are you gonna watch the you know what tonight?

[MrBlingtastic]

I saw a rather entertaining debate drinking game on FB. Drink if Obama says, Let me be clear. Drink if Romney says, 12 million jobs. Drink if Obama says, Millionaires/billionaires. Drink if Romney says, Small business owners. If either goes over their allotted time, chug until the moderator stops them. Finish your drink if the 47%/doing fine gaffes are brought up. Etc.

One day of the year that I'm pleased to be in Oz, though I'd like to watch here, within an American political vacuum. People here can discuss the same topics without becoming nearly homicidal, which is always nice.

+1

I love this ... Our Dem and Rep congressional reps used to socialize, play golf, have dinners together, etc.; not too sure if this is happening now. But then again, that was in the era of unfettered US prosperity.

On the abortion issue, my only thought is that if a pregnant woman contemplating abortion could be assured medical care for herself and the potential child, how many would choose to have an abortion. No one supports abortion - it's a choice made under the most dire of circumstances which could not be fully understood unless one has experienced it. How about a special Republican-funded medical fund for expectant mothers contemplating abortion, or even govermment funded ... - sounds a lot better than the vitriol above.

America's founding principal is tolerance of those who are different than you. If you are not of this mindset, you are in the wrong country. You do not need to look too far to see what happens when people become too isolated or too intolerant of others.

On Romney, I wish he would invent some original campaign slogans - "Real Change" is what I saw this morning ... please! Obama used the "Change" tag line - I thought Romeny respected intellectual property. Also, I am pleased he that now realizes that publicly he should say the President is supposed to represent all of the country, not just those who voted for him, although he was following well-established Republican doctrine - Reagan said the same thing. Of greatest concern is that it took him several weeks to realize this.

The foreign policy debate: Truly priceless is the "we have fewer ships than we had in 1918"! Yes, he actually said this - huge concerns:

1. Mitt thinks he spotted an issue that has been overlooked by all presidents, generals, military planners etc since 1918. Well done Mitt, we still managed to win WWII on two fronts despite the reduced ship count .... I assume we are supposed to look forward to the increase in ship numbers - please! The shipyards are gearing up no doubt - Buy stock in ship builders now if you are Republican - show your support!

2. Romney must be that out of touch and so are his advisers (please recall WMD); or he assumes the American public is so stupid that they would actually believe something like this. My biggest fear is the former. We know politicians lie - it's part of the job description, although it is a bit sad to see the Dems being dragged into the negative bottom feeding behaviour. Kerry refused, and suffered.

I wish us luck, because even if Obama wins (as he should - BTW, he followed a Republican initiated plan, a classic Keynesian approach to prevent another depression), the changes to move the US in the right direction is at least a 10 year plan... If you thought 8 years of Bush were so good, well you may have the chance to relive those years ...

 

[Dancing Fire]

Mr.Bling...you have been watching too much MSNBC...

 

[beebrisk]

I saw a rather entertaining debate drinking game on FB. Drink if Obama says, Let me be clear. Drink if Romney says, 12 million jobs. Drink if Obama says, Millionaires/billionaires. Drink if Romney says, Small business owners. If either goes over their allotted time, chug until the moderator stops them. Finish your drink if the 47%/doing fine gaffes are brought up. Etc.

One day of the year that I'm pleased to be in Oz, though I'd like to watch here, within an American political vacuum. People here can discuss the same topics without becoming nearly homicidal, which is always nice.

+1

I love this ... Our Dem and Rep congressional reps used to socialize, play golf, have dinners together, etc.; not too sure if this is happening now. But then again, that was in the era of unfettered US prosperity.

Unfettered? Are you suggesting prosperity should be restrained??

On the abortion issue, my only thought is that if a pregnant woman contemplating abortion could be assured medical care for herself and the potential child, how many would choose to have an abortion. No one supports abortion - it's a choice made under the most dire of circumstances which could not be fully understood unless one has experienced it. How about a special Republican-funded medical fund for expectant mothers contemplating abortion, or even govermment funded ... - sounds a lot better than the vitriol above.

It never has been and is not now the responsibility of the Federal Government to insure pregnant women can afford their children. It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of said children because their parents can't or don't want to. THAT has never been one of our 'founding principals'. You can't claim you want your 'reproductive rights' and at the same time demand the state pay for all of them--no matter what your decision is about your own body. With "rights" come responsibility!


Who says it's always under the most dire circumstances? You think people don't choose to abort for convenience sake --"doesn't fit into my life right now", "concentrating on my career", etc. These "circumstances" are not matters of life and death. However, abortion is ONLY a matter of death.

America's founding principal is tolerance of those who are different than you. If you are not of this mindset, you are in the wrong country. You do not need to look too far to see what happens when people become too isolated or too intolerant of others.

Bingo! Go ahead and check this thread for the "tolerance" level of those that don't agree with my opinion and that of a few others around here. See who was told they were detached from reality and a consumer of "mush" instead of real news. See who inferred that if you think Obama is a lier that you're simply one of the "mostly stupid Americans".


On Romney, I wish he would invent some original campaign slogans - "Real Change" is what I saw this morning ... please! Obama used the "Change" tag line - I thought Romeny respected intellectual property. Also, I am pleased he that now realizes that publicly he should say the President is supposed to represent all of the country, not just those who voted for him, although he was following well-established Republican doctrine - Reagan said the same thing. Of greatest concern is that it took him several weeks to realize this.

Um..."REAL change" is a deliberate retort to Obama's "change" mantra...Not an effort to echo him. I'm fairly certain most people get the context of the message.


The foreign policy debate: Truly priceless is the "we have fewer ships than we had in 1918"! Yes, he actually said this - huge concerns:

1. Mitt thinks he spotted an issue that has been overlooked by all presidents, generals, military planners etc since 1918. Well done Mitt, we still managed to win WWII on two fronts despite the reduced ship count .... I assume we are supposed to look forward to the increase in ship numbers - please! The shipyards are gearing up no doubt - Buy stock in ship builders now if you are Republican - show your support!

I do and I shall. My fiance is employed by one of those ship builders. He's there with the blessing of the Admiral who would likely differ with your assertion that we have all we need.


2. Romney must be that out of touch and so are his advisers (please recall WMD); or he assumes the American public is so stupid that they would actually believe something like this. My biggest fear is the former. We know politicians lie - it's part of the job description, although it is a bit sad to see the Dems being dragged into the negative bottom feeding behaviour. Kerry refused, and suffered.

If anyone thinks we're "stupid" it's the POTUS who told us that 4 men died as the result of a You Tube video. Doesn't get lower or more despicable than that. And then there was the one about televising the healthcare debate, closing Gitmo, cutting the deficit in half, lowering the U/E rate to 5%, not raising taxes on the middle class, "evolving" in his opinion on same sex marriage, etc.. I could go on.....


I wish us luck, because even if Obama wins (as he should - BTW, he followed a Republican initiated plan, a classic Keynesian approach to prevent another depression), the changes to move the US in the right direction is at least a 10 year plan... If you thought 8 years of Bush were so good, well you may have the chance to relive those years ...

Actually 6 years of Bush were very good. Then the Dems took the House and Senate. The rest as they say, is history.

 

[jstarfireb]

"Abortions are very common. In fact, 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."

There doesn't seem to be a problem with access to me!

Taken from the front page of the Planned Parenthood webpage.

Lori

Currently, that's true, at least for well-off women who live near major cities. But read Aoife's post about the assaults on Roe v. Wade, which will continue and intensify with a Republican President and conservative Supreme Court. Anyone who believes choice is not in jeopardy is fooling themselves.

Not everyone wants to be pregnant and/or carry a fetus to term. No birth control is 100% infalliable. Some pregnancies threaten the life of the mother. Some fetuses have genetic defects that would make the baby's life short and terribly painful once born. Sometimes it's a matter of being unable to support a(nother) child financially. Sometimes, it's just simply that a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth, and she shouldn't be forced to. There are many reasons why a woman might seek an abortion, and I disagree that providing a fund for medical care during pregnancy would eliminate the need for abortion.

As for abortion as "rape," that's an insult to anyone who has ever been raped. It's about CONSENT. Now sometimes a transvaginal ultrasound is required in order to see that the pregnancy is in the uterus if it can't be seen on a regular ultrasound. There are some legitimate reasons to have that kind of ultrasound - it's not rape by definition. However, to force it on EVERYONE seeking abortion when not medically necessary IS state-sanctioned rape, and it's abhorrent. (ETA: To clarify, I'm responding to this: "I find it frightening that a person can simultaneously believe a required TV ultrasound is "rape", while the "right" to have a vacuum inserted vaginally for the sole purpose of snuffing out the life of a baby (sometimes up to 6 mos in utero) is considered a sacrement.")

 

[beebrisk]

"Abortions are very common. In fact, 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."

There doesn't seem to be a problem with access to me!

Taken from the front page of the Planned Parenthood webpage.

Lori

Currently, that's true, at least for well-off women who live near major cities. But read Aoife's post about the assaults on Roe v. Wade, which will continue and intensify with a Republican President and conservative Supreme Court. Anyone who believes choice is not in jeopardy is fooling themselves.

Not everyone wants to be pregnant and/or carry a fetus to term. No birth control is 100% infalliable. Some pregnancies threaten the life of the mother. Some fetuses have genetic defects that would make the baby's life short and terribly painful once born. Sometimes it's a matter of being unable to support a(nother) child financially. Sometimes, it's just simply that a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth, and she shouldn't be forced to. There are many reasons why a woman might seek an abortion, and I disagree that providing a fund for medical care during pregnancy would eliminate the need for abortion.

As for abortion as "rape," that's an insult to anyone who has ever been raped. It's about CONSENT. Now sometimes a transvaginal ultrasound is required in order to see that the pregnancy is in the uterus if it can't be seen on a regular ultrasound. There are some legitimate reasons to have that kind of ultrasound - it's not rape by definition. However, to force it on EVERYONE seeking abortion when not medically necessary IS state-sanctioned rape, and it's abhorrent. (ETA: To clarify, I'm responding to this: "I find it frightening that a person can simultaneously believe a required TV ultrasound is "rape", while the "right" to have a vacuum inserted vaginally for the sole purpose of snuffing out the life of a baby (sometimes up to 6 mos in utero) is considered a sacrement.")

No one said that "abortion is rape"...at least as far as I've read here. I don't know any pro life people who would ever call it that. They call it what it is and don't mince words: abortion.

That said, did I read you right?
Calling abortion a rape is an insult to rape victims. Yet, calling a required ultrasound IS rape and not an insult to rape victims??

If that's what you meant it's the perfect example of the circular reasoning and prevarication pro choicers must necessarily use in order to to deny to themselves the fact that a fetus is really no more than a 'clump of cells'.

An ultrasound would mean having to deal with reality, wouldn't it? It would make the pregnancy personal and it just might "connect" a woman to her baby.

THAT'S really the issue here, I believe. It's really about women wanting to be able to live with themselves--guilt free. Indeed, the best way to do that is to ignore the reality of the situation and pretend there's nothing really there. Please tell me why the idea of a woman seeing the fetus she is about to abort is a bad thing? Seriously, why is that bad?? Is it abhorrent because the pregnant woman might actually change her mind? Or because she might realize the gravity of what she's about to do? This is the ONLY reason to argue against required U/S.

Yes, it is mildly "invasive". I've had a few. The procedure is fast, absolutely painless, 100% safe and has zero physical after effects; something that absolutely cannot be said of even the safest, cleanest abortion!!

It's not the U/S procedure itself that so infuriates abortion supporters, it's the RESULT of the procedure that sticks in their craw. And that's because it would mean every woman would have to face reality and actually see with her own eyes, what she is about to do to her body and that of her unborn baby. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are MUCH happier keeping vulnerable, pregnant women in the dark and living in a bubble of denial.

Who's waging the war on women??

 

[loriken214]

I know a few women who have had abortions and they did it ONLY FOR UNWANTED PREGNANCIES....an easy way to get rid of the situation. They were healthy and the fetus was normal. It was simple birth control. I just couldn't wrap my head around it for myself.

Every woman is entitled to her own opinion. I just wish I had been able to become pregnant in the first place....I didn't have a choice one way or the other. My rheumotologist feels that I've miscarried at some point in my life, but I have no idea when it might have happened. So, have I HAD AN ABORTION? If so, it wasn't my intention and it was my body's way of dealing with the issue.

I'm stating my own opinion and am not here to bash everyone else.

Lori

 

[beebrisk]

I know a few women who have had abortions and they did it ONLY FOR UNWANTED PREGNANCIES....an easy way to get rid of the situation. They were healthy and the fetus was normal. It was simple birth control. I just couldn't wrap my head around it for myself.

Every woman is entitled to her own opinion. I just wish I had been able to become pregnant in the first place....I didn't have a choice one way or the other. My rheumotologist feels that I've miscarried at some point in my life, but I have no idea when it might have happened. So, have I HAD AN ABORTION? If so, it wasn't my intention and it was my body's way of dealing with the issue.

I'm stating my own opinion and am not here to bash everyone else.

Lori

Of course not. And I am very sorry that you've had to deal with infertility

 

[Laila619]

THAT'S really the issue here, I believe. It's really about women wanting to be able to live with themselves--guilt free. Indeed, the best way to do that is to ignore the reality of the situation and pretend there's nothing really there. Please tell me why the idea of a woman seeing the fetus she is about to abort is a bad thing? Seriously, why is that bad?? Is it abhorrent because the pregnant woman might actually change her mind? Or because she might realize the gravity of what she's about to do? This is the ONLY reason to argue against required U/S.

Yes, it is mildly "invasive". I've had a few. The procedure is fast, absolutely painless, 100% safe and has zero physical after effects; something that absolutely cannot be said of even the safest, cleanest abortion!!

It's not the U/S procedure itself that so infuriates abortion supporters, it's the RESULT of the procedure that sticks in their craw. And that's because it would mean every woman would have to face reality and actually see with her own eyes, what she is about to do to her body and that of her unborn baby.

Yes, these are all good questions. I too would like to know why the idea of a woman seeing her unborn fetus on an ultrasound before she makes a life-changing decision is a bad thing? If it even saves one fetus, isn't that a good thing?

Also, I think it's insulting to real rape victims to call an ultrasound "rape." It's a medical procedure, just like an X-ray or a pap smear.

 

[zoebartlett]

To change the topic, do you think the hurricane will have an impact on the election?

 

[beebrisk]

To change the topic, do you think the hurricane will have an impact on the election?

I'm in a blue state as are most people affected by this. I'm thinking probably not.

 

[zoebartlett]

So am I Beebrisk, and I don't think the hurricane will affect the election, but I thought I'd put the question out there anyway. Someone may have a different opinion and I'd love to read it.

 

[jstarfireb]

No one said that "abortion is rape"...at least as far as I've read here. I don't know any pro life people who would ever call it that. They call it what it is and don't mince words: abortion.

It was your words that I was responding to; the implication that we can call an unnecessary and unconsented ultrasound rape but don't consider an abortion rape.

That said, did I read you right?
Calling abortion a rape is an insult to rape victims. Yet, calling a required ultrasound IS rape and not an insult to rape victims??

If that's what you meant it's the perfect example of the circular reasoning and prevarication pro choicers must necessarily use in order to to deny to themselves the fact that a fetus is really no more than a 'clump of cells'.

That is exactly what I meant because it's about *CONSENT*. According to medical ethics, performing a procedure on a non-consenting patient is by definition battery. It follows that performing a procedure involving vaginal penetration on a competent patient that does not consent is a special type of battery called rape.

An ultrasound would mean having to deal with reality, wouldn't it? It would make the pregnancy personal and it just might "connect" a woman to her baby.

THAT'S really the issue here, I believe. It's really about women wanting to be able to live with themselves--guilt free. Indeed, the best way to do that is to ignore the reality of the situation and pretend there's nothing really there. Please tell me why the idea of a woman seeing the fetus she is about to abort is a bad thing? Seriously, why is that bad?? Is it abhorrent because the pregnant woman might actually change her mind? Or because she might realize the gravity of what she's about to do? This is the ONLY reason to argue against required U/S.

Yes, it is mildly "invasive". I've had a few. The procedure is fast, absolutely painless, 100% safe and has zero physical after effects; something that absolutely cannot be said of even the safest, cleanest abortion!!

So have I. It's mildly uncomfortable but not painful. It's not the ultrasound itself that's invasive, it's that the procedure is done to all women regardless of consent, as I stated above.

It's not the U/S procedure itself that so infuriates abortion supporters, it's the RESULT of the procedure that sticks in their craw. And that's because it would mean every woman would have to face reality and actually see with her own eyes, what she is about to do to her body and that of her unborn baby. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are MUCH happier keeping vulnerable, pregnant women in the dark and living in a bubble of denial.

It's not at all about denial or reality. Most women considering abortion have already struggled with the decision internally and may be in a fragile state. They don't need to be forced to see pictures and hear descriptions of their fetus and its developmental stage. It's a coercive and traumatizing attempt to change their minds into continuing the pregnancy. I actually believe it won't change most women's mind, but it will make them angry. If a woman wants to have an ultrasound and see a picture and description of the pregnancy (and no, it's not a "baby;" at the stage when abortion is being considered, it's a fetus or a pregnancy), she can ask her doctor for that. If SHE believes it would help her decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, that's her choice. The problem is that it's forced upon her by a state with an agenda to guilt women into changing their minds about a procedure they may already feel guilty about but feel is necessary.

Who's waging the war on women??

People who are forcing their own religious, moral, or ethical beliefs on everyone else who don't share the same beliefs, that's who.

 

[beebrisk]

No one said that "abortion is rape"...at least as far as I've read here. I don't know any pro life people who would ever call it that. They call it what it is and don't mince words: abortion.

It was your words that I was responding to; the implication that we can call an unnecessary and unconsented ultrasound rape but don't consider an abortion rape.

That said, did I read you right?
Calling abortion a rape is an insult to rape victims. Yet, calling a required ultrasound IS rape and not an insult to rape victims??

If that's what you meant it's the perfect example of the circular reasoning and prevarication pro choicers must necessarily use in order to to deny to themselves the fact that a fetus is really no more than a 'clump of cells'.

That is exactly what I meant because it's about *CONSENT*. According to medical ethics, performing a procedure on a non-consenting patient is by definition battery. It follows that performing a procedure involving vaginal penetration on a competent patient that does not consent is a special type of battery called rape.

An ultrasound would mean having to deal with reality, wouldn't it? It would make the pregnancy personal and it just might "connect" a woman to her baby.

THAT'S really the issue here, I believe. It's really about women wanting to be able to live with themselves--guilt free. Indeed, the best way to do that is to ignore the reality of the situation and pretend there's nothing really there. Please tell me why the idea of a woman seeing the fetus she is about to abort is a bad thing? Seriously, why is that bad?? Is it abhorrent because the pregnant woman might actually change her mind? Or because she might realize the gravity of what she's about to do? This is the ONLY reason to argue against required U/S.

Yes, it is mildly "invasive". I've had a few. The procedure is fast, absolutely painless, 100% safe and has zero physical after effects; something that absolutely cannot be said of even the safest, cleanest abortion!!

So have I. It's mildly uncomfortable but not painful. It's not the ultrasound itself that's invasive, it's that the procedure is done to all women regardless of consent, as I stated above.

It's not the U/S procedure itself that so infuriates abortion supporters, it's the RESULT of the procedure that sticks in their craw. And that's because it would mean every woman would have to face reality and actually see with her own eyes, what she is about to do to her body and that of her unborn baby. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are MUCH happier keeping vulnerable, pregnant women in the dark and living in a bubble of denial.

It's not at all about denial or reality. Most women considering abortion have already struggled with the decision internally and may be in a fragile state. They don't need to be forced to see pictures and hear descriptions of their fetus and its developmental stage. It's a coercive and traumatizing attempt to change their minds into continuing the pregnancy. I actually believe it won't change most women's mind, but it will make them angry. If a woman wants to have an ultrasound and see a picture and description of the pregnancy (and no, it's not a "baby;" at the stage when abortion is being considered, it's a fetus or a pregnancy), she can ask her doctor for that. If SHE believes it would help her decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, that's her choice. The problem is that it's forced upon her by a state with an agenda to guilt women into changing their minds about a procedure they may already feel guilty about but feel is necessary.

Who's waging the war on women??

People who are forcing their own religious, moral, or ethical beliefs on everyone else who don't share the same beliefs, that's who.

Apparently you only read the last line of my post. I made a completely secular argument against abortion.

 

[jstarfireb]

I know a few women who have had abortions and they did it ONLY FOR UNWANTED PREGNANCIES....an easy way to get rid of the situation. They were healthy and the fetus was normal. It was simple birth control. I just couldn't wrap my head around it for myself.

Every woman is entitled to her own opinion. I just wish I had been able to become pregnant in the first place....I didn't have a choice one way or the other. My rheumotologist feels that I've miscarried at some point in my life, but I have no idea when it might have happened. So, have I HAD AN ABORTION? If so, it wasn't my intention and it was my body's way of dealing with the issue.

I'm stating my own opinion and am not here to bash everyone else.

Lori

Lori, I'm sorry to hear about your struggles with infertility. As a pro-choice person, I think everyone should be able to choose whether and when to have children, but with infertility the choice is taken away from you. I sympathize with you and at the same time can't imagine the pain you've been through.

Zoe, as for the hurricane, I truly don't know what effect it will have. If things are relatively cleaned up by election day and people who have evacuated return home, it theoretically shouldn't affect voting at all. I agree that mostly blue states were affected and will remain blue.

 

[jstarfireb]

No one said that "abortion is rape"...at least as far as I've read here. I don't know any pro life people who would ever call it that. They call it what it is and don't mince words: abortion.

It was your words that I was responding to; the implication that we can call an unnecessary and unconsented ultrasound rape but don't consider an abortion rape.

That said, did I read you right?
Calling abortion a rape is an insult to rape victims. Yet, calling a required ultrasound IS rape and not an insult to rape victims??

If that's what you meant it's the perfect example of the circular reasoning and prevarication pro choicers must necessarily use in order to to deny to themselves the fact that a fetus is really no more than a 'clump of cells'.

That is exactly what I meant because it's about *CONSENT*. According to medical ethics, performing a procedure on a non-consenting patient is by definition battery. It follows that performing a procedure involving vaginal penetration on a competent patient that does not consent is a special type of battery called rape.

An ultrasound would mean having to deal with reality, wouldn't it? It would make the pregnancy personal and it just might "connect" a woman to her baby.

THAT'S really the issue here, I believe. It's really about women wanting to be able to live with themselves--guilt free. Indeed, the best way to do that is to ignore the reality of the situation and pretend there's nothing really there. Please tell me why the idea of a woman seeing the fetus she is about to abort is a bad thing? Seriously, why is that bad?? Is it abhorrent because the pregnant woman might actually change her mind? Or because she might realize the gravity of what she's about to do? This is the ONLY reason to argue against required U/S.

Yes, it is mildly "invasive". I've had a few. The procedure is fast, absolutely painless, 100% safe and has zero physical after effects; something that absolutely cannot be said of even the safest, cleanest abortion!!

So have I. It's mildly uncomfortable but not painful. It's not the ultrasound itself that's invasive, it's that the procedure is done to all women regardless of consent, as I stated above.

It's not the U/S procedure itself that so infuriates abortion supporters, it's the RESULT of the procedure that sticks in their craw. And that's because it would mean every woman would have to face reality and actually see with her own eyes, what she is about to do to her body and that of her unborn baby. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are MUCH happier keeping vulnerable, pregnant women in the dark and living in a bubble of denial.

It's not at all about denial or reality. Most women considering abortion have already struggled with the decision internally and may be in a fragile state. They don't need to be forced to see pictures and hear descriptions of their fetus and its developmental stage. It's a coercive and traumatizing attempt to change their minds into continuing the pregnancy. I actually believe it won't change most women's mind, but it will make them angry. If a woman wants to have an ultrasound and see a picture and description of the pregnancy (and no, it's not a "baby;" at the stage when abortion is being considered, it's a fetus or a pregnancy), she can ask her doctor for that. If SHE believes it would help her decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, that's her choice. The problem is that it's forced upon her by a state with an agenda to guilt women into changing their minds about a procedure they may already feel guilty about but feel is necessary.

Who's waging the war on women??

People who are forcing their own religious, moral, or ethical beliefs on everyone else who don't share the same beliefs, that's who.

Apparently you only read the last line of my post. I made a completely secular argument against abortion.

I did read it and responded nearly line by line in the body of the quote. The last thing wasn't directed at you but was a comment on the religious right who are mostly behind the attacks on Roe v. Wade. I agree that your argument was not religiously based.

 

[Maria D]

It's not at all about denial or reality. Most women considering abortion have already struggled with the decision internally and may be in a fragile state. They don't need to be forced to see pictures and hear descriptions of their fetus and its developmental stage. It's a coercive and traumatizing attempt to change their minds into continuing the pregnancy. I actually believe it won't change most women's mind, but it will make them angry. If a woman wants to have an ultrasound and see a picture and description of the pregnancy (and no, it's not a "baby;" at the stage when abortion is being considered, it's a fetus or a pregnancy), she can ask her doctor for that. If SHE believes it would help her decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, that's her choice. The problem is that it's forced upon her by a state with an agenda to guilt women into changing their minds about a procedure they may already feel guilty about but feel is necessary.

Well said jstarfireb. Not only is the procedure completely unnecessary and possibly traumatizing, it drives up insurance costs (something the 'conservatives' are so worried about when it comes to medical insurance covering prescription meds; ironic, eh?), and causes unnecessary delay and costly inconvenience to women who can least afford it. And for what exactly? So the patronizing state can show women "reality?" Wow. I guess it doesn't occur to these so-called conservatives (and I say so-called because a TRUE conservative would be against this incredible level of government interference) that women know their own reality better than anyone else. The reality of whether or not they want/can support a child or pregnancy. The reality of whether or not they consider an embryo to be a life form that has rights of its own.

What other medically unnecessary procedures do the pseudo-conservatives want mandated in order that all citizens are subjected to their "embryo-rights-above-all" nonsense? Should couples seeking in-vitro fertilization be forced to watch films of discarded embryos or, better yet, visit a batch languishing in a freezer?

Of course not -- because it's perfectly acceptable to "waste" embryos if your ultimate goal is to procreate, but not OK if you're trying NOT to have a baby. Yeah, that makes sense. I think I started all this by calling the backlash nutty -- everything written here in support of this law in Texas has validated my opinion on that.

 

[beebrisk]

No one said that "abortion is rape"...at least as far as I've read here. I don't know any pro life people who would ever call it that. They call it what it is and don't mince words: abortion.

It was your words that I was responding to; the implication that we can call an unnecessary and unconsented ultrasound rape but don't consider an abortion rape.

That said, did I read you right?
Calling abortion a rape is an insult to rape victims. Yet, calling a required ultrasound IS rape and not an insult to rape victims??

If that's what you meant it's the perfect example of the circular reasoning and prevarication pro choicers must necessarily use in order to to deny to themselves the fact that a fetus is really no more than a 'clump of cells'.

That is exactly what I meant because it's about *CONSENT*. According to medical ethics, performing a procedure on a non-consenting patient is by definition battery. It follows that performing a procedure involving vaginal penetration on a competent patient that does not consent is a special type of battery called rape.

Rape is a violent act. An ultrasound is a medical procedure no matter how anyone twists it's meaning.


An ultrasound would mean having to deal with reality, wouldn't it? It would make the pregnancy personal and it just might "connect" a woman to her baby.

THAT'S really the issue here, I believe. It's really about women wanting to be able to live with themselves--guilt free. Indeed, the best way to do that is to ignore the reality of the situation and pretend there's nothing really there. Please tell me why the idea of a woman seeing the fetus she is about to abort is a bad thing? Seriously, why is that bad?? Is it abhorrent because the pregnant woman might actually change her mind? Or because she might realize the gravity of what she's about to do? This is the ONLY reason to argue against required U/S.

Yes, it is mildly "invasive". I've had a few. The procedure is fast, absolutely painless, 100% safe and has zero physical after effects; something that absolutely cannot be said of even the safest, cleanest abortion!!

So have I. It's mildly uncomfortable but not painful. It's not the ultrasound itself that's invasive, it's that the procedure is done to all women regardless of consent, as I stated above.

So if the U/S itself is not "invasive" (?) then the argument that it's "rape" is even more disingenuous.


It's not the U/S procedure itself that so infuriates abortion supporters, it's the RESULT of the procedure that sticks in their craw. And that's because it would mean every woman would have to face reality and actually see with her own eyes, what she is about to do to her body and that of her unborn baby. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are MUCH happier keeping vulnerable, pregnant women in the dark and living in a bubble of denial.

It's not at all about denial or reality. Most women considering abortion have already struggled with the decision internally and may be in a fragile state. They don't need to be forced to see pictures and hear descriptions of their fetus and its developmental stage. It's a coercive and traumatizing attempt to change their minds into continuing the pregnancy.

That would be a terrible thing? AND, if it's not a "baby" and merely a clump of cells or a pregnancy, then why on earth would it be so traumatizing? [/b]

I actually believe it won't change most women's mind, but it will make them angry.

And very possibly it will make them happy and they might decide to give birth to a beautiful baby and live a happy healthy life. Is the goal to bring the abortion rate down (as pro-choice folks always say) or is the goal to abort without regard to the physiological and psychological aftermath and with the potential to cause far more trauma in the long run? That doesn't sound like a very pro-woman stance to me! Read about Norma McCorvey, aka "Jane Roe" of the landmark case we're talking about. I think she would differ with your assertion that seeing her baby would have been more traumatizing than aborting it.

If a woman wants to have an ultrasound and see a picture and description of the pregnancy (and no, it's not a "baby;" at the stage when abortion is being considered, it's a fetus or a pregnancy), she can ask her doctor for that.

I've never heard a pregnant woman who plans to bring her baby to term (planned or not) describe the U/S image she sees as a fetus, or a pregnancy. It's ALWAYS a "baby". What stage are you talking about when abortion is considered? Early first trimester or late second trimester? All legal. We all know that in this day an age, with all our medical advancements a baby born at 6 months is not only viable but often perfectly healthy after preemie care.

If SHE believes it would help her decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, that's her choice. The problem is that it's forced upon her by a state with an agenda to guilt women into changing their minds about a procedure they may already feel guilty about but feel is necessary.

In your every day life when it comes to important issues, how many times do you feel something is "necessary", only to discover that with a different perspective it's not really necessary at all?? Wouldn't you be grateful that you had a change of heart or circumstance??



Who's waging the war on women??

People who are forcing their own religious, moral, or ethical beliefs on everyone else who don't share the same beliefs, that's who.

Apparently you only read the last line of my post. I made a completely secular argument against abortion.

I did read it and responded nearly line by line in the body of the quote. The last thing wasn't directed at you but was a comment on the religious right who are mostly behind the attacks on Roe v. Wade. I agree that your argument was not religiously based.

 

[FrekeChild]

No. It's not ALWAYS a fetus.

I referred to my daughter as a parasite until we were in the clear and she was viable OUTSIDE of my uterus. Why would I degrade my child so? Because thats what she was when she was en utero - a creature stealing my nutrients for her own usage and my detriment.

Also, for me, any and all things in my vagina during pregnancy HURT. Including the transvaginal ultrasound and any other instruments my wonderful OB-GYN tried to stick up there.

No one knows how their body is going to react until they are pregnant. No one knows how completely crappy you feel, how tired, how much you puke, how much water you retain, how much your ankles and feet swell, the hormone swings, the headaches, the pimples, the stretchmarks, the hair falling out, and then joy of all joys, the agony of childbirth.

Yes, those are all terrible pregnancy symptoms that suck. But I've never met a pregnant woman who hasn't gone through some of them, if not all, and MORE.

Being pregnant is not all fun and games. I'm grateful to my biological mother for going through with pregnancy and NOT keeping the baby at the end. The women who do that are very special people indeed.

Because while I had a very easy pregnancy, it was far from being a freaking cakewalk.

 

[Maria D]

beebrisk wrote: Is the goal to bring the abortion rate down (as pro-choice folks always say) or is the goal to abort without regard to the physiological and psychological aftermath and with the potential to cause far more trauma in the long run?

I am staunchly pro-choice and in my opinion neither of these is the goal. The goal is to be able to be female and enjoy sexual intercourse even if children are not desired. Only abstinence is fool-proof, all other methods involve risk, therefore back-up birth control is necessary. It's as simple as that. I don't consider ending the growth of a human embryo in early stages to be murder, I don't apologize for this, and fortunately I live in a country where the law of the land agrees with me. (And by the way, I did not wax rhapsodic at the sight of the ultrasound image I had when pregnant with my daughter; not all women do.) There is absolutely no reason for any state to get in the way of the law of the land and my beliefs. I may have to start suggesting my students use Casio calculators instead of Texas Instruments, LOL.

edited to add--
beebrisk also wrote: An ultrasound would mean having to deal with reality, wouldn't it? It would make the pregnancy personal and it just might "connect" a woman to her baby.

More than one study has shown that the MAJORITY of women who have abortions are already mothers. They don't need to see an ultrasound to know that continuing on with a pregnancy leads to birthing an actual baby. They've been there and done that.

 

[beebrisk]

beebrisk wrote: Is the goal to bring the abortion rate down (as pro-choice folks always say) or is the goal to abort without regard to the physiological and psychological aftermath and with the potential to cause far more trauma in the long run?

I am staunchly pro-choice and in my opinion neither of these is the goal. The goal is to be able to be female and enjoy sexual intercourse even if children are not desired.

Only abstinence is fool-proof, all other methods involve risk, therefore back-up birth control is necessary. It's as simple as that. I don't consider ending the growth of a human embryo in early stages to be murder, I don't apologize for this, and fortunately I live in a country where the law of the land agrees with me. (And by the way, I did not wax rhapsodic at the sight of the ultrasound image I had when pregnant with my daughter; not all women do.) There is absolutely no reason for any state to get in the way of the law of the land and my beliefs. I may have to start suggesting my students use Casio calculators instead of Texas Instruments, LOL.

edited to add--
beebrisk also wrote: An ultrasound would mean having to deal with reality, wouldn't it? It would make the pregnancy personal and it just might "connect" a woman to her baby.

More than one study has shown that the MAJORITY of women who have abortions are already mothers. They don't need to see an ultrasound to know that continuing on with a pregnancy leads to birthing an actual baby. They've been there and done that.

So now it IS back up birth control? "Simple as that"? I thought abortion was the most difficult, gut-wrenching decision a scared and vulnerable woman can possibly make! At least that's what I've heard for decades and from just about everyone here.

And if you don't consider "ending the growth of a human embryo in the early stages to be murder", how about at 24 weeks when it's perfectly legal in most states?

But so long as it's just birth control and the enjoyment of sexual intercourse isn't impeded by something as pesky as personal responsibility it's all just collateral damage, I guess

Anyhoo...since this was initially a thread about watching the debates which are now long over, I'll be bowing out of this thread. I'm sure you'll all miss me.

 

[monarch64]

I'll gladly get into a political discussion with a forum full of women once there is a female candidate vying for the position of President of the United States of America. Until then, I'll do everything I can possibly do locally to make sure that my beliefs trickle up. So sick of never ever being represented in the White House. First Lady? Please. Give me the Oval Office as a gender and then we can talk.

The current talking heads are an absolute joke to me. Two to three mouthpieces with not much to say themselves. Put a mother in charge of this country and you will see things. get. done. That's how it worked in my grandmother's house, in my mother's house, and now in my house. Men play an integral part in many relationships, and they are valuable as a gender, but hello? When are we going to pay attention to the fact that women just run things, and run them well???

 

[Laila619]

I am staunchly pro-choice and in my opinion neither of these is the goal. The goal is to be able to be female and enjoy sexual intercourse even if children are not desired. Only abstinence is fool-proof, all other methods involve risk, therefore back-up birth control is necessary. It's as simple as that. I don't consider ending the growth of a human embryo in early stages to be murder, I don't apologize for this, and fortunately I live in a country where the law of the land agrees with me. (And by the way, I did not wax rhapsodic at the sight of the ultrasound image I had when pregnant with my daughter; not all women do.) There is absolutely no reason for any state to get in the way of the law of the land and my beliefs. I may have to start suggesting my students use Casio calculators instead of Texas Instruments, LOL.

Well at least someone finally is brave enough to admit that abortion is used as back-up birth control all the time. Because most women will adamantly deny this, and insist that is not why they got an abortion.

 

[iheartscience]

I am staunchly pro-choice and in my opinion neither of these is the goal. The goal is to be able to be female and enjoy sexual intercourse even if children are not desired. Only abstinence is fool-proof, all other methods involve risk, therefore back-up birth control is necessary. It's as simple as that. I don't consider ending the growth of a human embryo in early stages to be murder, I don't apologize for this, and fortunately I live in a country where the law of the land agrees with me. (And by the way, I did not wax rhapsodic at the sight of the ultrasound image I had when pregnant with my daughter; not all women do.) There is absolutely no reason for any state to get in the way of the law of the land and my beliefs. I may have to start suggesting my students use Casio calculators instead of Texas Instruments, LOL.

Well at least someone finally is brave enough to admit that abortion is used as back-up birth control all the time. Because most women will adamantly deny this, and insist that is not why they got an abortion.

Huh? Of course abortion is used as a back up to birth control. If birth control worked 100% of the time, people on birth control wouldn't have to get abortions. I have multiple friends who have gotten abortions in the last couple of years due to their birth control failing and them getting pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid pregnancy. No birth control except for abstinence is fool proof.

I'm not sure what's brave about stating something so obvious.

 

[HollyS]

I am staunchly pro-choice and in my opinion neither of these is the goal. The goal is to be able to be female and enjoy sexual intercourse even if children are not desired. Only abstinence is fool-proof, all other methods involve risk, therefore back-up birth control is necessary. It's as simple as that. I don't consider ending the growth of a human embryo in early stages to be murder, I don't apologize for this, and fortunately I live in a country where the law of the land agrees with me. (And by the way, I did not wax rhapsodic at the sight of the ultrasound image I had when pregnant with my daughter; not all women do.) There is absolutely no reason for any state to get in the way of the law of the land and my beliefs. I may have to start suggesting my students use Casio calculators instead of Texas Instruments, LOL.

Well at least someone finally is brave enough to admit that abortion is used as back-up birth control all the time. Because most women will adamantly deny this, and insist that is not why they got an abortion.

Huh? Of course abortion is used as a back up to birth control. If birth control worked 100% of the time, people on birth control wouldn't have to get abortions. I have multiple friends who have gotten abortions in the last couple of years due to their birth control failing and them getting pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid pregnancy. No birth control except for abstinence is fool proof.

I'm not sure what's brave about stating something so obvious.

I've known one person, in my 53 years, who used abortion as an option when birth control failed. And she was a relative, not a friend. And, although I was unmarried throughout my 20s and 30s, and so were some close friends, none of us found ourselves with a 'decision' to make. It can be done. Not sleeping with every guy we dated was only one way.

I'd do some serious rethinking of my friendships if I had "multiple" friends who thought abortions were "back up birth control".

But, hey, I'm just being judgmental.



And, since the debates are over, and the election is next week, and Obama's biggest hurdle to re-election isn't Romney, this thread is w-a-y off topic at this point. Buh-bye.

 

[Gypsy]

Scratching my head here in confusion. Of course abortions are BACK UP for other birthcontrol methods. When BC fails, that's the backup if the woman/couple decide not to have the child. This isn't something anyone has ever disputed. What the pro-lifers accuse is that abortion is the ONLY form of birthcontrol some people employ. That instead of using pills or condoms, some people just have unprotected sex and abort if there is a 'problem.' In my experience this is false for the majority of women. I'm not saying there aren't brainless exceptions. But everyone I've ever known to get one has either A) been at serious risk and had to terminate for their health or B) had birthcontrol fail IN A MONOGAMOUS relationship (not people who sleep around). I will also say that I have two friends who decided to have the child, despite their partner's desire for them to have an abortion, and have raised the child as single mothers once the father's bailed.

 

[MrBlingtastic]

[Our Dem and Rep congressional reps used to socialize, play golf, have dinners together, etc.; not too sure if this is happening now. But then again, that was in the era of unfettered US prosperity.

Unfettered? Are you suggesting prosperity should be restrained??

I suggest that you read the The Economist's recent survey on income disparity, which includes a discouraging section on the US. We need to incent our best and brightest to start making things, not playing with other people's money ....

On the abortion issue, my only thought is that if a pregnant woman contemplating abortion could be assured medical care for herself and the potential child, how many would choose to have an abortion. No one supports abortion - it's a choice made under the most dire of circumstances which could not be fully understood unless one has experienced it. How about a special Republican-funded medical fund for expectant mothers contemplating abortion, or even govermment funded ... - sounds a lot better than the vitriol above.

It never has been and is not now the responsibility of the Federal Government to insure pregnant women can afford their children. It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of said children because their parents can't or don't want to. THAT has never been one of our 'founding principals'. You can't claim you want your 'reproductive rights' and at the same time demand the state pay for all of them--no matter what your decision is about your own body. With "rights" come responsibility!

I am male and therefore do not feel qualified to comment. but I note your comment ... "your rights come with responsibility". Are you refering to the right to choice ....

Who says it's always under the most dire circumstances? You think people don't choose to abort for convenience sake --"doesn't fit into my life right now", "concentrating on my career", etc. These "circumstances" are not matters of life and death. However, abortion is ONLY a matter of death.

Beebrisk, you want a perfect homogenous world ... but if we address most of the core problems, we are on the right road. If back alley abortions is where you want to go .. but I do not feel qualified to speak.

America's founding principal is tolerance of those who are different than you. If you are not of this mindset, you are in the wrong country. You do not need to look too far to see what happens when people become too isolated or too intolerant of others.

Bingo! Go ahead and check this thread for the "tolerance" level of those that don't agree with my opinion and that of a few others around here. See who was told they were detached from reality and a consumer of "mush" instead of real news. See who inferred that if you think Obama is a lier that you're simply one of the "mostly stupid Americans".


Well I am new, I am sure people get worked up and it is unfortunate you feel beleaguered ... you are merely voicing your opinion, as am I.

On Romney, I wish he would invent some original campaign slogans - "Real Change" is what I saw this morning ... please! Obama used the "Change" tag line - I thought Romeny respected intellectual property. Also, I am pleased he that now realizes that publicly he should say the President is supposed to represent all of the country, not just those who voted for him, although he was following well-established Republican doctrine - Reagan said the same thing. Of greatest concern is that it took him several weeks to realize this.

Um..."REAL change" is a deliberate retort to Obama's "change" mantra...Not an effort to echo him. I'm fairly certain most people get the context of the message.


Retort , but choosing the same words to convey what meaning He will change nothing, his financiers have one intention - protecting them and making more oppportunities for profit through a lack of regulations and tax breaks, while saying nothing in substance. The most riduculous thing I heard him say is that he would have taken GM through a bankruptcy instead of a bailout ... a bankruptcy means no credit and would have benefited bottom-feeding assets sellers, i.e. the banking buddies that are financing his campaign. Guess how many ordinary businesses choose bankruptcy over a capital injection ...
The foreign policy debate: Truly priceless is the "we have fewer ships than we had in 1918"! Yes, he actually said this - huge concerns:

1. Mitt thinks he spotted an issue that has been overlooked by all presidents, generals, military planners etc since 1918. Well done Mitt, we still managed to win WWII on two fronts despite the reduced ship count .... I assume we are supposed to look forward to the increase in ship numbers - please! The shipyards are gearing up no doubt - Buy stock in ship builders now if you are Republican - show your support!

I do and I shall. My fiance is employed by one of those ship builders. He's there with the blessing of the Admiral who would likely differ with your assertion that we have all we need.


Congratulations on your upcoming marriage. I hope you pursue your wedding and marriage with the same passion you pursue Presidential politics. (I am being sincere about this .. )

BTW, I have friends in the shipping business .. I hope there are some American ship builders left. HOWEVER, I hope they are producing commercial vessels and not just military ones. My views on the US military and our history are a separate topic, I believe Bush (the 2nd) failed our country miserably ... so tax dollars for ships to protect the country but no tax dollars for a make sense health system ... universal coverage is the first step.

2. Romney must be that out of touch and so are his advisers (please recall WMD); or he assumes the American public is so stupid that they would actually believe something like this. My biggest fear is the former. We know politicians lie - it's part of the job description, although it is a bit sad to see the Dems being dragged into the negative bottom feeding behaviour. Kerry refused, and suffered.

If anyone thinks we're "stupid" it's the POTUS who told us that 4 men died as the result of a You Tube video. Doesn't get lower or more despicable than that. And then there was the one about televising the healthcare debate, closing Gitmo, cutting the deficit in half, lowering the U/E rate to 5%, not raising taxes on the middle class, "evolving" in his opinion on same sex marriage, etc.. I could go on.....


Sorry, Bee I do not get your point ... Libya was a disaster, and an election is going on, and therefore what .. no worries .. no response means it is not substantive. "POTUS", that is a movie word or are you somehow in the government side of things ...

.
I wish us luck, because even if Obama wins (as he should - BTW, he followed a Republican initiated plan, a classic Keynesian approach to prevent another depression), the changes to move the US in the right direction is at least a 10 year plan... If you thought 8 years of Bush were so good, well you may have the chance to relive those years ...

Actually 6 years of Bush were very good. Then the Dems took the House and Senate. The rest as they say, is history.


Beebrisk ... think about your statement! We were at war (and still are) and the bravest and finest amongst us perished and many others were killed. These are years from which we should learn. On the economic front the government was spending money hand over fist for which the amount of incoming money was not even close to covering ... please do not say "balanced budet amendment". The fed budget was balanced every year of the depression - the one in the 1930s, not the one just averted.
[/quote][/quote]

 

[jstarfireb]

I am staunchly pro-choice and in my opinion neither of these is the goal. The goal is to be able to be female and enjoy sexual intercourse even if children are not desired. Only abstinence is fool-proof, all other methods involve risk, therefore back-up birth control is necessary. It's as simple as that. I don't consider ending the growth of a human embryo in early stages to be murder, I don't apologize for this, and fortunately I live in a country where the law of the land agrees with me.

You hit the nail on the head. Abortion needs to be available not only in cases where the mother's life is at risk or she has been raped, but for ANY unwanted pregnancy. This does not, as beebrisk suggested, take away from the fact that it's often a very difficult and painful decision. Our words are being twisted. It's not a decision most take lightly, but when you boil things down, the option of abortion as a backup when other birth control methods fail or even when no birth control is used is important to preserve. I think we can all agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a primary (vs. backup) method of birth control, but it should be *available* to be used that way if needed. The way to reduce that is, again, to abolish abstinence-only "education" and ensure continued access to low-cost birth control options, routine gynecological care, and real education on how and why to use it. The Clinton-era slogan of keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare is what most pro-choice people like myself are aiming for.

Maria also said:

I guess it doesn't occur to these so-called conservatives (and I say so-called because a TRUE conservative would be against this incredible level of government interference) that women know their own reality better than anyone else. The reality of whether or not they want/can support a child or pregnancy. The reality of whether or not they consider an embryo to be a life form that has rights of its own.

What other medically unnecessary procedures do the pseudo-conservatives want mandated in order that all citizens are subjected to their "embryo-rights-above-all" nonsense? Should couples seeking in-vitro fertilization be forced to watch films of discarded embryos or, better yet, visit a batch languishing in a freezer?

Couldn't have said it better. Only a woman facing an unintended pregnancy knows what is right for her. It's a decision between her and her doctor, not her and the government. And I also never understood the extreme level of government interference coming from so-called conservatives.

As an aside, Freke, I love the comparison to a parasite because that's exactly what a pregnancy is...something that is unable to live without its host and survives by sucking nutrients out of it! (The obvious difference being that this parasite grows up into a human being... )

And monarch, I would LOVE to see a female President, but I'm not sure it will happen in our lifetimes. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Gypsy]

I am staunchly pro-choice and in my opinion neither of these is the goal. The goal is to be able to be female and enjoy sexual intercourse even if children are not desired. Only abstinence is fool-proof, all other methods involve risk, therefore back-up birth control is necessary. It's as simple as that. I don't consider ending the growth of a human embryo in early stages to be murder, I don't apologize for this, and fortunately I live in a country where the law of the land agrees with me.

You hit the nail on the head. Abortion needs to be available not only in cases where the mother's life is at risk or she has been raped, but for ANY unwanted pregnancy. This does not, as beebrisk suggested, take away from the fact that it's often a very difficult and painful decision. Our words are being twisted. It's not a decision most take lightly, but when you boil things down, the option of abortion as a backup when other birth control methods fail or even when no birth control is used is important to preserve. I think we can all agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a primary (vs. backup) method of birth control, but it should be *available* to be used that way if needed. The way to reduce that is, again, to abolish abstinence-only "education" and ensure continued access to low-cost birth control options, routine gynecological care, and real education on how and why to use it. The Clinton-era slogan of keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare is what most pro-choice people like myself are aiming for.

Maria also said:

I guess it doesn't occur to these so-called conservatives (and I say so-called because a TRUE conservative would be against this incredible level of government interference) that women know their own reality better than anyone else. The reality of whether or not they want/can support a child or pregnancy. The reality of whether or not they consider an embryo to be a life form that has rights of its own.

What other medically unnecessary procedures do the pseudo-conservatives want mandated in order that all citizens are subjected to their "embryo-rights-above-all" nonsense? Should couples seeking in-vitro fertilization be forced to watch films of discarded embryos or, better yet, visit a batch languishing in a freezer?

Couldn't have said it better. Only a woman facing an unintended pregnancy knows what is right for her. It's a decision between her and her doctor, not her and the government. And I also never understood the extreme level of government interference coming from so-called conservatives.

As an aside, Freke, I love the comparison to a parasite because that's exactly what a pregnancy is...something that is unable to live without its host and survives by sucking nutrients out of it! (The obvious difference being that this parasite grows up into a human being... )

And monarch, I would LOVE to see a female President, but I'm not sure it will happen in our lifetimes. I hope I'm wrong.

Absolutely.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="jstarfireb|1351702695

And monarch, I would LOVE to see a female President, but I'm not sure it will happen in our lifetimes. I hope I'm wrong.[/quote]


me too!!...Hillary will run for President in 2016.

 

[loriken214]

I'll gladly get into a political discussion with a forum full of women once there is a female candidate vying for the position of President of the United States of America. Until then, I'll do everything I can possibly do locally to make sure that my beliefs trickle up. So sick of never ever being represented in the White House. First Lady? Please. Give me the Oval Office as a gender and then we can talk.

The current talking heads are an absolute joke to me. Two to three mouthpieces with not much to say themselves. Put a mother in charge of this country and you will see things. get. done. That's how it worked in my grandmother's house, in my mother's house, and now in my house. Men play an integral part in many relationships, and they are valuable as a gender, but hello? When are we going to pay attention to the fact that women just run things, and run them well???

AMEN!

Lori