are you gonna watch the you know what tonight?

[jstarfireb]

I want to give a big to Gypsy, justginger, Aoife, Lula, AGBF, and everyone else here who is standing up for choice. You ladies are helping me see that not all hope is lost!

I believe it's true that most conservatives support birth control and understand that if you want to reduce abortions, expanding access to and education about birth control is the best way. However, our rights are being threatened because the candidates who are potentially in charge of what happens to us are part of a fringe minority who believe birth control equals abortion, that abstinence-only sex "education" works, and that abortion should never be legal. And they have put up as many barriers as possible without actually overturning Roe v. Wade (mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds, waiting periods, parental consent laws, personhood amendment proposals, etc.). Anyone who believes that our right to choice is not in jeopardy is ignoring all the evidence and fooling themselves into complacency, which is exactly how we let rights get taken from us before our eyes.

For what it's worth, most birth control methods work primarily by preventing ovulation rather than preventing a fertilized egg from implanting (not that it matters; neither count as abortion in the medical field).

 

[Aoife]

I want to give a big to Gypsy, justginger, Aoife, Lula, AGBF, and everyone else here who is standing up for choice. You ladies are helping me see that not all hope is lost!

I believe it's true that most conservatives support birth control and understand that if you want to reduce abortions, expanding access to and education about birth control is the best way. However, our rights are being threatened because the candidates who are potentially in charge of what happens to us are part of a fringe minority who believe birth control equals abortion, that abstinence-only sex "education" works, and that abortion should never be legal. And they have put up as many barriers as possible without actually overturning Roe v. Wade (mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds, waiting periods, parental consent laws, personhood amendment proposals, etc.). Anyone who believes that our right to choice is not in jeopardy is ignoring all the evidence and fooling themselves into complacency, which is exactly how we let rights get taken from us before our eyes.

For what it's worth, most birth control methods work primarily by preventing ovulation rather than preventing a fertilized egg from implanting (not that it matters; neither count as abortion in the medical field).

Thanks for the correction, jstarfireb. In re-reading what I wrote, realize I was conflating the morning after pill with standard BC pills, and there is, of course, a difference.

 

[FrekeChild]

I want to thank Freke, Gypsy, AGBF and others for so competently discussing the issues, especially the reproductive rights issues, that are at risk in the current political climate. I'm long past the age when contraception is an issue for me, but I'm old enough to remember when if you were not married, getting a prescription for BC pills involved telling your gynecologist elaborate stories so he (always a "he" in those days) could prescribe them therapeutically, rather than just to avoid pregnancy. I also remember having an OB-gyn ask me if my husband "approved" of the form of birth control I was interested in. The chip, chip, chipping away of a woman's right to choose what happens in her own body has been a policy among certain conservatives for years, and is finally overt enough that my DH, who leans much more to the right than I do, finally acknowledged it 4 years ago and switched parties. Access to contraception and the morning-after pill may be academic for me, but it is not academic for our daughters, and countless other women.

We've already cast our votes in the current election, and, aside from continuing to donate to both the presidential and congressional campaigns, there's not much more that we can do. However, the economic, foreign policy, and social implications if Romney manages to get elected are keeping me awake at night. I can't think of any election in the past 50 years that has scared me as much as this one does.

If you can tell me exactly which conservatives, other than the Catholic church or another religious institution, are trying to deny ACCESS to birth control pills, IUD's, diaphragms or over the counter spermacides, I'd like to know. And I'm not talking about the concern surrounding the dispensing of it in middle or high school...which is a whole other issue.

Conservatives are rather pro-BC actually. We just don't want to pay for yours by way of higher insurance premiums for all. We don't want to cover your abortion with our tax dollars either.

If the idea is that abortion IS a form of birth control that should enjoy complete, unregulated and unfettered access (and I think I saw that stated earlier in the thread) then what happens to the classic and often used pro-choice argument and indignant cry that it's "NOT USED FOR BIRTH CONTROL"??

Well, I remember and still see a certain campaign around (Billboards! Pamphlets!) Abstinence only. I believe Bristol Palin was brought up with this kind of education.

So that's what I think of when I hear the words "conservatives" and "birth control" in the same sentence.

As a whole, I think that the Republican party's base stance is anti-BC. At least, the old white man part is. Now the women on the other hand...

And talking about BC not even getting into anti-abortion - which in Planned Parenthood's case, is NOT paid for by Federal tax dollars, but by private donations by people such as myself.

Often it's not used for BC. It wasn't for me as a 17 year old, when I could go anywhere from 2-12 weeks between periods, I would cramp so bad that I would have to go home from school, and the headaches were atrocious. BC fixed that for me. For women who want to get pregnant, to help regulate their cycles before they try to get pregnant. For anemic women. For women who have ovarian cysts or other uterine/ovarian problems that are affected by hormones.

What I really don't understand is how the conservative base talks about wanting smaller government! But yet, they want to regulate abortion and women's reproductive rights. How is that getting towards this lofty goal of smaller government?

 

[HollyS]

Deb:

It was a rhetorical question. I know the particulars of Roe v. Wade.

Thank you.

 

[HollyS]

The fundamental right to life SHOULD override everything else.

It should be the first and foremost right anyone ever has.

Certainly, we are not all in agreement about that. Hence, abortion as birth control exists.

And whether we ask women to view sonograms, get parental permission if underage, or be given a plethora of information about just how much her soon-to-be-aborted "blob of cells" resembles a real baby - - the fact remains - - every woman has the right to an abortion.

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

 

[Lula]

The fundamental right to life SHOULD override everything else.

It should be the first and foremost right anyone ever has.

Certainly, we are not all in agreement about that. Hence, abortion as birth control exists.

And whether we ask women to view sonograms, get parental permission if underage, or be given a plethora of information about just how much her soon-to-be-aborted "blob of cells" resembles a real baby - - the fact remains - - every woman has the right to an abortion.

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

There is no agreement on when life begins -- not in science, not in philosophy, not in religion, not in law. For you to decide *for me* when life begins violates my religious freedom and my values. Likewise, for me to decide *for you* violates yours. I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that abortion should be legal. How do I reconcile these seemingly inconsistent positions? It's because my values and my conscience tell me I can make that decision for myself, but I cannot make that decision for someone else. Each of us here no doubt knows a woman or women who has had an abortion, or considered one. I respect an individual woman's right to choose, even if she makes a choice I may not agree with. I think that the hurdles that have been put in place, such as vaginal probes, mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods, permission slips, and on and on with no end in sight, are demeaning, paternalistic, and are not meant to educate but to humiliate and shame women. Whatever leads a woman to the difficult decision to seek an abortion, I can say with surety -- and there is research to back this up -- that 99.9% of women do not use abortion for birth control purposes. (ETA: A better way to say this is that women do not choose abortion as their first line of defense in preventing pregnancy; it is a backup method in the event of birth control failure, genetic or health issues with the fetus, etc.). Vast numbers of women seeking abortion "on demand" as a birth control choice is a political myth. No method except abstinence completely foolproof -- and not even abstinence is foolproof if a woman is sexually assaulted. Abortion is not something a woman considers lightly, or on a whim.

On another note, what I will say for Paul Ryan is that at least he and the other no-abortion-in-any-case politicians is at least they are consistent. If you are anti-abortion because you believe life begins at conception, and you want to impose your personal views on the electorate, then indeed there should not be the politically convenient exceptions clauses for rape and incest.

In my view, the widest possible position, the one that protects a full range of beliefs and values, is the pro-choice position.

When science, religion, and philosophy come to a universal agreement on when life begins, I will be open to reconsidering my view. But for now, I believe that the hurdles put in place at the state level are simply ways to weaken Roe and intimidate women. And I do not want a politician, whose religious views may be very different from my own, to decide for me and my family. That is government intrusion.

 

[Gypsy]

The fundamental right to life SHOULD override everything else.

It should be the first and foremost right anyone ever has.

Certainly, we are not all in agreement about that. Hence, abortion as birth control exists.

And whether we ask women to view sonograms, get parental permission if underage, or be given a plethora of information about just how much her soon-to-be-aborted "blob of cells" resembles a real baby - - the fact remains - - every woman has the right to an abortion.

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

There is no agreement on when life begins -- not in science, not in philosophy, not in religion, not in law. For you to decide *for me* when life begins violates my religious freedom and my values. Likewise, for me to decide *for you* violates yours. I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that abortion should be legal. How do I reconcile these seemingly inconsistent positions? It's because my values and my conscience tell me I can make that decision for myself, but I cannot make that decision for someone else. Each of us here no doubt knows a woman or women who has had an abortion, or considered one. I respect an individual woman's right to choose, even if she makes a choice I may not agree with. I think that the hurdles that have been put in place, such as vaginal probes, mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods, permission slips, and on and on with no end in sight, are demeaning, paternalistic, and are not meant to educate but to humiliate and shame women. Whatever leads a woman to the difficult decision to seek an abortion, I can say with surety -- and there is research to back this up -- that 99.9% of women do not use abortion for birth control purposes. (ETA: A better way to say this is that women do not choose abortion as their first line of defense in preventing pregnancy; it is a backup method in the event of birth control failure, genetic or health issues with the fetus, etc.). Vast numbers of women seeking abortion "on demand" as a birth control choice is a political myth. No method except abstinence completely foolproof -- and not even abstinence is foolproof if a woman is sexually assaulted. Abortion is not something a woman considers lightly, or on a whim.

On another note, what I will say for Paul Ryan is that at least he and the other no-abortion-in-any-case politicians is at least they are consistent. If you are anti-abortion because you believe life begins at conception, and you want to impose your personal views on the electorate, then indeed there should not be the politically convenient exceptions clauses for rape and incest.

In my view, the widest possible position, the one that protects a full range of beliefs and values, is the pro-choice position.

When science, religion, and philosophy come to a universal agreement on when life begins, I will be open to reconsidering my view. But for now, I believe that the hurdles put in place at the state level are simply ways to weaken Roe and intimidate women. And I do not want a politician, whose religious views may be very different from my own, to decide for me and my family. That is government intrusion.

 

[E B]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

What about what a woman has to through in order to have a baby? Some women suffer horrible nausea and vomiting that lasts the entire pregnancy, leaving them unable to work. Without a partner providing steady income, what then? Some women, like myself, find- with good medical care- that the pregnancy has led to hypertension and leaving the baby inside could prove fatal for both mom and baby. But what about those women without good, consistent medical care? What about the babies who are found to have genetic abnormalities that will allow them to live hours, or possibly days after birth, but will be a very painful, short existence? Or the babies who will live long lives needing constant, expensive care. Or the women who almost hemorrhage to death on the delivery table. Or the women who do. What about, what about, what about.

Abortion is- and should remain- legal because of the what abouts, the what ifs, because it is rarely black and white. If only pregnancy meant a slowly growing belly, a glowing mother, an uncomplicated birth, and a perfectly healthy (hopefully caucasian if she's giving it up for adoption!) baby at the end of the nine months...but it isn't always. I'd bet it isn't most of the time. It is a long, potentially dangerous ride that no woman should be forced to go through because you, or any one else, thinks the right of a 6 week old fetus trumps her right to be able to decide what she does, or who she brings into the world, with her own body.

 

[Aoife]

The fundamental right to life SHOULD override everything else.

It should be the first and foremost right anyone ever has.

Certainly, we are not all in agreement about that. Hence, abortion as birth control exists.

And whether we ask women to view sonograms, get parental permission if underage, or be given a plethora of information about just how much her soon-to-be-aborted "blob of cells" resembles a real baby - - the fact remains - - every woman has the right to an abortion.

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

There is no agreement on when life begins -- not in science, not in philosophy, not in religion, not in law. For you to decide *for me* when life begins violates my religious freedom and my values. Likewise, for me to decide *for you* violates yours. I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that abortion should be legal. How do I reconcile these seemingly inconsistent positions? It's because my values and my conscience tell me I can make that decision for myself, but I cannot make that decision for someone else. Each of us here no doubt knows a woman or women who has had an abortion, or considered one. I respect an individual woman's right to choose, even if she makes a choice I may not agree with. I think that the hurdles that have been put in place, such as vaginal probes, mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods, permission slips, and on and on with no end in sight, are demeaning, paternalistic, and are not meant to educate but to humiliate and shame women. Whatever leads a woman to the difficult decision to seek an abortion, I can say with surety -- and there is research to back this up -- that 99.9% of women do not use abortion for birth control purposes. (ETA: A better way to say this is that women do not choose abortion as their first line of defense in preventing pregnancy; it is a backup method in the event of birth control failure, genetic or health issues with the fetus, etc.). Vast numbers of women seeking abortion "on demand" as a birth control choice is a political myth. No method except abstinence completely foolproof -- and not even abstinence is foolproof if a woman is sexually assaulted. Abortion is not something a woman considers lightly, or on a whim.

On another note, what I will say for Paul Ryan is that at least he and the other no-abortion-in-any-case politicians is at least they are consistent. If you are anti-abortion because you believe life begins at conception, and you want to impose your personal views on the electorate, then indeed there should not be the politically convenient exceptions clauses for rape and incest.

In my view, the widest possible position, the one that protects a full range of beliefs and values, is the pro-choice position.

When science, religion, and philosophy come to a universal agreement on when life begins, I will be open to reconsidering my view. But for now, I believe that the hurdles put in place at the state level are simply ways to weaken Roe and intimidate women. And I do not want a politician, whose religious views may be very different from my own, to decide for me and my family. That is government intrusion.

Yup. Lula summed it up perfectly. Thank you.

 

[E B]

There is no agreement on when life begins -- not in science, not in philosophy, not in religion, not in law. For you to decide *for me* when life begins violates my religious freedom and my values. Likewise, for me to decide *for you* violates yours. I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that abortion should be legal. How do I reconcile these seemingly inconsistent positions? It's because my values and my conscience tell me I can make that decision for myself, but I cannot make that decision for someone else.....

Well said, Lula.

 

[AGBF]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

I consider that comment to be very ill judged, Holly. In my opinion, you come off sounding disdainful and dismissive of the opinions of others, even those of us who have gone out of our way to explain our views clearly and in a respectful manner.

My own opinion is that a fertilized human egg is not a human being. Since that is my belief, it would be odd of me to feel that women should be forced to carry one or two day old fertilized eggs for nine months or be condemned as cold hearted. In fact, it is bizarre.

Roman Catholics believe that it is a sin to spill the man's seed (sperm) as well as to abort a one day-old fetus since either could become a human. If one is religious, one obeys the teachings of one's church. You are pushing your personal beliefs onto others. How would you like to be called lacking in compassion if you spilled some seed?

Deb/AGBF

 

[HollyS]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

I consider that comment to be very ill judged, Holly. In my opinion, you come off sounding disdainful and dismissive of the opinions of others, even those of us who have gone out of our way to explain our views clearly and in a respectful manner.

My own opinion is that a fertilized human egg is not a human being. Since that is my belief, it would be odd of me to feel that women should be forced to carry one or two day old fertilized eggs for nine months or be condemned as cold hearted. In fact, it is bizarre.

Roman Catholics believe that it is a sin to spill the man's seed (sperm) as well as to abort a one day-old fetus since either could become a human. If one is religious, one obeys the teachings of one's church. You are pushing your personal beliefs onto others. How would you like to be called lacking in compassion if you spilled some seed?

Deb/AGBF

You and I do not agree on this issue. I don't feel the need to apologize for my opinion, thank you. Nor do I need to justify my position, or compare it to other positions taken by religious institutions. I don't need your permission to have an opinion that differs from the norm here on PS, nor do I need to take your advice on how to best handle myself.

However,my thoughts on abortion were not the issue. The issue was your rights, under the laws we have, and whether they are in jeopardy. They are not.

 

[beebrisk]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

I consider that comment to be very ill judged, Holly. In my opinion, you come off sounding disdainful and dismissive of the opinions of others, even those of us who have gone out of our way to explain our views clearly and in a respectful manner.

My own opinion is that a fertilized human egg is not a human being. Since that is my belief, it would be odd of me to feel that women should be forced to carry one or two day old fertilized eggs for nine months or be condemned as cold hearted. In fact, it is bizarre.

Roman Catholics believe that it is a sin to spill the man's seed (sperm) as well as to abort a one day-old fetus since either could become a human. If one is religious, one obeys the teachings of one's church. You are pushing your personal beliefs onto others. How would you like to be called lacking in compassion if you spilled some seed?

Deb/AGBF

You and I do not agree on this issue. I don't feel the need to apologize for my opinion, thank you. Nor do I need to justify my position, or compare it to other positions taken by religious institutions. I don't need your permission to have an opinion that differs from the norm here on PS, nor do I need to take your advice on how to best handle myself.

However,my thoughts on abortion were not the issue. The issue was your rights, under the laws we have, and whether they are in jeopardy. They are not.

Holly, please. Dial up the Daily Kos, turn on Maddow and crack open the NY Times. INFORM yourself, woman!

 

[Laila619]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

I consider that comment to be very ill judged, Holly. In my opinion, you come off sounding disdainful and dismissive of the opinions of others, even those of us who have gone out of our way to explain our views clearly and in a respectful manner.

My own opinion is that a fertilized human egg is not a human being. Since that is my belief, it would be odd of me to feel that women should be forced to carry one or two day old fertilized eggs for nine months or be condemned as cold hearted. In fact, it is bizarre.

Roman Catholics believe that it is a sin to spill the man's seed (sperm) as well as to abort a one day-old fetus since either could become a human. If one is religious, one obeys the teachings of one's church. You are pushing your personal beliefs onto others. How would you like to be called lacking in compassion if you spilled some seed?

Deb/AGBF

You and I do not agree on this issue. I don't feel the need to apologize for my opinion, thank you. Nor do I need to justify my position, or compare it to other positions taken by religious institutions. I don't need your permission to have an opinion that differs from the norm here on PS, nor do I need to take your advice on how to best handle myself.

However,my thoughts on abortion were not the issue. The issue was your rights, under the laws we have, and whether they are in jeopardy. They are not.

Holly, please. Dial up the Daily Kos, turn on Maddow and crack open the NY Times. INFORM yourself, woman!

Yes, the NY Times is the only newspaper that counts!

 

[beebrisk]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

I consider that comment to be very ill judged, Holly. In my opinion, you come off sounding disdainful and dismissive of the opinions of others, even those of us who have gone out of our way to explain our views clearly and in a respectful manner.

My own opinion is that a fertilized human egg is not a human being. Since that is my belief, it would be odd of me to feel that women should be forced to carry one or two day old fertilized eggs for nine months or be condemned as cold hearted. In fact, it is bizarre.

Roman Catholics believe that it is a sin to spill the man's seed (sperm) as well as to abort a one day-old fetus since either could become a human. If one is religious, one obeys the teachings of one's church. You are pushing your personal beliefs onto others. How would you like to be called lacking in compassion if you spilled some seed?

Deb/AGBF

I know you think those of us who disagree with you are Neanderthals, but I'm fairly certain we all know the meaning of "seed".

 

[AGBF]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

I consider that comment to be very ill judged, Holly. In my opinion, you come off sounding disdainful and dismissive of the opinions of others, even those of us who have gone out of our way to explain our views clearly and in a respectful manner.

My own opinion is that a fertilized human egg is not a human being. Since that is my belief, it would be odd of me to feel that women should be forced to carry one or two day old fertilized eggs for nine months or be condemned as cold hearted. In fact, it is bizarre.

Roman Catholics believe that it is a sin to spill the man's seed (sperm) as well as to abort a one day-old fetus since either could become a human. If one is religious, one obeys the teachings of one's church. You are pushing your personal beliefs onto others. How would you like to be called lacking in compassion if you spilled some seed?

Holly wrote:

"You and I do not agree on this issue. I don't feel the need to apologize for my opinion, thank you. Nor do I need to justify my position, or compare it to other positions taken by religious institutions. I don't need your permission to have an opinion that differs from the norm here on PS, nor do I need to take your advice on how to best handle myself.However,my thoughts on abortion were not the issue. The issue was your rights, under the laws we have, and whether they are in jeopardy. They are not."


When have I ever asked you to apologize for your opinions? And I mean ever...in the many years we have known each other?

But as for asking one's opponent in a debate or someone who has just accused him of something in an argument to "justify his position"...that is exactly what one does in a logical discussion, Holly.

And when it comes to whether "my" rights to an abortion are in jeopardy...aren't you being a bit hypocritical? You snap at me for presuming even to ask you to justify what you post, but you think it is up to you to tell me when I can feel secure in my right to have have a safe and healthy abortion? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? It sounds as if you make all the rules. You decide that you can post opinions which you need not justify, then if I say that I feel that "my" right to a safe abortion is in jeopardy, you highhandedly dismiss the reasoned arguments I laid out here in this thread about how Roe v. Wade had been eroded. You make no effort to refute the arguments I made; you simply say of the rights I feel were jeopardized, "They are not".

You are trying to make it seem as if it is I who attacked you, Holly. As if it was I who was impertinent and wouldn't let you even have an opinion. In reality, you have attempted to dismiss me and my opinions and to label me as lacking in compassion when I fail to fall into line.

Deb/AGBF

 

[beebrisk]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

I consider that comment to be very ill judged, Holly. In my opinion, you come off sounding disdainful and dismissive of the opinions of others, even those of us who have gone out of our way to explain our views clearly and in a respectful manner.

My own opinion is that a fertilized human egg is not a human being. Since that is my belief, it would be odd of me to feel that women should be forced to carry one or two day old fertilized eggs for nine months or be condemned as cold hearted. In fact, it is bizarre.

Roman Catholics believe that it is a sin to spill the man's seed (sperm) as well as to abort a one day-old fetus since either could become a human. If one is religious, one obeys the teachings of one's church. You are pushing your personal beliefs onto others. How would you like to be called lacking in compassion if you spilled some seed?

Holly wrote:

"You and I do not agree on this issue. I don't feel the need to apologize for my opinion, thank you. Nor do I need to justify my position, or compare it to other positions taken by religious institutions. I don't need your permission to have an opinion that differs from the norm here on PS, nor do I need to take your advice on how to best handle myself.However,my thoughts on abortion were not the issue. The issue was your rights, under the laws we have, and whether they are in jeopardy. They are not."


When have I ever asked you to apologize for your opinions? And I mean ever...in the many years we have known each other?

But as for asking one's opponent in a debate or someone who has just accused him of something in an argument to "justify his position"...that is exactly what one does in a logical discussion, Holly.

And when it comes to whether "my" rights to an abortion are in jeopardy...aren't you being a bit hypocritical? You snap at me for presuming even to ask you to justify what you post, but you think it is up to you to tell me when I can feel secure in my right to have have a safe and healthy abortion? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? It sounds as if you make all the rules. You decide that you can post opinions which you need not justify, then then if I say that I feel that "my" right to a safe abortion is in jeopardy, you highhandedly dismiss the reasoned arguments I laid out here in this thread about how Roe v. Wade had been eroded. You make no effort to refute the arguments I made; you simply say of the rights I feel were jeopardized, "They are not".

You are trying to make it seem as if it is I who attacked you, Holly. As if it was I who was impertinent and wouldn't let you even have an opinion. In reality, you have attempted to dismiss me and my opinions and to label me as lacking in compassion when I fail to fall into line.

Deb/AGBF

Eroded? Since the late 80's the number of abortions performed in this country has s l o w l y decreased to about 1.2M/annually. Do you think that's because women have become more careful or responsible or possibly have greater access to BC?

Do you feel that this "erosion" is preventing too many women from having abortions? How many per year would be "optimal" and make you feel better about your reproductive rights?

 

[AGBF]

Eroded? Since the late 80's the number of abortions performed in this country has s l o w l y decreased to about 1.2M/annually. Do you think that's because women have become more careful or responsible or possibly have greater access to BC?

Do you feel that this "erosion" is preventing too many women from having abortions? How many per year would be "optimal" and make you feel better about your reproductive rights?

You never responded to my question about why it was all right for the State of Texas to insert itself between a woman and her doctor contrary to the law of the United States since Roe v. Wade during a woman's first trimester of pregnancy and subjugate her to rape via an object. Why don't we start there since I asked you that question before you asked the questions above. I asked you the question I did when you gave me some long, garbled answer about how your doctor-that would be your doctor, not the State- shows you ultrasounds of your body before proceeding with treating you.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Abril]

Looks like Joss Whedon is endorsing Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo

Mmm, looks like I'm going to have to rethink my vote.

 

[FrekeChild]

Looks like Joss Whedon is endorsing Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo

Mmm, looks like I'm going to have to rethink my vote.

Saw that earlier. That's good stuff.

 

[FrekeChild]

Looks like Joss Whedon is endorsing Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo

Mmm, looks like I'm going to have to rethink my vote.

Saw that earlier. That's good stuff.

 

[HollyS]

Too bad all of your compassion is spent on yourselves, and what you "have to go through" in order to have an abortion.

I consider that comment to be very ill judged, Holly. In my opinion, you come off sounding disdainful and dismissive of the opinions of others, even those of us who have gone out of our way to explain our views clearly and in a respectful manner.

My own opinion is that a fertilized human egg is not a human being. Since that is my belief, it would be odd of me to feel that women should be forced to carry one or two day old fertilized eggs for nine months or be condemned as cold hearted. In fact, it is bizarre.

Roman Catholics believe that it is a sin to spill the man's seed (sperm) as well as to abort a one day-old fetus since either could become a human. If one is religious, one obeys the teachings of one's church. You are pushing your personal beliefs onto others. How would you like to be called lacking in compassion if you spilled some seed?

Holly wrote:

"You and I do not agree on this issue. I don't feel the need to apologize for my opinion, thank you. Nor do I need to justify my position, or compare it to other positions taken by religious institutions. I don't need your permission to have an opinion that differs from the norm here on PS, nor do I need to take your advice on how to best handle myself.However,my thoughts on abortion were not the issue. The issue was your rights, under the laws we have, and whether they are in jeopardy. They are not."


When have I ever asked you to apologize for your opinions? And I mean ever...in the many years we have known each other?

But as for asking one's opponent in a debate or someone who has just accused him of something in an argument to "justify his position"...that is exactly what one does in a logical discussion, Holly.
And when it comes to whether "my" rights to an abortion are in jeopardy...aren't you being a bit hypocritical? You snap at me for presuming even to ask you to justify what you post, but you think it is up to you to tell me when I can feel secure in my right to have have a safe and healthy abortion? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? It sounds as if you make all the rules. You decide that you can post opinions which you need not justify, then if I say that I feel that "my" right to a safe abortion is in jeopardy, you highhandedly dismiss the reasoned arguments I laid out here in this thread about how Roe v. Wade had been eroded. You make no effort to refute the arguments I made; you simply say of the rights I feel were jeopardized, "They are not".

You are trying to make it seem as if it is I who attacked you, Holly. As if it was I who was impertinent and wouldn't let you even have an opinion. In reality, you have attempted to dismiss me and my opinions and to label me as lacking in compassion when I fail to fall into line.

Deb/AGBF

I'm not attempting to justify my opinion. I don't post in an effort to argue or justify, but merely to state an opinion. I don't feel the need to debate the issues. I believe, firmly, that you do not have to worry about your womanly rights under any administration. I don't need to get back up information, provide pie charts, and consult the greatest minds of our time, and then post those here. Not merely to have an opinion.

And, Deb, if you are going to dismiss what I say as being judgmental, ill advised, etc. then I don't think I've overreached to assume that you are telling me how I should post . . . just like you're telling me, in this post, how to post.

 

[Dancing Fire]

calm down ladies...

 

[beebrisk]

Eroded? Since the late 80's the number of abortions performed in this country has s l o w l y decreased to about 1.2M/annually. Do you think that's because women have become more careful or responsible or possibly have greater access to BC?

Do you feel that this "erosion" is preventing too many women from having abortions? How many per year would be "optimal" and make you feel better about your reproductive rights?

You never responded to my question about why it was all right for the State of Texas to insert itself between a woman and her doctor contrary to the law of the United States since Roe v. Wade during a woman's first trimester of pregnancy and subjugate her to rape via an object. Why don't we start there since I asked you that question before you asked the questions above. I asked you the question I did when you gave me some long, garbled answer about how your doctor-that would be your doctor, not the State- shows you ultrasounds of your body before proceeding with treating you.

Deb/AGBF

Well, actually I thought I did answer your question. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but suffice to say I see no problem with the state requiring a doctor to do their job.

This might sicken you, but if you believe abortion falls under the heading of women's "HEALTHcare", then I think a doctor must be required to consider her physicality in it's entirety--and that includes the baby inside her. Are you really so frightened by the idea that a woman might actually see her baby's image on a computer monitor and decide to bring it to full term? Are you incensed by that?

All I've ever heard from the leading pro-choice people is that abortion is the most difficult decision a woman can make. They tell us they don't WANT to see so many of them performed every year but if it must be, it should always remain safe and legal. Well, there you go. If they were even remotely serious about wanting to see fewer abortions, they should be encouraging and applauding every possible effort to inform women of what is actually going on inside their bodies and give them the chance to change their "difficult decision". How can that opportunity EVER be construed as a bad thing? Sheesh, talk about a "war on women"!

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. That is beyond all reason... and I believe you MUST necessarily abandon all reason to justify such a completely inconsistant way of thinking.

ETA: Perhaps the idea really is to keep a women from seeing what's actually happening to her body. One look at an "early" 8-12 week fetus dispels the whole "clump of cells" argument, doesn't it?

There. Question answered. I can't be any clearer.

 

[AGBF]

Well, actually I thought I did answer your question. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but suffice to say I see no problem with the state requiring a doctor to do their job.

The legislature in Texas is not equipped to tell a gynecologist how to do her job. That is why the Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade) left it up to the woman and her doctor and didn't make the woman also consult the Texas legislature for medical advice. We all know that the Texas legislature is using that ultrasound to humiliate and intimidate women by invading their bodies so that they will not get abortions.

This might sicken you, but if you believe abortion falls under the heading of women's "HEALTHcare", then I think a doctor must be required to consider her physicality in it's entirety--and that includes the baby inside her.

If we are calling a newly fertilized egg a baby.

Are you really so frightened by the idea that a woman might actually see her baby's image on a computer monitor and decide to bring it to full term? Are you incensed by that?

From where did you infer that I wish to interfere in a woman's decision to have a child? I never said I wanted to force women into abortions. In fact, I am the mother of an adopted child whose biological mother gave birth to her and then put her up for adoption. I have never had an abortion myself, in fact I tried for 16 years of my marriage to get pregnant. After we adopted our daughter my GYN warned me that I had better start using birth control and I assured him that if I became pregnant that we would welcome the new baby into our family although we now had an infant and I was 41.

All I've ever heard from the leading pro-choice people is that abortion is the most difficult decision a woman can make. They tell us they don't WANT to see so many of them performed every year but if it must be, it should always remain safe and legal. Well, there you go. If they were even remotely serious about wanting to see fewer abortions, they should be encouraging and applauding every possible effort to inform women of what is actually going on inside their bodies and give them the chance to change their "difficult decision". How can that opportunity EVER be construed as a bad thing? Sheesh, talk about a "war on women"!

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. That is beyond all reason... and I believe you MUST necessarily abandon all reason to justify such a completely inconsistant way of thinking.

Too bad that you are frightened by the truth, but the ultrasound IS rape. Because it is unwanted. It is done against the woman's will. She chooses the abortion. And Roe v. Wade guarantees abortions only in the first trimester-the first THREE months. So drop the 6 months baloney. It isn't guaranteed in Roe v. Wade and it doesn't happen in Texas which is what I am discussing.

There. Question answered. I can't be any clearer.

You were clear, all right. We must let the people who read this judge if your position is helpful to anyone.

 

[beebrisk]

Well, actually I thought I did answer your question. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but suffice to say I see no problem with the state requiring a doctor to do their job.

The legislature in Texas is not equipped to tell a gynecologist how to do her job. That is why the Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade) left it up to the woman and her doctor and didn't make the woman also consult the Texas legislature for medical advice. We all know that the Texas legislature is using that ultrasound to humiliate and intimidate women by invading their bodies so that they will not get abortions.

***We all KNOW this?

This might sicken you, but if you believe abortion falls under the heading of women's "HEALTHcare", then I think a doctor must be required to consider her physicality in it's entirety--and that includes the baby inside her. Are you really so frightened by the idea that a woman might actually see her baby's image on a computer monitor and decide to bring it to full term? Are you incensed by that?

From where did you infer that I wish to interfere in a woman's decision to have a child? I never said I wanted to force women into abortions. In fact, I am the mother of an adopted child whose biological mother gave birth to her and then put her up for adoption. I have never had an abortion myself, in fact I tried for 16 years of my marriage to get pregnant. After we adopted our daughter my GYN warned me that I had better start using birth control and I assured him that if I became pregnant that we would welcome the new baby into our family although we now had an infant and I was 41.

*** So if on a yearly basis a few thousand women in Texas are better informed about the procedure and their gestational progress, and perhaps a few hundred of them or even a few dozen--or even just a handful--decide against the abortion and to take their baby to full term as a result of the ultrasound, you would still consider them dispensable for the benefit of proving your point that it's rape? Really? Those babies should be disposed of because SOME women, yes, perhaps even most will/may object to the ultrasound? Do you think the women who end up choosing to have their babies don't deserve THEIR reproductive rights??

***And what of all the poor, uneducated women that are always used to JUSTIFY abortion...you know, the women who can't possibly understand how to PREVENT pregnancy and can't possibly afford to take care of a child. Is it unreasonable to think that those very same women don't understand the gestational process either? Is it unreasonable to think that they aren't familiar with the facts about what abortion entails for them AND their babies ?? Or perhaps like Margaret Sanger believed, you think we ought to cleanse society of such people??

All I've ever heard from the leading pro-choice people is that abortion is the most difficult decision a woman can make. They tell us they don't WANT to see so many of them performed every year but if it must be, it should always remain safe and legal. Well, there you go. If they were even remotely serious about wanting to see fewer abortions, they should be encouraging and applauding every possible effort to inform women of what is actually going on inside their bodies and give them the chance to change their "difficult decision". How can that opportunity EVER be construed as a bad thing? Sheesh, talk about a "war on women"!

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. That is beyond all reason... and I believe you MUST necessarily abandon all reason to justify such a completely inconsistant way of thinking.

Too bad that you are frightened by the truth, but the ultrasound IS rape. But it is unwanted. It is done against the woman's will. She chooses the abortion. And Roe v. Wade guarantees abortions only in the first trimester-the first THREE months. So drop the 6 months baloney. It isn't guaranteed in Roe v. Wade and it doesn't happen in Texas which is what I am discussing.

*** It IS rape? When was that defined? Is that the universally accepted truth about TV ultrasound..or your's?

Baloney?..the legal limit for abortion in Texas is 26 weeks. The end of the 3rd trimester-the first SIX monts..

There. Question answered. I can't be any clearer.

 

[loriken214]

As someone who was unable to have children of my own, I can't wrap my head around abortion and the need to abort a fetus or baby or whatever you prefer to call it. IMHO, birth control methods should be provided to everyone and their brother if it will stop the need for abortions. I didn't grow up in a religion that was against birth control and my mom offered it to me when she thought I might be interested in having sex for the first time...and I was a young teenager. She didn't encourage me to become sexually active, but wanted me to be PROTECTED and EDUCATED about what can happen between and boy and a girl.

Why is birth control against religions???? I just don't get it? Who says you can't have BC and why? If it is the Catholic Church, then they should be held accountable for perpetuating babymaking when some parents aren't ready to be parents. This just makes me NUTS! It is OK to have an abortion, but the hell with birth control????

Didn't the Supreme Court make the decision? Are we ready to replace a Justice or two? Obama says he's a Christian, and attended a Baptist Church, if so he's supposed to be against abortion. Romney is Mormon and he's supposed to be against abortion. If you say you're a Christian, yet speak with forked tongue.....????

There is SO much more to this election than ABORTION!

Those of you with children, I consider you blessed and lucky.

Lori

 

[loriken214]

"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

 

[Aoife]

A recent article that discusses how abortions in some areas have been complicated by legislation designed to interfere in the woman's decision:

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/21/its_not_just_forced_ultrasound_abortion_rights_under_assault/

An interesting rundown of Paul Ryan's position:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/paul-ryan-cosponsored-all-most-extreme-anti-abortion-bills

Reproductive rights aren't under assault? Really?

 

[loriken214]

Nuff said from me. I hope the next four years are better for everybody and that our troops REALLY get to come home!

Lori