reproductive_freedom splinken RU486 let's all breathe a little easier. medicine can triumph over politics. 000928 ... Q That is true, but that is not the case here. This was one side of politics - the side respecting reproductive freedom - triumphing over the other. It was just like another 5-4 Supreme Court vote upholding Roe v. Wade. And if the Shrub were the president who had appointed the FDA commissioner, there would be no cause now to celebrate. 000928 ... j_blue supreme court rulings have always been completely intentionally ultra political. narrow rulings are that way by design. abortion is a reality, and sometimes a necessity. ru486 is better than surgery, since all surgeries carry with them certain risks. politics make getting these done, for whatever reason, harder and more dangerous than they need to be, when it should be trying to make it safer and easier, thats all. 000928 ... sarpedon If it was known That there was a 98% chance That full recovery could occur In less than nine months Would you still cut off life support ... How can one's life Be determined By how much one is wanted ... Is consciousness Memories Required to have rights ... Do not the temporarily comatose still have rights ... Since when does location Have anything to do With being human or not ... How can it be illegal to kill an infant Once it is out into the world But not to kill the same one Only a few hours younger But not having yet seen the light of day ... Would you still demand the same freedom If you knew that you would not have even existed If that freedom had been exercised Against you ... What makes a life filled with memories Worth more than one That has yet to obtain them And experience life to the fullest 000928 ... silentbob Right, sarpedon. you have now established that abortion is "wrong." meanwhile, that isn't stopping people. they are still killing their children. Now what would you rather have in this given situation: that it be ILLEGAL and have women gouging their vaginal cavities with rusty hangers, perhaps failing in abortion and killing themselves in the act too, or going to someone who can do it correctly in a safe and harmless (while completely guilt-laden for the patient)environment without being tampered with. And people are shocked that there are pro-choicers who are vegetarians and are against the death penalty. OO. Whoopdie shit. 000928 ... Q I have not one iota of a problem saying flat out that, as a matter of biology and legal policy, the idea is completely stupid that a first trimester embryo is some sort of individual human entitled to the same rights as the woman of whom it is an integral part and apart from whom it can neither develop into a human nor survive. Being anti-choice is worse than being anti-woman. It is the ultimate in invidious discrimation on the basis of sex. It is also being anti-decent-and-caring-man. There are not too many blatherers who are old enough to remember the days before Roe v. Wade, when the botched abortions of the sort bob describes were everyday realities that many of us had to deal with. When enjoyment of sex as a mutually pleasurable, affectionate act was virtually impossible for young and wisely unmarried women, and their decent male partners, because the forces of stupidity (and in my view evil) kept illegal not only abortion for all women but also access to birth control for unmarried women. It was totally sick, totally unfair, completely stupid, and murderously evil. I remember those days all too well, and they still give me nightmares. I am made sick to my stomach by the thought that, possibly with the help of his running mate Nader, that ne'er-do-well (except with daddy's help) fratboy asshole from Texas might become president and make the Supreme Court so it would bring back all that sickness, unfairness, stupidity and death-dealing, infertility-causing evil. If I offended anybody here, I am not sorry. Anybody offended would, I can assure you all, come to agree with me, if abortion would again become illegal. They would come to agree with me on the day he or she would learn that they would need to help lay to rest a daughter, wife, granddaughter, mother, sister, woman lover or woman friend who had died from a botched abortion attempt. Or on the day they would need to weep with a woman who had learned she had become infertile from such an attempt. Anybody who is anti-choice deserves to be offended and should be ashamed. 000928 ... sarpedon I did not express any opinions in my statements, just wanted to point out some observations, and you attacked me, and not the observations. But not wishing to raise any hell, I would like to point out one more thing. Abortion is legal. The woman alone has the choice to decide whether or not to abort it. We have a matrix of choices: (both man and woman want the child, only man does, only woman does, or neither does) If both want it, great, a baby is born, and loved by both parents. If neither wants the child, great, it gets aborted, everyone is happy. Suppose only the woman wants it. The current state of laws says that the man is just as involved with the child as the woman is, even though he does not want her to keep it. And by involvment I mean that the man has to pay child support for the next eighteen years (in the US), for a choice he did not take part in. And suppose only the man wants it? The woman can go anytime she wants to get an abortion, regardless of the fact that he would like to keep it. After all, it is her choice. There is a severe gender inequality here. I will not discuss the morality of abortion here, just its incongruities. The current structure places the man at a strong disadvantage, where his "choice" is ignored and must pay child support, heavily burdening him for a choice he was never able to make. For abortion to allow women's choice as well as gender equality would mean that the man involved would have the same choice of abortion as the woman does. And this would mean forcing an unwanted abortion on a woman, or at least being absolved from the requirement of child support if he does not want the child. After all, it's simply a clump of cells, isn't it? 000929 ... Legion considering certain flaws in the system, couldn't the same arguments be made against capital punishment...but why is it that the people who will support that usually never support the other. and the same people who will argue the morality of the act are the same ones who will kill doctors and blow up clinics to show how much they respsct life now if THAT isn't incongruous, then ui must be the easter bunny. These are the people who don't want you to terminate/kill them now so that they can have pleasure of terminating/killing them a few years down the line. And i always wonder if the majority of procedures were performed on ethnic minorities and the lower socioeconomic classes, would some people still get their shorts in a twist over the subject...because i can assure you that the population of the average death row is exactly the opposite of the client base for most reproductive services. I don't have any qualms about either, i think we as humans have had our turn and fucked it up...let's all just do the decent thing, push the button and let the roaches have qwhat is rightfully theirs...after all they've been waiting 350 million years. 000929 ... silentbob i apologize if i attacked you sarpedon. i respect you as a person, and you did raise some good points with the gender inequality issue. its the right for the woman to choose, but its the man's decision too... maybe they should make a law saying something about how they have to have fathers consent? would that be good? hmm maybe not. i don't know. And i didn't want to attack you sarpedon, but i did just because you were saying things i disagreed with, sort of. and i wanted to say what i was thinking. So no hard feelings between you and me, For ME at least...you obviously had more thoughts on the subject than your first post on this blathe had led on. anyway, another thing i was thinking about. i know a girl. She is pro choice. and her choice is life. if she ever got pregnant she would not abort it. but she thinks its a personal choice, and well should be, she thinks. shes really cool. imagine.... imagine a world where overpopulation was so massive that people were being born in numbers so dangerous that they made it illegal to be pro choice......and the only option you had for pregnancy...was abortion. YOUR ONLY CHOICE WAS ABORTION. wouldn't you want the choice to let the baby live? then you'd be pro choice. isn't that funny? well not funny HA HA...but..just kinda weird. i'm pro choice. you have the choice to accept the responsibility or not. and i really liked what Q said (another blather_compliment) about the little baby could not live without its mother. i thought that was an interesting point. it wouldnt even survive without the woman, what kind of rights are these? and blah blah blah. i dont know, im tired. basically i am saying....i see both sides. its not that i think that early pregnancies are not life...its all life. i consider it a life inside the seminal vesicles, just a little sperm, its still a life. and JILLIONS OF THOSE DIE INSIDE CONDOMS!!!! do we weep for them? no. its just a little older. thast all. then we consider it alive? its always alive. its life with potential, and, sure maybe its sad it never reached its potential, but if its all in some divine plan, then it was probably meant to some terrible fate where it wasnt going to reach its potential anyway...... i dont know what the fuck im talking about...like i said....im tired. Excuse me while i kiss the sky. 000929 ... somebody to politely correct sarpedon- abortion may be legal in the constitution, but i disagree with 'abortion is legal.' almost every state has some sort of law limiting abortion. so many have parental notice or consent laws for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and statistical reporting requirements for all abortions. and that was really powerful, silentbob. 001219 ... j_blue true reproductive_freedom is the voluntary liberation of humans from the reproductive process. technology has been slowly bringing this about for the past 50 years or so. even now, so called 'incubators' are being devoloped to increase the survival rate of extremely premature infants. reproductive_gender_equality will happen when the preborn can be safely seperated from the woman after fertilization and allowed to grow. its kinda weird, but when the humans are no longer 'forced' to endure reproduction or the constraints of biology, then we will all be free and equal. think about the implications... its kinda scary, even though i beleive in it. 001219 ... Megan As a woman, I feel I have a valid opinion to offer on this matter. I personally would never, ever kill a child growing inside of me,and frankly, I don't see how anyone could. But that is my opinion. I don't think I have the right to legally force my opinion on anyone else. I believe that abortion is legalized murder, but apparently, there aren't too many women who share my opinion, and there is no way on this earth that I am going to make some poor girl stab at herself. In other words, I'm pro life personally and philosophically. I just don't have the guts to be active. Final thought, clearly personal opinion: Even if you don't believe in God, I don't think there's a person out there who doesn't believe in Nature. Do you really think Nature meant for sex to happen without procreation? Do you really think Nature intended for a woman to be blessed(or cursed) with a new child growing inside her just so it could be sucked out by a doctor and his surgical vacuum? There is no such thing as reproductive freedom. short of hysterectomy or "fixing" your man, sorry ladies, nature can find a way. 001219 ... silentbob ok, i'm going to try my hardest not to attack you megan. Seeing as how people DO have sex with no consequences that means that nature did "intend" to let it be so. you're simply replacing the word god with nature, and giving it actions as if it had goals for us as creatures on the earth. And you're wrong, there are a lot of women who share your ideas, otherwise abortion and choice wouldn't be such a hot issue. who are the old men in their office seats to say what women can and cannot do with their bodies? I respect you and your opinion megan, and dont mean to bash on you. if you have more to say on this, i hope you say it because id like to know more about what you think. 001219 ... twiggie i'm pro-choice. when i was younger i had sort of a struggle with this, i always said i was pro-life because i grew up in a very catholic family and i felt that i'd get yelled at for hours if i ever said i was pro-choice. but that's all over with and done, seeing as i don't even believe in that god anymore. finally, i told my mom that i was both. she said that in being both, i was pro-choice. because i believe in the choice. i could never get an abortion. i could never kill something that is a part of me. but that's me, and not someone else. i don't think abortion should be used as a birth control. there are pills for that, and instead of killing countless numbers of babies, just take the pill. i don't feel that just because i could never get an abortion, i can tell someone else that they can't either. it's not my decision, it's there's. i don't know their situation, their life, who am i to judge whether or not the right choice is being made? this has been said before, but if abortion is made illegal, girls will go right back to coat hangers. they'll go right back to getting unsafe and unsanitary abortions in alleys. so many will kill themselves trying to kill the child inside of them. i think that instead of putting this danger back out there, just give them the option to at least get it done safely. if they don't want the baby, they are going to do whatever is in their power to get rid of it, safe or not. i'm not trying to argue with anyone, cos god knows i've done that before. i see where people who are pro-life are coming from. i've seen their point of view, and i agree with it to an extent. i've given up on trying to show most pro-life people *my* point of view because they usually choose not to see it. i'm not asking you to believe what i do, but at least try and see where i'm coming from for chrissake. anyway, i've decided it's futile to argue about it, because all that leads to is 2 people pissed off at eachother, and sometimes fights between friends. it's not worth that. this is just my point of view. and all i ask is that you respect it. 001219 ... Megan ok bob. I wasn't replacing god with Nature. As a matter of fact, I think it's more of a scientific thing. If two fertile people have sex enough, a baby will result(that's without using birth control, etc.). It's the way things ended up. Earth is that way. Also, Nature does have a goal... it's ingrained in all of us. procreation. continuance of the species. whatever you want to call it, it's behavior found in every animal that can hope to go on living. Obviously who/whatever the hell is running things doesn't want the earth to die out. Humans are the only ones stupid/smart enough to figure out how to thwart that. Please forgive me if I've made any references to any Supreme Being and offended you. After all, this is all about me being politically correct, right? (sarcasm evident) We wouldn't want me to offend anyone, by, oh I don't know, professing to believe in something they don't. Cuz, you know, nobody ELSE has done anything like that to ME. Sorry, needed to vent that. 001219 ... silentbob Tushay (phonetic spelling, since i dont know the actual one). You have successfully presented that im hypocricial. meanwhile, my point still stands that jillions of women agree with you. and about the god and nature thing, the way you wrote it the first time made it sound like thats exactly what you were doing, personifying an omnipotent being, or whatever. and thats why i wanted you to write more, so you could clarify. and you said "for those of you who dont believe in god" it was actually you who was trying to seperate the two, but it didnt really seem like you did that, hence my reaction previous. theres nothing wrong with referring to an omnipotent being superior to us, or whatever, but you were the one who tried to seperate it in the first place. and again, i dont mean to bash you or try to argue, i'm just trying to make points. maybe they're missed. 001219 ... The Morning Star To quote one of my favorite nephews: "It's ok to get an abortion, but you've gotta do it at the right time. If you're pregnant, I think you can go ahead and drag the little fucker out and put 'im down with a quick .22 slug in the temple just so long as he can't read yet. And of course, that's open to interpretation. If you're one of those people who thinks that the Tom and Jerry books aren't "reading" then you can feel free to wait as long as you see fit. If you wanna wait till he or she has read Joyce in Spanish, well, that's you're perogative. Hope this helps." 001219 ... Megan Thank you for that. I'm sure that my presenting a bit of information in a slightly misleading manner has a whole lot to do with what we're talking about right now. Personally, I don't believe that the "omnipotent being" and "Nature" should be considered seperate. I was trying to be more politically correct so people would concentrate on what I had to say about "reproductive_freedom" instead of focusing on my religion. Congrats. you've succeeded in thwarting me. ok, maybe a lot of women do agree with me. I guess what I was trying to say is, it's not all that evident because people are so scared of militant pro choicers attacking them. (And no, of course I'm not saying all people who are pro choice are violent or anything of the sort.) Please, please forgive me if there are a lot of people out there who agree with me visibly. In my ignorance, I haven't happened across them yet. ::Helpful hint: when trying NOT to attack someone, don't use the words,"You were the one..." 001220 ... j_blue anyway, regarding the nature arguement, here's the thing: the human race, by that same arguement, violates nature all the time, by definition. what other species systematically conquers the world? and we cant pull off existing in a half assed natural state, its pretty much an all or none, hopefully all of our unnatural activities will cancel out. is there a logical (not spiritual or religious) reason why abortion is a bad idea? and will this reason always be true? and the final thing is, its such a complicated issue, how in the hell can we leave the decision up to democracy? its an established fact that popular rule is not a reliable competent decision making mechanism. the only thing left to do is to leave it up to the individuals (unless someone has a better idea). anyway, as usual, trying to be brief... 001220 ... Megan You remember that part where I said something like: "Human beings are the only ones stupid/smart enough to mess with that?" in reference to birth control, etc... that's kinda what I was getting at. And there's a very good logical reason why abortion is a bad idea. It's called murder of an innocent child. I know you obviously don't agree with me, maybe you think I'm a bleeding heart, and that's fine. Honestly, it's cool with me. In fact, I don't care if anyone on this earth agrees with me on this. You're not going to change my mind with logic, or women's rights, or whatever. I understand there are people out there who so desperately do not want a baby that they will stab at themselves with "rusty old coat hangers" and I think that's a relevant issue, which is why I don't support making first trimester abortions illegal. But no matter how many sad stories there are out there, no matter how many women are for abortion, no matter how many men are for abortion, you're not going to change my mind. I guess for me it does run down to religion. I'm not sure if I do believe in "God". I know there's something out there bigger than us, but I'm not sure if it's the one I've been raised to believe in. I just can't believe that Who The Hell Ever wants people to have abortions. And I know I don't want it. If you don't believe in a Who The Hell Ever, that's cool. Then you probably disagree with me. That's cool too. Just don't try and poke holes in my arguments, ok? I'm really sick of trying to speak my own mind amidst a sea of people just trying to convince me otherwise. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm stating my viewpoint, trying to be heard. If in the process of doing that, I convinced you to think the same way I do, that's fine, but it's not my goal here. 001220 ... The Schleiffen Man Personally, I say start saving the lives of the ones that are immediately useful. Once that's done, go after the future investments. Don't help none if the ones your saving can't help you back. 001220 ... Megan "What other species systematically conquers the world?" What other species doesn't have anything to stop them? If wolves in Minnesota were infallible and had all the food they needed, they would systematically conquer all the wildlife here, possibly all over the country and continent. The difference with humans is that we were blessed/cursed with a superior intellect that allows us to get around those limitations. We were also blessed/cursed with a desire to get around all the possible limitations we can find. Limitations meaning other "lesser" peoples, forests, wildlife, natural resources, and natural bodies of water. Limitations like space travel, deep sea travel, all unnecessary things, or they would be if we didn't constantly rape the earth at every opportunity. People are saying, we need to find another habitable planet out in space, cuz we're fucking up this one too much. Doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with that? Don't you think we should tinker around with the problems here at home instead of wasting billions of dollars on a satellite that burned up in the Martian atmosphere? I guess my point is, you're right, we're the only species that systematically conquers the earth, violates all the rules of Nature, whatever, and we're the only species who kills its own young before they have even been born. But it doesn't make it right. 001220 ... j_blue what makes anything right? and what intellect is "superior" as far as i'm concerned, consciousness is an evolutionary experiment in progress, so no one is yet qualified to make any kind of judgement our consciousness has generated myriad problems, that "nature" hasnt yet accounted for when i say conquer the world, i might as well say dominate, or infest besides, killing is part of nature, and many species kill their young, depending on various conditions killing is not acceptable behavior in our "civilized" society, it is perfectly acceptable in nature 001220 ... silentbob i agree j_blue i think that everything we do is part of "human nature" so when we do anything, thats exactly what it is. and when we disagree on something and insult someone else's intelligence, that's part of human nature too. and its part of human nature to say, "i dont mean to bash you, but..." and then go right out and do it. What is it if its not human nature? man's mistake? how can we make a mistake in our own history? sure we have fuck ups every now and then, little things like holocausts and televangelism, and maybe this whole pro-choice/pro-life thing is just another part of human nature. And another thing, megan. I don't know anyone on the earth who is pro abortion. to say that is sadistic and sick. its not about having abortions, no one wants to get a little child vaccuumed out of them, perish the thought. its the choice. i'm not pro abortion, im pro choice. And there's nothing wrong with being a bleeding heart. it's just a matter of what you're heart is bleeding for. little babies, that's fine. my heart bleeds for love and relationship. im a bleeding heart too, and to seperate me from you in the bleeding hearts column, or anyone for that matter is silly, because everyone's heart bleeds for something. And you're telling me not to say things like, "You were the one" and "I dont mean to bash you " in the same sentence. but you made a statement that provoked thought in me, so i replied and you vented and i replied etc etc etc. Anyway. Is there more to say? 001220 ... j_blue why dont we just make up more black box terms designed to disguise other complex phenomenon as well? but whatever 001220 ... Megan This may sound like a cop-out to you, but... Bored now. 001221 ... silentbob Its not a cop-out. im bored with it too. the only reason i would have responded is if you responded too. 001221 ... j_blue good, we are in agreement 001221 ... The Morning Star So knock it off already! Heh 001221 ... unhinged i don't know if i actually want to get into this laying out of view points here but i feel slightly pugnacious tonight and no matter what anyone says this topic always starts debate. america was founded on the right to choose. people came to this country so that they wouldn't have to hide their beliefs. it just amazes me how quickly people forget. and people will argue with me and say that this country was also founded in "god we trust" but god judges each of us separately. i am pro-choice. i could never abort my own child but i believe that people should have the right to make their own choice whether it is about religion, drug use, sexual habits, abortion...and take the consequences that goes with that behaviour. i think that is a fundamental basis of this country. and wouldn't you rather have a child go straight to god than be born a crack addict or live their whole lives unloved and abused or in an orphanage? in my opinion if a child is unwanted for whatever the reason by whatever party of the relationship it makes more sense to me to have them be loved from the outset in heaven than living in hell on earth. let the person who ended that life deal with the consequences. sometimes it's better all around. we say that abortion is inhumane but is it really? sometimes i would have to say no. immoral...for most people definitely, but not necessarily inhumane. 001222 ... tourist This has been an Extremely long post,so I'll try to make this short, Just a few personal views and general questions. 1 Is not mankind also a part of nature? 2 If yeast were given the choice of regulating their reproduction rate, do you think they would, or would they proceed to breed until they drown themselves in the alchoholic waste that they inevitably produce? 3 It's not a matter of taking care of this planet alone that rationalizes space exploration/colonization. Because even if we live here in eco-harmony with world peace and prosperity, it really is just a matter of time before the earth will be struck again by a large enough asteroid or comet to end our reign here. Remember the cometary impact on Jupiter a few years back. that was more than enough fire power! 4 As far as abortion goes, I don't think passing any Law will ever stop them. Any more than the war on drugs has ended drug use, and making women and doctors criminals seems somewhat insane to me. 001222 ... silentbob Right on soul sister! 001222 ... Megan I find my self agreeing with unhinged. 001223 ... Tank interesting that this debate is being entertained at this point in the evolution of life... a year and three days ago i terminated my firstborn. until that point i was staunchly pro-choice and the choice i always said i would choose was that of life. how many times did i say never me..? until it happened to me... alone, broke and a stranger in an even stranger land. told the father and i never heard from him again... then what..? bring a child into a life where i barely survived..? sorry but i wasn't prepared to do that... so i negated on all those claims i had made to preserving a life i had created and i terminated it... ladies, never say never, for the pain created by negating on such a promise is a great cross to bear... 001223 ... z vice president palin? 080922 ... Lee Harvey Oz. God's gift to mankind was free will. I believe in freedom and choice. I am pro-choice, and pro-life. I am NOT anti-choice. 080922 ... flowerock (gets a little angry sometimes) see pro_choice 140216 what's it to you? who go blather from