better. And, it's not open to discussion without snarkiness.

Thanks for the open discussion.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 March 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Y'know, Sven, I have been considering intervening here to say that we could leave it to the (many - believe me) liberal politicians like Hilary Clinton to make the arguments you believe would appease "potential allies," the arguments about minimizing incidence of abortion, but then I remember what is implicit in that position, which is a rejection of the principle that some of us feel can never be rejected or compromised: a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

And I also remember what liberal politicians - Hilary Clinton being an excellent example - are willing to do with any principle should their political survival depend on it (support the death penalty, jettison health care ... need I go on), and I think to myself ... gee, life is short.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 06:45 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Y'know, Sven, I have been considering intervening here to say that we could leave it to the (many - believe me) liberal politicians like Hilary Clinton to make the arguments you believe would appease "potential allies," the arguments about minimizing incidence of abortion, but then I remember what is implicit in that position, which is a rejection of the principle that some of us feel can never be rejected or compromised: a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

That's not implicit in what I'm saying. If you look for common ground with others, that is neither appeasing them or compromising on fundamental positions. It's simply working together on those specific areas where there may be agreement. I am not advocating that abortion rights be "watered down" in order to appease the other camp.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 12 March 2006 06:51 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I am not advocating that abortion rights be "watered down" in order to appease the other camp.

Naw, you're just taking a piss (see other thread) on decades of woman-hours.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 12 March 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And while "liberal" politicians love to compromise and compromise, what are the anti-abortioners doing.

A good point was broached up there. If some sizeable segment of these people are, in fact, in favour of curbing the number of unwanted pregnancies, despite their opposition to abortion, then why dont they support prophylactic birth control methods like condoms, the pill, etc.
Surely, if some of them were truly concerned with preventing unwanted preganacies, and not with following a twisted interpretation of some ancient book, they would have no problem backing some sort of real prophylactic alternative. (Abstinence and the Rhythm Method dont count.)
Now you say there is a percentage of the anti-abortion crowd which fits this description, and that this percentage is higher than zero. So where are they? Where is there lobby group?


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fern hill:
Naw, you're just taking a piss (see other thread) on decades of woman-hours.

How is what I'm saying "taking a piss" on decades of work? By finding common ground?

I don't get this. "Common ground" means areas where there is agreement. How can you, in good faith, possibly characterize working on areas where this is agreement as watering down abortion rights?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
And while "liberal" politicians love to compromise and compromise, what are the anti-abortioners doing.

Please point out where I said anything about compromise.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 07:08 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
A good point was broached up there. If some sizeable segment of these people are, in fact, in favour of curbing the number of unwanted pregnancies, despite their opposition to abortion, then why dont they support prophylactic birth control methods like condoms, the pill, etc.

Are you really asserting that everyone who is opposed to abortion is opposed to birth control?

If not, then I don't see how you can not agree that the pro-choice camp might be able to work people who are in the pro-life camp (not pro-life groups but individual pro-life voters) on the issue of preventing unwanted pregnancies.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 12 March 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thing is, Sven, when someone says to me "abortion should be illegal" what I don't get from them is that they are someone who wants to reduce unwanted pregnancies. What I hear is "I have the right to control women's bodies." And that goes for both individual people as well as lobby groups.

The people you perhaps are thinking of are those more broad-minded folks (like some of my relatives) who say "I personally have a moral problem with abortion, but I understand that it's not my decision. It's the woman's." Those people are the potential allies, perhaps, although it's unlikely (and they still make me cringe). But keep in mind that in South Dakotan terms, they would qualify as rabidly pro-choice.

The anti-abortion groups are not interested in promoting birth control. They believe that abstinence is the way to go until marriage. And if you're in conversation with them and if you manage to hold in your ire long enough, what will emerge is that they believe that women's role is really all about child-bearing. The little wife should probably be preggers as continually as possible. By choice or not. And all the concomitant issues arise such as large families, poor health, lack of control over decision-making and finances, reduced freedom regarding divorce, women being restricted to their homes, and the end of what we have gained through feminism.

This law is about dominance and anti-feminism, and you shouldn't be surprised if pro-choice feminists have a strong reaction to the idea that we should be co-operating with people who believe that giving a woman control over her own body is morally wrong.


From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 March 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Are you essentially saying there is no room for cooperation with any people who do not now support abortion rights?

Jesus. If you're going to twist people's words, then stay out of the feminism forum. It hasn't been put on babble so that you can harass pro-choice feminists about finding common ground with the pro-coathanger lobby, or for you to lecture feminists about trying to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through birth control. We already DO THAT, thanks. And we're generally thwarted at every turn by the religious fundamentalist freaks in the pro-life camp.

[ 12 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 12 March 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Are you really asserting that everyone who is opposed to abortion is opposed to birth control?

That's not what I said.
But where are they, if they do exist in any significant number If they have any measurable numbers or influence, (read this very carefully Sven: measurable numbers, significant numbers) then why they don't speak up? Where are they?

If you are incapable of grasping the concept of critical mass, you may as well ask me to take a cow out to pasture and insist that she only subsist off of four-leafed clovers.

"But are you saying that NO clovers on this field have four leaves?"


From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 11:42 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
That's not what I said.

I’m sorry. I took this

quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
Now you say there is a percentage of the anti-abortion crowd which fits this description, and that this percentage is higher than zero. So where are they?

to mean that you assumed there weren’t more than zero.

But, this is more clear:

quote:
Originally posted by Serendipity:
But where are they, if they do exist in any significant number If they have any measurable numbers or influence, (read this very carefully Sven: measurable numbers, significant numbers) then why they don't speak up? Where are they?

I agree that that is a more crucial question. I’m not sure what the answer is and I don’t know if anyone has seriously looked at it (I’ve not found anything on that point Googling). But, it may be worth looking at it.

quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Jesus. If you're going to twist people's words, then stay out of the feminism forum.

This is unfair. I’m not twisting any words, Michelle. Look at the exchange above in this post. I asked a fair question of clarification and, in the latter post, Serendipity clarified it.

And, to suggest an idea supportive of abortion rights is “lecturing”?

I’m on your side on this issue, for Christ’s sake.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 12 March 2006 11:51 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tehanu:
This law is about dominance and anti-feminism, and you shouldn't be surprised if pro-choice feminists have a strong reaction to the idea that we should be co-operating with people who believe that giving a woman control over her own body is morally wrong.

Thank you for those kind words of insight.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 March 2006 12:00 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven, how is it that hawks in the U.S. can mouth off so much about abortion while, at the same time, stand by and say nothing about the U.S.A.'s bottom of the barrel infant mortality in a comparison of developed nations ?. If taxpayer-funded health care is good enough for Republican senators and their families, it should be good enough for ALL American's, don't you think?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 13 March 2006 02:04 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would really like to understand what the real issue is for anti-abortionists/pro-"life"rs. I don't believe that it's simply an anti-feminist reaction. What is it about the unborn foetus that makes them feel so emotional about protecting it? They don't seem to feel the same for the life of the mother. How do they feel about capital punishment? Or the killing of animals?

Is it a "scripture" thing? I honestly don't understand where the fanaticism comes from. Does anybody? At the risk of sounding flaky, it seems almost for some of them to come from a place of deep personal hurt.


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2006 02:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I understand what the real issue is for pro-lifers. I understand it because I've felt the same kind of emotional thing when I was pregnant, and that is this:

I found out I was pregnant when I was two weeks along. (We were trying, so tested right away as soon as I was "late".) And from that moment, to me it was a baby. It left me feeling very conflicted about my pro-choice stand. The reason being that I found it nearly impossible to say, "Well, it's a baby when you want it, but it's not a baby when you don't want it."

The fact is, pro-lifers feel that that little tiny thing that looks like an amoeba-sized salad shrimp is a baby in a very early stage of development. They feel that it is a human being, and they feel that abortion means murdering it. The logic is really quite simple. They don't agree that sentience is what makes it human. And they probably also don't agree about which stage sentience comes at.

The basic disagreement is that for pro-choice people, the fetus is not a separate individual human being with rights. For pro-lifers, it is. And so we can say all we want to a pro-lifer that "if you don't like abortion, don't have one," but that makes no more sense to a pro-lifer than saying, "If you don't like killing, don't kill someone." It just doesn't address the point of disagreement.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 13 March 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
What is it about the unborn foetus that makes them feel so emotional about protecting it?

I don't think there is one reason, jas.

No doubt some honestly believe in the sanctity of human life, while some are motivated purely by religious doctrine, souls that they will never be able to "save," and all that. Others may see themselves as culture warriors, while still others have opportunistic political motivations.

I have to admit that I am deeply torn over abortion. While I believe in a woman's right to determine her own destiny, I also am deeply troubled by abortion, I'm sure thanks in no small part to the fact that I was adopted: there is always that nagging thought in the back of my mind that I could just as easily have been aborted.

As a result I never discuss the topic. Until this moment anyway.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 13 March 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For those who are anti-choice for reasons of ideology rather than material gain, I think that there is some truth in what you've just asked, jas. Scripture passages are used to support this positon but I think that it's more likely to be about the concept of the innocent being destroyed by the sinners. The doctrine is based on the idea that all have sinned but, of course, the younger one is, the more innocent one is.

On a scale, the mother is far less innocent than the fetus and then there are our "enemies" and the "criminals" who are at the other end of the innocence scale. It's all about the mythology/ideology that one embraces. Look at the material that comes out of the anti-choice movement -- I think you'll find the word innocent there frequently.

Having said that, perhaps this more personal, visceral response comes out of the sense of loss of their own innocence. That recognition is part of the maturation process but it seems as though some of these folks are stuck there. (I'm not talking about those who wouldn't choose abortion for themselves here but rather those who work and lobby against others having the choice to make decisions that are right for them in their lives.)

That might also partially explain why many of those same people aren't big on working toward helping young mothers living in poverty gain reasonable access to the necessities of life. They have sinned and thus assisting them would endorse their sinful ways. Rather those young women should be forced in any number of ways, to surrender their child for adoption to a more worthy (and innocent) person to raise. That'll teach her! (This was essentially the sentiment in the teaching material for social workers over many years.)

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 13 March 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:
jas. Scripture passages are used to support this positon but I think that it's more likely to be about the concept of the innocent being destroyed by the sinners. The doctrine is based on the idea that all have sinned but, of course, the younger one is, the more innocent one is.

That may well hold for the anti-abortion people who think. It seems to me, though, that it's just as common that the issue is one of ideology and control, with the Scripture bits tacked on afterwards to dress it up.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 13 March 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree and don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 13 March 2006 03:01 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Helpful responses, thanks.
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2006 03:10 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1. The concept of the innocence of the child and the value of innocence over guilty adults. It's an extension of the belief that children deserve more protection than adults. Why do they deserve that protection? They're defenceless, and they haven't committed any wrong. Now extend this to the womb.

2. The fear of nonexistence: "what if I had been aborted???"


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 13 March 2006 03:13 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FWIW, I'm pro-choice and I accept that it is a baby, ie., a human being at an early stage of development - I just don't happen to think that settles the issue, or provides enough of a basis to interfere with a woman's decision not to carry to term.
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8926

posted 13 March 2006 03:33 PM      Profile for Fed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
originally posted by Sven:
I think there are a lot of people who are pro-life who would side with pro-choice legislation with the knowledge that all practical steps have been taken to reduce the number of abortions needed.

to which fern hill replied:

quote:
With all due respect, Sven, I think you've got your head up your ass. There is a hard core of anti-abortion people (and please don't call them 'pro-life') who wouldn't side with pro-choice people if their souls depended on it. They don't want women to have any autonomy. They don't want more access to birth control. The very words 'planned parenthood' are anathema to them.

Speaking as a pro-life person with some degree of activism (i.e. I've done the letter-writing thing and participate in the March for Life every May) , the one and only thing that motivates the pro-life movement is respect for human life from conception to natural death. We are against euthanasia as much as we are against abortion. Violence and killing are not solutions to anyone's problems.

Saying we "don't want women to have any autonomy" is silly.

Most pro-life people ARE women!

Tehanu wrote:

quote:
The thing is, Sven, when someone says to me "abortion should be illegal" what I don't get from them is that they are someone who wants to reduce unwanted pregnancies. What I hear is "I have the right to control women's bodies." And that goes for both individual people as well as lobby groups. ...

The anti-abortion groups are not interested in promoting birth control. They believe that abstinence is the way to go until marriage. And if you're in conversation with them and if you manage to hold in your ire long enough, what will emerge is that they believe that women's role is really all about child-bearing. The little wife should probably be preggers as continually as possible. By choice or not. And all the concomitant issues arise such as large families, poor health, lack of control over decision-making and finances, reduced freedom regarding divorce, women being restricted to their homes, and the end of what we have gained through feminism.

This law is about dominance and anti-feminism, and you shouldn't be surprised if pro-choice feminists have a strong reaction to the idea that we should be co-operating with people who believe that giving a woman control over her own body is morally wrong.


Pro-life people do tend to like babies. Babies are cute little people, after all. And, yes, most pro-life people do tend to see child-rearing as a very important task. Would anyone seriously disagree with that?!!!

jas asked:

quote:
I would really like to understand what the real issue is for anti-abortionists/pro-"life"rs. I don't believe that it's simply an anti-feminist reaction. What is it about the unborn foetus that makes them feel so emotional about protecting it? They don't seem to feel the same for the life of the mother. How do they feel about capital punishment? Or the killing of animals?

Is it a "scripture" thing? I honestly don't understand where the fanaticism comes from. Does anybody? At the risk of sounding flaky, it seems almost for some of them to come from a place of deep personal hurt.


What makes us pro-lifers feel about the unborn foetus is that this is a very young person. The unborn child is as much a person as a newborn or a toddler. Young children and babies before they are born are particularly helpless and vulnerable. They are innocent of any wrongdoing, yet they are being sentanced to death by abortion.

Some pro-life people have a tendancy to be rude or condecending towards the mother---granted. It mostly comes from exasperation at not understanding how someone could come to the conclusion that killing a baby was a solution to a problem.

Nevertheless, many women do feel that abortion is the only way out. And we pro-lifers have to be more compassionate about the reasons that bring women to that conclusion. For them, the pregnancy is not the joy it ought to be, but a serious problem.

Maybe they are young and the baby's father has abandoned them? Or their parents are hassling them to "get rid of the problem?" Or they are in school and they don't want to quit lest they be trapped in a cycle of low-paying jobs for the rest of their lives? Or they already have 3, 4, 5 other mouths to feed and the prospect of dealing with yet another is daunting?

I recently read a survey by the Guttmacher Institute (research arm of Planned Parenthood) that said school and finances are the biggest reasons women seek abortions.

This suggests to me that schools (high schools, colleges, and universities) ought to be much more flexible with their courses, terms, and child-care availabilities.

It suggests to me that there is something seriously wrong with the social safety net that people are so poor that they have to contemplate killing the youngest child to be able to put food on the table for the rest.

It suggests that the social structure has broken down that friends and families cannot help each other out like they really ought to.

But I don't see abortion as being a solution---it is part of the problem. After all, if abortion is available, why worry about child care for single mothers going to school? She should have aborted it! If abortion exists then why do you have 3, 4, 5 children already? You should have aborted them! etc. etc. The easy availability of violence and killing can never bring about care and compassion!

Of course there should be better social safety nets. They are always the first programs to be trimmed back, yet they are in some cases the only thing people have to count on for support.

I am very much in favour of streamlining the adoption system. My two nephews were adopted from the Childrens Aid Society---a process that took over a year for the youngest, and the CAS knew before he was born that he would be adopted-out. And private adoption though a lawyer is likewise unnecessarily complicated.

With respect to the other items jas mentioned, you'll find most pro-life people are against capital punishment for the same reason we are against abortion: Society doesn't give life---society doesn't have the right to take it away. Catholics are the backbone of the pro-life movement, and the Catholic Church is very uncomfortable with capital punishment. The official Catechism of the Catholic Church lists it as a possible last resort for the State to defend itself---but then goes right on to say that the circumstances in which it could be applied are almost non-existant. cf. Article 2267:

quote:
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'

The pro-life movement is not monolithic.

Many do come to it as the outgrowth of a religious point of view.

Others don't.

Many lean to conservative political perspectives because of conviction.

Others lean that way only because left/progressives can be utterly rejecting of the pro-life position.

Others do not lean to conservative political perspectives at all---that's where I come from.

For what it's worth, I am a member of this outfit: Action Life
http://www.actionlife.org/

This guy, a strong pro-lifer and anti-war fellow, has political vews most similar to my own:
"Traditional Catholic Reflections & Reports"
http://www.tcrnews2.com/

Archbishop Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House - run by a cyber-friend of mine. Pro-life, pro-poor. I have donated to this CW house, which has as its ministry providing food security to the poor:
http://www.justpeace.org/

A very anti-neocon fellow, pro-life: John Médaille of Dallas Texas:
http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm

Caelum et Terra - environmentalist, Catholic, pro-life magazine from the 80s, back issues, ongoing discussion, very interesting group:
http://www.caelumetterra.com/

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Fed ]

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Fed ]

Because I can't get those darned quotes to nest properly!

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Fed ]


From: http://babblestrike.lbprojects.com/ | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 March 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I don't see abortion as being a solution---it is part of the problem. After all, if abortion is available, why worry about child care for single mothers going to school? She should have aborted it! If abortion exists then why do you have 3, 4, 5 children already? You should have aborted them! etc. etc. The easy availability of violence and killing can never bring about care and compassion!

But what do you do about women who have the means, but have just decided that they simply don't want children?

Are you going to say, "give birth, sucka!"?

We've already decided as a society that at a certain point, the foetus has enough of the characteristics of a person to give the state some standing in its care, in limited situations. But it still seems rather obtusely cruel to me to declare that someone who doesn't want it---even for "frivolous" reasons---might be forced into pregnancy from the very beginning.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 13 March 2006 04:01 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am very much in favour of streamlining the adoption system. My two nephews were adopted from the Childrens Aid Society---a process that took over a year for the youngest, and the CAS knew before he was born that he would be adopted-out. And private adoption though a lawyer is likewise unnecessarily complicated.

For what it's worth, I'm a member of this organization, the Canadian Council of Natural Mothers. Losing our children to adoption has been a horror story for most of us and for a number of our children. Have a good look at this site -- you'll see that adoption is not the panacea to abortion that many, like you, claim.

It is cruel to demand that a woman without resources to carry a child to term in order to hand that child over to someone else. There are very few protections for young women in this position as there are very few social programs (not just structures) to assist. Some of the complications that those checking into adoption experience are a result of the limited protections that unsupported pregnant women do have.

Why should women who lose children to adoption be expected to grieve their child forever?

I'm sure that your nephews are being raised in loving homes (not all adopted children are any more than all children are, period) however, don't you wonder about the grief and loss experienced by those who gave birth to them? Adoption as the answer to untimely and unsupported pregnancies always evokes the image of Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale" for me. Those of us who are or have been pregnant without resources are not breeders for those who are more well off.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 13 March 2006 04:23 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fed:

I recently read a survey by the Guttmacher Institute (research arm of Planned Parenthood) that said school and finances are the biggest reasons women seek abortions.

This suggests to me that schools (high schools, colleges, and universities) ought to be much more flexible with their courses, terms, and child-care availabilities.

It suggests to me that there is something seriously wrong with the social safety net that people are so poor that they have to contemplate killing the youngest child to be able to put food on the table for the rest.



You know what? You're right on this one so the questions is why are you not devoting your time and energy towards making those kinds of changes happen?

This suggests to me that if anti-choice activists were really pro-life then they would focus the bulk of their efforts towards improving the social safety net so women could safely choose to give birth and have more children. However these people do no such thing. Instead they prefer to focus their efforts towards restricting access to abortion in order to force women to give birth, thus rightfully earning the anti-choice label.

First go out make society friendly towards children and their mothers. Then, once the social safety net is fully in place, once women don't have to worry about being able to properly feed their children, once women are no longer held back in their education or careers because they are mothers, once quality childcare is freely availbale to all, then and only then can you come back and wax poetic about babies being cute little people and how women who choose to exercise reproductive control over their bodies are guilty of killing little people.

However as long as the so-called "pro-life" crowd isn't out there marching in the streets in order to effect changes that make society friendly to mothers (actually to all parents) and their children then you have no business gracing us with your pithy moralizing.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: cogito ergo sum ]


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8926

posted 13 March 2006 05:02 PM      Profile for Fed        Edit/Delete Post
Mandos wrote:

quote:
But what do you do about women who have the means, but have just decided that they simply don't want children?

Are you going to say, "give birth, sucka!"?


From that Guttmacher study there are not too many women who abort for, like, no particular reason at all.

Nevertheless, I do favour the streamlining of the adoption system---the baby might not be wanted by her, but it is wanted by someone.


From: http://babblestrike.lbprojects.com/ | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8926

posted 13 March 2006 05:19 PM      Profile for Fed        Edit/Delete Post
Loretta wrote:

quote:
For what it's worth, I'm a member of this organization, the Canadian Council of Natural Mothers. Losing our children to adoption has been a horror story for most of us and for a number of our children. Have a good look at this site -- you'll see that adoption is not the panacea to abortion that many, like you, claim.

It is cruel to demand that a woman without resources to carry a child to term in order to hand that child over to someone else. There are very few protections for young women in this position as there are very few social programs (not just structures) to assist. Some of the complications that those checking into adoption experience are a result of the limited protections that unsupported pregnant women do have.

Why should women who lose children to adoption be expected to grieve their child forever?

I'm sure that your nephews are being raised in loving homes (not all adopted children are any more than all children are, period) however, don't you wonder about the grief and loss experienced by those who gave birth to them? Adoption as the answer to untimely and unsupported pregnancies always evokes the image of Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale" for me. Those of us who are or have been pregnant without resources are not breeders for those who are more well off.


One friend of mine, Will, was adopted at the age of 4 when his father became too ill to work and his mother thought she would not be able to look after him on her own. Will still remembers his original set of parents, as well as the waiting in the orphanage before he was adopted. (This was in the 1940s). It was very hard on him, and although he intellectually understands his original parents rationale for giving him away, he says he cannot help but have a feeling at the core of his being that somehow he was "rejected."

I have no doubt it was an extraordinarily hard decision for Will's first set of parents to give him up, especially at the age of 4 when he was talking and was quite bonded to them and vice-versa. I am sure his original parents have second thoughts and various regrets to this day (assuming they are still alive at this point).

Mothers who have given up their children for adoption most certainly have the right to grieve their loss: it is cruel to suggest otherwise!

But judging from the experiences of women who have had abortions, their grief and loss is just as real. Their child who is no more.

At least with adoption you have the hope that the child is alright---and by far most of them are.
Adoption is not a system that "demands" that women without resources hand over their children----it is an option available to them that allows the child to live.

I have never read "A Handmaid's Tale" not being into reading fiction. But if it puts down mothers who give up their children for adoption then it is not a book I even *want* to read.


From: http://babblestrike.lbprojects.com/ | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8926

posted 13 March 2006 05:25 PM      Profile for Fed        Edit/Delete Post
cogito ergo sum wrote:
quote:

You know what? You're right on this one so the questions is why are you not devoting your time and energy towards making those kinds of changes happen?

I am.

quote:

This suggests to me that if anti-choice activists were really pro-life then they would focus the bulk of their efforts towards improving the social safety net so women could safely choose to give birth and have more children. However these people do no such thing. Instead they prefer to focus their efforts towards restricting access to abortion in order to force women to give birth, thus rightfully earning the anti-choice label.

"These people" do focus a tremendous amount of energy on improving the social safety net. You haven't been looking very hard.


quote:
First go out make society friendly towards children and their mothers. Then, once the social safety net is fully in place, once women don't have to worry about being able to properly feed their children, once women are no longer held back in their education or careers because they are mothers, once quality childcare is freely availbale to all, then and only then can you come back and wax poetic about babies being cute little people and how women who choose to exercise reproductive control over their bodies are guilty of killing little people.

By "waxing poetic about babies being cute little people" I am trying to make society friendly towards mothers and babies. There is no need to wait to do that.

quote:
However as long as the so-called "pro-life" crowd isn't out there marching in the streets in order to effect changes that make society friendly to mothers (actually to all parents) and their children then you have no business gracing us with your pithy moralizing.

Why not?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Fed ]


From: http://babblestrike.lbprojects.com/ | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 05:31 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fed, do you simply refuse to believe that some women do not want to have children?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8926

posted 13 March 2006 05:34 PM      Profile for Fed        Edit/Delete Post
I refuse to believe that women make decisions about abortion frivolously.
From: http://babblestrike.lbprojects.com/ | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I beg your pardon?

That is not an answer to the question I asked.

Not wanting to have children is not at all a "frivolous" situation for any woman to find herself in, believe me.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
asthma_hound
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11192

posted 13 March 2006 05:42 PM      Profile for asthma_hound     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But judging from the experiences of women who have had abortions, their grief and loss is just as real.

I didn't experience any grief or loss after my abortion, just an overwhelming sense of relief; yes, of course, I wonder "what if" sometimes - but I never have any doubt whatsoever that the decision I made at the time was the correct one. IMO, the underlying assumption by the anti-choice that all (or most) women deeply regret their abortions pisses me off to be honest (as does the "frivolous" term - to have had a child at that time would have had disastrous implications for my life, and frankly MY life is more important).

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: asthma_hound ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 13 March 2006 05:54 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hear, hear. Believe it or not, it is possible for a woman to have an abortion and not be scarred for life. I keep seeing abortion painted as the worst experience a woman can have (right here on babble, by obviously committed feminists) and it pisses me off no end. I don't doubt that it is traumatic for some women but it sure isn't for everyone.
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8926

posted 13 March 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for Fed        Edit/Delete Post
skadl wrote

quote:
Not wanting to have children is not at all a "frivolous" situation for any woman to find herself in, believe me.

Exactly.

To say breezily that "oh well, we need abortion because some women just don't want to have children" as some pro-choicers do, makes it sound like the decision to abort is frivolous.

That was what I took from Mandos's comment:

quote:
But what do you do about women who have the means, but have just decided that they simply don't want children? Are you going to say, "give birth, sucka!"?

Having responsibility for someone else can be quite a burden. Most people are willing to take that on---most people do have children, after all---but not everyone does, and that's fair enough. The violence of abortion is not a solution. Abortion trivializes pregnancy, trivializes having children. "Just get rid of it."

Get rid of your child---kill it and forget it???!!

I had a read of the website Loretta linked. Birth mothers who grieve over the loss of their children to adoption. They call for, amongst other things, more information to be available about how their children are doing after adoption. This is a fair and reasonable thing, in my opinion.

If adoptive mothers can grieve the loss of their children, certainly mother who have aborted their children are in no less of a position?

Cogito Ergo Sum was complaining that the pro-life crowd does nothing

quote:
...towards improving the social safety net so women could safely choose to give birth and have more children. However these people do no such thing. Instead they prefer to focus their efforts towards restricting access to abortion in order to force women to give birth, thus rightfully earning the anti-choice label.

Is that not, rather, the pro-"choice" problem?

Pushing abortion as the solution to the problem avoids the heavy lifting of reforming the social safety net and reforming the adoption system. Why bother, when you can just abort and "get rid of it?"

Once I see Morgentaler out lobbying for a better social safety net for single parents instead of lobbying for less restrictions on the lucrative abortion bu$ine$$ then I'll believe the pro-"choice" crowd is really in favour of choices other than violence and killing.

Because that is how it looks to the pro-life people.


From: http://babblestrike.lbprojects.com/ | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 13 March 2006 05:57 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was a relief for me, too, asthma hound. An unwanted pregnancy really is an experience of panic. The main image I had in my mind at the time was similar to the Alien movies with Sigourny Weaver. It really felt like a parasitic invasion. And yet, now that I'm in a different space in my life, I know I'd feel radically different if I were to become pregnant. It really is an intensely individual experience, which is why any law restricting reproductive choice is harmful and immoral.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 05:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Even more than our bodies, our psyches are our own.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 13 March 2006 06:00 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fed:

With respect to the other items jas mentioned, you'll find most pro-life people are against capital punishment for the same reason we are against abortion: Society doesn't give life---society doesn't have the right to take it away.

While that may be true for some, my perspective is that it isn't at all true for most. Most (not all, but most) would fall into same category as G.W. Bush -- protect them until they're born, but ever ready to string 'em up high after that.

---

Fed: read "A Handmaid's Tale". It's a frightening perspective on American society taken over by the religious right.

---

Generally speaking, I'd fully agree that it's vital do work at fixing the problems in society that might cause many women to choose to abort when they really wouldn't prefer that option. It's wrong for anyone faced with that decision to feel that they don't have a choice. But it isn't up to anybody else to block a woman's access to that choice.

If you don't personally support abortion, that's fine in your personal life. If you don't understand why someone would make that decision, that's fine too. But the appropriate response isn't to make abortion illegal, or to condemn women who make that choice. The appropriate response isn't working to make it more difficult to choose to abort, it is working to make it easier to choose to have a child.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 13 March 2006 06:02 PM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is getting kind of long. Can we continue it over here?
From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 06:06 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fed wrote:

quote:
To say breezily that "oh well, we need abortion because some women just don't want to have children" as some pro-choicers do, makes it sound like the decision to abort is frivolous.

Garbage.

Fed, you really can't face the truth, can you.

Some women Do Not Want To Have Children.

It is none of your bleeding business why. They just don't, for any number of reasons. It might be because they really don't like children. Has that possibility occurred to you? And you still think that women like that should be turned into baby factories for sentimentalist tyrants like you?

Why do you think you have the right to fiddle about inside other people's brains? Much less their bodies?

You simply do not.

It is undoubtedly true that many women have abortions because they are being clear-sighted about the horrific economic futures that they and their children would face.

It is also true that no woman should be forced to have an abortion for any reason at all, and certainly not because she is poor or would be poor otherwise.

But it is further true that no woman should ever be forced to have a child that she does not want, for whatever reason. And some women are never going to want to have children.

All those things are true, all at the same time.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 06:08 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, Tehanu: we cross-posted. Good idea.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
het heru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11011

posted 13 March 2006 07:05 PM      Profile for het heru     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(posted in the new thread instead)

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: het heru ]


From: Where Sekhmet sleeps | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 13 March 2006 07:10 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just a reminder that this discussion has now moved to this thread.

Hopefully someone will close this one soon...


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca