Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Tue, Feb 21, 12 at 11:53

Demi - thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed response to my question. I appreciate the time you took to explain your positions.

We agree in many ways. I also think that abortions beyond 12 weeks should have really good reasons - such as detection of fetal medical issues, risk to mother, etc. Most women would/could/should realize they are pregnant by 6-8 weeks, would probably take their own OTC test to confirm it and decide how they want to proceed. If a pregnancy continues into the third trimester, then I would want the rules to get even tighter on proceeding with abortion.

I don't know if abortion statistics have been collected as to when abortions are occurring for the most part (e.g., 95% in the first trimester).

I also don't believe that the government should be paying for abortions. But I do believe that a person's healthcare should cover it as part of their overall coverage just as they would cover low cost birth control.

And I don't believe the government should be paying for birth control although it is possible that free clinics might cover that through private grants.

I believe that women have certain rights in regards to their healthcare needs that are unique from what men have.

I am not an advocate of government handing out freebies. But I do believe that government has a role in ensuring that basic needs are covered through private means (e.g., employer healthcare). I believe that government has a role in protecting the consumer because otherwise businesses would not. The profit motive is too strong to always ensure that consumers get a fair shake.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
!RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Right now, the most important thing is preserving the United States of America as a country, and a power. Not to go to war, but to be a leader in science, technology, peace, and OPPORTUNITY.

Our economic situation is so precarious and may already be so far gone (due to the international nature of our economy and other westernized economies in trouble) that that is my number one concern--getting people back to work, making money and saving money and paying taxes so we can all have better lives here (and no doubt continue to complain about how to do that with taxpayer money) and of course elsewhere, as this country has always been so generous in taxes sent over the world and also donations from our citizens.

I don't want to vote for Rick Santorum at all, or even Mitt Romney, but I would still vote for him before I would vote for President Obama because I am convinced the man will finish off this country if he gets another four years.

I forgot to comment on this. I guess what concerns me personally is having conservatives spend so much time on these issues and not seeming to put valid effort into solving/addressing the economic issues. I absolutely agree that this is the number one issue. But I don't see the conservatives treating it that way.

And obviously I don't have the viewpoint that Obama will "finish off" the country. From my perspective, I think he will make it better and that any conservative President will be the one that does damage. Look what happened when the 2010 congress came in - they went straight to attacking things that were not about the economy. They blew a really good chance to win the 2012 election when they did that. They proved that they were not serious about helping the people, only themselves.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I totally agree that these social issues we are hearing about now from Santorum are smokescreens and pandering for votes. The Democrats do the same. Romney doesn't know what to do about it. Maybe doing nothing is best right now.

I see no way Santorum will get the nomination, much less win the presidency.

I totally agree that the Republicans blew it when they had the chance, as have Democrats. The RNC calls here daily, I do not answer, I've sent back their literature in their prepaid envelopes with black marker "WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE--YOU BLEW IT!

I am not any way convinced that if Republicans or anyone else gets it that it will be better, but I do feel that if Obama is reelected he will then have no need to be moderate and will finish off this country economically as to socialistic leanings and forced redistribution of wealth.


 o
!!RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I've sent back their literature in their prepaid envelopes with black marker "WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE--YOU BLEW IT!

I love it!


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

As I've repeated and repeated, and I'm not the only one... no one is PRO-abortion... but there really are instances where outlawing it completely could have devastating effects, medically speaking... and I think most women, at least, understand this.

The ones who haven't been beaten with the propaganda stick, that is... or whipped with the fundamentalist cat-o-nine-tails.

It's my feeling that if we went about this whole scenario from a preemptive angle... as in early, often, and comprehensive sex and prevention education in schools... and we were able to make more birth control available to more young women... we could head a lot of abortions off at the pass, so to speak... AND save a lot of funding in the process. Not to mention, help a lot of young girls keep their priorities in order... like finishing school...

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, they say...


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I always send back unwanted mail which has bugged me the same way Demi does and they pay the postage.

I am very prochoice and have been all my life. My body, my decision, although I wouldn't have an abortion unless my life was threatened or a baby would be born with severe medical conditions where it would suffer, lead no quality of life and die painfully. I do not believe in third semester abortions. If you waited that long, have the kid and give it away for adoption.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

My views on abortion are very similar to esh. Abortion is covered under universal health care and for the most part Canadians are OK with that. To the degree they are OK with a woman's right to choose of course. It rarely comes up as an issue here.

Thankfully I don't have to make the choice in this country, but I could never vote to protect the tax rate of the wealthy at the expense of important social issues and the further integration of religion into our political system. I would gladly pay more in taxes before I could ever do that.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Esh said: I don't know if abortion statistics have been collected as to when abortions are occurring for the most part (e.g., 95% in the first trimester).

Esh, the Guttmacher Institute collects all sorts of statistics on abortion, and it is a highly repsected source of factual info. I looked this up just a day or two, and the figures haven't changed hardly at all for the last 30-40 years. I don't have the exact figures at my finger-tips, but these percentages are very close to what Guttmacher has found:

First trimester: close to 90% of all abortions occur in the first trimester.

Second trimester (4-6 months): about 8-9 % of abortions occur in the second trimester. There are usually two main reasons why these mid-term abortions occur. It is often during the mid-term trimester that the doctor discovers there is something very wrong with the fetus. The other group is teenagers who are often into denial and have trouble admitting they are pregnant, so they delay doing anything about it. Included in that category would be incest and rape victims who have trouble acknowledging what is happening to them.

Third Trimester (also called late-term abortions): Less than 1% of abortions take place during the last trimester, most of them occuring at the beginning of the third trimester (weeks 20-24--that's both late in the mid-trimester or very early in the third trimester). Late term abortions are for reasons like health of the woman and/or dangerous medical conditions.

As a point of information, medical books list week 24 as the point of viability (when the fetus has a chance of surviving on its own outside the uterus--but not a guaranteed chance, it should also be noted. It is still an "iffy" proposition at that point.) However, anti-choice groups have been pushing hard to get that viability date moved back to 20 weeks--a date the medical establishment does not recognize as valid, but anti-choice legislators are buying into the 20 week date.

Esh said: I also don't believe that the government should be paying for abortions. But I do believe that a person's healthcare should cover it as part of their overall coverage just as they would cover low cost birth control.

It is a common misconception that the government pays for abortions. It does not--except in a few limited situations--nor has it since 1977 when the Hyde Amendment was passed. It allows Medicaid to cover abortions only in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the woman. So ask yourself if you really want to eliminate funding for a twelve-year-old raped and impregnated by her father? And remember that situations beyond the 3 exceptions (rape, incest, life of woman) are never paid for by the government.

The more recent controversies have been over whether abortion should be covered in the health care insurance reform bills. Anti-choicers say that would be the government funding abortion even if you paid your own money for the coverage. The pro-choice groups say it would be the same as private insurance coverage included in most people's policies today and paid for by the person buying the coverage.

All these details can get really dull, but there are so many false versions of the facts floating around that I think it is good for us to review some of the actual facts on occasion.

Kate


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Regarding the law that Virginia is intending to pass regarding the vaginal ultrasounds, I heard that some women were saying that the procedure would meet the legal definition of rape since the woman is an unwilling and non-consenting partner in the procedure. That's a very interesting way to look at it.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

And even as we speak, women are protesting and occupying the capitol grounds in Richmond, VA. Maybe this will become an offshoot of the occupy everywhere movement....


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

This absolutely is a form of rape by definition and should be pursued legally.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Kate, again, another wonderfully written post, thank you!

Why are facts so hard to take for the few? Are they bitter pills to swallow for some reason known only to those who refuse to swallow them? Why is truth passed by in favor of fallacy and propaganda? Not enough excitement in the real information?

I am simply confounded by the overwhelming amount of misinformation, untruth, myth, and fairy tales surrounding more than half the issues we discuss...


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I have one question and some statistics and one concern.

If abortions were included in a group health care policy, would that group be rated requiring "all" pay a part of premium to provide abortions, or would there be waivers provided for those employees who wish to lower their participation cost? Or, has group rating been abolished?

Just a FYI. According to the CDC (2008), 84.3% of abortions performed were unmarried women. I don't know if it's changed since their last report. That's important because in the age group 18-29 (unmarried) represents nearly half of uninsured women. That's why something needs to be done on a national level, instead of work related health care.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2//

Just to help clarify my concern.

The current Great Recession�as it�s called�is adding to these numbers. Because the U.S. system ties access to health insurance so closely to employment, high and rising unemployment can be doubly devastating.
There are currently 15.1 million unemployed workers, 6 million of them women, many of whom have lost not only their job but their health insurance as well.

So, health care covering women's health is good "if" you're employed and covered, or earning enough to buy your own. If not......then you're damned.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

So how do we pay for universal health care?

You could tax the 1% till there is no 1%, and not pay for this.

And if the taxpaying workers bear the burden for the non-working folks, what's the incentive to keep on working?

And if it's easy to collect a government (now where is that coming from?) check/food stamps/free medical services/a tax refund check even though you paid no taxes (!), then why work?

And if no one works, what then?

And on and on.

Who is going to pay for universal health care?


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Elvis, perhaps you could look at the various models used by the majority of modern westernized countries that provide universal health care. I may be wrong but I believe the US is the only one who doesn't.

In Ontario , for example, the cost is bourne in large party by mid and large size businesses by way of a payroll tax . Most companies are in favor of this because the payroll tax is less than what they would have to pay in premiums for private insurance health care for their employees. Small companies are exempt.

We also pay a personal health care premium based on income. The attached chart indicates the amounts. The maximum premium is $900 a year for someone making over $200 K per year.

All legal residents have health care coverage, it is not tied to employment and, contrary to popular opinion in the US , the government is not involved in our health care choices that is strictly between the doctor and the patient.

It is also important to know our universal healthcare does not cover prescription drugs (except fot those over 65 and the poor) or dental.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ontario healt care premiums


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Yes, Chase. I did a little checking and said on another thread that it seems the countries with universal health care do not provide dental, optical, or outpatient prescription drugs.

Also, that these systems are not working out well financially and are in the process of undergoing cuts. One woman in Germany who lives in a $1,500/month apartment with garden terrace and 3 bedrooms was quoted as saying that she had 3 children and as such was entitled to a nice life.

It's really hard to imagine how a universal health care system can be funded successfully unless everybody pays something, and with the number of people in the U.S. who apparently feel as though they are entitled to a free ride, it's really a huge problem.

Now Food Stamps are given in the form of a debit card so that the users don't feel embarrassed to use them (??). Folks are getting services for no charge via Medicaid while working people are dealing with high deductibles and non-covered services via their insurance. That's just crazy.

When I hear about the 1% being to blame for everything, it makes my teeth hurt.

Maybe we need more education about real life and dare I say it? Personal responsibility~~


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

The reason why food stamps are in the form of a debit card has nothing to do with embarrassment. Debit cards make it easier for the cashiers (have you ever been behind someone on a supermarket line paying with paper food stamps?) and saves printing costs. Welcome to the 21st century elvis.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

In Ohio, State Medicaid has good intentions. However, thousands of poor are denied services due to a cap on county spending. Seems like crack whores with 3 kids benefit more than a mom with a disabled child. It is my observation that thousands of the working poor are left out (or bumped out) of a program designed to protect their children from lack of health care.

And get this. They request that you sign up online. What if a poor family doesn't have a computer or online service? Where do they come up with these ideas?


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Elvis, we are already paying for 'universal' health care. Its just that some folks are treated for free, and other folks have to pony up a whole lot more money to get their treatment to cover those who don't have insurance. And we pay, through taxes, for VA care, Medicaid, and the difference in Medicare revenue and expenditure.

So unless we want to stop all that stuff where ER rooms have to treat accident victims and all that, and we want to stop all that stuff where we subsidize vaccinations and other public health measures.

Then, if someone doesn't have insurance, they can heave 'em on the sidewalk outside the hospital and let 'em die.

If that happens, I''ll get a tattoo of my insurance card on my forehead.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I like your sense of humor, David. Gotta have one.

JG, are you really really sure?

BW--I know; it makes me crazy.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I think there is a difference in Canada from province to province as to what they pay.
My mother was in BC and the coverage was the way Chase describes hers. However according to my mother, my relatives in Alberta had much better coverage. They even paid for their glasses.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

JG, are you really really sure?

The real question is whether YOUR statement is correct. Please provide a link proving your statement from a reliable source.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

The unemployed and working poor can't afford health insurance.

We need to fix that before we burden them with a required premium payment that they can't afford to pay. That imaginary fix "everybody paying makes it cheaper" is a dream that won't happen in a country where 15 million are unemployed, and 15+ million more are paid minimum wage.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

This absolutely is a form of rape by definition and should be pursued legally.

Just as the abortion itself is a form of murder, and WILL be pursued legally.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

My husband says that if a man is smart , some opinions should be kept to himself. In my estimation, this is one of those opinions.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Fact: outlawing guns leaves guns in the hands of outlaws.

Fact: outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, just ensures it's less safe.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Bill, to answer your question on the previous thread which is now closed, my views do not trump your views. There are no laws which force women (not even you) to have an abortion. Everyone has a choice. If there are laws prohibiting abortion, no one has a choice. The behavior of women will be circumscribed by a law they don't believe in. Presently, no one with your views has their behavior circumscribed. They don't have to get an abortion - they don't have to abide by what others say is their belief. If there were laws that you want enacted, all women would have to abide by what others say is their belief.

Do you understand the difference? My beliefs ARE NOT trumping your beliefs, presently. Women have a choice as to which belief they will abide by. Not so, if there are laws prohibiting women from abiding by their beliefs.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

How right you are, Jerzee... a simple electronic exchange of funds is a lot easier and more secure than waiting for that envelope to come... the mail is not always that accurate. The LINK debit card actually saves the taxpayers a lot of money through its efficiency.

Should a mistake happen, you don't have wait weeks to get it straightened out, and worry that your children will go hungry.

This stereotype that everyone on public aid or food stamps is somehow just scamming the system is ludicrous. There are more people out there in this big country of ours that desperately need the help. And there are even more who are one lost job or accident or piece of bad luck away from needing such help, themselves.

Ever heard the expression... "there, but for the grace of god go I"??

Back to the OP... I simply can't figure out the logic of taking away women's choices, both abortion and birth control, and at the same time, remove the public programs that help all these people... maybe someone can explain it to me, because when it comes to the GOP thought process, I'm completely lost. By all means, let's overfill the nation with unwanted babies and then let them starve. That's logical.

I thought I heard a few of them mention something about jobs a while ago... was I just dreaming?


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Wed, Feb 22, 12 at 19:01

"If abortions were included in a group health care policy, would that group be rated requiring "all" pay a part of premium to provide abortions, or would there be waivers provided for those employees who wish to lower their participation cost? Or, has group rating been abolished? "

Perhaps you meant would all participants get to participate in the cost savings that providing early abortions would realize compared to covering pregnancies and deliveries? Not to mention complications and expensive neonatal care. Of course, people who have conscientious objections to these kinds of cost savings might want to decline...


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

But sweeby I am against war because I feel it's immoral and yet I cannot withhold the portion of my taxes that go to it without getting arrested.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

JZG, this is what our votes are for.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

No, your votes are meaningless in that context. The "pundits" serving the interests of the Republicrats will tell us what our votes mean. Not to worry.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Do you understand the difference? My beliefs ARE NOT trumping your beliefs, presently.

Dockside, I DO understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. My view is that no one should be able to murder another living human being, and that mass of tissue IS a living human being. It has a heart beat, and even measurable brain activity, LONG before the end of the first trimester, and as such deserves the protection that every other human being should also have.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

And, since you don't agree with it, you are going to tell millions of women what they cannot do - just because you believe it IS murder. And I believe just as strongly tht it ISN'T murder - and I have had a lfe experience that has formed that belief. Oh, well. It's like arguing with a post. I don't mind that we agree to disagree. What I do mind is having laws passed which are based on a belief which is no more valid than my opposing belief.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Bill, I understand your view, your personal view, and you have every right to your personal view.

But here is what, I think, many of us are trying to understand.

You want your personal views, your personal beliefs to become the law. You want to force your beliefs onto every woman in this country, even if they don't believe as you do.
You want to go backwards to the "dark ages" when a woman's body was considered her own, but rather belonged to someone else and she had no say in what was or wasn't done to her body, what her body was used for.

On the other hand, the other side of this issue wants all women to have the right to make the decisions for themselves. They want all woman to have the right to decide what is and isn't done to their bodies, how their body is used, what is and isn't done to it and not be controlled by anyone else.

The irony of this whole issue is that one side doesn't force any woman to do anything against her will, her choice, her desire.
No one would force any woman to have an abortion, terminate her pregnancy no matter what the circumstances.

On the other hand, your side, your beliefs force all woman to suffer the consequences of your belief no matter what the circumstances are.

No one has every said that the "pro-life" supporters, believers don't have a right to his/her beliefs.

What the "pro-choice" position is, well it's very, very simple. All woman have the right to make their own decisions about their body, including the right to terminate their pregnancy within the guidelines of the law under Roe V. Wade and any subsequent laws that where added locally within the states that are legal under Roe v. Wade.

I've always been a firm believer that this is an issue that men should not have any say in, any right to vote on any laws that pertain to this issue.

Now, if somehow, men could actually get pregnant, carry a pregnancy to term, go through labor and delivery, then they would have a right to vote on the issue. Until that time, well. that's how I feel.

I also believe that it is "my body, my decision, and no one else's and there is no one anywhere in this world that has the right to tell me or any woman what to do with her body, with her internal organs, and yes a uterus is an internal organ.
No one on this earth has the right to force any woman to carry a pregnancy to term and risk her life to do so, and yes, it is a heck of a lot more dangerous for a woman to carry a pregnancy to term than to terminate it, and it certainly is far safer for a young teen to terminate a pregnancy than to carry it to term.

Personally, I am not in favor of the late term, "abortion", but I am far less in favor of any restrictions on elective termination of a pregnancy.

You see, once the door is opened ajar and a restriction is placed on termination of a pregnancy, it makes it far easier to keep adding those restrictions, keep chipping away at the law, at Roe v. Wade and we've been seeing that happen.

And Bill, that is my opinion, and my opinion does not force women into any situation other than what they decide on their own, unlike your opinion and your desire, which is to control women and their bodies.

We can disagree all we want, the fact is, that no one, not even you, have the right to control my body, my daughter's body, my neighbor's not anyones body, male or female for that matter.

You really have no idea what the results would be if you ever got what you wanted in a law. You have never, I'm sure, seen the results of desperate woman and what they will do to terminate a pregnancy on their own. You've never seen the consequences, and you would never, ever be able to understand that kind of thinking because you will never be in that situation.
Only a woman would be and unless you are in that situation, no woman, no matter what she claims she would do, will ever really, truly know what she would or wouldn't do unless she is in that type of situation.

That is why it is so vitally important to keep your views and those that believe as you do from ever having a chance to repeal Roe V. Wade and add any more restrictions to a woman's right to choice.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

You have never, I'm sure, seen the results of desperate woman and what they will do to terminate a pregnancy on their own.

To refresh Bill's memory, there was the coat hanger method; flinging oneself down a flight of stairs; pills, plants and herbs, liquor, having someone hit her in the stomach; or just the old fashioned abortionist in the empty room with his instruments of torture. It was like that in the good old days and it will be that again if you get your way Bill.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

You can't reason with someone who thinks this way. It's an emotional reaction and all the logical arguments in the world will make no difference to him.

Hey Bill, I hate guns. Guns in the hands of the wrong people kill. There is no purpose for a gun except to kill.

I think we need to have a constitutional amendment to reverse the second amendment.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Just as the abortion itself is a form of murder, and WILL be pursued legally.

This is incorrect. Murder is an unlawful killing of another person. Abortion is not unlawful, and an embryo/fetus is not a person. Hence, not murder. There is no crime to pursue, legally.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

On the other hand, the other side of this issue wants all women to have the right to make the decisions for themselves. They want all woman to have the right to decide what is and isn't done to their bodies, how their body is used, what is and isn't done to it and not be controlled by anyone else.

Women HAVE that right, and I have no problem with that. But once they MAKE that decision, they have to accept any consequences of that decision (as should the guy that "helped" them MAKE that decision). Littleone, you and everyone else need to understand-- you all ARE making me accept your views, that being that until that baby is FULL out of the birth canal, it's just a blob of flesh. To me, that is so wrong as to be morally vile, and that's the whole crux of this argument.

To you, jg, and others who want to get grapgic about the back alley abortions of the past (AND present, and most likely future), I can't do anything about that. My father, when I was a kid, used to tell me you can do anything you want in life. You can even kill a man, if you want. Jusat be ready to accept the consequences for your actions.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

What people who take Bill's position seem not to realize is that "pro-choice" means a woman can say "No, I do NOT want an abortion because I think it is murder." That's her choice and she has every right to make it if she wishes to. No pro-choicer is going to force her to have an abortion against her will.

"Choice" means women can say "yes" OR "no."

Kate


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

"Littleone, you and everyone else need to understand-- you all ARE making me accept your views, that being that until that baby is FULL out of the birth canal, it's just a blob of flesh. To me, that is so wrong as to be morally vile, and that's the whole crux of this argument."

No Bill, we are not. The whole crux of the pro-choice belief is the key word "choice".

No one is forced to believe one way or the other, no one is forced to terminate a pregnancy if the choice they make is not to terminate the pregnancy. No one is going to force a woman to do anything, believe in a certain way that is against what she believes in.

Choice is choice, Bill. How hard is that to understand?

You, on the other hand, want "no choice". You want things to be "your way, or the highway." Your belief wants to be the controlling, manipulative force that kept women down and out, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, with no regard to a woman being a human being.
You and your belief want to keep women as nothing more than "human incubators", not any different than the lab that takes a woman's ova that has been removed from her body, and a man's sperm that has been collected in a container, fertilize the ovum, otherwise known as "test tube baby".

Again, Bill. no one that is pro choice believes in forcing anything on anyone. You can go right ahead and believe as you do, no one will force you to do anything against your will.
Unlike you, and those that believe as you do, and would force your beliefs literally on woman. We don't believe that way.

Graphic descriptions of back alley abortions is only part of what could be described, it's the hell that women, both physically and mentally went through in the past that is what part of the issues are about.

Being that you are a man, and not a woman, you can not understand any of this through the eyes of a woman or even think about what it might be like to have to go through this, experience this, if you and those that believe as you do ever got their way on this issue.

Isn't it Santorum that stated something to the affect "even a child conceived of rape, is a gift from God."

To bad he couldn't be in the shoes of the rape victim who is pregnant from that rape and then say the same thing. I doubt he would believe that way. But if he did, well that's fine, that is what choice is all about.

As Kate stated "Choice means women can say yes OR no."

I've got to agree with Chloe too. The only purpose for a gun is to kill and most of the time it's a human being that is innocently killed.

So why is it so important to you and others like you to have to have your guns all the time. Why is it that the prevailing attitude is "i'd rather die than have my right to gun ownership taken away."?

Makes no sense to me. Innocent human beings, already born and living, breathing on their own are dying daily because of guns being made, sold, out on the street both legally and illegally.

What in the world is the purpose for that?

Oh, I know, it's your constitutional right to "bare arms".

Well guess what, Bill. The right to terminate a pregnancy is legal and constitutional as well. Yup, it was decided by SCOTUS that is is constitutional.

In my opinion, it is far more constitutional for a woman to have the right of choice, the right to privacy to control her own body, than it is for every "tom, dick and harry" to be able to get their hands on a gun, legal or otherwise, just because there are a bunch of people that claim the constitution gives them the right to "bare arms" and no one is going to take that right away from them.

Sorry, but IMHO, it's time that right was terminated and guns where illegal accept for the police. See I don't believe that anyone should be able to own a gun for any reason.

Guns in the hands of people kill people, and if the guns where not in the hands of people, so readily available to anyone, people would not be killed with those guns.

Now most people don't believe as I do, tot he extreme that I do, and therefore, those guns are going to be around and I am forced to accept that.

But that fits into part of your belief. Guns are wonderful.

Like a "little kid", the out of control cowboy, it's my way or the highway in your belief. Everything your way and only your way. Your belief, your point of view is the only way, the only correct way and anyone else that believes differently, well that's too bad.

Life doesn't work that way and you will find that out. Roe V. Wade will not be overturned and your beliefs, and those that support your belief are going to find out that women are not going to accept it and allow it to happen.

The young women today, are finally realizing what is happening around them and the rights that their parents and grandparents fought so hard for and they never thought twice about because they where just there, are being taken away from them, people like you are trying to take them away.

They are not going to sit back and accept that.

Try understanding, Bill. Choice means exactly that, women have a choice. nothing is forced on them. It means that women, all women have a choice and can make that choice vs what you want and there is no choice for any woman.

So where is the forcing you to accept anyone else's view? No one is forcing you to terminate a pregnancy, besides the fact that you are a male and would never face that kind of situation?
No matter how you look at this, pro choice means that you have the right to your beliefs, your views and no one will attempt you to change those views, those beliefs. You are more than welcome to them.
And those that believe differently from you, also have a choice and they have every right to think differently from you, and make decisions for themselves, their lives, their bodies that are different from your beliefs and no one will stop them either.

It's just that simple and you just refuse to understand that, care about that and just want to be that "high and mighty, domineering male that has total control over all aspects of a woman, including her body and what is and isn't done to it."



 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Devils advocate here though I don't agree with his position.
In Bill's world/mind/conscience there is a murder going on & no one is being tried for it so in that sense he is forced to live in a society where murder is legal under conditions other than penalty of law for a crime comitted. This proceeds from the idea that he holds that the life/cells/blob/baby is human from the git go.

I argued this once in a religion class on the basis that you could bring suit for loss of potential profits! Curiously enough I got shot down with the concept of a will.
You can't sue me now for what is now my money based on a notion that I will leave you that money in the future.
The Cells are the woman's until they can exist separately from her.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

This debate will be a fight that cannot be won in the mind of Pro-lifers. I wish someone could explain to me the Pro-lifer's mind set that they do not want the expense, and the care that is connected of the end outcome of their position.

It seems the only thing that is important is Abortion. All other issues connected to the well being and safety of the life they say they so want to protect does not have any priority.

This is disrespect of women. It has nothing to do with the life of the unborn. If they cared about the unborn they would not have a problem with food stamps, and money to support these unborn children they so want to protect. All they want is to have the baby born and let it slowly starve to death. They showed that woman who is boss.

My opinion is this is a position of insecure men, and women with low self esteem. I cannot think of any other reason because you do not see them adopting these unwanted children or pushing for the needs of the unwanted children. They hate health care, they hate food stamps, they hate welfare, etc. So what is the point?


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

  • Posted by deedee99 z 5 Northern Illinoi (My Page) on
    Thu, Feb 23, 12 at 12:15

Here's an idea....Manned Parenthood Clinics across the nation.

When a young man turns 13 it's a day of celebration! A party ensues and he is grandly escorted to the Manned Parenthood Clinic and receives a free vasectomy along with a tattoo on the forehead signifying he is sterile. Once he has submitted proof to the state he is financially and mentally capable of raising a child he is grandly escorted back to Manned Parenthood and the vasectomy is reversed, the tattoo removed.

According to the US Census Bureau, the aggregate child support deficit in 2009 is 12.6 billion for men and 1.2 billion for women.

Here is a link that might be useful: US Census child support


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Good one, deedee. You and Jon Steward have a way of making a point memorable!

You don't happen to have a cousin name Doug, do you? Your wicked sense of humor reminds me of her. LOL

Kate


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

  • Posted by deedee99 z 5 Northern Illinoi (My Page) on
    Thu, Feb 23, 12 at 13:44

Thanks Kate. I must have missed my calling as a comedy writer.....
(another JS fan here too)

I have many cousins, but none named Doug. He sounds like fun though!

IMHO, privacy in reproductive health should be a right of both men and women.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Here is anopther weird part of the thinking for me..many people who believe that abortion is murder do make an exception for rape or incest-now this is not sensible-if abortion is murder than you are murdering the children of rape and incest. How is one murder wrong and the other is not? The so called child is the same in all cases. These abortions would be allowed for the mental health of the woman of course-so only the mental distress of a rape victim counts? When you start making decisions for others it leads to odd consequences. I say leave the decisons to the women who need to make them.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Patriciae, the answer to your question is simple, it's called politics.

This is how one strips away the legal rights of women step by step, but still stay within the, so called, "politically correct" view of the public until you can eventually sway the entire public to "your point of view".

The more you push for restrictions that are acceptable to the public, the further you get and then slowly you push for the "final outcome", as Bill wants; all abortions for any reason are illegal.

What the GOP fails to understand is that the majority of the electorate, the majority of the people in this country do not want to make all abortions illegal.
They want some restrictions, but generally speaking they certainly want access to terminating a pregnancy during the first trimester and they certainly want it for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

As to how "one murder is wrong and the other is not", well they won't have an answer for you because there is no difference other than the political one that is the ends justifies the means.
In other words, "we do what we have to do, accept what we have to accept to get to the ultimate goal. All abortions are illegal.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I concur with Labrea: the pro-life viewpoint is rational insofar as they make the argument that it's not about choice when it comes to murder. We may not decide to commit it ourselves, but we still want it to be illegal so others don't do it.

But where that viewpoint is not rational, and enters the realm of religious belief, is misapprehension of the facts like this:
"[the fetus] has a heart beat, and even measurable brain activity, LONG before the end of the first trimester"

No, it doesn't. That's simply incorrect, which is where the "pro-life" argument walks away from rationality. (It's not a fetus until about 11 weeks, anyways; it's still an embryo at 8 weeks.)

The embryonic brain has measurable electrical activity, but this is also true of people pronounced dead on the operating table. But like them an embryo has no activity in the part of the brain that thinks -- the brain-dead person has lost all organized cortical function, the embryo has not yet got a cortex. No cortex = no cognition = no 'person'.

If you're Bill, apparently life begins at conception. If you're orthodox Jewish, life begins at first breath. If you're Buddhist, life never stops at all.

But since our nation is not a theocracy, we can't use any of these definitions. Unfortunately some people really want our nation to be a theocracy, in this as in so many other matters. I don't know how much arguing there is with them other than overwhelming them with more rational votes.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

My husband is a registered Republican, although hasn't voted Republican recently.
We get phone calls and questionnaires from them pretty routinely.
I fill out those questionnaires and give them an earful LOL

Today we received a call from Personhood, okla asking us to call our representative to tell him to vote for the bill without the amendment. He said, "the bill without the amendment bans abortion and with the amendment "ruins the bill" .

I called the office to find out a little more and to give him an earful, but I got an answering machine.

Haven't been able to find out anymore about this amendment to the bill.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

What I keep hearing is that it is all about choice. My body, my business. What pro lifers say, is there is another human being who is denied choice. The baby doesn't get a vote. If one is able to see an unborn child as a blob of cells, I can see where the choice is much easier. But if one can only see an unborn child as a human being, what one calls choice, another calls murder. You could have fifty threads on this subject, and minds would not be changed.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Feb 23, 12 at 15:34

What pro-lifers want is to include "contraception" in that equation. According to them contraception is "abortion" and therefore murder.

You cannot be a pro-lifer and claim to support their views unless you accept all of them .. no picking and choosing allowed.

Do not regulate industry ... DO regulate vaginas.

Got it !


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

2 cells 5 cells how many cells make a (baby)?
When I see a tadpole I never see a frog, or a caterpillar a butterfly?
When I see fewer these days extreme deformities (extreme icthyosis or extreme hydrocephalus or forms thanatophoric dysplasia, some (babies) carried to term not viable after birth) or viable with extreme care. I see cruel parents & religion at play.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Don't get too rational on the subject Labrea, it ruins the discussion.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

"The cells are a womans until they can exist separately from her."

Well said. That's it, in a nutshell.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I have to admit ohiomom, I don't understand about contraception, other than the Catholic church, for which it happens to be one of it's tenets. If one is using contraception, no pregnancy takes place. I'm all for putting contraception in vending machines, bottled water, whatever. Far better contraception than abortion.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

On that we agree Mrsk. If the whole world had couples who didn't manage to reproduce themselves more than once each lifetime for a good long while, the food shortage could have a chance to correct itself and a host of other problems could have time to self correct also.

Of course that is a communist, China solution driven idea which I must banish from my mind immediately as folks might get the wrong idea about me. ;)


 o
No picking and choosin..

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Feb 23, 12 at 16:08

Then you are not a pro-lifer MrsK, because their website plainly states that contraception is abortion ... like I said you can not pick and choose. If abortion is murder then so is contraception according to them. If you support contraception, you are supporting "murder".

The pro-life movement is not a "catholic" thing :)


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Kinda OT, but here goes: contraception is not necessarily abortion to the Catholic prelates who want to keep contraception out of their insurance policies. Contraception is fobidden, in any form (condoms are included). But, I wonder - does anyone know? - have these Catholic prelates demanded that vasectomies also not be covered? Because, obviously, that is only for birth control. Whereas, birth control pills are often used to treat diseases of women and not used for birth control. It's obviously an attempt by the RC church to control women, if vasectomies are covered. And, what about hysterectomies and tubal ligations? And, even if they are not covered, it is still an attempt - obvious to most - to control women if contraceptive pills are not covered, even when medically necessary.

These "rules" of the RC church, IMO, were concocted a few centuries ago to insure a continuing supply of little Roman Catholics, when Protestantism arose. Maybe there were rules re birth control prior to that time, but I'd be surprised.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

In some respects, birth control was not an issue until "the pill" came along after WWII and gave women, for the first time in history, control over their own fertility and their own lives.

However, there have been attempts to come up with some kind of birth control going back to the ancient Egyptians. I remember reading something years ago about their various experiments--kind funny from our modern viewpoint. In the late 19th century, Margaret Sanger went to Europe to learn about their methods of birth control and bring them back to America so that poor women in particular would not have to die from illegal abortions in order to avoid having children they could not afford in the first place and, given the number of children the poor women already had, might end up killing them if they went to normal birth. That's a tough one--die from having too many children or from a botched home-abortion to stop from having too many children. I don't know what kind of birth control Margaret Sanger brought back to America, but since birth control of any kind was illegal (the Comstock Act), it got her thrown in jail several times just for giving out information about birth control to poor women who, in the meantime, were dying from excessive childbirth.

Oh, let's go back to the good old days. They were so swell!

Kate


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

That exactly where the Right wants to take us.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

When do we get to the part where our menstruation, urination, defecation, and regurgitation are controlled through legislation? Is that all part of the GOP/Theocratic plan, too?


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I am linking an article that appeared in the New York recently - "Birthright: What's next for Planned Parenthood" which is an excellent recap of the birth control movement in the US.

It's easy to forget that in our lifetime even birth control was illegal in the US until the SCOTUS made it legal for married couples in 1965 and for unmarried people in 1972. Shocking, right?

Here is a link that might be useful: Birthright


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Shocking & true!


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

My 25 year old is proof positive that contraception doesn't always work.

We were suprised, this was not part of the plan. We thought we were onto a different "phase" in our life but our circumstances were such that it just took some "getting used to".

However I have often thought. ....what if I was in a bad marriage, poor, or already had all the children I could afford to feed, care for and educate?

I wish that those that cherish the life of the unborn put as much passion and money into taking care of all the children born into unfortunate circumstances as they do protecting their life before birth.

Funny how it is that a woman hasn't the right to " choose" when she is pregnant but once the baby is born and she needs financial and emotional support too bad because, don't you know, she "chose" to have a baby.

Seems personal responsibility and choices only apply before and after pregnancy but not during.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Thank you Chase for putting into words exactly what it is I think about this whole issue and the issue of children in need and our obligation to them.

All this concern for the baby that those supporting this issue MUST extend these concerns to the birthed life the child will live.

They have to extend their concern and efforts further than from the short span of time: from conception to birth.

That is cheap and easy concern which costs them nothing but words of protest - cheap words when the real needs of the child begin AFTER the child is born and that is precisely where these people can put their money - where their mouths are and give that birthed child they were so concerned about a realistic chance at a decent life.

Please -priorities.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I'm proof positive that Irish Catholic Birth control of the 50's didn't work. (Separate bedrooms) Ah! Non fossi mai nato!


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I wish pro choicers wouldn't make the argument that these babies should be killed because they might have bad parents, they might be a drain on society, they might add to over population. The same people who would want to string someone up for drowning a kitten, and rightfully so.

ohiomom, sorry, but being pro life does not mean being anti contraception in my world. I'm not Catholic, it isn't part of my religious beliefs. Contraception does not kill a baby, it prevents fertilization from taking place.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Tadpole, caterpillar, zygote, fetus, wishes, horses, ride on language!
If it were his will he would raise them from the medical waste pail! Mustn't be his will!


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Feb 24, 12 at 8:27

MrsK you can keep saying "it is a Catholic" thing all you want, but I would suggest you research the Evangelical position on birth control. Although they once accepted it, that is no longer the case.

And this is what happens when you allow a Theocracy to rule over the citizens.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

We don't live in a theocracy ohiomom, I'm just an ordinary Christian who feels like I can't judge others, or make others believe what I do. I'm only sharing my own beliefs here, not telling anyone else what they "must" believe.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Update on Oklahoma's personhood bill.
There are now two bills.
The Senate bill (which passed last week) is a little more nuanced and could be more subject to interpretation as to BC and IVP.
The house has it's own bill that specifically outlaws exemption for rape and incest. Plan B pill AND IVP are specifically outlawed. It has not come up for a vote yet.
A march on the capital is being planned for Monday.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Oh rape productions get the death penalty or family values productions get the death penalty! Well they are penalties by the definition being set forth in the spirit of the first bill. So it proceeds if the productions blobs zygotes, babies (kittens) in the first bill are indeed human life at conception. Then a death penalty is being imposed on human lives conceived under theses circumstances. That hasn't made sense to me since I watch my first saline abortion pictures in Catholic Church way way back when.

Sr Margaret of St Joseph's hospital in Phoenix is a profile in courage excommunicated for saving the life of the mother!
Utilization of canon law in a not so clear cut manner!


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I guess they were worried that if it wasn't in writing some judge might misinterpret the intent of the first bill.
Seems pretty clear to me what the intent of the first bill is.

I can't believe this is happening in 2012.
I keep thinking I'm going to wake up from this bad dream.

Insane times.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

mrsk, whether you accept birth control or not doesn't matter when it comes to anti-choicers attempting to pass one bill after another in their attempts to get birth control declared a type of abortion and therefore a form of "murder." You can protest as much as you want that you personally do not accept that viewpoint, but it doesn't change the political agenda of the anti-choice movement: to get birth control/abortion so restricted that it is almost impossible to get birth control/abortion, and to keep on working to get Roe v Wade reversed. They don't care what you think about all that. They have their own agenda and that is what many of us here on this forum are protesting--their attempt to pass laws that force their views on the rest of us.

Please quit making this a personal argument with you as an individual. That has nothing to do with the issues we are addressing here.

Kate


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

"What pro lifers say, is there is another human being who is denied choice. The baby doesn't get a vote. If one is able to see an unborn child as a blob of cells, I can see where the choice is much easier."

If one is able to deny biological scientific fact, one can make all sorts of claims. I've always wondered why, if prolifers are so convinced these are "babies", why on earth don't they ask for them once they've been removed from the bodies of the women who've decided not to give birth?

Had I but known you then, MrsK, I would have happily sent you the blob of cells baby they removed from my body, for safekeeping. That would resolve the problem, no?



I know, Chloe, it's a national nightmare and I can only imagine how surreal it must be to live in one of these states right now. And what's even scarier to me is that historically, the only way these socially regressive, authoritarian politicians have managed to stay afloat is by putting the economy on a permanent war or crisis footing. And since we appear to be there already ...


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I'll address it any way I want Kate. As far as I know I still have that right.

Everyone has their own agenda, be they pro choice or pro life. I'm just jaded enough to believe that if pro choicers weren't so he11 bent on pro lifers tax money to pay for abortions, a lot of what is going on now wouldn't be happening. Something about let sleeping dogs lie.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I said "please"--don't make this a personal argument. It is not. If you don't think birth control is abortion/murder, then nothing being said here is against your position. All I ask is that you admit that the "pro-life" movement does NOT agree with you--because it does NOT--and recognize that we are addressing the "pro-life's" position against birth control and NOT your personal position in favor of birth control.

Of course you can address it any way you want. But why do you want to play victim of the pro-choicers on the birth control issue? The pro-choicers AGREE with you. Why keep trying to make it a disagreement with pro-choicers when there is no disagreement on birth control? You and they are on the same side on that issue.

if pro choicers weren't so he11 bent on pro lifers tax money to pay for abortions . . .

What in the world does this refer to? It is against the law for the government to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, life of the woman --for poor women on Medicaid. It has been that way since 1977 (it's called the Hyde Amendment).

And what is the "hell bent" stuff you are referring to? The new health care insurance reforms? They do not pay for abortions--women have to pay for that coverage themselves.

Kate


 o
hmmmm RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Sorry, didn't realize the discussion was about contraceptives only. But since you mentioned this, I'll post this from factcheck and be on my way.

"The president said "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." But the House bill would permit a "public option" to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That�s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage."

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

This thread does not have to be only about birth control, but your earlier post was just about birth control--which is why I wondered why you were trying to argue with pro-choicers about an issue you agree with them on: birth control.

If you meant to, or mean to, discuss abortion rather than birth control, please use the word "abortion" and not the words "birth control"--and we will all understand better what we are talking about. I took you at your word when you just referred to "birth control" in the earlier post.

I can't believe you are really arguing that it is understandable that anti-choicers want to shove probes up the vaginas of unwilling pro-choice women because pro-choicers had the audacity to argue that they should have the option of buying abortion coverage on their insurance if they so choose. Are you serious?

Kate


 o
jeesh RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

You sure read selectively Kate. Not worth the bother.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

My favorite Commercial :o)

Here is a link that might be useful: Birth Control


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

There will be a National Protest on the War Against Women on April 28, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. People are gathering in D.C. and the capitols of each state on that day. I plan to be in Olympia and am going to do whatever I can to get as many people there to show that "we are mad as h*11 and aren't going to take it anymore."

I read that there are some cretins in Washington state who are attempting to get a "personhood" bill passed here. Our legislature is no longer in session (after passing Marriage Equality, it adjourned) so it won't be until next year or late this year. But, I hope there will be plenty of people united against it by then to show that we, in Washington state, value women's freedoms and won't let these misogynists have their way with us.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rise Up, Women!


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Good. But I wonder why they are waiting so late to do this?


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Would it be more helpful to reduce any partisan outrage on this? Does it need to mention "GOP run states"? Might get more support if one doesn't mention parties. No need to alienate conservative women - just mention it is a war on women period.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

War against women. Strong. Aggressive. Rallies the troops.

Whatever it takes to separate people into groups, and set them against each other. Hell, it works for politics, religion, philosophies-- why not use it for individual hot topics.

I'm glad I walked away from this forum for a couple of days. It made me realize just how much ALL of us are being set against each other. Deliberately. Not just conservatives OR liberals. But EVERYONE. No problems to solve if everyone's getting along. Enjoy the rest of your lives. Later, gators.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Yes, it should be a non-partisan issue. My Democratic state Senator is someone I would like to see voted out of office. Unfortunately, the Republicans who run against him are worse, as far as social conservatives go. Someone needs to take him on in the primary, but it never happens.


 o
Clarification...

The Democratic Senator I mentioned is a state senator.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Bill, are you going somewhere?


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

This opinion piece appeared in a local newspaper on Thursday, appropriate and well worded and thought out.

From the experience of a woman who has been in the shoes of making the decision and what her opinion is on the idea of outlawing abortion.

The title of the opinion piece gives a clue to her opinion, it's how it is worded that says it all so perfectly

It's the last paragraphs that sum up her thoughts

"And that's the important part, though I agree with Santorum's view of prenatal testing, I had the choice to have the tests and to then decide what to do with the results. It's not acceptable to ignore the human costs of advances in prenatal testing, but who is Rick Santorum, or anyone else -- even if they've been through such an ordeal -- to judge whether families should have those choices?

The bottom line for anyone who cares about whether they are able to opt for a one-in-a-million shot at a viable baby, or avoid certain tragedy before it unfolds, should be that such a choice is none of the next president's business.

I couldn't agree more with those words if I tried.

Here is a link that might be useful: Why I chose live for Wren is my business


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

I agree; it's not the President's business. But if the president is asked for a personal opinion, the president is obliged to give the president's personal opinion, honestly.

I don't think any candidate wants to open this can of worms, but when pressed for an answer, must provide one. It's not reasonable to vote or not vote for a particular camdidate because of their opinion on an issue; their opinion is part of their thinking at the moment. Anyone should be able to change their opinion, else discussion is pointless.

If you'd prefer to base your allegiance to a candidate on past actions, well, you can take into account that experience has taught them not to repeat their mistakes, hopefully to learn from them.

Opinions are like promises, maybe. They don't amount to a hill of beans, judging from history.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Except these are not just his opinions they are his core beliefs. I for one think the core beliefs and personal opinions of a person running for positions of power are hugely important.

That is what will guide their decisions. What if he said, when pressed for an answer, that his personal opinion was that the US should invade Iran? How is that not a "reasonable" reason to base ones vote on?

I disagree entirely. A candidates personal opinion, along with past actions, are key to thougtful voting.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

Maybe, chase. But we never know for sure if they are even expressing their true opinions, any more than we know if they're lying or just clueless.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

" But we never know for sure if they are even expressing their true opinions, any more than we know if they're lying or just clueless."

So are you suggesting that we just ignore anything and everything that a candidate running for any office says?

Are we supposed to believe, say Romney that he is a true conservative and always was, yet he was a moderate during any and all of his political campaigns and serving as governor, until he decided to run for president while also being governor of MA.

Are we supposed to believe that he is the true conservative all of a sudden since he needs the votes from the conservative party to win the nomination, but he didn't need those votes to be governor of MA of the Senator from MA.

Are we supposed to ignore the history of Romney and his politics and also ignore what he claims now?

Are we supposed to support and vote for one of the biggest political flip flops in history because maybe he lied in MA, and maybe he's lying now?

Of course Mitt claims to have had some kind of epiphany during his time as governor and that turned him, over night, into a conservative Vs a moderate.

Sorry, Elvis, but a persons personal beliefs, right along with his actions speak volumes for what the candidate may or may not mean.

Reality is this, one cannot run for a political office and have his past actions and words ignored because they may or may not be the truth.

All of those things, along with the words, the claims, the beliefs that are stated in the present are all part of the entire package that the candidate has been, is and will be.
They can not be ignored, if one is to be an informed voter.

Of course if one just wants to "sip the cool aid" and "follow the sheep to slaughter" so to speak, then it really doesn't matter what the candidate says or believes. If he/she is the one in the right fold of politics, then yup, just believe and not be informed.

It doesn't matter what political party or belief one believes in, to be informed as a voter, one must evaluate the entire package that the candidate presents to the people.
That includes past, present and potential future beliefs, words, actions.


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

On another board, one poster from Michigan wrote:

I live in Michigan and everyone I know is voting for Santorum...only problem for the Republicons is, we are all Democats..don't ya just love an open primary?

-Ron-


 o
RE: Efforts to outlaw abortion, part 2

A persons History as a Politician speaks more about what they are & how they view their constituents.
Romney Plays Lets pretend I said something else lets pretend I did something else, lets pretend I live in my sons basement let pretend!
The Party of no plays less these days at lets pretend out there in the open with their apologists on this forum & each and every outrage is oh of course that should be that way I don't know why we never saw that before.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here