| Author | Message | ||
     flugermongers Citizen Username: Flugermongers Post Number: 562 Registered: 5-2001  |
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15archive/&entry_id=3376 OH MY GOD. I am about to •••• my pants. "Le Monde quotes Rounds, who said it "is possible" that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe, and who compared "his state's battle" against abortion "to that...of the 1950s [civil-rights struggle] against racial segregation."" So, wait, liberating black people is the same as opressing women? Hm.... solid logic. How come everyone around the world can see that this is (and has been) the right wing in action... their plot from the start... but we're sitting back doing next to nothing? I have been saying for the past 6 years that we're all going to hurt from this admin... make that 7 years, because I was saying it before he was elected. The media isn't for the public anymore... we report pro-life stories instead of pro-choice. Nearly no one I knew heard about it when Bush signed the bill to outlaw partial birth abortion. I have seen little coverage of SD outlawing it... why is no one in the public eye scared shitless like I am? We report on battles for stem cell research, but don't seem to highlight the fact that 6 years of research has gone down the tubes because as soon as in office, it was outlawed. To bring current events in to it... perhaps Will Reeve might have at least A parent right now if people were allowed to do stem-cell research. As a woman from a family with a history of diabetes, and cancer hitting more than close to home... I can tell you I am so incredibly mad, so sad, and so scared. I am so mad. Let's do something people!! Please email me with ideas. Another march? Something new? It's not like this admin listens to us.... let's do somethin! | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4271 Registered: 1-2004  |
Are you saying the below is good or bad? >>>Nearly no one I knew heard about it when Bush signed the bill to outlaw partial birth abortion<<< | ||
| TomD Citizen Username: Tomd Post Number: 371 Registered: 5-2005  |
Six plus years into the gwb administration. Getting upset now is closing the barn door after the cow is long gone. He's already put two justices on the court and Stevens is what, 85, 86 years old. gwb could easily have a third slot to fill. | ||
| flugermongers Citizen Username: Flugermongers Post Number: 563 Registered: 5-2001 |
JTA, I'm saying it is bad. The media/gov't hide things from us. IE it should have been front page news.... TomD, I resent your comment... I've never spoken to you before, and I have posted a lot of stuff before here. Additionally, if you'd bothered to read the whole post, you'd have seen that I stated I've been angry since BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED. I've been one of those people warning people, I said during the running in 1999, that if GWB were elected, he'd want to overturn roe, they'll screw with gun control, etc. In this last election, every was so caught up in the war (don't get me wrong, I marched against it)... I was warning people... uh hello, we have 2 justices about to die or retire, and hey look what happened. Now we have a brand spankin new breed in those seats,.. people who will not interpret the law justly, but who will look at it through GOP colored glasses. I am glad, TomD, that you realize the danger of a third, but I hope you won't look at it as too late, let's do something before women are getting back-alley abortions and more deaths happen because research is stifled. And also, please go to naral.org, where you can read all about the abuse in this country. There are loads of organizations (planned parenthood, naral) to get involved with and learn from... When I was doing research for my senior thesis paper in high school (thesis was something along the lines of 'were roe v. wade overturned, women would continue to receive abortions, to the detriment of their health/lives') the stories that Naral has up of women and their families were tremendously helpful, and tremendously sad. There is some strange notion in this country that pro-choice people think that abortion is fun. Let's go do it every Sunday, then ride the carosel in the park. Wooo hooo! It's not. It's a hard choice, it's a surgery, it's something to cry over. BUT IT IS A CHOICE. Just like it is a choice to keep a pregnancy, or to give a child up for adoption. Naral used to have an area with stories of women like Becky Bell, etc... but I can't locate it... perhaps som,eone else can. Here're some stories: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/womens-stories/ We live in a patriarchal society. Men hold the positions of power, it is run, governed, and owned by men. Usually of the rich and white persuasion. They can not be allowed to control our choice again. Women are historically oppressed, labeled as sinners, evil, crazy, supernatural... and a lot of the world has been led to believe that we are not stable enough to make our own decisions. This figures in to what is going on now. I saw a news report saying that since the Texas law, requiring parental permission (Becky Bell, anyone?)[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsact ivism/fean-050916-becky-bell.xml] was enacted in 2000, abortion has been dropping. They then showed a girl who is a pregnant teenager, and is now having her baby due to the law. It was a roaring endorsement for the law. They had an opposing side on for around 20 seconds, sayign that the rates would be dropping anyway, because single motherhood is not as taboo as it used to be, ----but you know what I'm sure is not in any of those reports? How many kids went out of state? How many kids probably had back alley abortions? How many unwanted kids resulted from it? They pointed out that second trimester abortion among 17 and a half year olds was booming - because these girls would wait until they were 18 and didn't need to parental permission anymore. 2nd tri is much more risky... and there's a whole lot more involv ed. This is so disgusting, all of this, and the average Joe, or Joanne, doesn't know about it because the media is in bed with the gov't, and corporations. ABC = Disney, FOX - murdoch, and so on. I watch the news, of course, but because I can de-code what things mean when people say them... I can get what's going on sometimes. From the above report, I see some new stats from this law... but other people may be going - oh good, lives are saved! In reality, lives will be lost. Many more than we can keep track of. I mean come on ... didn't everyone in America see Dirty Dancing? What I mean is, the GOP, and the media, say things in an almost coded way, so that it can be fed to people. I understood the debates, I saw the horrible things Bush said - but if you aren't involved too much, if you are that average joe, it might just look like two bloated blokes arguing about non-sensical stuff. It's like Splenda, they've rearanged molecules so people who can't have sugar can sweeten stuff. They might be saying something horrific like we're gonna **** over all people with social security - but they feed it to people as "let the young people save" Oy. It's after 2am. I'm exhausted. I feel like we all need to do something, drastic, and NOW. Spread the word! Talk to me, let's brainstorm about what to do. And no TomD, it's not too late. | ||
| flugermongers Citizen Username: Flugermongers Post Number: 564 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh JTA, are you asking if I agree or disagree with Partial Birth? Partial Birth, as far as I know, is only done if it will save the woman's life. It is not like some woman walks into a doc's office after 7 months and says she needs an abortion. It's when the mother will die. I thought you were asking about the Media. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4274 Registered: 1-2004 |
flug- I agree it is bad the public didn't know Bush signed a bill against partial Birth Abortion; but I think it's a good bill. I don't know what the answer is for protecting the life of the mother. There's got to be another way other then PBA though. | ||
| flugermongers Citizen Username: Flugermongers Post Number: 565 Registered: 5-2001 |
i am unsure of whether or not all PBAs are only to save the mother's life, but i believe it is usually that, and if there are severe abnormalities to the fetus (i think that means like when it has no brain matter, and would be stillborn anyway, or die within a few hours out of the womb). i do not agree that it is a good bill. it is telling someone they cannot having a life saving surgery. and i'm all for saving lives. here is a really good link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163 i don't want this to just become a pba only thread, i want to do something about what is going on in the country/world right now... but i would like to hear your opinion.. care to elaborate? i know what you're thinking jta - wow, she got back to me fast today! lol i know that sometimes i'm gone for months. but i'm on someone's computer tonight (this morning) doing a paper due at 9:45. Not related - it's on symbolism in the anti-realist movement in theatre. FUNFUN! | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4125 Registered: 12-2001  |
Flugermongers, If a person truly believes that the fetus is a human being, then banning abortion is as serious an issue as was ending slavery prior to The Civil War. I happen to believe there is much more involved with this abortion issue than just the right to choose. It is about the imposition of Christian beliefs and it is about controlling women as well as it is about the fetus. I also believe that if people honestly answered the question of "What would you do if it was you or your teenage daughter?", then there would be no restrictions on abortion at least in the first trimester. | ||
| flugermongers Citizen Username: Flugermongers Post Number: 566 Registered: 5-2001 |
tjohn, i understood he was saying that he thinks he is saving lives. but as a pro-choice person who sees banning abortion realistically, as killing women, it is laughable that one would compare the oppression and endangerment of women to something like freeing the slaves. i was talking to someone about this tonight, and i told her that Rounds compared it to that of the civil-rights struggle, and her response was "and Rounds was for, or against that?" ha! perfect answer. in order for his logic to prevail, he'd have to mean he was anti-civil-rights. which i think is true of a lot of the bush admin... they want to go back to the '50s. what a wonderful and simple time! when in reality, it was a horrific time. for black people, for jews, for women... my 'killing women' statement above, by the way, is in no way an overstatement. when abortion was illegal, and when it had regulations on it (ie parental permission) many women were dying from back-alley abortions and the like. so my realistic p.o.v. seeing women die, proves that his comparison is an outrageous one, and quite the opposite of saving anyone. also, i dunno, a lot of people still wouldn't be pro-choice if it was their teenage daughter, they'd send em away or something, maybe. though i'm sure it would change some minds, --- it has to be THEM- if it was them. and since they're primarily men, it wouldn't necissarily happen. let's outlaw visectomies and see how they feel about that! ...every li'l sperm is a human being, right?? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3304 Registered: 3-2004 |
100% with you, flugermongers! | ||
| Ken Zeidner Citizen Username: Blackflag Post Number: 51 Registered: 9-2003 |
Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, Roe is by far the worst piece of legal reasoning in the past 50 years. It continues to serve as precedent for questionable decisions. Oh, and BTW, it is a direct decendent of Dred Scott, so in one sense, the fight to rid the country of Roe is akin to a civil rights fight. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 801 Registered: 2-2004 |
Nothing like reading the mad rantings of another left wing lib who just realized their party is in shambles. Thank you flugermonger for the entertainment. You are so wrong on so many fronts that I can understand your feelings. I think you should board up all your windows, disconnect the cable, and cut off all relationships with the outside world. The world is a scary place and the christian Republicans are all to blame. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1446 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner, do you actually believe in anything? Rarely do your posts go beyond rah-rah gloating and recycled political analysis (of the Chris Matthews type). | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1034 Registered: 10-2005 |
I am glad to see that flug is at least slightly concerned about the unborn child....not...another case that it is all about the woman and nothing else... Thank you Ken for hitting the nail right on the head. Those who fully agree with Roe either don't understand the consitutional process or don't give a crap, as long as they get what they want. Women need to understand that there is much more going on in this situation then there "precious" right to choose..." -SLK | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1704 Registered: 7-2004  |
Scrotis: Did you really condescendingly put "precious" right to choose in quotation marks (as best as you could with limited grammatical skills anyway)? Are you kidding? Dude... | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1037 Registered: 10-2005 |
RL, Of course I did! I respect a women's right to choose, I just which some women would admit that there is much more involved then just them... what am I now a mysoginist? get off your moral highground RL... -SLK | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1448 Registered: 5-2001 |
SLK, Women do know that it's about more than them. But they also know that they have the final say. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4126 Registered: 12-2001 |
The relationship of a man versus a woman to abortion is very much like the relationship of the chicken versus the pig to a bacon and eggs breakfast. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. Let women decide this issue. There is something slightly bizarre about a bunch of mostly older white men in suits signing these bills. | ||
| Threeringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 78 Registered: 1-2006 |
In a healthy republic, it shouldn't matter a great deal who sits on the Supreme Court or who appoints them. Unfortunately, our republic is not in the best of health these days, so these battles are going to continue for some time. This writer puts it well: South Dakota’s passage of a law banning all abortions is great news. Whatever you may think about the particulars of this law—and in criminalizing abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, it is certainly extreme—the important thing is that the law has been passed in direct defiance of the miscreant U.S. Supreme Court. For 33 years, our country has suffered under the wholly illegitimate reign of the Roe v. Wade decision, which, in an act of pure judicial law-making, as though the Supreme Court were an elected legislature, constructed a federal abortion law out of thin air and declared unconstitutional all state laws against abortion. An entire generation of conservative activists have wasted their energies trying to pass an anti-abortion amendment to the U.S. Constitution (a terrible idea because it would permanently federalize the very matter that should be returned to the state level where it belongs), or to elect presidents who would nominate judges who would overturn Roe. And all that storm and stress has accomplished nothing, except for the not inconsiderable good of keeping the moral and constitutional monstrosity that is Roe before the eyes of the nation. The essence of Roe is its illegitimate assertion of federal power over state legislatures. Who, then, is better suited to resist that usurpation than the states themselves? This is the way our federal system was meant to operate. When one branch of our government overreaches, as the Supreme Court outrageously did with Roe, the other branches need to push back. So let’s have it out. Source:http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005224.html Cheers | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2535 Registered: 5-2004  |
Actually, as much as this law concerns me, I think it is as necessary for the Left as it is for the Right. Roe had awful rationale. I agree with the end result, but not the reasoning. So this law will either pass muster with the SC or it will not. If it does, then many states including our own will pass laws protecting a woman's right to choose. Unfortunately, it will create limits, even in a relatively liberal state like ours. If it does not, then Roe will be forgotten and a new, hopefully better, legal foundation will be found to strike down anti-abortion laws. | ||
| Ken Zeidner Citizen Username: Blackflag Post Number: 52 Registered: 9-2003 |
Threeringale: Nice post. Although I don't necessarily agree with a State acting in defiance of the Law of the Land, I do agree that Roe must go. Abortion is a purely political decision that is best left to the body politic--that is, the voters. The statement that if Roe goes, women will be back in alleys with coat hangers is disingenuous. There is no evidence that the majority of States would backpedal on abortion. In fact, Roe has continually been narrowed, yet the abortion rate doesn't appear to be falling. Sure, some states would probably significantly restrict, or even eliminate, abortion, but women could always go to a state that has it. That's why the Founding Fathers chose to create a Republic of States, each of which acts as its own experimental laboratory on social and political issues. | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1042 Registered: 10-2005 |
Ken Zeider for the next SC Justice! | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1043 Registered: 10-2005 |
dave23- Women having the final say is part of the problem that need some tweaking... -SLK | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2536 Registered: 5-2004 |
SLK, you don't really mean that, do you? You should be able to force a woman to carry your baby? When men can carry the fetus, I would agree that we should be able to decide if the baby is carried to term. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 892 Registered: 10-2004  |
If men could carry a fetus there wouldnt be any issue. Abortion would be legal, common place and approved. | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1046 Registered: 10-2005 |
Rastro- Of course I do. When does a man's choice come into play. I won't force a woman to carry my baby of she wishes not to, but I should have some say in the matter, especially if she chooses to keep it. -SLK | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 802 Registered: 2-2004 |
Dave, And the post which started this thread says something? I rarely read any posts regardless of length that says anything. Did you read flugers post? It was pointless and meaningless and didn't say a thing other than for a person who believes in the minority philosophy that the sky is falling. Well, let it fall in her/his mind. My sky isn't falling so I really could care less that a liberal Democrat is upset because they have been voted out of power. Boo-hoo. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5150 Registered: 10-1999  |
"When does a man's choice come into play?" Well, when he decides he's going to, y'know, "put the moves on". | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1707 Registered: 7-2004 |
Southerner describing a post as pointless and meaningless. Priceless!!! | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2656 Registered: 12-2001  |
"There is no evidence that the majority of States would backpedal on abortion." That will be a great comfort to women seeking medical help. Just jump on a greyhound, cross your giant midwestern state... "That's why the Founding Fathers chose to create a Republic of States, each of which acts as its own experimental laboratory on social and political issues." That isn't historically true. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1371 Registered: 10-2002  |
SLK - although there's really no equivalent for men to compare for argument's sake, as it’s not possible for you to undergo what a woman does to bear a fetus she doesn’t want for 9 months, how would you feel if the government mandated that all males above the age of 30 get vasectomies? You'd think - WTF? How can the government determine whether I'm going to father a child? How can they force me to do something like that with my body? Not a direct comparison, but the closest I can think of to get you to see how ridiculous that a government official would have the right to determine whether or not I become a mother. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2657 Registered: 12-2001 |
This is interesting: http://www.atcenternetwork.com/?p=64 | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 1094 Registered: 5-2003 |
Ken Zeidner; Abortion is not a political decision. Abortion is a personal and a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Politics have no place in abortion, any more than they have a place in, say, a person's decision to have plastic surgery. All of the rhetoric and saber rattling around the subject of abortion boils down to just one thing: Who is going to control womens' lives and womens' bodies? Those of us who fight for unhampered access to abortion say that women should control their own lives and bodies. Those who favor striking down Roe v. Wade want someone else to contol womens' lives and bodies. The verbiage about saving the lives of the innocent unborn is just that: verbiage. Women enduring unwanted pregnancies and the unwanted children that they are forced to bear are the most vulnerable of our citizens. Who, among all of the opposers of abortion rights, will volunteer to protect them? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5307 Registered: 8-2003 |
Abortion is about life and the taking of that life without due process. When I ask women "if your unwanted pregnancy can be safely removed from your body, put into some environment and allowed to come to fruition without you having anything to do with it legally or financially, would you support that?" and their answer is "no" -- then what is it really about? | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1047 Registered: 10-2005 |
Lizzie- Oh if it was all that easy....pardon me while I reach for my box of kleenex.... -SLK | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 3739 Registered: 7-2001  |
"When I ask women "if your unwanted pregnancy can be safely removed from your body, put into some environment and allowed to come to fruition without you having anything to do with it legally or financially, would you support that?" and their answer is "no" -- then what is it really about?" Finally someone who truly knows how to sweep a lady off her feet. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 1372 Registered: 10-2002 |
cjc - my answer to your question would be that even if your scenario were possible (which it will never be), I should have the choice of whether or not I want to do that. That's the answer. I think to answer "Yes" to your question about whether or not they would support that, would imply that it's someone else's decision to implant their "pregnancy" into someone else's body. | ||
| Ken Zeidner Citizen Username: Blackflag Post Number: 53 Registered: 9-2003 |
Lizziecat: Abortion is absolutely a political decision in the sense that it should be decided by voters. Roe was decided by 9 (count 'em nine) old farts sitting in an ivory tower, out of touch with people's views on the matter. You seem to indicate that those 9 (more like 5) folks have the right to disenfranchise millions of people happen to disagree with unfettered abortion. Why is that better than allowing each state to decide for itself. What are you afraid of? And therein is the problem with so-called liberals: always afraid to let the "people" decide issues for themselves. I guess I have more faith in the public then you do-certainly more faith then I do I the 9 farts in Washington. Besides: you have not pointed to any evidence that women will have a tougher time getting an abortion if Roe is gone. Roe is an abomination of constitutional jurisprudence right up there with Dred Scott. Someone please explain to me what the hell "substantive due process" is, and if it does exist, why does it not stand for the proposition that I can take drugs, have sex with minors, etc. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5308 Registered: 8-2003 |
LilLB -- it shows this isn't about a regard for the life of the mother since her life wouldn't be touched. Sure, there's an emotional toll in killing a life, but a woman would feel better killing it rather than have it live with someone that wanted the child? It's all about sex without consequences for women and power. It treats the child as nothing -- an unviable blob of tissue. They can keep the child and sue the father should they choose, or kill it even if the father wants to keep the child. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1631 Registered: 3-2004 |
Back in the country after a great business trip and holiday, and I see MOL still active. From the poster above: "Roe was decided by 9 (count 'em nine) old farts sitting in an ivory tower, out of touch with people's views on the matter. You seem to indicate that those 9 (more like 5) folks have the right to disenfranchise millions of people happen to disagree with unfettered abortion..." If those millions of people disagree with unfettered abortion, then they don't need to have an abortion. The question doesn't pertain to them. Why should those millions of people have the right to decide about matters in the private lives of some women, if we are a free and democratic society? |
