Woman to Woman

By Bryan

May 30, 2005 07:09 AM | Link to this

It’s important to get competent and full information for any medical procedure, from a non-bias source. So in a way I side with both Shaunti and Diane. Unfortionitely with abortion, we may never have unbiased sources. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make the information, ALL the information, required, nor do I find a waiting period between seeing a doctor and getting an abortion. Diane says it’s telling us women can’t get the facts. The simple truth is there is a lot of misinformation, so asking for everyone to have the facts is not unreasonable.

By Randy

May 30, 2005 07:22 AM | Link to this

Since abortion is murder. I think the innocent baby does deserve full disclosure, before it’s life is taken. I’m sure the mother who is aborting the baby would want that, before she were to be put to death. If I were the baby, I would probably rather let some nice family adopt me verses being murdered, but being a baby I wouldn’t get a voice in the matter. Really barbaric.

By Denise Noe

May 30, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

The “full disclosure” girls and women who are about to abort need is not about possible health ills that may befall them at some point in the future. After all, an immediate threat will always be regarded fall more urgently than a distant one. Rather, the “full disclosure” should be about what the embryo/fetus/unborn child looks like at the stage at which they are aborting. They shouldn’t have to find out AFTERWARD that what they destroyed had a head, arms, legs, fingers, and toes (IF they are aborting at 7-10 weeks or later). I say this as one who supports the legal right of females to terminate their pregnancies.

By Claire

May 30, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Diane’s side would make sense…if she knew what she was talking about. Having been in the situation, and not having any history of depression, I can tell you the regret can be overwhelming. And this is 10 years later. There is no consent process other than “sign here.” There is absolutley no information provided to help you make an informed decision. Obviously, I made the decision before hand, but had the information (and maybe a voice of reason) been provided, I think maybe the outcome could have been different. And that is the point…the information is not provided. Diane, I don’t think the Christian right’s issue is “go forth and multiply”, I think it is “thou shalt not kill.”

By Lyrazel

May 30, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Barbaric or not, we are a nation that relies on easy solutions to fix problems.

Education on using birth control could prevent many abortions. A decent form of men’s birth control, something easy: a spray-on could replace the condom designed in 0 AD Cant the overpaid medical society think of something new? Also note we have had abortions since we have been using this device. Maybe reality is Americans dont want contraceptives because we have safe abortions!

Americans play games with sex-education but promote sexual drugs for stimulation and to maintain errection—while birth control is omitted from many health care plans and is still thought as a womans issue…even if men are involved. America is a society that has prioritized its sexual freedoms with display on every form of advertising from our t-shirts to food to fashion, music, news and cars. Americans adore titalation.

Americans dress up teenagers as adults, but are crestfallen when teens come home pregnant at 16 by someone 30. O this is not how it should be—we cry—rant—and then ignore it and have the abortion or let her spend the next 7 years being branded. Who does most the name-calling? The passionate penny-pinching social program haters and religious advocates who dont adopt but condem these women who keep their child as greedy, socially corrupt, lazy no good bottom feeding—-welfare queens. But, fact is its not welfare queens having abortions…its 9 million others…like married housewives, college-educated, fast food workers, single women, career women, women who have heriditary diseases, women who use abortions because they cannot afford BC pills, dont like condoms, or just too damn lazy.

Its really nice to pretend these 9 million babies/year would be adopted but in America that wont happen. We dont want to deal with somebody elses mistakes so we flap our gums condeming women, doctors, nurses, teachers, government, parents; we condemn everyone but the men who help make these babies.

So, does it surprise me that anti-abortion advocates want new disclosures? No. Its just a sheet of paper a doctor reads to a patient and then they will get on with the business of the abortion. Will it help? Help who? Women who have already made the decision dont care what the doctor reads off a list prepared by the government…they want it done…they need to get back to work…get back to school…get back to their lives. Maybe doctors should be reading a paper on how to prevent future pregnancies—ha haha—not in this America…

By Randy

May 30, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

There are people waiting in line to adopt. Preserve someone’s life, don’t abort, adopt.

By Erin

May 30, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

What I want to know is, when does a doctor sit a pregnant woman down and discuss all the potential health dangers of carrying a child to term? Pregnancy is far more dangerous to a woman than an abortion.

By Randy

May 30, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Yea but abortion is far more dangerous to the child. Really women have been having babies for a long time, it’s not that dangerous.

By Brian Curtis

May 30, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Or better yet, sit down with couples and tell them about the dangers of pregnancy before they decide whether to have kids at all!

We DO still have an overpopulation problem, after all. Too many kids, not enough good homes.

By Randy

May 31, 2005 07:09 AM | Link to this

Brian, That’s good advise.

By Boscoe

May 31, 2005 07:43 AM | Link to this

Pregnancy is far more dangerous to a woman than an abortion. Erin what color is the sky in your world? Get real, you need to take another look at the facts.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this

Diane needs to read through her rebuttal again. How can she pretend that Georgia Planned Parenthood would/could know more than the medical profession itself. This goverment agency has never worked. If it did work we wouldn’t have the population growth we have now. Cetainly she could have quoted better sources! And as usual she blames everything on the Christain Right. Come on Diane, not informing a patient of ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION before a medical procedure is just plain stupid and irresponsible.

Although I agree that abortion is murder the fact is abortion is legal and we shoudl make every effort to inform those that wish to have one, for whatever reason, of all the facts regarding the procedure.

By johnjacob

May 31, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this

Why isn’t there a big picture of the latest guy on the crane? We got to see Carl Roland’s face plastered all over the news and the ajc, but the this Trent guy is not. Could it be because he’s white?

By RS

May 31, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Not surprisingly, I agree 100% with Diane. Some of you talk about murdering “babies” & the rights of the “baby”. Well, as long as it’s still growing in/dependent on the mother’s (host) body, it’s not a baby, it’s a foetus. The mother, as a viable, already existing human, should be the one with all the rights.

By Archie

May 31, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Diane is probably right that full disclosure is not about health care it is about discouraging abortions. I will say that viewing an ultrasound could change some minds but then since I am not a woman I don’t know what they go through. Abortion should remain legal and safe and all the proper health information should be given without the bias of politics.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Seeing an ultrasound and a heartbeat at 6 weeks along DOES change the reality of it for a parent, and perhaps even if no information is given, a pregnant woman should be made to see the heartbeat of the “fetus” (i.e., LIFE) and then she can decide if she wants to kill it or not.

By sage

May 31, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Perhaps all 13, 14, 15 year old boys should have to see an ultrasound and hear the heartbeat of a fetus as part of the high school curriculum. Then maybe so many females wouldn’t be made pregnated by boys and men who don’t want to use a condom because they can’t “feel it.” Do you guys think that might work?

By sage

May 31, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

I meant “made pregnant” of course.

By James

May 31, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

It amazes me how Lyrazel is so on the money, yet you attack. He is correct, there are thousands of children in foster care & orphanages who are not wanted. They are black children & older children & specail needs children. Everyone wants a perfect, white, blue eyed, blond haired baby. But, they are few and far between. Also, there are 1000’s of potential parents with loving homes who Rocky & Boscoe would rather kill than let have a child. (Yeah, you don’t want perfectly good f* to have one do you.)

But, my stand comes down to this. Abortion, when illegal in this country, was performed in back rooms by butchers. Abortions should be a safe option for women who choose to have them. They should receive all the information, I agree 100%. But, don’t tell me ‘adoption’ is an option. That theory has been blown 100% out of the water. BTY: Do any of you Extremist Christians have adopted children? If not, ………………….

By Tim

May 31, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

what about the woman who is going to give birth to a still born… and rather go full term decides to abort what is already dead… should she really have to sit through all this ‘information’… I am sure she has gone through enough PLANNING a pregnancy only to realize that her ‘baby’ died in her stomach… should she really have to go through more pain??? what wonder ful compassion from ‘christians’ to FORCE more HELL upon this woman

By lozen

May 31, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Why should boys have to deal with something like this? It’s the girl who gets pregnant; she’s the one who should deal with it! Just like she’s the one who will have to take care of the child if she doesn’t have an abortion. It’s the woman who gets pregnant (just the way we phrase it makes it sound like she does it all by herself!), the woman who takes care of the kid, the woman who has to give up her education, job, life, whatever and become responsible for another person for the next 18+ years of her life. No reason for men to have to worry about it, see ultrasound or hear a heartbeat!

By Lee

May 31, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Why oh why do they have to wait until it’s too late to educate people??????????

This ALL should be taught in Health class in elementary school. This should be a part of sex education, which should be part of health education, which should be taught in all elementary schools, BEFORE the children get into this situation. Of course, risks of the procedure should be given before the procedure is done. Just like any medical procedure full disclosure should be given.

In this case, full disclosure seems to mean options if you do not get the procedure done. If they make this procedure a special case, then they can make other medical procedures subject to extra full disclosure.

Just makes me think where else this is going…

By lozen

May 31, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel is right. There are 160,000 adoptable children in foster care in this country. In the meantime, gay people and single people who want to adopt children, spend thousands of dollars and adopt from other countries because they can’t adopt here. You believe abortion is murder, fine. I believe going to another country and killing people there is murder. If you believe there are good reasons for war and that excuses murdering people for the government, but you think there’s never, ever a good reason for an abortion, you need to clear up your irrational thinking.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

James - first of all, I’ve never said that I think gays should be killed, so you can quit putting words into my mouth. Nor have I ever said that I didn’t think gays should be able to adopt. And I happen to BE a product of adoption, so I know what it’s like to be taken in by a family who desperately wants a child of their own. I just thank God that my biological mother decided to carry me to term and give me up for adoption, rather than live with a decision to murder me. She will always be my hero, as is any woman who chooses the more difficult but morally sound road of having a child and then giving it up for adoption, rather than having its little body sucked out of her piece by piece, limb by limb, simply because she couldn’t be bothered to invest 9 months of her life to help another life grow and thrive.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

lozen - a woman doesn’t have to give up 18+ years of her life if she has a child. She can give the child up for adoption to one of the millions of families in this country who are waiting anxiously for an unwanted child to become available to them. It’s a 9 month investment, not an 18+ year one, and if a woman goes to an adoption agency while she’s still pregnant, most times ALL her expenses are paid for her by the family who wants to adopt the baby.

By Whiley

May 31, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

What kind of country would this be if there was legalized forced pregnancy & there were millions of unwanted UN-adopted kids?

And pardon me, pregnancy is FAR MORE than just an “inconvenience for 9 months.” (Geez some people are so IGNORANT ! Especially when those words come of of a male’s mouth)

By lozen

May 31, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

“Just an inconvenience for 9 months!” Straight from the mouth of a man who will never know. You wanta see my scars, buddy?

By rocky

May 31, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Whiley - I watched my wife experience both her pregnancies and trust me, it was an inconvenience. But it was also something that still allowed her to do everything else that she wanted to do, other than drink, so it didn’t really alter her day to day life all that much. Towards the end her mobility was more limited, but come on. It’s not like she wasn’t able to live her life and that she suddenly was an invilid just because she was pregnant. You act like it’s 9 months of disability. It’s a pregnancy, not quadraplegic traction.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Tim,

I believe aborting a living baby and removing a stillborn baby is not the same thing. You cannot give BIRTH to something that is dead. And I am sure, I know first hand, that the doctors gave ALL the necessary information needed before any medical procedures were taken in the case of my wife’s, and mine, miscarriage.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Rocky,

I tend to agree with you on that. On the day my wife’s water broke with our first child she was talking to me on the phone from her job. With our second child we had plans to go fishing the mornng her water broke. She maybe different from other women but being pregnant didn’t slow her down very much, especially when shopping was involved.

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Sucked back in… welcome to your gloomy work week.

The “full disclosure” passed by the General Assembly recently, includes telling the woman that by law, the father is required to pay child support. HAHAHAHA! What they FAIL to disclose here is this: In order to receive or enforce an order for child support, the woman must FIRST pay thousands of dollars to an attorney. In fact, you cannot even contact a judge in Georgia to tell him or her that the father is in contempt of court and has not paid. You have to PAY FIRST to even be heard. Even then, little is done to “force” a father to pay if he doesn’t want to. He just leaves the state, or the country, or cries poor.

How about it legislators and other predatory lawyers? How ‘bout it Rocky & Randy & all you anti-choicers? How ‘bout YOU pay the lawyers up front?

Disclosure, my A**!

By Tim

May 31, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Bruce… that woman had to go through the information process just like any other women getting an abortion though… and that is wrong!

By lozen

May 31, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Each year at least a half-million women worldwide die from pregnancy-related causes. Fully 99% of these deaths occur in the Third World, where complications arising from pregnancy and illegal abortions are the leading killers of women in their 20s and 30s. The World Health Organization (WHO) officials caution that maternal deaths — those resulting directly or indirectly from pregnancy within 42 days of childbirth, induced abortion, or miscarriage — may ACTUALLY BE TWICE THE ESTIMATED FIGURES. What is more, for every woman who dies, many more suffer serious, often long-term health problems. That bearing life brings death to so many women is a distressing irony. It is even more distressing given that family planning and preventive medicine could substantially reduce these loses.

By Whiley

May 31, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Pregnancy is such a beautiful thing to witness! (especially when someone else is having to do it)

OK Rocky, lets YOU have sex with your wife, then without your consent, FORCE you to wear that “sympathy” outfit. You know the one that simulates pregnancy? Then the Govt. will force you to take pills that will make you vomit. Then the Govt. will make sure your outfit feeds into your blood stream something that will trigger hemorrhoids. Then possibly diabetes, high blood pressure etc. Occasional bleeding from your private parts, severe back pain, excessive weight gain, what did I leave out? OH & HOW ABOUT your govt. won’t guarantee your govt. forced pregnancy outfit won’t cause a brain aneurysm, or heart attack. Hell, your outfit may go crazy for no reason & you just bleed to death. OH well, that’s what you get for having sex right? I forgot the best part, when you weren’t looking, your forced pregnancy outfit implanted something in your rectal area that is growing little by little & there is only one way out ! (oh & all your friends tell you drugs will hurt your implant, you don’t need anything for pain) How would you enjoy that forced on you?

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Tim,

I have not been through any information process for living babies but I did go through the information process for stillborn. I am sure they are different and I didn’t feel I was subject to anything that wasn’t necessary.

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Rocky, It’s great that you’re the product of an adoption. My grandmother was adopted as well, though no one knew it until she died, except for two family members who weren’t talkin. Unfortunately, your solution “Don’t abort, adopt”, while sounding good and certainly presenting an excellent alternative, isn’t a fix-all!

James is absolutely right - all these waiting families you’re talking about don’t want flawed children, and the reality is that many of pregnancies we’re talking about wouldn’t result in perfect children.

I work with a woman who takes in kids for DFACS, and I am amazed at how many unwanted children there are out there. You were lucky - you were adopted, but for every kid that is adopted there are multiples that are not. If a woman can arrange to have a couple adopt her child before giving birth, that’s great…but choosing to have the baby and send it loose into the system is no guarantee. It’s just another easy answer of the pro-lifers that doesn’t take reality into consideration.

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

I like Sage’s idea. Give the BOYS some real after-sex education. Let them tour the maternity wards and see birthing films. Gross THEM out! Then teach them about the checkbook. Show ‘em how the checkbook works to remove whatever money you earn from your possession. ‘Cause pregnant women have to deal with their checkbooks, and so do Moms. And Randy & Rocky aren’t there to make it all magically go away if they say the word, “Abracadabra!” I mean, um “Adoption!

By Jack

May 31, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

I being a man am unqualified to speak for women about pregnancy. It is her choice & OK if the decision is made before the end of the first trimester. When men can have babies, then we can have a say.

By Tim

May 31, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Bruce… I don’t think you are understanding what I am saying… a woman who decides to have an abortion because she would give ‘birth’ to a still born has to go through the same ‘information’ process now as all the other women who are having abortions in Georgia… and she shouldn’t have to go through that

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

Yeah, what Jack said.

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Thanks Jack! You’re a righteous Dude.

I keep trying to tell people: if it ain’t your problem, then it ain’t your decision. If you want to make it YOUR decision, then make it your &^%$#@# PROBLEM or shut the HECK UP!

Why do these people hate freedom?

By Whiley

May 31, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

“Full Disclosureâ€? legislation: An offensive tactic of the anti-choice religious. Since taking control of reproduction of women has been impossible, “Full Disclosure” will at least make it more difficult. THAT is the only purpose of it.

Women are not stupid. It is extremely insulting to have to sit through a Govt. speech about abortion, when we ALL KNOW it’s just another anti-choice tactic law that was passed when we all weren’t paying attention or could not stop it.

Of course there will always be some women that unfortunately, are going to feel guilty for taking control of their bodies and having this medical procedure. They’ve been told all their lives that it’s our “duty” as women, should we ever get pregnant to stay pregnant, and give birth.(and like it)

By Mary

May 31, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Abortion. Unwanted pregnancy. Stillborns.

I am ashamed of you people! Already halfway into day one and you still have not figured out to blame these problems on the gay and lesbian community? You can do better! I know you can!

Maybe you are all just tired from last weeks gay bashing?

By Sherry

May 31, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

My goodness. Such anger. Of course the abortion issue does tend to trigger anger and name calling and complete lack of civility.

As I read Shaunti and Diane’s arguments I found myself laughing. One of the arguments that pro-choice people use is that we pro-life folks are always playing the Christianity card. And yet, in this discussion Shaunti uses facts and Diane uses the Christianity card - more specifically, the anti-Christianity card.

I don’t understand why it is that pro-abortionist seem to be in large number anti-informationist. What is wrong with asking a person, who is considering a major medical procedure that will have lasting impact, both physically and emotionally, to read more information and wait a few more days? This is a major decision and should not be taken lightly. The more you know, the better you are.

Further, I’m not sure why it is when discussing this very hot topic, everyone avoids the elephant in the chatroom. What is that elephant - it’s name is responsibility. I have yet to hear anyone talk about personal responsibility [except as it pertains to a woman’s right to personal responsibility in deciding to have an abortion]. We hear so much about how women have the right to control their own bodies. I say this is so true. The shame of it all - and the solution really - is that the women who want control over their bodies really ought to exercise that control when they are in bed with that man getting pregnant. If they showed some control then, this argument would be moot.

And lest we forget - it isn’t just grown women seeking abortion. Quite often it is very young girls seeking abortions. Young girls who, contrary to what Diane would have you believe, really don’t know all the facts pertaining to abortion and really do need more information and, in my opinion, parental consent to surgery.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Thirty years ago, on Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its historic decision in Roe vs. Wade and in doing so recognized that a woman’s constitutional right to privacy included her right to make personal childbearing decisions without fear of death, injury or government intrusion. The court’s decision rendered unconstitutional laws in most states that outlawed abortion in all but the most extreme cases.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent abortion. Prior to Roe, women sought to end pregnancies even if it meant risking their lives and health. Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million. In 2000, approximately 1.31 million abortions were performed throughout the United States; 90 percent of those occurred in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Since Roe, legal abortion has led to dramatic decreases in both maternal and infant mortality. In 1965, when abortion was still illegal nationwide except in cases of life endangerment, at least 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortion. Today, abortion is one of the safest as well as one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures, and is nearly twice as safe as a penicillin injection.

Worldwide, because of inadequate access to contraception, nearly 80 million pregnancies each year are unintended � nearly half of these result in abortion. Almost 20 million illegal abortions each year are performed under unsafe conditions, resulting in the death of approximately 78,000 women worldwide. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade would not stop abortion. It would only transport us back to a time when women died in this country because they had no choice but to seek an unsafe abortion.

We must remind ourselves that the very lives and health of women are at stake, women we love and know: our daughters, our sisters, our mothers, our partners and our friends.

The right to make personal childbearing decisions has also enabled women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that were often unthinkable 30 years ago. The Supreme Court noted in 1992 that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives� (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, 1992). Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe vs. Wade, called the decision “a step that had to be taken as we go down the road toward full emancipation of women.�

By PETER J. DURKIN and DYANN SANTOS

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, because while most of them will happily stand up and wave a flag proclaiming how much they love freedom and applaud our nation’s efforts to advance its cause, they secretly fear and despise freedom, assuming they actually understand what it means. For many of them, “freedom” means being free to make everyone live by their own religious standards. Anything that conflicts with their own personal beliefs is to be avoided and legislated against.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, honey, they don’t hate freedom! They just hate freedom for women. Keep em in their place, barefoot and pregnant…

By whiley

May 31, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

WE LOVE YOU JACK ! ! !

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Tim,

Are you talking about giving birth to a medically induced stillborn baby (abortion), or a baby that is stillborn due to natural causes (miscarriage)? I guess it shouldn’t matter either way, the patient should be as informed as possible before any medical procedure. Weither it is a toothache or a heart transplant. How can anyone make a sound medical decision without knowing all the facts?

By A Real Man

May 31, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Lozen, Whiley and the rest of you:

Fact: the world was better off when it was run by men and women knew their rightful place. Men have made ALL of the medical and technological advancements in our history. Fact: Men are smarter and have a higher IQ than women. Men have created and won ALL of the wars. Men created democracy for themselves, NOT for women. Education is for men, not for women. It was once punishable by death if a women learned to read and that should be returned. Women ARE property and the world would be better off if they were put back in thier rightful place of taking care of us so WE can run the world and make it a better place.

Oh, yes I am married and she respects me and takes care of me as she should. I am the head of the household and I run my household.

By Whiley

May 31, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

The point is that this legislation isn’t about informing women about a medical procedure. Why else would they have to come back 24 hours later before they can get it?????

It is insulting to pretend that it is. We all know it’s an anti choice law, I know it, you know it, & everyone else knows it too. Don’t treat us like we are dumb.

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Well Sherry, perhaps it’s the condescending, sugary tone and the use of nonsensical words like “pro-abortionist” that create some of the animosity in debates like these. Or, maybe it’s because the “Christian” card is played so very often right off the bat. After all, “Abortion is Murder, so I can’t discuss anything about it” doesn’t exactly lend itself to rational dialogue.

What I don’t understand is why the anti-freedomist seems to think that women are stupid. I don’t know of any other procedure, well - sex changes, that requires a patient to “go home and think about it”. The idea that the state has the right to force a doctor to lecture to a patient like some overbearing paternal figure is apalling to me.

And just for the record, while I still agree wholeheartedly with Jack’s “I’m a man so it’s none of my business stance”, if I were called on to make a statement of my own moral position on abortion, it would be that the use of abortion as nothing more than a means of birth control is morally questionable, but that I absolutely believe that the state has no business governing what a woman does with her body. I find the idea of late-term abortions to be personally grossly offensive, but still none of my business. So, there’s for your ludicrous “pro-abortionist” label.

By Randy

May 31, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

I am no doctor, but I’m pretty sure a dead baby will abort itself.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Please do not, for any reason, lump me in the same catagory with “A Real Man”. Bubba that is but garbage and nothing more.

By Ben

May 31, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Who is this clown who calls himself “A Real Man?” More like A Real Idiot.

By Whiley

May 31, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

lol AREALMAN ! YEA you guys have done a great job with your waring, raping, & pretty much screwing up everything. Thanks.

Has anyone checked his basement for bodies of missing women??

By Tim

May 31, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Bruce… I am talking about a woman whose child inside of her is already dead but she did not miscarry… so she can either go through the birthing process or she can have an abortion… she should not have to go through things such as ‘you know the dad is required by law to pay child support’

By Whiley

May 31, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

So is there anything we can do to overturn this ridiculous “full disclosureâ€? law? How can we prevent more of this nonsense? I didn’t even know something like this could pass ! Most of us don’t have time to constantly keep up with everything. Maybe that’s what the anti-choicers count on.

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Maybe “A Real Man” was being satirical? I hope so, ‘cause otherwise I pity his wife.

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Randy: obviously, you’re not a doctor. It will not necessarily “abort itself.” Could you BE any less informed? Go ask your wife if your biscuits are ready.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Tim,

In most cases when this happens the doctors will inform the mother that the baby is dead and for her own medical safety it would be best to remove it. I agree there is no logical reason for a woman to sit through a information process equal to that of a woman with a living baby. If that is teh way things are now there needs to be some adjustments to the law.

By Jack

May 31, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

He may be Norman in disguise.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I pity him when Lozen reads his post:-)

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I wrote and called my legislators several times during this year’s Ga. General Assembly. They made it very clear that my opinion means zilch to them. WHY is that, I asked myself… Well, clearly, because I did not round up campaign cash to facilitate their elections to these positions of authority. The “church people” do, they do so actively, and they do so with a pre-printed agenda. BTW, these legislators also balked at my idea of providing free legal services to women choosing not to abort, so that they might retrieve child support.

So what can we do? I’m thinking I might have to take my daughter and move to another country. Like lozen and Eaton said, the “freedom” they shout about isn’t meant for me or my daughter.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

ARealMan? A Real Neanderthal is more like it. What do you do about those scabs on your knuckles, jerk.

By Tim

May 31, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Bruce… that is how the law is right now… ANY woman having an abortion no matter what has to sit through the entire ‘information’ process

By lozen

May 31, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

And do remember my friends, that the information women have to listen to before they can have an abortion is written by our state guv’ment! It is not for medical information; women already got all necessary medical information about the procedure. It’s only a way to slow abortion, since they can’t yet stop legal abortion! And it’s just a step along the way to trying to make abortion illegal again. When that happens some of us have vowed to learn how to do extractions (it’s a simple procedure) to make sure women still have freedom of choice. Tim, son, will you come to see me in prison if I get caught?

By Dan

May 31, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Why much of the “reasoning” for not having full disclosure is that it is condescending and women already know the risks and are making informed decisions. Many of those same people go on to say that education on contraception is a better alternative. Come on so before sex, the government is responsible for educating people about something as simple as using a condom but regarding a surgical procedure they already understand it and it is condescending to think otherwise. On many issues there are reasonable arguments on both sides but such blatant contradictions in the same paragraph belie any reasonable points they may contain

By Thom

May 31, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

All of the statements of showing boys ultrasounds and having them listen to heart beats will not stop or even jar the problem. Until these young guys see that there is a cost to making babies they will not stop. If the government wants to do something, have these young guys, regardless of age, assigned to a job and the salary provide for the child. “Costs for Actions” is what changes the actions of people both young and old.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Sherry, go make Randy some damn biscuits!

By lozen

May 31, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Thom, great idea! Hunt them down and force them to support these babies they make. Give them jail time if they don’t. That might change some things!

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Well Dan, because in other cases they don’t say “Now go away and come back in a few days, little girl”.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

I don’t remember who said Planned Parenthood has not worked. I think it works. It advocates for the right of all Americans to obtain private, voluntary reproductive health care. They do more to prevent unplanned pregnancies than any other organization in the country. They provide contraception, treat sexually transmitted infections and provide Pap smears, breast exams, pregnancy tests, prenatal care and abortions. They provide clients and the public with medically accurate information about sexual and reproductive health, and they educate, counsel and comfort women in need of all these things. To the person who criticized Planned Parenthood, how many of these things do you do?

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Interestingly those on the blog who are arguing for disclosure requirements, waiting periods, and would prefer that abortion be illegal are overwhelmingly MEN. As lozen points out Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, but it did not create the procedure. Do those of you who think abortion should be illegal honestly believe that it would mean that there wouldn’t be abortions since we know with 100% certainty that they occurred in the past when they were illegal and very dangerous? Alcohol Prohibition is a shining example of success. If that worked so well making abortions illegal will certainly stop the procedure from ever happening again on American soil, yes? REALITY CHECK!!

Why aren’t conservatives pushing for full medical disclosure requirements and a 24 hour waiting period for ALL medical procedures that are not an emergency if disclosure is so very important and the goal? Why is it limited to this procedure?

It seems that the Pro-Life crowd should be rightly called anti-abortionists. If they were truly Pro-Life wouldn’t they be protesting en masse outside Prisons during an execution or be camped out in Lafayette Park across from the White House protesting the War in Iraq since thousands are being killed on purpose or why aren’t they working to over turn the legality of the death penalty? Pro-Life sounds good, but is mis-representing the movement since they seem to be focused solely on stopping abortion rather than supporting Life in other ways. Removing the safe guards and jeopardizing the health of women who will have an abortion even if it is illegal is not Pro-LIFE.

Pro-abortionist?! Does any know of someone who is really pro-abortion? Pro-Choice is at least an honest title that honestly describes what these people support. Think abortion is morally wrong, then don’t have one…but YOU have a choice.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

A woman has a right to control her reproductive system and body when she lays down with a man to have sex. If she has no control at that point and has unprotected sex, then she should have no control later on when it comes to deciding to kill the baby she’s allowed to begin growing inside her.

Me being a man has absolutely nothing to do with speaking up for the innocent lives that are being snuffed out by women too irresponsible to protect themselves in the first place. There is no excuse for killing a child, and it IS a child inside the womb. Do you think that these women who murder pregnant women and steal their baby are after a fetus? NO, they are after a BABY, which is what a pregnant woman is carrying in her stomach. Contrary to the opinions of those like RS, a child being murdered is much different than someone clipping their nails. Nails don’t have a heartbeat or their very own unique DNA strands. They don’t kick and wiggle and hiccup. Comparing a child to a fingernail is simply a way to justify throwing it away.

Obviously I’m not including rape victims in that description.

By Tim

May 31, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

lozen… of course I will come and visit you… I may even bake you a cake with a nail file in it so you can escape :)

oh and you would be proud… every box is empty and every item has been put into place :) and we even took down the tacky builder lights and replaced them (by ourselves) with something that was actually pleasurable to look at

By JJ

May 31, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I 99.5% positive that you must wait 31 days after signing consent for tubal ligaition or vasectomy before the procedure may be done. Also you must have it done within 120 days or the consent you signed is no good. That way you are certain it is what you want done, and is to be considered permanent. So there are other medical procedures that they say, go away little girl or little boy and come back in 31 days.

By HARD40

May 31, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

The purpose of “full disclosure” legislation is to harass women, and make it a hassel to get an abortion. I don’t support it at all. In the past, doctors in certain southern states were telling women they were more likely to get breast cancer, if they had an aboriton. The National Cancer Society says that is absolutley false. I think Prolifers really don’t value women’s lives, and they are just baby factories. These prolifers know they won’t be able to get RoevWade repealed, so they are trying there utmost to chip away at RoevWade, so women will only be able to end a pregnancy under certain circumstances. To tell you the truth i just don’t know why women don’t take more precautions, so they won’t end up pregnant in the first place. I read on internet, yesterday, there is a pharmacutical company in China working on a male birth control pill. If it were available i would certainly use it, I don’t need the nightmare of paying child support, for a child i did’nt want in the first place.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

That was me Lozen and if Planned Parenthood is so great and do so many of these things then why do we have to have our schools educate our children on sexual matters. Just send them to Planned Parenthood right? Why is it that there are so many unwanted children? Why are STD’s so common today? If their PLAN works so well how are these things still happening?

I do all these things and more with those that are my responsibility to teach these things too. How about you?

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Lozen…it was Bruce spoke against Planned Parenthood. Of course he also said that they were a government agency. HELLO! Obviously he hasn’t read their mission statement or he’d know there is no way that they could be a government agency.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - I am all in favor of the death penalty because it is not an innocent life being snuffed out. It is most likely someone who has taken an innocent life themselves, and is facing an appropriate punishment for it. An unwanted baby is an innocent life, has committed no crime, done nothing wrong, and is sentenced to an excruciatingly painful and inhumane death because a woman decides she’d rather kill it than carry it for less than a year. You liberals are always screaming about what you deem cruel and unusual punishment, so why aren’t you screaming about the methods used to dismember and torture an aborted child before it dies? That seems as much a contridiction to me as me being Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty does to you.

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Bruce, it’s flawed reasoning to say that because problem “X” still exists, organization “Y” created to combat it isn’t working. It’s like saying the World Health Organization isn’t working because we still have problems with disease.

The success of Planned Parenthood should be measured in the number of people it DOES help. Because it offers an option you don’t like, you revile and condemn the entire organization, regardless of how many women it does encourage to make the choice you favor.

Planned Parenthood isn’t about promoting abortions, it’s about ensuring that women have a full understanding of their options. Your condemnation of it is unfounded.

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Rocky…you stated “If she has no control at that point and has unprotected sex, then she should have no control later on when it comes to deciding to kill the baby she’s allowed to begin growing inside her.” So if she doesn’t have unprotected sex and still becomes pregnant because the contraception failed (none is 100%) does that me she CAN have an abortion?

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

The whole “torture” an innocent child thing is a tactic used to whip the religious right into a frenzy…the “Silent Scream” film has been debunked over and over. Fetuses at the time of abortion have no nervous systems to speak of, therefore there is no pain or torture, or a mind capable of appreciating such.

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Rocky, your exception-for-rape argument holds no water. Do you know the percentage of rapes that are successfully prosecuted? Do you know the percentage of rapes that are actually reported? Do you know WHY? Do you know how hard it is to PROVE rape? And by the time you get a conviction, IF you get a conviction, it’s too late. The female would have already endured the unthinkable ON TOP of the unspeakable. Do you REALLY think all sex is consensual? Heh. Don’t tell me it rarely happens, because it happens EVERY DAY. Women are usually too ashamed to report it because they somehow believe it’s their fault, or they don’t want to be further humiliated.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

You are correct I have never read the mission statement of PP. I guess it is because I have never seen any reason too. I take responsibility for my actions. However, I apologize for not being as involved as you. I am at home busy taking care of my responsibilites.

Rocky,

And don’t forget it is the Iraq’s that are setting off the car bombs killing their own people and ours.

By HARD4O

May 31, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Why are people like Randy and Rocky so concerned about a speck of microscopic goo that MIGHT GROW UP TO BE A REPUBLICAN? Prolifers are so fanatical, they are so busy sticking their noses in every-day people’s lives. The things they say make you think they are living on another planet. Having a child is not always the best decision to make, esspecially if your single, uneducated, and poor, having children under these circumstances just creates misery and social problems, possibly for generations. Prolifers never consider that side of the issue.

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

But Rocky your 10 Commandments state very explicitly Thou Shalt not kill. There aren’t conditional statements or footnotes. You seem to be claiming that anything after a fertilized egg is a child. It is a potential child, but definitely not a child until old enough to viably live on it’s own.

By Bruce

May 31, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

The problem doesn’t just still exists it is getting bigger. If organization “Y” is working the problems mentioned would at least be stalled. It may not be the cure but if the plan is working there should be some progress. But where is the progress in the war on STD’s, children getting pregnant, unwanted pregnanices?

By Archie

May 31, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

I agree with the man that said he would use a male contraceptive but I do maintain that when you see that ultrasound and understand that there is a heartbeat it does something to you. Education is the key but abortion should remain legal and safe. I don’t think it’s wrong for someone to hear information even if their child will be stillborn. There is a way to give out good information without political bias and that is worth arguing for. Some women here seem to imply it’s all the man’s fault but that attitude is ridiculous as it takes two to have sex and if one of them decided to use birth control there may not have been a need to make any life decisions. My comment would be if a woman is taking birth control safely then continue to do that and if you forget to take your pill then inform the guy. Also I would tell men that it only costs 7.99 for a 12-pack of condoms so if you are buying them then continue to do that.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - no, that means that if her contraception didn’t work, then she should have the child and put it up for adoption. There is no excuse that makes it okay to have an abortion as a means of birth control.

Eaton - babies are aborted at a lot of different stages of development, so your argument about no nervous system doesn’t apply to all babies. Those who are aborted later in the pregnancy DO feel pain and ARE able to experience sensations. Partial birth abortions are a perfect example of that.

kimberly - I know the numbers of women who are raped are astounding, and we probably have no idea what the real numbers are since there is still so much shame associated with that horrible crime. But if a woman is raped and impregnated, and she wants to abort the baby, it should be done by the time she is six weeks pregnant or not done at all. There is no valid reason why any abortions should be allowed to happen past six weeks gestation. A woman knows she’s late, or that something is different, in that time, and if abortion has to stay legal, then there should be a reasonable time frame in which it can happen (i.e., six weeks or less along).

By TheRealScott

May 31, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - a good point that I agree with completely…all major medical procedures that are non-emergency SHOULD have a full disclosure. Heck, even an appedicitis surgery could kill you. Maybe it won’t change a decision, maybe it will, but I would want to have the “full disclosure” on any medical procedure. But hey, that’s just me….

By Mara

May 31, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

I tend to agree with Netbanker and lozen (and Jack shows an amazing amount of common sense!). Abortion is legal. Most folks agree that it should be, though many would like to see some kind of regulations on it. Most thoughtful people could agree that first trimester should be available on request, second trimester should be available for rape, incest, or for the health of the mother. Most would say that third trimester abortions should be regulated the most stringently, with the only caveat being for the mothers health.
The idea that women need a lecture (written not by a doctor but by the government) riddled with opinion masquerading as fact is ludicrious. Only the uninformed or the intellectually dishonest would think that women make this kind of personal decision without thinking about the “what if’s”. It seems to be the opinion of the Forced Motherhood faction that women are just screwing around willy-nilly and then when they get their logical due, off they go lightheartedly to the abortionists, not a care in the world. I don’t know the stats on that, but of the 3 women I know who’ve had one (yes, just the one…)not a single one made their choice in ignorance. And none of them seem to have gone off the deep end, wallowing in guilt and remorse. All of them, in fact, have mentioned that were the circumstances the same, they’d make the same decision. And I’d like to also point out that the states with the highest abortion rates tend to be the states that stigmatize birth control.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Hard40 - maybe a woman who is single, uneducated, and poor shouldn’t be HAVING sex until she is married. That would eliminate the entire scenario, wouldn’t it? Sounds to me like you only think about one side of the issue yourself.

By johnjacob

May 31, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Nobody answered my question from this morning…

By Sarah

May 31, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Eaton - Go find an elementary biology text. The nervous system (i.e. pain mechanism) begins to develop 14 days after conception. I’d be willing to bet that 99% of abortions don’t occur until after that time.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - you’re right. It is not considered a viable pregnancy until 23 weeks, and a baby is not able to sustain life outside the womb before then. However, that makes it no less a baby. Even once it is born, a baby can’t sustain its own life without being completely dependent upon another.

My point is that comparing a baby in the womb to a fingernail is ludacris and the entire purpose of doing so is to make it easier and more justifiable to discard it.

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

and I am at work so I can afford to take care of mine.

Tim…totally off topic, congratulation on the move into your new home. Now the fun part (aka expensive) starts with painting and decorating. I swear that the more letters they add the more expensive items for the home become. They used to be drapes, then curtains, and now they’re window treatments. They used to be faucets, but now they’re bath or kitchen fixtures. No longer does one have carpet, tile, or wood you have a flooring system. I hope you and/or your BF are handy with tools or know some lesbians who are.

By A Real Man

May 31, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Right on Rocky! I take my woman to the doctor and go in the room. They are not allowed to do anything I say they can’t do. She is not allowed a car or a liscense, so she can’t do anywhere without my permission. She is not allowed a job. She has not access to cards or checkbooks or insurance information. If she gets preggers she is having me my kid whether she likes it or not! I sure as life ain’t taking her to no abortion clinic.

Friends, only women from the church and only those I approve of. They wouldn’t take her to such an awful place without my permission

By Archie

May 31, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

There should be a point to where abortion is not allowed. I mean I don’t think you can wait 25 weeks into a pregnancy with no apparent health issues and decide you want to terminate it. I am not too fond of partial birth abortion and I have heard of a reason why that it exists but it escapes me now but I don’t believe in this society you get to have things the way you want all the time and I think both the pro-choice and the pro-life people may have to come together and agree on some standards for the people to live by. Conservatives concern me because their action doesn’t match the rhetoric as far as doing things to help out poor children and unwanted children but the liberals get on my nerves by going along with whatever some women want. Sometimes a decision has to be made and lived with and some tough talk given to these women.

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Sarah, the existence of a rudimentary nervous system and having a nervous system capable of recognizing pain are two very different things. Perhaps it is you who needs to read an elementary text.

Rocky, I am opposed to partial-birth abortions EXCEPT in the cases where the mother’s life is threatened. However, most abortions are not partial-birth.

By whiley

May 31, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

TROLL ALLERT ! ! TROLL ALLERT ! !

JUST IGNORE IT

Or Diane should just erase AREALLOSERMAN’s posts.

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

I really hope that “Cowardly Man” is someone playing a joke, because otherwise - how pathetic is he.

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

johnjacob, I don’t think it’s because he’s white. I think the people of Atlanta are awaiting our NEXT big dumb*ss story to go national. The copycat thing was boring, especially since he caved so quickly. If you’re going to copycat, you have to go a step beyond.

Dumb*sses of every creed and color can get national exposure here Atlanta. Thanks, CNN!

By rocky

May 31, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

johnjacob - I would guess that we didn’t see the second crane guy because he was nothing but a copy-cat, and he was a mental patient with a history of mental disorder, and showing pictures of him would only encourage MORE copy-cats. I don’t think it had anything to do with his color.

Besides, he didn’t MURDER his girlfriend and leave her face down in a pond, so he probably wasn’t considered quite the same caliber of criminal as that animal Roland is.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Archie, the reason “some women here seem to imply it’s all the man’s fault,” is in response to some men here who make it sound as if it’s all the woman’s fault that a pregnancy takes place and that she (and only she) should therefore suffer the consequences. If anyone is going to suffer, then both should suffer equally. Rocky, please do not be so hypocritical as to say that women who get abortions are murderers, and then say it’s okay for the state to murder someone because they murdered someone. An abortion, removing a clump of cells, is quite different from killing a human being. Remember a previous post which said, based on World Health Org statistics, 90 percent of abortions worldwide are performed before 12 weeks? “There is no excuse that makes it okay to have an abortion as a means of birth control,” you say. As far as I’m concerned, no excuse is required.

By Archie

May 31, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

I thought after 10 weeks it was considered a viable pregnancy. This is an example of what I mean about setting a standard and living with it. I will look it up.

By Hard40

May 31, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Maybe a poor woman should waite until she is married to have sex, but most don’t. Anyway, most teens who take a “virginity pledge” to waite until they are married FAIL to do so, and end up having sex within a year. So the idea you are proposing Randy does’nt work in the real world. I read an article in the AJC that reported that so called teen virgins are just as likely to have an STD, (as teens who have straight sex), because the “virgins” are having anal and oral sex. The point of being a virgin is to abstain from all sexual activities. But I guess no one is telling these kids, that anal and oral sex are high risk sexual behaviors and they can get AIDS FROM BOTH.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Rocky says, “Hard40 - maybe a woman who is single, uneducated, and poor shouldn’t be HAVING sex until she is married.” Now Rocky wants to tell all women when they can and can’t have sex! He wants to tell all women they have to have babies they don’t want AND he wants to tell all women when they can have sex. Then he said it’s fine for the state to murder, but it’s not okay for women who are pregnant to have a mass of cells scraped from their womb. So much opposition to abortion is really about controlling women.

By Lyrazel

May 31, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

What gets me is the sad fact neither of our brilliant lead-in commentators have even MENTIONED the fact there are fewer OBGYNs in this country because of skyrocketing malpractice costs. Rural areas are experiencing cutbacks—like doctors. More and more doctors are leaving this practice which really puts women at a disadvantage. Zippity do da is ever mentioned about this fact of life.

My BEEF is really….HOW FRIGGIN MUCH MONEY IS THIS STUPID AND MORONIC GESTURE OF MORALITY GOING TO COST TAXPAYERS/WOMEN/CITY/TOWNS TO BE IMPLIMENTED or WRITTEN?? Maybe your government has surplus—mine doesnt. Maybe your social programs are overladen with dollars they dont know what to do with. At what cost is this new disclosure going to be? Will it be written in all the many languages spoken to doctors? How many overseers will the government place in clinics to make sure this chunk of disclosure is read by health aids? The health department spent four years and $2.4 million putting the new pyramid together, folks. So…I figure 8 million for consulting doctors, insurance companies, health workers, 9 million for getting it passed through state legislatures and say 3 million for printing/distributing it. Tell me which government program are we going to strip bare to impliment this piece of feel-good-fun?

Patients are there for a medical proceedure are now/always have been given information about this type of surgery. From health-techs to anesthesiologists to doctors—aint one of them who doesnt explain to a woman what this proceedure is-going to happen—and certainly—doctors clearly evaluate the patient prior to make sure—they DO UNDERSTAND. Seems like the bs generator is being operated full time and we are downwind.

Netbanger, how can a country that has 9 million abortions a year—and most not due to complications—NOT consider themselves as pro-abortionist? The truth is most men do not use birth control so they are acting pro-abortion by neglecting their responsibility. 9 million abortions/year—enough to tell me few give a ruby crap about alternatives…since we only adopt 140,000 babies/year in the U.S.

A RealMan…gee whiz…most women are quite obident and quiet until you remove the duct tape.

By rocky

May 31, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Archie - you may be right about the 10 week time frame. When I said “viable” I meant able to live outside the womb on its own. That happens at 23 weeks along. You probably were referring to the time frame in which a pregnancy is out of the “danger zone” for miscarriage, which is (I think) 13 weeks along.

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Bruce..there is no “war on STD’s, children getting pregnant, unwanted pregnanices.” That would require a public dialog about sex and that just isn’t something most people, especially conservatives are willing to do. When the current administration is increasing funding for “Boys keep it in your pants and Girls keep your knees together until marriage’ programs there is no hope for a war on the items you mentioned.

I love the way our government declares war on everything these days. War on drugs, on poverty, on terrorism. Has anyone noticed that every ‘war’ we have going on we’re losing, but spending BILLIONS anyway? Maybe we should go back to the constitutional rules for the declaration of WAR. We seemed much more successful back then.

By johnjacob

May 31, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

ALLEDGEDLY…

By Tim

May 31, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… THANKS!!! and you are sooooo right… these purchases add up really quick… I don’t even want to know how much money I have spent lol… I am just happy I finally got my big TV!!! ‘Finding Nemo’ looked AWESOME on it lol… I can’t wait until college football season… the games are going to look AWESOME on HDTV

I unfortunately am not very handy with tools (but give me a paper towel and some windex and I can have a room glowing)… luckily the bf is! he had his list of projects and he got every single one of them done!!! EAT YOUR HEARTS OUT LADIES!!!! (I loved the lesbian comment hahaha)

painting is two weeeknds from now… wanted to get the curtains first and put them up… then compare wall colors (curtains are delivered sometime next week… was REALLY annoyed they wouldn’t be here before the move)

By Whiley

May 31, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Just because you are married does NOT MEAN you want to get pregnant when you DON’T WANT TO or AREN’T READY FOR IT. Maybe you don’t have insurance, trying to finish school, have an abusive husband, already have kids, whatever. The point is you can’t offer abortions for some & not for others just because it’s not a good enough reason. I do NOT CONSIDER a woman that doesn’t want to give up her whole life on something she does NOT WANT SELFISH. I applaud her for knowing HER life has value & HER quality of life is important. I think it is wrong & a double standard to expect women to be VIRGINS till married. (that’s stupid then so should boys) And what if you don’t want to get married till you are in your 30’s?? THE ONLY solution is BIRTH CONTROL EDUCATION & execute all rapists ! ! !

And lozen has it right: “As far as I’m concerned, no excuse is required.”

By Lola

May 31, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Tim - I meant to congratulate you on the new home in Alpharetta as well!! (Yes, I’ve been lurking here today, but I have very mixed feelings about the topic and just thought it best to refrain from joining in on that).

I’m absolutely ASTOUNDED that your BF got all his to-do things done in a weekend!!! That’s incredible!! How do I get my husband to do the same thing?? LOL We’ve been in our house for two years and there are still so many things to get done it can be depressing if I let it.

By Archie

May 31, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Archie - you may be right about the 10 week time frame. When I said “viable� I meant able to live outside the womb on its own. That happens at 23 weeks along. You probably were referring to the time frame in which a pregnancy is out of the “danger zone� for miscarriage, which is (I think) 13 weeks along.

Yes you are correct about my reference. I ask the women what is a viable pregnancy and is it okay for standards to be set and by whom. Lozen someone does need to tell women and men when to have sex. Tough talk is needed sometimes because many people don’t have enough money to be liberal. That may sound backwood-like but some folk would be better off if someone just told them what to do and when. Refraining from pre-marital sex is not punishment as much as it is a way to establish order. It may not be a pleasant but that’s what I mean when I say tough talk is necessary. Someone fully grown will find a way to have sex but some folk don’t need to be involved in sex outside of marriage because they are not responsible.

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel…could it be the problem is that we’re anti-contraception more than pro-abortion? Not all health insurance programs cover contraception despite most covering Viagra and Levitra. Many sex ed programs have gone abstinence only and that’s what our current administration is supporting.

It’s all very screwed up. We all seem to agree that we’d like to see fewer abortions, but there is also no agreement on how. The position of the left just seems more realistic when placed up against the right whose solutions seem to be no sex until married and abortion should be illegal. While certainly admirable positions they certainly don’t solve the underlying root cause of too many unintended pregnancies.

I agree with you completely on the cost issue and that it’s a waste of dollars given our current budget problems.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Tim, met any of your Alpharetta neighbors yet?

By Hard40

May 31, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

This comment is directed to the Real Man. You don’t let your wife have a job or a car because you know she would leave you. The real problem with men like you is that you can’t handle a woman who is toally self-sufficient. You can’t HANDLE A REAL WOMAN. Your wife sounds more like a dependent child, then a woman. Men like you, are usually losers anyway. I just hope you don’t have a son, because he will absorb your misogynistic beliefs, and grow up to treat his wife like a mule. You really need counseling.

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Lola the best way to get your husband to complete the entire honey-do list in a weekend is to keep it short. It’s the only way that works in my household.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Archie, you know as well as I do that noone has ever seriously expected males not to have sex outside marriage. When I was a teenager, back in the dark ages, girls were told we had to be virgins when they got married. Boys were not ever expected to be virgins when they got married. And they were determined not to be, because getting some and bragging about it made them a big man with the other guys, right! Why the hell are we women expected to be different? Why can’t we experience as much sex as we want and brag about it with the girls? Why don’t people expect boys to be virgins when they get married? There is still a double standard! What’s different is that a lot of females just refuse to go along with it anymore.

By Tim

May 31, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Lola… thank you! he does all his tasks because he likes having clean clothes, dishes to eat off of, a clean bathroom, etc… lol :)… jk… he is just one of the good ones :)… but he also knows that if he doesn’t he won’t have a clean home :)

By TT

May 31, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

I think the case against the right-wing, pro-life zealots can best be stated with the question, “Does being pro-life end at birth?” The same judgmental individuals who think that pregnancy is a walk in the park and that women should not have control over their own bodies are the same people who want to cut impoverished children and single mothers off the Peach Care rolls. And they are the same individuals who critique teenage moms and single-parent homes without regarding the men who also bear responsibility for these problems. If we are going to force women to give birth to children they do not want or cannot support, then the taxpayers should be prepared to cover the costs of raising these fatherless children. We should not force a single mom considering an abortion to make the irresponsible decision to give birth to an unwanted child and then leave her to fend for herself and her child. Take a long, hard look at who this so-called compassionate conservativism hurts. Who suffers in this “culture of life?” Teenage girls and poor women just trying to get by. Perhaps we should place some pre-emptive (a favorite word for conservatives) restrictions on men who refuse to consider the costs of unprotected sex. Maybe we could give them a 24-hour waiting period before having sex, since we’re into the business of telling people how to live their lives.

By johnjacob

May 31, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Because the onus is on the woman to keep her legs closed. Then, hopefully, the boys will have no choice but to keep it in their pants. Obviously, this is flawed thinking, but this is the type of thinking you get in the church. It’s strictly patriarchal and it’s sickening. We should expect the same thing from boys that we do for girls and vice versa.

By Tim

May 31, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

lozen… we have met a couple of the neighbors in our subdivision… our next door neighbor is VERY nice… the lady across the street walked out with a martini in her hand on Sunday and introduced herself to Matt (the other half)… he was like “I may need one of those” she told him she had plenty… he said he found his new best friend :) it is a really big relief to know we have good neighbors… I was a little worried about that but one of those things you won’t really know until you move in

By lozen

May 31, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

TT, bravo!

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Ahhh…the joys of a newly built house. Same color inside the entire house, no coverings on the windows, generally no towel racks or toilet paper holders in the bathrooms, and nail pops in the dry wall that tend to show up in several months. Don’t forget to take the vent grates off and shove the hose from a shop vac in there as far as you can reach to help clean out any left over dust from construction.

By TheRealScott

May 31, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Where are we going and what am I doing in this handbasket?

By Tim

May 31, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… installing all the towel bars, toilet paper holders, and hand towel racks were on his ‘to do’ list also (3 1/2 bathrooms)… I supervised lol :)… we have blinds (luckily lol)… they had to totally clean out the vents before we moved in (for some reason… I don’t pay attention to that kind of stuff)… thanks for all the advice… anymore is greatly appreciated :)

By Lyrazel

May 31, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Netbanger, you want to be nice! I admire it—but we as a nation use abortion because it is a cheaper/easy way to have sex without contraceptives. We have a society that is so ready to accept the fast easy answers and life without thinking with zero responsibility. I know many want to feel-good about not being pro-abortion—but facts remain. Truth is.

Archie, telling people to be responsible with sex is a feel-good thing. It feels good to tell them and the tellers feel real good after their lectures. Making people responsible is imposible in a society that prides itself on instant gratification without concequences. MOST of the teen pregnancies in this nation happen with adult men over 20…but we teach sex-ed like its teens only get pregnant by teens…thus abstinance programs. Who teaches sex-ed to the adults who know better but refuse responsibility?

By ms. smith

May 31, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

I am taking the time to write this because the topic is important to me and I want my voice to be heard, although it comes at the end of so much jibberish it might not matter anyway. What I want to say is this: “full disclosure” already exists in the form of informed consent. Every medical facility - and that would be any facility where trained liscenced professionals practice, be it a hospital, cosmetic surgery outpatient clinic, or dentist’s office - is required to provide them. Abortion offices are no different. All this new legislation does is seek to so psychologically traumatize a woman that she is literally “too scared to do it”. Funny, one of the right’s arguements is that they are actually acting in the best interests of the woman’s psychological state. Whatever!

Why don’t we have legislation that requires that organ recipients be made aware that their future organs might be harvested from a person who is still brain dead, but has a beating heart, thanks to technology. And what about organ transplantation? Shouldn’t we reconsider this whole process based on the brain-dead person’s “right to life”? Or do we pick and choose who merits organs vs. who merits life?

And the right has as their grandest champion a president who values life so much so that he had more people put to death under his watch as governor than any other state at the time. Hmmm, I guess only “good” people have a right to life. Oh yes, this is the same president who considers himself - in his own words - a war president. I guess life matters, just maybe not as much as “spreading democracy” through violence. Can one really, truly ever be pro-life and pro-war, when we all know that both involves the loss of innocent life?

I guess all I am trying to say is that these issues are not ones that we can respond to from a template. We cannot stick to our prescribed party’s answers. We must think deeply and assess the risks of certain legislation, then come down on the side of whatever will best protect or legal and civil rights. What we know is that there is no way that a woman contemplating her decision will ever bypass a certain degree of doubt and confusion. There is absolutely no way to legislate certainty, and everyone in their right mind knows this. Now, if we could just stop using legislation to scare our populace into the “right” kind of behavior and instead tried to legislate something that mattered - like gun control, police brutality, corporate theivery - perhaps then we could see some strengthening of our social fabric.

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Tim, Congrats on the house! I also live in the NF ‘burbs. Borrrrrrrrrring. Anyway, you can have every other paycheck direct deposited to Home Depot or Lowe’s, since they’ll take half your money anyway. (Although after last year’s Bush fundraisers, I now do all such shopping at Lowe’s on Mansell.) If you were able to manage credit and debt before, forget about it. Your house will own YOU within three years. Important piece of wisdom: The plumber is LYING. Sign nothing.

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

ms. smith, if I weren’t gay I think I’d marry you :)

By Archie

May 31, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Lozen it is impossible for girls to be virgins in general and boys non-virgins in general. Girls get pregnant and that’s why the onus is put on them. This is tough talk but I would say it’s necessary. I don’t want to be hypocritical but if it’s unrealistic for boys to be virgins then it is unrealistic for girls to be virgins since it takes two to do the deed. You have condoms for men and various birth control devices for women— that is a fact. Concentrating on a “double standard” does not solve the problem. You don’t need to have as much sex as you want because there are consequences. My point is that you need order and you can’t do everything and somehow expect things to work out— that is illogical. I had pre-marital sex so I am not making anyone out to be evil, I am just saying that some rules are designed to establish order and if you don’t like those rules establish some others sensible rules because you must have order. Having all the sex you want is the problem I have with the liberal side and I am definitely a person that likes sex. Many people here don’t like the Bible but you still have to have some system of rules and not just make up things as you go. The reason for this debate is because we humans do things that aren’t orderly for example,raping,having multiple sex partners,swinging,adultery, and not planning for parenthood also known as using no birth control. Again I am not calling anyone evil but we do need some controls and rules because everyone doesn’t have the mental capacity to be a good liberal.

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Tim…in my neighborhood I’m usually the ‘lady with the martini.’ But my partner is VP of the HOA (which makes me 1st Lady Once Removed since I refuse to be 2nd ) and so we make it a point to introduce ourselves when folks are moving in.

By kimberly

May 31, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

ms. smith: GREAT post! Unfortunately, legislators don’t give a rat’s fuzzy about how to best protect our legal and civil rights. They care about (1) where their campaign money comes from to get them this swell job, and (2) where these money people are demanding that they stand on any given issue. Corporate execs give the money; they get the laws and judges to protect what they want. Religio nut-jobs get the vote out, so their demand list gets answered. Issues of right, wrong, or freedom really do not factor it at all. Clearly, we are ALL sunk.

By Tim

May 31, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

kimberly… thanks… most of our shopping is done at Lowes as well (for that same reason!)… thanks for the advice… I will keep that handy :)

all that we have bought for the house has been with cash… is we can’t afford it we ain’t gettin it! :)

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Go Ms. Smith! Your comments made me realize that the anti-abortionist position is akin to zero tolerance policies. There is no wiggle room or interpretation and that has always come back to bite us in the rear end.

By Tim

May 31, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… that is tooo funny… our subdivision is brand new so no HOA people yet… I don’t drink very much so I would be known as ‘the lady with the fru fru dog’ (Brown and White Shih Tzu with a brown nose and green eyes… her name is Lily Vuitton… with the collar to match)

By Eaton

May 31, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Archie, I think you grossly misinterpret the liberal position if you think that “have all the sex you want” is in any way representative of it. However, the basic premise of your post is that there should be some kind of governmental control over peoples basic behaviors, and that is absolutely counter to basic liberal tenets.

By lozen

May 31, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

More infor for those who think pregnancy is “no big deal”: Pregnancy-associated deaths due to injury account for up to 46% of maternal deaths. As many studies indicate, further investigation of nonobstetric causes of maternal death could potentially reduce maternal deaths dramatically. Although only a few studies have analyzed causes of deaths from injury, those list homicide as the leading cause (36%–63%), followed by motor vehicle crashes (12%–32%), suicide (8%–13%), and drug overdose (7%–20%). We must dispel the notion that these “nonobstetric” deaths are isolated from the condition of pregnancy. Abuse during pregnancy occurs in 4% to 8% of all pregnancies and raises the risk of homicide. Moreover, adolescent homicide victims are 3.7 times more likely to be pregnant than adult homicide victims. The risk of becoming an attempted homicide victim or being killed is three times higher in women abused during pregnancy, with 5.7% of attempted homicide victims and 4.8% of murder victims pregnant at the time. A homicide related to domestic violence may be related to the stress of pregnancy, and a suicide following pregnancy may be related to postpartum depression or an unwanted pregnancy. Contemporary Ob/GYN

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Tim…hehehehe…love the dog’s name! I actually don’t drink a whole lot either although most people assume that I’m a big lush just because I know how to mix cocktails and do enjoy a glass of really good wine…and because my dog’s name is Tanqueray…big, white, Akita who had a stubborn streak as wide as the Mississippi when he was a puppy. Lawd that puppy could make ya wanna drink! He still has his moments from time to time, but matured into a great dog.

By Tim

May 31, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… thanks… I thought of Lily and needed a last name and it just came to me… it was perfect for this dog… everyone who knows her agrees… she thinks she is just the stuff! she unfortunately never grew out of her stubborn phase… love the name of yours… the other half would really like it… his favorite drink is Tanqueray and tonic

By Tim

May 31, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

I wanted to get a boy and named him Gucci… was informed that would not fly because the other half informed me that he would not be outside saying ‘here Gucci… come here Gucci’… I died laughing from that picture… would not fit him whatsoever!

By lozen

May 31, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Girls get pregnant and that’s why the onus is put on them? Girls don’t get pregnant by themselves so why should the onus be put only on them? Double standard!!!! That doesn’t solve the problem, but then I don’t see anything you’re saying solving the problem Archie! Who’s gonna make the rules and decide what controls to institute? It makes me sick every time I remember the photo of Bush signing some bill that put limits on abortion and women’s freedom a few months ago. He had a big smile on his face and he was surrounded by four or five other old men with big grins. Who should control women’s lives Archie?

By lozen

May 31, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Tim, I named my cat Lily when she was six weeks old. Took her to the vet for the first checkup and he said, “See these two little bumps back here? You might want to think of another name!” So Lily became Fox Mulder because he knows there’s something out there.

By Netbanker

May 31, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this

Lozen..those figures are rather sobering. Sadly though the violence and homicide figures are somewhat understandable. I can see some man going off after the pregnancy announcement…and of course, it’s all HER fault for getting knocked up.

When it comes to sex education why don’t they show movies of giving birth? How about interviews with teens who explain the impact to their lives or asking some of them to ?

By SK

June 1, 2005 07:40 AM | Link to this

Once again Shaunti blindly cites the conservative Christian way that would force us all into being what they think we should be - regardless of our own rights and belief systems. It’s the “if I make everyone act as I do, then it makes me right…and best.” Her fear of anyone else having a personal thought that doesn’t mirror her own strikes at her core and those like her.

Abortion, whether morally right or wrong, is a fact and, at least at this time, a right for all women in the United States. The new law is an attempt to apply stress and intimidation onto women who are seeking abortions in the state of Georgia.

Rather then “caring” about these women at this point and worrying about their potential depression over the decision they are making - let’s talk more about why they are choosing to have an abortion: because it’s a quick fix for wanting to have sex without responsibility. Their depression is remorse over having been foolish enough to get pregnant when they aren’t ready to have a child - for whatever reason.

Shaunti’s response is to punish them further by adding more remorse by drilling them with anti-abortion propaganda so that they either don’t have the abortion and endlessly regret and resent the child or have the abortion and deal with the additional emotional load of being “informed” and forced to wait.

Shaunti pretends that she’s all-caring and sensitive because of her love for her fellow (wo)man. In reality, she’s just forcing her agenda down all of our throats to make herself feel (even more) morally superior.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

I usually sit back and listen (read) when the topic is one that I don’t have a lot to say about. This, I guess, helps me learn a few things and see things from other’s perspectives.

Some of you ladies are on the kick, what about the men, what about the men, it’s a double standard. While you are somewhat justified, I really think the ultimate responsibility lies with the woman. The bottom line is women in this situation has all of the control from the very beginning. Women that don’t want to get put into these situations have the option of birth control and the option to say no.

While it is easy to try and pawn some of the blame on the men, you have to consider the other side. For example, my friend’s wife was on birth control. She wanted to have a baby, but my friend wasn’t ready because if she had a baby, she would have to leave her job and she was the bread winner. Despite his concerns, she stopped taking her pill and before you know, she got pregnant. Would he have been wrong to leave her because of her deception? Or would he have been blamed for abandoning her.

And let’s consider a situation where a woman is pregnant and wants to have an abortion, but the father-to-be wants the child. The same group of people would argue that it’s the woman’s body and she has the final say. THAT sounds like a double standard if any.

By Archie

June 1, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Archie, I think you grossly misinterpret the liberal position if you think that “have all the sex you want� is in any way representative of it. However, the basic premise of your post is that there should be some kind of governmental control over peoples basic behaviors, and that is absolutely counter to basic liberal tenets.

First of all Eaton you did not read and comprehend properly because you would have understood that I was responding to another post and I used the phrase that the person used. I never mentioned anything about governmental control. Lozen has said she is a liberal and I was saying that no one have all the sex they want without consequences. I was saying you need to have to some controls and rules. The control is self-control and the rules are rules that you chose to follow be it the Bible or some other code of ethics. Many professions and businesses have a code of ethics and when people don’t follow that code there are consequences. I call myself a liberal and thus I am critical of some of the positions when they don’t make sense. Lozen I don’t want to control women but everyone needs to have self-control. There’s no way men can “get some” without the cooperation of women and it’s always been that way. I agree women could not brag about it but you still need self-control. The problem I have with liberals is that we tend to be liberal for the sake of being liberal. Someone talked about a population problem well the first solution is to control when and how you have sex. The next solution would be to use birth control methods. You can’t do nothing except what you always do and hope the problems will go away. By the way it is girls that carry the baby and as for Bush you know he is conservative so why wait and complain about him. Take control of your body and that may mean abstinence or having sex with birth control and other protective devices. I say that for both the men and the women. In other words you have to follow some set of rules and controls.

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

Guess what Ben? If your friend didn’t want a baby HE should have worn a CONDOM. He wasn’t tricked my friend.

By Archie

June 1, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

I have Ben’s back and say that the guy was tricked because if she stopped taking the pill without telling then that was as dishonest as if the man had gotten snipped without telling her. Ben I have been trying to say that women can’t have it both ways. You know what Bush is and you can’t wait on him to do the right thing. I am pro-choice but you do need information without political bias.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

He absolutely was tricked. See there’s thing thing in marriage that we call trust. If my wife is on birth control, I have no reason to wear a condom. If she tells me she’s off the pill, THEN I wear a condom if I don’t want to have a baby.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

So, Whiley, what about the second scenario? What do you say about a woman that is pregnant and doesn’t want the child and the father that wants the child. Whose decision is it then?

By RS

June 1, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

I’m a woman, yet I must agree with you, Ben. Your friend was tricked. Tim, congratulations on your new digs, hon! We moved this weekend too, to a beautiful 4-bedroom (upstairs is a loft) Victorian in Grant Park. It has a huge, deep front porch & hardwood floors, which I’d wanted

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Ben, until the day comes that men gestate, the final ultimate decision is the woman’s.

I know that is difficult to accept for some men, not having the final word & complete control over absolutely everything. They’ll get over it.

RS you really believe that guy was trapped???? hehehhehehe So men can just spread sperm wherever they like without any consequences? How very backward.

By whiley

June 1, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

Ben, if you don’t want a child, YOU wear the condom. There is no such thing as being tricked.

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

I’m so sick of guys saying they’ve been tricked. Of course you should be able to trust your wife. But we are talking about real life here.

The being tricked excuse for not using a condom is so lame. Guys just do not take responsibility for birth control. Never have never will. So girls you are on your own. Always have & always will be.

That also means we are on our own to fight for better birth control & keeping abortion safe & legal.

By RS

June 1, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Yes, tricked. The sneaky, conniving b—-ch lied about being on BC because she just HAD to breed, despite it not being a mutual decision. The woman isn’t ALWAYS right, the poor victim, etc. Every case is different. Nothing “backward” about being FAIR

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

hehe whatever RS How are those blinders working for you?

I absolutely think getting off the pill when you know your husband doesn’t want kids is deceptive & VERY wrong. HOWEVER, I have no sympathy what so ever for a man that doesn’t use his own birth control if he doesn’t want kids.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

If the ultimate decision lies with the woman, THEN SHE is responsible for being on birth control. And I hope you aren’t married if you think your husband is responsible for wearing a condom if he thinks you are on birth control. I bet there is great trust and honesty within that union.

And as a married man, it is my right and privilege as a husband to grab my wife and throw her on the kitchen counter without reaching for a condom.

His mistake was not forgetting to wear a condom, but marrying a woman who disregarded his concerns and DECEIVED him. But I guess the double standard only applies when if benefits the woman.

By Archie

June 1, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Thanks RS when you say the woman isn’t always right and the poor victim. It is exactly what some woman need to understand. Women voted Bush in large numbers but listening to some people it’s the “men’s fault”. Mr. Bush has been upfront about his position on abortion and anyone with a brain knows the man will do everything in his power to limit abortion and you know he will manipulate public opinion,etc. Although Whiley is very intelligent on some issues when it comes to men she engages in idiocy because there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that Ben’s friend was tricked.

By RS

June 1, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

You got THAT right, Ben. But then, again, obviously you’re not a man-hating butch lesbian who can only see things from a woman’s point of view, all men are scum, oppressors, etc.

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

“And as a married man, it is my right and privilege as a husband to grab my wife and throw her on the kitchen counter without reaching for a condom.”

NO IT IS NOT ! What a typical lazy male comment. How nice for you to have sex whenever you want without a thought about getting pregnant. How lucky you are. Easy to do when it can’t happen to your body.

It’s so shocking & sad to realize how little most men think of women, & how much they only think of themselves & their own comfort & pleasure.

Ladies, wake up call. This is the type of thinking that created this stupid law.

By RS

June 1, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Well, Archie, I HAVE noticed a lot of women who really are intelligent are nonetheless so blinded by their hatred of men that they automatically maintain the “she’s right, he’s wrong” stance in any given situation without looking at the big picture & judging each case individually. I’m very pro-choice (actually, pro-abortion in many cases!) & am not a Bush supporter at all but one of the few things I admire about the man is his honesty in being a right-to-lifer even though he knows he’s in for a lot of flak from us pro-choicers.

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

RS, get back in the kitchen, that’s obviously where you want to be.

So a woman isn’t supposed to be angry at anything men do? Otherwise, we are all just fat, ugly lesbians. That sounds like a tactic scared men use.

Now, back to the issue.
I do think ultimately birth control is the woman’s responsibility, because, as we clearly see here, men take none. They still use the same excuses. After all, a condom cuts down on their pleasure.

I only wish birth control was better & didn’t have so many side affects. Women over 35 can’t take the pill (or shouldn’t)

By Ben

June 1, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Whiley, YES IT IS. If she doesn’t want to, then she can say. But knowing my wife, she welcomes the spontaneity considering we don’t always get a chance because of our daughter. As any parent knows, you have to work inbetween naps and bedtime.

And newsflash for you lady, we consider pregnancy and that is why my wife is on the pill. Condoms are for teenagers and single people.

What is so shocking and sad are your views of a healthy marriage, that guess what, involves sex. And believe it or not, my wife enjoys sex too and I am thinking HIGHLY of her, by satisfying her urges as well as mine.

This is the type of thinking that fosters healthy marriages and relationships. Are you that sexual repressed, or are you the man-hating butch that RS said you are.

By RS

June 1, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

No, Whiley, that is a stereotype. I’M neither young, thin or particularly attractive but I’m no lesbian. Believe me, I get angry at a lot of things men do. And a lot of things WOMEN do. A lot of things PEOPLE do, in general. And haven’t you ever heard of men sneaking around poking holes in womens’ diaphragms? EVERY bit as bad as what Ben’s friend’s wife did. Oh I agree that birth control needs to have better, safer options. You’d think in this day & age… But you KNOW our government, especially under the present administration, wants us all to breed, and as much as possible.

By Jean Barnes

June 1, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

I’d like to see more of the anti-abortion people adopt some of the unwanted children. There’s plenty of needy kids who need homes and this seems like a great opportunity for them to do the right thing. SAVE A LIFE ‘AFTER’ the child is born. Save the kid from being tossed around to various foster homes and unstable environments. Fill the gap for the loser who had the baby and then dumped it.

Until EVERY adoptable child is placed, anti-abortion people should end their discussion.

By whiley

June 1, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

HEHE I am defiantly not a man hating lesbian. I’ve seen a lot in my life, & unfortunately women have a lot to lose/risk EVERY time they have sex. When men say they were trapped it just makes me mad. When stupid anti abortion laws exist is makes me REALLY MAD. When men don’t use ANY form of birth control & say “I don’t know that’s her department” MY HEAD POPS OFF & I EXPLODE ! hehe Of course women should be honest about their birth control. But women can be sneaky too. I just get REALLY frustrated when I hear a man was trapped, but doesn’t wear a condom. Guess what? WE have to think of birth control everyTIME. WE have to worry about pregnancy EVERY TIME. I don’t know what the hell guys are so upset about. They have it made. The fact some men think so little of birth control & put it all on their wives is extremely irritating to me. That’s all. Yea I love you guys DESPITE everything.

lol ~ you know I love ya all.

By Archie

June 1, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

RS you represent yourself well. I have mentioned condoms and the cost that I pay several times so I don’t how anyone can say that men don’t take any responsibility for birth control. I have heard other married men say they don’t like to use condoms and my use is for prevention of pregnancy but my spouse and I are upfront about birth control. I perfectly understand the kitchen thing Ben since it’s your spouse,do your thing. The man-hating-attitude is stupid and idiotic but the source is always the same… Ben I hope your friend does stay with his wife because he can get over this.

By Bruce

June 1, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

I agree with Ben and Archie. If she would trick him by not taking the pill she will certainly lie to him about anything.

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Sigh, Ladies, you are on your own. Protect yourselves, GET MAD & CHANGE THE LAWS !

By RS

June 1, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Ben, I’m with Archie in that I hope your friend’s marriage can be salvaged; maybe they’ll decide not to keep the baby, a most sensible idea. If even one parent doesn’t want the child, it just won’t work. And yes, Archie, condoms are pricey, I hear they’re not pleasant to wear but a lot of men DO use them.Another thing men have to lose is financial freedom. Child rearing/support is outrageous. Of course, Ben, sex is a normal, healthy part of a relationship/marriage. Honestly, Whiley, I’ve never gotten that you are a lesbian but you do seem to consistantly take the womans’ side in all instances so that might indicate a resentment towards men? An unhappy relationship(s) in your past? Just a guess, of course it’s nobody’s business. Good point, Jean but don’t you know that the pro-life credo is that life begins at conception & ends at birth??

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

RS, this ole lady has seen a lot. I have knowledge only had by living, observing & being honest about how things really are. I’m not bitter about all men. Just shocking sometimes the reality of it all. WE girls are on our own, I don’t think that will ever change.

Women shock me too. We are STILL so ignorant concerning men & love. Most of us will ignore so much just to be in a relationship. I never understood women who didn’t use any & all birth control that was/is available.
I had sex all the time when I was young ! Never had a problem because birth control was always used.

I do wish I was young now. So much better for girls now. So much more freedom & opportunities. Too bad laws about abortion are so backward & on the verge of going back to dark times.

By TT

June 1, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

The bottom line is this: women are not stupid, because intelligent, responsible women have been taking precautions against unwanted pregnancies for decades, even though some remain victims of violent men or misogynist societies and lack the authority to say no.

This law is not designed to offer more information — that information is already readily available by perusing the Internet or consulting with a doctor. This merely sets out a waiting period to make abortions more difficult, more shameful, and more painful. No one, conservative or liberal, man or woman, can claim otherwise without insulting the intelligence of Georgia taxpayers.

Whiley is correct when she states that our society pins safe sex on women. The thinking is that men have no control over their sexual urges and that women should be the pristine voices of reason. If women can be the gatekeepers, then we should be able to choose between medically safe alternatives and decide what is best for us, our bodies, our future, and our children in the event that precautionary measures fail. If we can make decisions about birth control, then we can make decisions regarding abortion, adoption, and child-rearing.

We do not need the government (particularly a group of wealthy, old, white men) to safeguard our interests. They were not there for us in the 1970s when we fought for the pill, and they weren’t marching alongside us to get the Family Medical Leave Act passed. Is it any wonder that insurance policies cover Viagra but not birth control?

Until our government and our society (particularly men) take a more precautionary stance toward reproduction and a more collective viewpoint toward child-rearing, they should not be allowed to dictate women’s choices. You worry about your body, and I will worry about mine. This is the definition of personal responsibility and the essence of freedom, no matter how the conservatives change the meaning depending on the issue.

By Archie

June 1, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

“Women shock me too. We are STILL so ignorant concerning men & love. Most of us will ignore so much just to be in a relationship. I never understood women who didn’t use any & all birth control that was/is available. I had sex all the time when I was young ! Never had a problem because birth control was always used.”

Whiley some women are simply not as smart as you. That’s just the plain truth which is why some need to follow some rules and have self-control. I am not going to control any human being but problems don’t just go away you have to make them go away. As a married man my rules were laid out years ago but I still have to follow thru and I can’t blame anyone if I don’t.

By RS

June 1, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I’m feeling ya, but having close male friends as well as a husband I can talk to openly & honestly, I can tell you that in their own way, men have it just as rough. Yes, I’ve seen plenty of girls & women who’d put up with anything just to have a man. One notable case was a friend I used to have. After her divorce, she felt so lonely, vulnerable & unnattractive that (get THIS!) she took up with a man (& I use the word loosely) who’d return from a date with his “real” girlfriend, call my buddy, tell her to pick up a pizza (which he never gave her a penny for) & come over for sex. And as soon as he was satisfied, he’d ask her to leave! AND SHE PUT UP WITH IT!!! It enraged me AND made me sad. In ways, today’s girls DO have it better & in other ways, they don’t. We’re now “blessed” with AIDS. Plus this current trend of “hooking up”, which, in my opinion, doesn’t do the guys OR that gals any good.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

The point is not about his marriage, it is about the issue of the man sharing the responsibility. He was tricked because the responsibility was taken care of by his wife, which she had always done. If she would have told him she stopped her pill, he WOULD have worn a condom. He was rightfully upset, but he loves his wife and his child. So much so, that he got a second job to offset the financial hardship of his wife not working anymore.

The whole logic behind my post hints to what RS said about every case being individual. While it is easy to say men this, men that, it’s not really always the men. Despite what you may think, most men are responsible about the pregnancy issue, but we only talk about the ones that aren’t.

And in my case, I CAN say it is my wife’s responsibility to worry about birth control because that’s what we decided. The pill is just the best option. In keeping with that, I accept the outcome of any of our sexual escapades. I don’t worry about what if she gets pregnant, because if she does we are more than willing to love and care for our children.

My wife doesn’t have to protect herself from me and get mad, and neither should any woman that is married or involved in a lifelong committment.

For those that choose to do what they want outside of these committments, they are on there own and need to accept the consequences of their actions.

By Jack

June 1, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

I agree with Ben. If you’re married, having a child should be a dual decision.

By kimberly

June 1, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Weighing in on the trickery: Yes, it IS a trick if you’re on the pill and you stop taking it but don’t tell your husband. Sadly, there ARE women who “trap” a man this way, and these men have a right to feel used and deceived. This makes men distrustful of women, and the cycle continues. A marriage is supposed to be a partnership in which both parties look out for each other.. not a situation in which someone is stuck with what the other wants.

And since I understand this so well, I shall never marry again.

By RS

June 1, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

See, Ben? Your friend has to kill himself working two jobs because his wife is selfish & wants what SHE wants & my, how convenient she decides to pop out a baby & can sit home being taken care of while he slaves away.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

That just proves my point. Men are not always the culprit, or this evil group of people trying to subject women to their rule.

By Anne

June 1, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

It always stuns me to see people claim abortion is murder, yet they wave the flag and cheer during wartime. Wars kill people. Viable, living, beloved people. Where is your outrage for them? Why do people complain about abortion, yet the state has plenty of kids in ‘the system’ for them to adopt. It’s not about right and wrong, it’s about forcing people to bend to your will. How about you manage your life and I will manage mine?

By RICK

June 1, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Women have a choice,they can choose not to get pregnant and quit having unprotected sex when they get drunk on friday nites and are not thinking about the baby they will be muredering,rather than how horny they are and got to have it right then!

By RICK PATTERSON

June 1, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

I better amend my last message,obvioulsy I’m not talking about women who get pregnant from assault,rape and incest,so save your breath firing back with that lame excuse. EVERYONE knows the majority of abortions are done for women who choose to have unprotected sex becuase they cannot control themselves long enough to use protection!

By kimberly

June 1, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Anne, I’m ALWAYS b*** about the senseless bloodshed of this war. These anti-choice, pro-life religio types tell me I’m un-American and un-Christian to question our Fuhrer. What about the KIDS who suffer and die in this war? They don’t care.

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Hi all. Everyone is making some very good points today. Ben’s friend was most definitely tricked by his spouse. That doesn’t bode well for the relationship.

Whiley’s position is valid in that women do need to worry every time and most men do seem to take the stance that because the woman gets pregnant the majority of the responsibility lies with them. There are inherent risks from the pill for women, especially those over 35 as Whiley mentions.

Which leads me to a question for the men here…when a male pill becomes available will you take it? Do you believe that most men would? Ben…will you take it so that your wife may not have to or if only to reduce her risk of reproductive system cancers and heart problems that have been linked to long-term use of the pill?

Condoms may not be as much an issue for the married men here, but for the single ones they need to think beyond mere pregnancy and be VERY concerned about STDs. A male or female condom are the only way to protect against those nasty little bugs.

By RICK PATTERSON

June 1, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Sage,maybe 13,14,15 year old girls shouldn’t be spreading their legs quite so easliy!

By Anne

June 1, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Rick, darling…. you might want to click on your spell checker next time you post. And you also might want to check out how women get pregnant in the first place. It is not a solitary action, no matter what your mom tells you. It takes 2. As I said earlier, mind your own business and I will mind mine. No where in the bible does it say you are responsible for my sins… oh wait… except that one place where it says you’re guilty of them too if you judge me for them? That might be worth considering.

By Tim

June 1, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

yes Rick… and we all know that the women should be the only responsible parties because during sex all the blood in a mans body is in his ‘brain’

RS… thanks for the ‘well wishes’ hope your move went well also :)… sorry it has taken me so long to give my 2 cents today… work keeps getting in the way

By RICK PATTERSON

June 1, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Poor Anne,to compare abortion to war is really showing you inability to discuss this problem in a sensible manner. Your right though about everyone managing their own life,How about women managing to NOT GET PREGNANT!!! if they don’t want to have a baby.

By RS

June 1, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Rick, you’re half right. The other half is the men who pick these skanks up on Friday (or Saturday) nights. Doesn’t anyone worry about AIDS, let alone being stuck with unwanted babies?

By Anne

June 1, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

kimberly: Amen sister. I guess w’s crusade is more important than our loved ones lives, but let’s force women to have unwanted children at ALL costs! Have you seen the statistics that show abortion assisted in the drop in crime in the 90s? Fewer unwanted children resulted in fewer criminals in the system 20 something years later. Go figure. And I wonder how many of these people arguing against abortions have ever once had unprotected sex outside of marriage?

By RS

June 1, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

You’re welcome, Tim. Are you all settled in? Hey I hope you don’t work in town; what a commute! We probably won’t be totally unpacked till the weekend.

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Um, Rick, you do know that there are two parties involved in sex, right? And somehow I doubt that it’s the WOMAN who’s usually too impatient to use protection.

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Rick…you just reinfored what Whiley is saying about the responsibility falling to the woman. What about the horny MAN who is having unprotected sex? Why didn’t you mention his responsibility if she does become pregnant? It takes two to tango and the two should be held equally responsible for the outcome. what are your thoughts on the impending male pill?

By rick

June 1, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Anne,I never said just blame women,men need to do their part,but the fact is,YOU will not get pregnant if YOU choose to not have unprotected sex,YOU can tell the guy no,but I guess no isn’t part of the vocubulary of sluts!

By Anne

June 1, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Funny Rick! I thought you were concerned about murder, killing and death. But in reality, you just want to control women. Good luck with that. Men have been trying for eons. We girls have what you boys want and the only way you think you can get it is by force. Dead is dead, Richard. I guess I’m of the opinion that no one knows the fetus, but lots of people know and love the men, women and children killed in wars. I also believe that God is smart enough to know the outcome well before the woman even slept with you. I believe He’s smarter than you seem to think.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

The only problem with her logic is she also says its a woman body, so when it comes to abortion, it’s her decision. Well if it’s her body and her responsibility it should up to her to protect it from unwanted pregnancy.

I understand where Whiley is coming from, I’m just saying that men have very little say in it, but are expected to take responsibility when things don’t go as planned. I know it’s hard to walk in someone else’s shoes, but if I were a woman, I would most definitely be on the pill if I didn’t want to have a child. And if I were with someone that wasn’t my spouse, then they would definitely be wearing a condom.

If there were a male version of birth control, I would probably take it. But it’s not going to be necessary because we are having one more and that’s it. After that, I am going to have the dreaded procedure so there will be no need for birth control.

When I was a bachelor I ALWAYS had condoms and used them. More out of the fear of STDs, but I had them. Whether or not the girl was protected against pregnancy was not an issue.

By Anne

June 1, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

If I get pregnant, we’d all better run to church! LOL

By RS

June 1, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Oh, Rick, of COURSE “no” is part of the vocabulary of sluts! Man: “Don’t you think we should wait till at least our 2nd date to have sex?” Woman: “NO!” (Thought I’d inject a little levity here!)

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Rick, your inability to understand that BOTH parties bear the responsibility for sex and pregnancy suggests that you are barely old enough to be using the computer by yourself, and you certainly aren’t old enough or mature enough to be having sex of your own.

Why don’t you come back in a few years when you’re a grown-up?

By RS

June 1, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Ben, you’re obviously a very responsible, level-headed person. Too bad your friend’s wife isn’t…not a good situation.

By TT

June 1, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Rick, lay off the name calling and stick to the argument. I doubt that a man who uses the word slut has enough respect to leave a woman alone when she says no. Women are not known for being impatient and impulsive about sex; we leave that to men like you.

And where is the data to support your comment that “Everyone knows the majority of abortions are done for women who choose to have unprotected sex because they cannot control themselves long enough to use protection?” (Sorry, I had to edit your poor spelling.)

Look at the facts, sir. This problem is not solely a matter of women being less responsible, it is also the result of men spreading their seed without recourse. Abstinence is a nice alternative, but an unrealistic one, thanks to our hypermasculine, oversexed society.

Accidents can happen, even with protection, and in that event, a woman should have the choice to abort an unwanted child. Surely you wouldn’t want your taxes increased to support the baby of a single mom on welfare, you compassionate fellow, you.

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

WARNING…TWISTED LOGIC TIME….Proceed at your own risk.

I was just mulling this over and thinking that I’m going to have to remember to ask God why it is that men’s little swimmers keep on going well past the age when they would be around to actually contribute to rearing a child. Why is it that men in the 70’s can get a woman pregnant, but a woman of that age will definitely not become pregnant without some major medical involvement?

Then my blond brain flipped to the animal kingdom and thinking about male involvement in child rearing. It occurred to me that with few exceptions the male of most species is nothing more than a sperm donor and has little to no involvement in child rearing. I honestly can’t think of any species outside of birds (some of which mate for life) where the male if actively involved in child rearing. Someone help me out here and think of one? If one looks at animals that live in herds, packs, gaggles, flocks, whatever…there tend to be more females than males, the females tend to do the majority of the hunting, killing, child rearing, and ultimately the males are around for muscle (as in protection) and sperm. In almost all species females are the ones who work in cooperative groups (we know human females are MUCH better at this than human males) to care for the group and children. When the lead male gets old he’s bumped off by a younger one and the group really doesn’t bat an eye since the males really aren’t all the contributory to the group.

Where my tangled web of blond, male, gay brain is going with this is that MAYBE humans are just as genetically programed as most mammals (since we are mammals and animals) in that the female does raise the children. Realistically, isn’t the primary difference our ability to reason? Do we discount our pre-programmed genetics too much? Do we need to approach this topic from a different or maybe expanded perspective to solve the problem?

By Jack

June 1, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Rick, you really stepped in it. Not as bad as TheRealMan though. (he’s probably got a hex put on him now!)

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Maybe W’s war crusade is linked to trying to fight abortion. I mean the culture of Life doesn’t let us see the coffins coming back into the country or photos of funerals, etc. They wouldn’t want us to have to REALLY acknowledge the price being paid by military families. At the same time the Life folks want to stop abortion…could it all be about keeping enough poor folks around to fill the military since we all know this is the population from which most of our recruits come? Where else are rich folks going to be people to fight their wars, work in their factories, consume their goods?

By Ben

June 1, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

I don’t entirely disagree with that logic. I think it kind of explains man’s fascination and desire to have sex with almost every woman he sees.

It kind of also explains, once you get past the PMS, why some men (well at least me) have strong urges during the forbidden week. It’s animal instinct! But that might offend some of the bible thumpers, so you should tread lightly.

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Now that I’ve thrown that little logic bomb, I’m off to meet a new employee to do some training. I really wish I new how to do that Vulcan mind meld thing…so much faster.

Back later to check on the fallout.

RS…congratulations on your new home. Have some friends who recently moved into that area in a new Victorian-ish house on Atlanta Ave.

By Jack

June 1, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, you never heard the excuse some men give for being unfaithful that it is genetic? Our job is to fertilize as many females as possible to propegate the species. This was probably true in the real old days but not anymore.

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Jack, my favorite example of that is this guy that was a friend of my sister when she was in graduate school. One evening he announced to her that God had revealed to him that he was called to spread his superior genetic material to as many women as possible and that she had been chosen as the first recipient. She told him that he should feel free to go spread himself elsewhere.

By Tim

June 1, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

RS… we are all settled… everything is put up… just waiting of some things to be delivered now… and no I don’t work in the city… if I did we would not have moved to the burbs lol

By kimberly

June 1, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

NetB: Penguins.

By Robert Cagle

June 1, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Well, yeah, there should be as much disclosure, paperwork, red tape, forms, interviews, counseling, and whatever else you can think of to slow the process down before a woman makes the final decision to commit legalized murder. I mean, jeez, people on death row who have committed illegal murder spend years on the taxpayer’s dole while lawyers and human rights activists try and keep their worthless hides alive though endless litigation and appeals. Why shouldn’t the same opportunity be extended to the unborn? Then after 15 - 20 years if the mother decides she still wants to kill her child then at least there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind that she is doing it on an informed basis and just as importantly, that her reproductive rights have not been violated. See there: compromise. Hey! I’m running for the US Senate.

By Jack

June 1, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

NetB- Seahorses too.

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Hmm…my trainee is no where to be found. So I’m back for a bit.

Jack, of course I’ve heard that logic and I think there is a great deal of validity to it. Genetic changes occur much more slowly than we realize and some functions (think fight or flight responses) are way too deep to have been weeded out given our rapid advances in the last century or so. I think we tend to forget that humans have been on the earth for millions of years and yet it is only within the last 70 years that average life spans have significantly increased. the Industrial Revolution kicked off a chain of events that has provided quite the cushion from starvation and struggle to survive that our ancestors experienced. That short window of time just isn’t anywhere near long enough for our genetic programming to catch up.

My point isn’t to discount responsibility or to give men an out, but to have both sides acknowledge that just maybe there is a generally unacknowledge factor coming into play.

By Jack

June 1, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

One thing parents should tech their daughters is that boys/men have only ONE thing on their mind. No matter what they say, they only have one thing on their mind.

By Angel

June 1, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

After carefully reading the biased opinions on this article, I decided I had to responded. When I say biased, I’m speaking of both sides. I was apart of “2” abortion situations. My own and my younger sisters. First up, “ME”. I had an abortion back in the late 80’s and “I” decided it was the best option for “ME”. So I walked past the people outside protesting with their signs, passing out barbie doll cutouts, and shouting into the clinic. Inside the clinic I was “informed” of all of my options. That’s why it’s hard to see where people say there’s no “full discloser”. There were pamplets on my options. I didn’t want to read them because I had made up my mind. But I was told by the counselor at the Planned Parenthood Clinic that she had to discuss my options with me. Once again this was the 80’s. I even had to sit through some film of the procedure.

It had a sobering effect, BUT, I had already made up my mind. I had the procedure. I’m close to 40 now and have no children. Do I want them. Yes. Do I blame my abortion, NO. I made a choice and as for all the people out there (religious or not) saying that I was wrong. Please remember that God gives us a choice. Right or Wrong. He entrusts us with our the decision.

Next “My Sister”. She was underaged (15) and pregnant by an older guy that already had 2 children by an older girl. This tore our family apart. Not to mention our concerns for her future. “WE” (not her) decided that she could not have that child. “WE” scheduled her abortion. On the way to the appointment the car broke down and we had to reschedule and did. Finally we were at the clinic and the doctor decides he should talk to her alone. “WE” disagreed because she was a minor. He went over the procedure with her, told her the options and asked her, if this was what “she” wanted to do. She said no. The doctor said he couldn’t do the procedure be she (my sister) “CHOSE” not to. Once again, it was still her choice to make. Not mine or my mother’s although we disagreed and told the doctor he had to. I have a nephew that will be 10 years old in a couple of days. I love him to death. Don’t know what I’d do without him. It’s funny, I’m his favorite aunt and I was almost the cause of him not being her.

With all this being lived through and said, “WE”, the “Individual” have a choice to make and live with. We only answer to one person. No matter your faith or belief. We were given the ability to chose.

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Ok…we 2 out of millions. Keep them coming. What I’m going to bet is that number of species that are monogamous or where the male seriously contributes to child rearing are overwhelmingly in the minority. Can anyone think of a mammal since it would at least be the same phylum as humans?

By Lyrazel

June 1, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Ben, it is sad both men and women do not understand the concequences of getting pregnant involve a third party: the child. A child brought into life when both parents are not ready, an unwanted from conception, a mistake, and the thousand other adjective that will be tagged to the kid before its born and after. The kid will always be—resented. Resented by its dad for moms deception, for lies mom told, for the confining life of responsibility; resented by mom because it ends the deep love they once shared. Pity both sexes dont think when their pants are down, ya know?

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

And yet again the “abortion is murder” door of dialogue is slammed by a religious conservative wielding buzzwords like “unborn”.

Sorry, but the ascribing of a soul to a cluster of cells, or even a fetus devoid of brain, etc. and utterly unable to survive outside the womb is a religious belief and has no place in the discussion of a civil law in this country. Period.

Oh, and Robert, personally I’m glad that those “human rights activists” you seem to dislike so much are so vigorous in their continued defense of death row inmates. I don’t personally like the death penalty myself, but as long as we have it I’m damn glad there are people who are willing to go the extra mile to make sure we aren’t executing someone by mistake.

I doubt you understand that - you sound like one of those people who only extend compassion to “the unborn”, and don’t give a damn about anyone actually born.

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Jack…men have more than one thing on their mind, it’s just that they can only focus on one thing at a time and sex pops into the #1 spot very frequently.

By RS

June 1, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Eaton: LOL! I DO know someone like that! Needless to say, I give him a very wide birth; this bozo actually refers to himself as “The King”. OHHHH BROTHER!!! Netbanker: Thanks! I’m on Atl Ave a lot, going to & fro. Tim: Glad all is going well & you don’t have to deal with that commute. Ben: Er, not quite. I know a number of females, who, sad to say, can’t get men to have sex with them for love or money!

By mel

June 1, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Sorry ladies, but I’m with Ben on this one. That woman was wrong. And yes, in a marriage, both partners are responsible, but if we have agreed that I will take a pill, then it’s MY responisiblity to take it. Unfortunately for my husband, my bc pill made me nauseous and took away my sex drive, so we mutually agreed that we would use condoms. It’s my husband’s job to make sure he puts one on, and if there aren’t any, it’s his job to withdraw at the proper time. And yes, sometimes I say “Let’s risk it”, but HE says no because he’s not ready for another baby yet. So see, it goes both ways.

Here’s another biology lesson, to go with Netbanker’s: Every month, in the week or so after her monthly cycle, the woman releases eggwhite-like cervical mucus. She may also feel VERY aroused at all times. This is a woman’s most fertile time of the month. The cervical mucus is only this consistency for that week, maybe less. And during that time, the sex is probably the best it will be that month. So is this nature’s way of ensuring that we reproduce? The woman is the most aroused, lubricated, and fertile all at the same time in the same week? Is there a way to at least educate people about this to ensure that they wear proper birth control during this time (and yes, know that you can get pregnant at any time during the month, but it’s most likely at this time). Any thoughts?

By Liz

June 1, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Let’s link the two issues of abortion and war: the more low-income, disadvantaged babies born with few options for career and education, the more cannon fodder for Bush to spread “freedom.”

But what do I know, I’m just a single slut on the pill who has never gotten pregnant.

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Now Liz, you know that the front lines are the exclusive territory of the wealthy and powerful families of America. Poor people don’t fight and die at the whim of our Cowboy President - it’s the rich kids who are getting shot at in sub-standard body armor!

Oh wait…

By DAVE

June 1, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Lozen, your comments portray women as helpless victims of men, like they are not capable of better descions. Let’s face it, women are sneaky,and some will see no moral dillema in trapping a man by getting pregnant. From a biological prespective women are vessels, they carry innocent life in their wombs. I think a lot of this female promiscuity has come as a result of the sexual revolution of the sixties, women running around thinking they are men and they are entitled to sex, without balancing that right with being responsible. I don’t see anything wrong with premartial sex, but the only thing that controls men’s insatiable desire for sex are responsible women who pick their sex partners selectively. And take the needed precautions, to prevent unwanted pregnancy, anything else leads to social choas, and poor single parent families headed by women. I am not prolife, but would like to see the number of abortions decline.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel. He doesn’t resent his child. It’s not that he didn’t want to have a child, he just didn’t want to have it at the time. The child is not the problem the deception is the problem.

By kimberly

June 1, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Jack, you’re SO RIGHT! I’m teaching this to my beautiful young daughter, and my Dad is like, “Hey, don’t teach her to be distrustful of men…” and I’m like, “DAD! Hello? Wish YOU would have broken that one down for me before I learned the hard way…” HELLO? I teach my daughter that it doesn’t mean men are BAD, but they are biologically driven to say or do anything to achieve the goal of getting in her pants, and she needs to show them her knuckle sandwich and tell them to back off before sumpthin BAD happens to them… Not all girls are taught what boys do and WHY, and therefore do not have the necessary level of distrust to preserve their um.. integrity, so to speak. Darlin’s: Love ain’t got NUTTIN’ to do with it! (at least not at your age!) Hahaha!

By Dave

June 1, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Mel spare us the explicit details, we get your point. You should know by now how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, your a GROWN WOMAN. Certainly, you can’t be this STUPID. Withdrawing at the time of ejaculation is not reliable birthcontrol. I don’t think its a 50/50 responsibilty to be split between partners. Your the one who’s going to be big-bellied and pregnant, if the withdrawal method fails, men don’t get pregnant honey. So if I were you I would buy a contraceptive sponge or go to your doctor and get fitted for a cervical cap. The stupid comments some women make really make me wonder…..

By Ben

June 1, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

RS. That’s funny! But that goes along with the idea of natural selection and survival of the fitest. But ugly people should get together and reproduce. Have you ever notice that two ugly people usually have cute kids? Kind of like two negatives make a positive. Okay, I quit. I apologize to those people that think they are ugly.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 1, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

All this talk about male birth control pills is rather amusing. How about vasectomies, guys? No worse than labor…and sometimes reversible in case that trophy wife thing works out for ya later on…

Incidentally, something as simple as taking an aspirin can make birth control pills lose their effectiveness, so while I advocate women who do not wish pregnancy to use birth control, a back-up method like condoms is always a good idea if you have any doubts. This will also provide protection from STDs in case there is any question about where your partner has been…

As far as the topic, physicians, particularly OBGYNs, pay large amounts in malpractice insurance. It is in their best interest to give full disclosure insofar as the patient’s risks. If this is the government’s way of preventing women from making their own choices, then what’s next, limitations as to what state lines pregnant women can cross? Or perhaps “investigating” each and every miscarriage to be sure an induced abortion was not performed. Privacy rights are already being violated in terms of court orders for medical records. Coincidence that one of Priscilla Owen’s (Bush’s nominee from Texas) more notable decisions was regarding whether a minor was well-enough informed to seek an abortion after having to be seen by a judge? And gee, with a supreme court position to be opening up soon? The conservatives have been gearing up for this for a long time.

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

The stupid comments some women make really make me wonder…..

Is anyone else struck by the overwhelming irony of this statement?

By lyrazel

June 1, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Angel, you are brave! Thank you. Robert, you are right. Abortion is murder. There are 9 million occuring yearly in this country alone which proves the fact Americans use abortion as birth control. Until someone comes up with an alternative, these unborns will continue to be aborted. So 3 questions: 1. Why has the anti-abortion groups not taken a stronger stand on post-natal care being cut from social services/insurance/health care plans? 2. Why does the RtoL NOT educate our masses concerning BC but resort to fear propaganda and outdated religous doctrine? 3. Why have they not adopted even 1 million of the 9 million available every year? Its so easy to preach but when it comes down to it—nobody wants those 9 million. Face the facts because the volume of abortions only speaks one truth: we dont want other peoples unwanted babies.

By RS

June 1, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Dave: Great job typing, what with the sore, scraped knuckles you’re obviously afflicted with….

By RS

June 1, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Makes sense, Ben, but the aesthetically-challenged ladies I know are very, very picky as to upon whom they lavish their affections…

By DAVE

June 1, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

RS, what do you mean by that comment? It totally went over my head. By the way, are you a woman? it figures.

By Jack

June 1, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

How bout the rhythm method? My folks had 5 children using that form of birth control.

By TT

June 1, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Dave says, “Your the one who’s going to be big-bellied and pregnant, if the withdrawal method fails, men don’t get pregnant honey.” No, but women are hardly capable of getting pregnant on their own. You must have missed that day of eight-grade biology. Dave, we already sent Rick scurrying back to the trailer he came from. Would you like a little motivation to crawl back into your cave? You really should have at least a high school education to access this blog.

By mel

June 1, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Ok, my point was missed. I’m not saying the rythym or withdrawal methods work. I’m a grown woman who is married and we are more than able to take care of a baby if it happens. So, I don’t need to be fitted for anything. My husband likes our arrangement just fine and it works for us. My point was that it’s not just men who have biological urges. Women have them, and they are the strongest at the part of her cycle when she is most fertile. In simpler terms, how many women know that quite possibly, the time you are feeling the most aroused is when you have the greatest chance of getting pregnant? This may be the time when women (and men) may be tempted to be the most careless and say, “Aww, let’s just go for it”. Maybe if they knew the odds, they would say, “Ok, I know the mood is strong right now, but we can’t take the chance”. It’s not a solution, but it could help. My own best friend couldn’t understand why she felt the way she did at that time, and when I explained it, she was surprised. And Dave, spare me your lectures. You may talk to your wife that way, but you need to show some respect around here. We’re all adults.

By Ben

June 1, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

LOL. You are too funny

By Tim

June 1, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Dave… of course it went over your head… that isn’t a surprise

RS… I got what you meant :) and it doesn’t take much to go over his head seeing as he is still not walking upright

By RS

June 1, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Dave: I rest my case! Oh, I’m sorry; that expression probably went over your head too! Oh Tim! LOL, honey! Mel, I highly doubt Dave is married as his posts indicate he’s still in junior high. Well, his brain (?!?!?) is anyway! Hey, where’s Norman? We haven’t seen him all week!

By Robert Cagle

June 1, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Sherlock, I mean, Eaton, you were able to discern all by yourself that I’m a religious-buzzword wielding-conservative simply based on my use of the word “unborn”? No where did I mention any personal political or religious leanings. Never mentioned God either. Nor did I do any “..ascribing of a soul..” to the unborn. Never said I disliked anyone, much less human rights activists. And still, you know all about me. Wow. Okay if I re-read you and give it a try? Let’s see….you are a cluster of cells… without a soul… devoid of brain…and have been utterly lucky to have survived outside your mother’s womb. How’d I do? Now you try something, ask your mother if she ever gave any thought to aborting you and let us know how she reacts. Don’t forget to take your medication.

By Misty

June 1, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

I was reading the message board and felt compelled to make my own comments. I am a 27 year old single mom of one child. I had my child when I was 15 years old, by an old flame from highschool. I felt the pressure of all those demonstrators outside the clinic and went home instead of having the abortion. At the time I thought because I was making the right descion, I would be able to raise my child with my parents help, they assured me that they supported my descion. It was not until i was 20 years old, watching all my peers go on with their lives, graduating from college, starting their careers, dating, partying etc. I began to regret my descion. I feel cheated. What you think you may want now, you may not want 6 months from now or even 5 years from now. My son’s father has not seen his son since he was 9 months old. There are times when i look at my 12 year old son and wonder how different my life would have been if i had kept my appointment at the clinic. I can’t even begin to explain how being a single parent has affected my life, it has defined who I am. And I never imagined i would pay as dearly as I have. I love my son, but if I had to do it all over again, I would have kept my appointment at the clinic.

By TT

June 1, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Misty, I feel sorry for you, but you are obviously a strong person. What happened to you is happening to thousands of women because of these “full disclosure” laws. These laws have nothing to do with providing more information and everything to do with shaming women into making decisions that may have drastic implications on their future. I applaud your honesty and your fortitude. I only regretthat your decision was swayed by people who did not have you or your son’s best interest at heart.

By DAVE

June 1, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

RS I have been happily married for 7 years and the ladies find me irresistible. You women are really hard to figure out, the worst I treat them the more they love me. How can you explain that RS? I was’nt until i meet my wife, that I snapped out of my old ways. You women set the tone and standards in a relationship, any man will tell you that.

By mel

June 1, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Oh, and I’m sorry if I offended anyone (besieds Dave) with my graphic post.

By Mary

June 1, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

So Misty, how much $$ have those protesters given you over the years to help you raise your son? Have they ever offered to child-sit so you could have a night off? When was the last time the protesters added to your college fund?

By Tim

June 1, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Dave… being happily married to your hand doesn’t count

By Archie

June 1, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Mel your post at 1:44 pm kind of fits my situation. As I said weeks ago we men don’t like condoms so withdrawal is what we have to do. Mel you did offer a solution in my opinion. There have been many solutions offered such as abstinence and the other methods on this blog but some people just won’t accept them. When it comes to sex you can’t have it all your way you have follow some protocol or rules or make decisions. I know married men that have had vasectomies to prevent more children so guys do take responsibility. Many men do help out with the child-rearing but its often unappreciated because there’s a need for some women to be the heroine/victim. The men of today probably do more domestic stuff than say men born in the 30’s,40’s but those guys contributed in other ways and society was different. I have no problem helping with homework,cooking,doing landry,cleaning the kitchen, and still working outside cutting the grass,etc. Guys I know 45 and under do that stuff all the time.

By RS

June 1, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Dave: “You women”? Grrrr! We’re not ALL like that although yes, a lot of females seem to go for that “bad boy” type. Misty: I can really feel for you & I give you your props for honesty. Your post proves something I’ve long suspected; that the right-to-lifers’ propaganda about women who have abortions & end up regretting the decision to the point of deep depression is just that-propaganda & a complete load of horse manure. And you’re still young; you can still go out & enjoy your life.

By DAVE

June 1, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Hey Mel, I never doubted your ability to take care of a child, I don’t know you. But to read your post, you sound like you have your head in the clouds, and don’t know the basic facts of life. Every American women should know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, your not living in China or Saudi Arabia. Give me a break. My wife is far more intelligent then you, well-educated, attractive, cultured etc. I bet most of the women at abortion clinics, (right now) used the same methods of birthcontrol you use with your husband. My wife has been on the pill for 10 years, with no negative side effects, other than water retention.

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Robert, it’s called reading comprehension and subtext…some of us don’t need unequivocal statements to divine meaning. And yes, deductive reasoning. Let me just address a couple of the…um…points you tried to make.

First, the word “unborn” is a deliberate creation of the fundy movement and is quite popular in conservative political circles. It creates more of a sympathetic reaction from people than “fetus”. Therefore, your use of this word suggests that you belong to that camp.

Now, as for the human rights activists…you said “while lawyers and human rights activists try and keep their worthless hides alive though endless litigation and appeals. “ Any reasonable person would read this sentence and see the implied contempt you hold for the human rights activists mentioned…the key is the way you use that phrase in conjunction with “worthless hide”.

I’m not quite sure to say to the rest of your rant…seems to me that if anyone needs medication, it’s you.

By RS

June 1, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Mary, excellent point! Those anti-abortion folks are such hypocrites. They cry over the “unborn” but are they there to lend a hand once the unborn are born? I think not! And who are the ones that bomb abortion clinics to protest the MURDER (?!?) of “innocent babies”? See where I’m going with this? Well, Tim, at least Dave’s hand will never reject him; it won’t squawk if he cheats on it with his other hand! It’ll never plead a headache, or ask him “Does my butt look fat in these jeans”?

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Dave, you don’t know her, but you know your wife is far more intelligent than she? Somehow I doubt it, or she wouldn’t have married you. Or maybe she has a neanderthal fetish.

By Hard40

June 1, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Dave, I totally agree with your comments, don’t let these feminists women censor your opinions threw the filter of political correctness. Women like RS and Lozen want us to apologize for being a man and feel guilty for the fact we are not left holdling the bag. I refuse to feel guility for being the stronger, more dominant sex. BRAVO DAVE!!! I am not against equality for women, but I refuse to be used as an escape goat for all the poor choices they make, that affect the quality of their lives.Then they have the audacity to say all men are dogs. Sometimes the things women do don’t make any sense.

By RS

June 1, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Hard40: I am not a feminist, I am a PEOPLE-IST. I judge by situation, not by gender. Please refer to my earlier posts today, when I’d agreed with Ben that his friend’s wife tricked him.

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Glad to see that Hard40 is not inconsistent in his prejudices. He thinks he is superior to everyone, though given his obvious inability to construct a sentence more complex than that of your average seventh grader, not to mention his frequent usage mistakes, one wonders what makes him so confident of his superiority.

I suspect that his superiority is evident only in the skilful way he asks: “Do you want fries with that”.

By Archie

June 1, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Misty you would have benefitted from abstinence at age 15. I say that only because of what you wrote about keeping that appointment. My point is that it may be tough to wait but I read what you’re going through and it’s what came to my mind when I posted about following rules and controls. When I say everyone is not a good liberal I mean everyone is not as intelligent as Diane Glass or has a good job that they could absorb all the costs, everyone doesn’t have it together enough to be a cheerful single parent. Life is tough and you have to miss out on some things early so that you can do other things that you like. I wish Misty all the best and wasn’t trying to offend in any way. I have already posted about order and that’s why certain rules were written down,etc.

By Misty

June 1, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

TT thanks for you compassion and understanding, I never expected anyone to understand my mixed feelings. My son is a hand full to raise. The Prolifers are really doing a disserice to young women, by simplying the issue. They are not going to be there when that baby is crying all night long because its has colic, they are not going to buy formula and pampers for the baby, they are trying to save from abortion . For some affluent women, having kids is a natural progression of life, for women who can barely make ends meet like myself, it is very much like a 20 year jail sentence. At times it feels as though, its just me and my son against the world. My sister is happily married, with a great career, and well-traveled. I am the black sheep of the family everyone feels sorry for. All because of decision I made when I was 15. What knowledge does a 15year old have to make such a momentous decision? NOONE

By mel

June 1, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

LOL Eaton! Thank you.

RS, I’m with you. Fair is fair.

By E. Lewis

June 1, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Why not “full disclosure” for all medical procedures?

By HARD 40

June 1, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I am 45 years old and independtly wealthy (I have not worked in 5 years.) I own 4 Mail Box Etc. stores in the Atlanta area. I am currently negociating with UPS to sell them. I spend my days doing exactly what i want, I enjoy a lifestyle most people only dream about, and yes I am single, (for Pearl’s information). I may not be a great writer, but I don’t write newspaper columns for a living, and using proper grammar did’nt make me a millionaire either. So shutup YOU C** SUCKING F*.

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

I’m feminist & not afraid to say so. Why should I? Feminists allowed me to be free. (well, until the govt takes control of my uterus)

:) !

By Tim

June 1, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

hmmmm anyone surprised that the sorry sack of s** with his finger up his a* who likes to call himself Hard 40 (whatever that is supposed to mean) is single… I am sure he will tell us it is by choice… yeah just like he is a millionaire… paaaaaaalease… just cus you say it doesn’t make it true… YOU C** LICKING BREEDER!

By RS

June 1, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Ummm, Hard40, if you’re all that, why are you single????

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Keep ‘em coming, Soft40. I believe everything you say about yourself. Really!

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 1, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

There is no excuse for a man not protecting himself from unwanted pregnancies or disease (married or otherwise). A man “saying� he was tricked, by a woman, is just an excuse. A sorry excuse at that! My mother use to tell my brothers and cousins, all the time, that they had to protect themselves from having children they did not want. As a woman, I depend upon myself to protect myself. No man can tell me he is going to handle the birth control – that is one of the reasons we have so many unwanted pregnancies in the first place. No responsibility – (One-sided) Responsibility – Blame game, etc………

A married man and woman should protect themselves from all the things that singles come across. To think that, just because you are married, it can’t happen to you is just plain Stupid.

From a single woman, with many heart broken married friends (male and female) who have run into this situation. Keep putting your head in the sand, I know it keeps you head cool……………

By RS

June 1, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Ha, Tim! I see we both question how “wonderful” Hard40 is & still single (the rubber blow-up doll doesn’t count, you see). Oh he wishes he had a you-know-what to lick!

By TT

June 1, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

In addition, Georgia and many other states have laws in place that require a minor to have the consent of her parents before having an abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from New Hampshire concerning these laws. I believe that a pregnant teenager would want to consult her parents before making such a heavy decision, but in the event that they are not understanding, or insist that she should have the child, our system prevents her from having an abortion. She could go through the court system, but that requires even more money and access to a lawyer.

A woman is not the property of her father, her husband, or her boyfriend and she can make decision for herself. If you want to espouse those ideals, then go to the Third World or one of the axis of evil countries. Why do we send Laura Bush abroad to push for women’s rights in the Middle East, when we do not support them here? How many barriers to legal abortion are we going to erect before the pro-lifers take away the right altogether? How many more women like Misty must suffer, raising a child alone and giving up their futures because our government charges itself with intervening in personal decisions? (By the way, Misty, there are support groups out there for you … if the conservatives have not cut all of the funding.)

The conservatives say they are in favor of strong national defense, open markets, democracy, and a culture of life. But they promote war, corporate greed, personal responsibility (except for when it comes to abortion and social mobility), and the death penalty. If you’re going to be pro-life, then you should be against the death penalty, against war, and supportive of social spending so that people like Misty and her son can have access to education, health care, and decent wages. If you’re going to support democracy and women’s rights abroad, then support them here. Abortion (for the time being) is a woman’s right and you cannot take that away from her without contradicting our mission to spread freedom throughout the world.

By Tim

June 1, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

RS… :) great minds think alike

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Why do all of the ignorant, bigoted, moronic throwbacks on this blog claim to be independently wealthy?

By RS

June 1, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Tim: Ah, that we do!

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Tim that married to your hand comment had me roaring. Good thing I’m in borrowed office with the door closed.

Misty…That just SUCKS! I’ve known several women in your situation and most of them have the same experience as you in terms of having their life significantly affected.

Mel…thanks for biology brush up. Given education in this country I don’t think that most people are aware of the connection between the two.

Eaton…good call on the use of unborn child. It immediately gives the impression of ‘just about to be born, healthy, happy, baby’ Fetus is to unborn as alive is to undead.

By vonnie

June 1, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

For Mary,

Here’s a small attempt at gay-bashing to make you happy. Only a gay or lesbian could find some stupid way to insert a comment such as yours into a discussion such as this. Please, most straight people don’t give homosexuals any thought at all except when you guys get all in our face. So, no, I (we) will not look for a way to blame this issue on you; obviously it is not something in which you participate.

By mel

June 1, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Amazed, I have a serious question…What am I, a married woman, supposed to be protecting myself from? I have one child and want 2 or 3 more. My husband wants to wait. So right now, it is up to him to put on a condom. If he doesn’t, yay for us. What is stupid about that?

Now if I were single and didn’t want to get pregnant, then I would absolutley be responsible and put myself on the pill or get a diaphram.

I just don’t understand the vitriol directed at my post.

By Hard40

June 1, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Tim, I divorced my wife because she changed her mind, and decided she wanted children. I don’t have kids, so you can’t call me a breeder. NEWSFLASH TIM, JUST BECAUSE YOUR POOR, DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE ELSE IS TOO. YOU FILTHY C** SUCKER. When is the last time you went on a vacation? Or dined at THE BLUE POINTE IN BUCKHEAD? If you went to a four star restaurant, you would’nt even know what to order, since your idea of fine dining is Houston’s, or Ruby Tuesdays.

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Vonnie, it was sarcasm, which apparently straight people don’t get either. For someone who claims not to think much about gay people except when we “get in your face” (i.e. stand up for ourselves) I find it interesting that the only thing you’ve chosen to comment on is that particular quote from…what, a couple of days ago?

By Tim

June 1, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Eaton… because they are ignorant, bigoted, moronic throw backs who don’t have an argument so they think by stating that they are rich that some how makes their statements valid

Netbanker… thank you ;) takes a bow

By Netbanker

June 1, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Because rich people are somewhat respected or at least envied in this country regardless of their actual intelligence. Look at the Hilton family.

By A Real Man

June 1, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

A woman is not the property of her father, her husband, or her boyfriend YES SHE IS EVER HEARD OF THE WORD “CHATTLE?”

and she can make decision for herself. NO THEY CAN’T

By Eaton

June 1, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Keep on Hard40 - try to impress us with your “status”…all you are doing is continuing to prove what a pathetic human being you really are…

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 1, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Mel, don’t ask stupid questions. Women are dying of AIDS both (white and black). My mother has a friend who died of AIDS, because of her cheating husband. I have a friend who is dying because of his cheating girlfriend. Protecting yourself is not always about getting pregnant. And you are correct, if your husband doesn’t want a child, he should protect himself. Smart man…….. I question his wife.

Simply Amazed

By mel

June 1, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

So I should asume my husband is cheating on me? The hell? I like to think I’m in a healthy, trusting realtionship. You sound amazingly bitter. I know that men cheat, and there are diseases out there that married and single people alike can catch, but I’ll be damned if I live my life in fear. So are married women who are on the pill stupid because they don’t also use condoms? Please explain.

By Tim

June 1, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Hard40… Actually my next vacation is planned for the end of next month… thanks for asking… no I have never been to The Blue Pointe… for the simple fact I don’t like ‘rich white people food’… but I must say the Brunch at the 4 seasons is ok for rich white people food… maybe it is because I grew up poor (would much prefer soul food)… AND PROUD OF IT… I am proud of where I came from to where I am now… and I don’t have to prove my social status to you… you will never know what social class I belong to b/c it isn’t what defines me… unfortunately for you you are an idiot and think that money makes the man… well I have found that most people that have to flaunt money around are the very ones who don’t have it… so keep on flaunting… oh and fyi… lil tidbit of info for you… the gay and lesbian community (on average) is the most financially successful group of people in the metro Atlanta area… most of them could buy your sorry a*

p.s. you said you divorced because your wife wanted children… are you sure she didn’t divorce you because she said she wanted INTELLIGENT children?

p.s.s. Ruby Tuesdays has some killer sweets

By TT

June 1, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Listen up, Man Child: get off this blog (although, I am surprised you can read and use a computer). You’re about the third child we’ve had in here today and we do not take kindly to ignorance.

No, women are not property. If you think so, then move to the Third World and back to the Dark Ages. I feel sorry for your “wife,” if she really exists. In fact, your comments almost call for an intervention on her behalf. Anyone know the number to Social Services. I bet they would be at your trailer faster than you could pull up your pants to cover your plumber’s crack.

By Hard40

June 1, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you need to shutup, at this moment you probably have a tampon up your behind, (so you can hold your stoole). F* take it up the A* SO MUCH THEY CAN”T HOLD THEIR STOOLE).(LAUGHING)

By Whiley

June 1, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

JUST INGORE “IT”

By Tim

June 1, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Limpy… since you have not worked in 5 years would you please pick up a dictionary… it is stool not stoole

By J. Morris

June 1, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Ooo, that one really hurt, HardUpForBrains…you know for someone who is supposedly so succesful, you sure have a hard time coming up with an insult that doesn’t sound like something off the playground. And, moron, it’s “STOOL”. There’s no “e” on the end of the word. Geeze, you’re not even good at being a bigot.

By TT

June 1, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Make that the fourth child on the blog today. It’s stool, Mr. Millionaire. You should know, since you seem to be full if it.

By whiley

June 1, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

lol IGNORE “it”

sorry bad spelling

By Tim

June 1, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

sorry Whiley… I will now :)

By Jack

June 1, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Dave & Hard40 real men are way outnumbered on this blog. Your wasting your time. No matter what the feminists & fems say, men are superior than women physically and most of the time mentally. No we cannot have babies, but match the best man against the best woman in anything other than childbirth and the man will win every time.

Tim you are quite arrogant for a 23 year old snot.

By Dave

June 1, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

HARD40, thanks for putting Tim and Eaton in their place. They are full of s**, and probably looked like they were chocking on a chicken bone when you told them how wealthy you are. Good for you, I am happy for you. This comment is directed to TT, thanks for chastising that idiot, the so-called Real Man. He’s probably a highschool dropout and lives in a trailer park. Men like him are usually miserable failures, and make their wives pay for it.

By IHaveStanding

June 1, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

This has been an interesting read for me. I’m always amazed by the plethora of people who think they have a right to tell me or anyone else how we should conduct our lives. I apologize in advance for the length of this post but this will probably be the only time I weigh in here.

I had an abortion back in 1981 in Wisconsin in my 12th week of pregnancy. I received MORE than enough information about all the possible ramifications, both emotional and physical, as well as the option of taking the child to term and giving up for adoption. Since I do not consider myself a broodmare for others, going to term and adoption were never at issue.

For those of you ready to say “shame, you should have protected yourself.” Surprise! I got pregnant while on the Pill! I didn’t realize I was pregnant until I was 10-1/2 weeks because my periods were very irregular and spotty on a regular basis. When I realized that my more-than-normal-bleeding and constant nausea were probably indicative of a contraception-failure pregnancy, I went to my doctor who confirmed my self-diagnosis. I was 31, single, had less than enough income or the desire necessary to support and nurture a child, and expressed those feelings and my desire to have an abortion to him. My doctor talked to me at length about non-abortion options, then asked several times if I had any other questions, and when I said no, he referred me to the local Women’s Clinic which gave free pregnancy and pre-natal care to poor women, financed by women who paid for abortion.

The clinic made me sit through three, count them, THREE separate counseling sessions and following the third, scheduled me for the abortion. Remember that this was in ‘81 so disclosure was certainly adequate even back then. Two days later, I had the procedure and then followed the clinic’s instructions for post-procedural self-care. I never had any complications and NEVER HAVE I REGRETTED MY DECISION. I am now in my 50’s, married and have never had children. I have no regrets and am always a little amazed that the people I tell always assume that I have cried myself to sleep for over 20 years. The point here is that it was the right decision for me and I should always be allowed to make it.

I am a Libertarian, a political and fiscal conservative, who voted for the President, and I am for all the standard conservative issues including what we are doing in Iraq and am pro-death penalty. I also am an environmentalist/tree hugger/animal rights activist. In short, no one issue or political persuasion defines me. That said, I am amazed at other conservatives and Libertarians who still think they know better how I or anyone else should be made to live and are willing to force the government to make me live that way.

Abortion is a very personal decision yet many people seem to think I would be unable to make that decision alone. What I also hear about this issue of “disclosure” is that the “disclosure” advocates are apparently uneducated about what is already disclosed. If they really knew the extent of the information we are given, they would be hard pressed to deny that “disclosure” isn’t about throwing up more road blocks to any woman trying to decide the course of their own lives in a timely manner.

I often hear young people defending an anti-abortion position with the You-need-to-be-responsible-for-your-own-actions mantra. That is just another way of saying that children are a consequence, or worse, a punishment, for one’s perceived bad behavior - a position I find abhorant. Should a child pay for my having received a bad batch of birth control pills? Was it my fault that I didn’t know I was overly fertile, if I was, or that I hit the sack with an overly fertile man, if he was?

I am bemused that the anti-abortionists foster this type of thinking. If they are so concerned with the life of every child, why do they force adults to accept these consequences and punishments of their behavior? I do not think children are, or should ever be considered, punishments. But some do end up being considered as such, and many of them end up the victims of corporal and sexual abuse because they weren’t wanted. This I know from volunteering for years at battered women’s shelters. I’ve heard those who seek shelter (ALL economic stratas represented) often complain that they didn’t want their kids but couldn’t give them up, or that they wanted them but never realized how expensive or time consuming they would be, or that they just wanted something to love them but didn’t consider that a baby was a taker and not a giver. Where are you anti-abortionists when those kids are being beaten or screamed at or threatened.

Guys, you have no standing in an abortion debate because it isn’t about your body and doesn’t have to be about your life. If you want a say in whatever happens to the child of any woman you might impregnate, then you better have sex only with those women you are prepared to marry or support should a child be conceived.

To those of you who keep harping on adoption, I’ll say it again - WE ARE WOMEN, NOT EQUINE BROODMARES. The failure of my contraception should not result in the government forcing me to endure a pregnancy/child I did not plan for or want, and even if I was not on the pill, a child is not and should never be a punishment for YOUR idea of how to keep me moral.

To my fellow conservatives, I still say that you and the government need to walk in my shoes before you dare to tell me how to live my life, or anyone elses.

By HARD40

June 1, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

The last comment i made really must have stung, because you know its true. As for Tim, I’m so sorry you grew up poor and ate nothing but greasy, unhealthy soulfood. I feel sorry for you.

By TT

June 1, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Jack, looks like the trailer park has a Natty Light with your name on it? Why don’t you join the others at the Neanderthal party and leave the discourse to the thinking adults? Or if you want to participate, bring along some facts with your ignorant opinions.

By Dave

June 1, 2005 05:23 PM | Link to this

No offense Mel, but you really sound like you need a reality check. You sound like a dizzy broad. Do you know that 40 percent of all the new AIDS cases in America are heterosexual women, single or married, it does’nt matter.

By Ben

June 2, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this

It looks like I missed the romper room session last night. What do you guys expect when school is out. Our uneducated idiots have to do something with their summer. Imagine how bad it’s going to be when Cobb gets their laptops. I think instead of bickering with idiots like Hard40 and anybody else who remotely agrees with them, we should use some code a little above their intellect — ixnay on the ightingfay ithway hesetay diotsiay.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this

right, right…don’t feed the trolls, don’t feed the trolls. Darnit, I forgot.

By Lyrazel

June 2, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

We used salt water for birth control. In some places down south they used ashes or burrdock root. Didnt know much back then about BC, condoms were as rare as integrated restrooms and men pulled out. Abortions were done but not by doctors, not by nurses, not in sterilized fashion and were responsible for millions of deaths and illnesses. Pregnant unmarried girls went to homes away from town in shame, disgrace and solitude, their babies adopted, their lives ruined. Most were never seen from again because their kind were now unwelcome in our stalwart and moral-bound-to god communities. Their men never changed tune, and normally married someone else who wouldnt until marriage.

I have always felt lucky. My life was never defined by who I wed, if I birthed or my status goods. I chose very early on to not have children, and my husband had a vasectomy—kept me off beta-testing products for women Pill, IUD, sterilization. It takes a courageous man to take control of his sperm in a culture where spreading seed is gospel. I guess, seeing how much has changed in reproductive care (we can say reproductive now!) I am still amazed by the stupidity of persons who dont use BC because of laziness, or inconvienence. Personal responsibility is the only way the abortion rate will go down and judging from all the generations that followed mine—abortions will be around for the 23d century.

By RS

June 2, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

Tim: You tell him, honey! Soft40 (I love it!) IS a “stoole”! And a sorry-a$$ one, to boot! Hey, i LOVE soul food/Southern cooking & as for desserts, the apple pie at Heaping Bowl & Brew in E. Atlanta Village is the best I ever had. Bravo to you, IHave Standing! You’ve really got it going on!

By Robert

June 2, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Eaton - Please accept my apology for the inappropriate comments I directed at you personally. While it is no excuse, the whole tone of this forum seems to be mean spirited and full of personal attacks. It is easy to get caught up in it. I admit that my initial posting was flip and sarcastic. My use of the word murder was not intended to imply woman having abortions, or the doctors performing them, are murderers in the premeditated sense. But in retrospect I can see where that would be taken personally.. However, your stereotyping and personal attacks on me because you didn’t agree with my viewpoint goaded me to respond in kind.

To be honest, Eaton, if you re-read a lot of your comments, you attack most everyone on a personal basis. Everyone is pretty much stupid, a bigot, a hypocrite, a religious or conservative nut case because they have beliefs that conflict with yours. You really come across as a verbal bully, whether you intend it so or not. But you are good at it. That is offered as constructive criticism from someone who - while not the verbal virtuoso with words that you are - has a bad tendency to use words a lot times to put others down - often with the best of intentions. I stopped sending comments into this forum almost a year ago for that reason, and because the format changed to the online chat session and I wasn’t comfortable with it. My first time back I let it bring out the worst in me, so I must have been right in the first place. So again, my apologies.

I would like to explain my position on abortion. I think it is wrong. I think humans are the stewards of life on this planet. I think all life should be valued. I think life begins at conception - intended or otherwise. I think there are definitive rights and wrongs. Personal actions have personal consequences. You have to deal with those consequences. You can get into the “what if it was your daughter”, or “why should a child be brought into this world unwanted”, or “what about rape”, etc., arguments, but when it all comes down to it we are talking about life - human life. It should be valued and protected. Killing it before it has chance because it is inconvenient to you just seems wrong to me. No, I haven’t adopted any unwanted babies, nor have any of my family members had to make a choice between life and death for an unborn child (I know you don’t like “unborn” but I’m not familiar with the origins that you attribute to it and I don’t know another word to use). So, maybe I am a hypocrite in others eyes, but my lack of hands-on experience with the subject doesn’t negate my opinion and beliefs.

I think abortion is a symptom of a broader problem in the world today. I’m taking this out of context, but yesterday you used the phase, “…some of us don’t need unequivocal statements to divine meaning”, in a response to me. I think that backhandedly points to how I have come to feel over time and through experience: all us do need unequivocal statements to divine meaning. I’ve come to see there are absolute truths and rights/wrongs. I think we are responsible to some higher meaning, and from that to ourselves and to each other. On the issue of life I think that responsibility to each other begins at conception. If someone wants to label me religious or conservative for that, then so be it, just do it civilly. In kind, I will attempt to extend the same courtesy. Sorry for taking up so much space but this has bugged me.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

Robert,

I appreciate the thought behind your previous post, but I would like to respond to a few things.

First, I make no apologies for being an agressive debator. The “other side”, if you will forgive the label, has turned aggressive debate into an art form, and I, for one, am tired of accepting the slings and arrows of their derision and scorn. I do not hesitate to label where labeling is due. In an argument like this, identifying tactics of the religious right and pointing out the flaws in its arguments is absolutely appropriate.

Second, I believe that you will find that any use of “bigot”, etc. is in response to such comments as “C** sucking f*”. I certainly don’t apologize for that, nor do I appologize for using terms like “Stupid”, “ignorant”, “moronic”, or any other such word. Anyone who comes into an ostensibly rational and adult discussion forum and brings the level of debate down to that found in most elementary schools doesn’t deserve my consideration.

Third, I appreciate your own religious beliefs, but that’s what they are - YOUR beliefs. You have every right to live your life by whatever code you choose, and to attempt to pass that code on to your children. What you do NOT have, sir, is the right to force that code on anyone else. As I have said before, the belief that life starts at conception is a religious belief and not a scientific one, therefore it should not be legislated in a nation that CLAIMS to be the world’s great bastion of freedom.

Finally, and this is a minor thing, you misinterpreted my sentence. I did not use “divine” as an adjective - I used it as a verb, in reference to one’s ability to understand the intent of a written passage in the absence of simple, declarative sentences. “To Divine” means - to apprehend the meaning of. However, it made a nice ending paragraph for you, I admit.

By TT

June 2, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

Robert: I agree that the infighting in this blog has gotten out of hand, but I will not sit by and tolerate hatred of women, or hatred or anyone for that matter, from people who are ignorant and bigoted. They have no place on this blog, in my opinion.

Now a few questions for you to get the debate back on track (and I mean this as a curious inquiry and not an attack.) Are you for the war in Iraq, or war in general? I think many people who are pro-life when it comes to abortions are also for the death penalty and pre-emptive, military violence. This is where I feel there is hypocrisy with our President and others who claim we must adhere to a culture of life.

I do agree with you that life is to be valued and certainly abortions are not meant to be birth control. But do you honestly believe that a woman who is a victim of a horrendous crime such as rape should be forced to give birth to a child who will be a lifelong visual reminder of that incident? Do you believe in birth control? Do you believe in telling people (perfect strangers in most cases) what to do with their lives and their bodies?

If we are going to force women to have unwanted children, then we should be prepared to offer financial and social support systems to these women and their children. These women should not be stigmatized and ostracized by society. In other words, we shouldn’t be cutting Peach Care, Medicaid, welfare, and health care programs for impoverished women and children because these women are the ones who often do not have abortions. The wealthy women have the luxury (and this is an ironic term, because I can’t imagine this choice being easy) of getting abortions and continuing their lives with only their private pain.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Jack… if having your s** together and knowing exactly who you are and what you stand for and telling pieces of trash where they need to go is arrogant then yes I am the most arrogant SOB on this blog! I think most people would just call that having a good head or your shoulders but call it what you want… and age is but a number… just because I am younger than you does not mean I don’t have anything of value to contribute and I would think most people on this blog would agree… even those whose views are different from mine

RS… thanks love :)… I just think its fun to mess with d******* every now and then… it is just too easy :)… oh and you haven’t had an apple pie until you have had one of my nana’s fried apple pies… they are famous in my hometown

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Tim, Jack seems to think that he has some sort of natural superiority to everyone else, being a straight, white male, so I guess we can assume he thinks that his age contributes to his natural perfectness as well.

By Ben

June 2, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

It’s funny to see people make the most idiotic comments on here and actually believe what they are saying. I’ve never considered the idea of wearing a condom to protect myself from my wife, or to protect her from me. But I guess I never would have married someone I didn’t completely trust either. So I guess your opinion speaks the lack of meaningful relationships you subject yourself to. But don’t think for one minute that everyone has the severe lack of judgement that you have.

And as far as abortion goes, yeah it’s a nasty, difficult thing to do — but the bottom line is, it’s a choice for a person to make no matte how hard it is. I don’t completely agree about guys having no standing in abortion debate because it contradicts what so many are saying about guys not being responsible. It may not be about my body, but it definitely has to do with my life. It takes two make a child, but it doesn’t always take two to raise a child. People say that men bare no burden, but when men want to bare the burden, they get the it’s not your decision BS.

I can raise and support a child with or without the woman. And it is selfish of a woman to deny a man that opportunity if he so desires. But I say again, if woman are so absolute on the decision resting with them, and it’s the woman’s body — then it is the WOMAN’S responsibility to protect herself from being put in ANY situation where the decision has to be made. Maybe I’m not seeing the “bigger picture” that some of you are bickering about! So I’m going to go ahead and assume that the people that are so adamant about it being the woman’s choice whether to have an abortion or not regardless of what the man says are the ones who are responsibly using birth control. Ah, hell, I’m confused again. Somebody help me out.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Eaton… excellent point

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

I have to say since it’s the woman who has to endure the pregnancy and bears the various risks associated with same, when it comes to making the final decision it SHOULD rest entirely with her. I don’t care how much a man wants a kid, if a doctor sits down and says “Ma’am, there’s a good chance that this pregnancy will kill you or cause you permanent physical damage”, the ONLY person who should have the say so is the woman.

By Ben

June 2, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

Well that’s a little different Eaton. No man, or no sane man, would expect a woman to endure physical damage or death. That’s a no-brainer.

By Boscoe

June 2, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Eaton, last week you made mention of a web site of a woman that received prophecies from Jesus. I don’t know if it’s the same web site, but assuming it is, it contains a doom and gloom forecast of the future some of which has been collaborated by events happening in Russia. I’m interested in your opinion about its contents. Clearly there is more to it than Love Jesus, Love Church ECT. ECT. I’m just curious about what your take on the other information that is applicable to our life during 2005. I’m only curious what you think since you pointed it out; it is not my intention to argue its contents with you.

By RS

June 2, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel: I applaud both you & your husband for having minds of your own, knowing what you want, how you want your lives to be & having the brains & responsibility to follow through. Robert: What about a pregnant lady whose sonogram shows her child will be born so horribly deformed & diseased that the only things it will have to “look forward to” (?!?) are a short, agony-wracked life of complete disabilty & excruciating pain & illness? TT: Your post generally makes perfect sense but I’ve always been adamantly anti-welfare; I resent having to support strangers’ children when I don’t even want any of my own. Tim: You’re right, those butt-scratching, wife-beater-wearing, plumbers-crack-displaying Neanderthals are SO much fun to mess with! I’ll have to pass on your Nana’s fried pies, I’m afraid; sounds WAY too addicting for me to simply sample & walk (well, waddle!) away from!

By RS

June 2, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Wrong, Ben. There ARE men who’d expect a woman to endure permanent physical damage or death because when it comes to abortion, why that’d be the lesser of 2 evils. We’ve seen some of these men on this blog. Oh! SANE men; well, that changes things!

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Ben, you’re right, it’s a no-brainer. But by logical extension, it should apply across the board. You never know when a pregnancy will cause death or irreparable damage. More than one woman in my family alone has had pregnancy complications that resulted in conditions that will be with them for the rest of their lives. So, unless the man is willing to say “Ok, if you lose a kidney I’ll have one of mine removed, too”, I don’t see where he should have a say.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

RS… well they are like potato chips… you can’t eat just one

By Tricia

June 2, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

My personal stand on abortion is that it is a necessary option. I don’t know of any situation that would compel me to have one; but refuse to accept that myself or anyone else (especially men and politicians) should be able to tell a woman what she must do with her own body.

I held a friend’s hand through an abortion in New York State. There was a lot of information provided and she was given time alone to make her final decision. She was sad then and has grieved since; but ultimately does not regret the decision.

Her boyfriend at the time was an adopted child who had been beaten and emotionally abused by his adoptive parents. I am sure this is not what his birth mother wished for him when she put him up for adoption. It is however, a reality, adoptive parents are not necessarily more qualified or prepared than biological parents.

The argument could be made that they should not have had intercourse if they were not prepared to deal with the consequences; but the fact of the matter is they did. Abortion was not an easy solution or a solution without consequences; but it was the only solution they could live with.

Would it have been better for them to raise a child they didn’t want and couldn’t support? Would it have been better to give the child up and never know? I personally am glad that none of us had to find out.

By Boscoe

June 2, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

RS, you make it sound like the woman’s life is in jeopardy every time she goes into labor and she has to make a life saving decision between herself and her child. That’s not the case. The number of times a woman’s life is in danger is less than 1% of all pregnancies.

By Ben

June 2, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Okay, well maybe my logic makes sense to only me. You never know when walking across the street or driving home from work will cause death or irreparable damage. But, I understand what you are saying. What I don’t agree with is being so adamant about it being the women’s responsibility and men not having a say, but saying men need to be responsible for their actions. If the burden falls so heavily on the woman’s shoulders, she needs to be responsible for birth control, whether it’s taking the pill or making sure the man has a condom on.

And chances are, if the guys is someone willing to bare the responsibility of the child, he is most likely willing to care for and help the woman through the ordeal, complications or not.I know there are many what ifs, and what about this and what about that.

But if there was ever a double standard this is a classic example in my eyes.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

That really isn’t the point, Boscoe. Frankly, I don’t care if the odds are 1 in 100,000,000. The option should still exist. There’s a reason that partial-birth abortion bans (which, by the way, I personally support) keep being overturned - they don’t contain health-of-the-mother provisions.

By TT

June 2, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

RS: I am not advocating welfare, because I believe in personal responsibility. In my mind, this means using protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies and then exploring all of the options: abortion, adoption, or raising a child, when deciding whether to have a child in the event that precautions fail. I find it irresponsible to bring a child into this world that is not wanted and that you cannot support.

But I find it ironic that many of the same folks who are so anti-abortion are also anti-welfare. They want the woman to have the child, and then they want the woman and her offspring to continually pay for that mistake. Many of these women suffer alot more than watching their friends go on to college and parties.

Take a drive down Boulevard in downtown Atlanta. Look at the single, teenage mothers with a baby on one hip and tell me what future they have. The men are noticeably absent and entire communities suffer for it. Social programs are being cut and it hits this socio-economic class the hardest. These are the women who could make the choice to abort. They could make something of themselves without worrying about another mouth to feed and without taking government handouts.

My main point is this: if conservatives want to dictate that women give birth to unwanted children, if they want to make the decision to have a child a collective, societal choice, then they should be prepared to enact a collective approach to raising children. In other words, the Great Society, as it was originally envisioned.

Take a look at what President Bush said following the Terri Schiavo debacle. “In a culture of life, the strong protect the weak.” So, if we are going to ensure that unwanted children are brought into this world, then we should help them in life and help their mothers achieve a modicum of social mobility. I feel that this is what pro-life should encompass, if you fully embrace its meaning.

By RS

June 2, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Tim: Oh, DEFINATELY NOT, then! Boscoe, a woman I know lost a very dear friend due to pregnancy/labour complications so it DOES happen. Even if it happens only once in a billion births, that’s one time too often. TT, you’re preaching to the choir. I live in Grant Park near the actual park & frequently have to drive down Boulevard to & from my house & that’s EXACTLY what I see. Girl after pregnant teen girl, bellies out to here & more often than not, trailed by a litter of raggedy, dirt toddlers. And where are the men? Hanging out in front of the liquour store, drinking out of brown paper bags.

By Archie

June 2, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel you have been all over the place with opinions. This is not criticism but you said: “Archie, telling people to be responsible with sex is a feel-good thing. It feels good to tell them and the tellers feel real good after their lectures. Making people responsible is imposible in a society that prides itself on instant gratification without concequences.”

Your last post said: “I am still amazed by the stupidity of persons who dont use BC because of laziness, or inconvienence. Personal responsibility is the only way the abortion rate will go down and judging from all the generations that followed mineâ€â€?abortions will be around for the 23d century.”

What do these posts mean? We can’t tell people to be responsible because they won’t be but the only way abortions will go down is if people start being responsible but we just can’t tell them. This is a part of the type of comments that confuses Ben and myself. I am not picking on anyone but it causes me to say women want things both ways. It sounds as if some,SOME women want to make all the decisions concerning their bodies in this situation and if it turns out wrong, blame the man.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 2, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Ben, you have expressed the conundrum of personal responsiblity very well, I think. The “no-brainer” notion of saving womens’ lives is significant: we forget how much things have changed over the past 50 years for women and minorities. I worked with a woman who was about my mother’s age, in her 50s at the time. (I am 43). She said that when her mother had her, it was a very difficult labor, and her mother nearly died having her. The doctor at that time asked her father if it came down to being only able save one or the other, which should he save, the mother or the child? He said that his wife’s lifeshould be saved over that of the baby’s, and probably for very practical reasons: there were 5 or 6 other children to take care of at home. I’d say this man was fairly enlightened for a strictly religious (Catholic) Italian immigrant manual laborer, unlike some of the econmiically rich but relationship-poor posters who shared their their lonely, pathetic lives here yesterday.

So, too, there is the responsibility a mother and father have to already-existing children: they deserve to have a physically and emotionally healthy mother take care of them. I had neither since age 12, and there is not a day that goes by that I don’t think about how my life might have been different if my mother had not only lived, but was able to live an emotionally balanced life.

Robert has nicely illustrated the human need for reflection and introspection and his desire for rock-solid, black and white moral guidelines, but alas, religion cannot be and should not be legislated. Every woman with a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, has her own set of circumstances (almost always a thousand shades of gray) that cover the gamut of human emotions; it is unconscionable to attempt to legislate the religious belief that life begins at conception, when many of the same folks insist that evolution is only theory, not fact. There are many religious institutions that support a woman’s right to choose—we just don’t here from them much.

Access to safe abortion is the compromise. No one forces you either way; not every pregnancy is terminated, but not every unwanted pregnancy forces motherhood onto someone who is not ready. Access to safe abortion will and has saved the lives of woman who are already mothers, allowed them to live to take care of their already born children. If this right is reversed and back-alley abortions flourish as they do in countries were legal abortion is not available, more and more children will be orphaned, and the anguish will increase among those children left behind.

The number of abortions decreases in times of prosperity. This should be the talking point of this administration’s “culture of life” motto, not whether a ball of cells has human rights if it never implants.

By RS

June 2, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Oops! Sorry, TT, that’s dirtY toddlers but you get my drift; see, I’m in a position where I can blast welfare because I’m pro-choice. But you & I know pro-lifers have very limited capacity for rational thought/logic.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Ben, perhaps this is a case where cold logic takes a step back and basic human decency (yeah, amazingly enough I still believe in basic human decency) takes a step forward. Ask yourself - are you the kind of person who is ethically and morally comfortable with saying: “I had my fun - hope you didn’t get knocked up, but if you did - Oh well!” Would you be comfortable knowing that you were at least partially responsible for putting someone in that position?

By Zack

June 2, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

We could save ourselves a lot of time here: Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. Now. We have legalized genocide in the sick name of choice, and it’s wrong no matter how many times anyone tries to downplay its sick reality by using more-acceptable terms like “choice.”

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 2, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Mel, I believe that you have Trust confused with being Naive. I believe in trust and I know how to trust. I love from the heart, but I use my brain as well. I have no reason for bitterness. I have been in a two-year relationship with a divorced father of two, who chose to have a vasectomy while married. He didn’t keep it a secret; it was volunteered within the first few weeks of our dating. I was so happy to have met someone, who took being responsible for his well being seriously. I am a single mother, of one child, who hopes to have additional children\child after marriage. This was also disclosed during that same conversation. But, I let it be known at the time, that I was in no rush. Since that time, we have talked about the options and hope to get married in the next year. Like I stated earlier, I know how to love from my heart and I use my brain. By the way, we use condoms.

As for you trusting your husband, I think you should. But, don’t pretend that just because you are married, bad things can’t happen. The new word for the day is “Naïve�. A bitter woman, who wants kids, would have walked away and never looked back. Loving someone is not about having children it’s about the person. I love this man very much and I know that he loves me and more important (himself).

By Ben

June 2, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

First for Sandy. I would choose differently in that situation. But that decision, albeit very difficult, has been discussed between my wife and me. I would choose the baby, because my wife has lived and would want the baby to have a chance to grow, learn and probably make a difference. Also, have you seen the movie John Q? I would do the same thing if it meant my child surviving and having a chance at life. I’m not old by any means, but I’ve had some good years. My wife thinks differently but hopefully we’ll never be in that situation.

Eaton, again, a no-brainer. I learned a long time ago that there are consequences to my actions. I’ve never been a situation where those words would come out of my mouth. I’ve never had sex with a woman that I would not consider the obligation with. I would never put a woman in that situation because, quite simply, I would never put myself in that situation.

By HARD40

June 2, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Eaton, Ben, and Robert you take yourselves too seriously. This blog is just a big laugh for me. I am not interested in complex analyses of social or political issues. I will never apologize for any comments I’ve made on this blog. The comment I made about Eaton, having a tampon up his backside, is probably true. The truth really hurts. I’m not going to be politically correct, to avoid offending any of you. A lot of men think the same way I do.The major difference is they don’t have the balls to say it. They let the thought police emasculate them. If you don’t know what emasculate means look it up in the dictionary, before you tell me it’s not a word. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I will never sit down and have a martini with any of you. Anyone can forget how to spell a word. It does’nt mitigate the validity of my point of view, or indicate the level of my intelligence. You homos have such a stranglehold on honest debate in this country. You tear anyone to shreads who does’nt agree with your nasty lifestyle. Consider what happened to Dr. Laura, when she made the statement, that homosexality is a biological error, and homos are deviants. You homos were so enraged, because deep down inside you know it’s the truth. You people are so determined to get the general public to accept your nasty lifestyle. What will become of you all 30 years from now (if you don’t die first of Aids). You homos will be dried-up, lonely old men filled with regret and shame for your reckless lifestyle. Eaton, can you support your point of view with rational agruments? NO. All you do is name call, certainly you can do better than that. The questions that I asked on this blog about homosexuality where never given serious consideration.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Genocide refers to the eradication of an ethnic group or race. Please, if you’re going to launch into a meaningless tirade without anything other than religious propaganda as your basis, at least get your terminology right. If that isn’t too much to ask. Which it probably is.

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

I was WONDERING when Zack would show up again ! lol awwww we have missed you !

It is nice to see so many people finally speaking out against the anti choice groups. We are the logical normal people of this country that don’t have time to fight against nonsense. But, when it comes down to it, we fight back when we eventually have to.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

Ben, so there’s your answer. And my “you” wasn’t really directed at you, btw :). It was more of a rhetorical “everyman” kind of you, since we were getting philosophical and all.

By Zack

June 2, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

The term “unwanted pregnancy” is no different than Hitler referring to a Jew as “unwanted.” What a sick way to try to rationalize an act of murder. It’s also an incompetent attempt, as anyone with any amount of common sense can see if for what it is.

The pro-choice movement is beyond the level of “sick.” We have “RS” saying that pro-life advocates aren’t capable of rational thought. This, coming from someone who defends the worst kind of murder and then attempts to place the blame on those who don’t adopt, as though it’s anyone else’s responsibility to adopt one’s child. Obviously, the pro-choice movement is full of barbarism, irresponsibility, and hatred. It’s absent of anything positive, and I mean anything.

As mentioned, abortion is 100% wrong. Excuses can be made from dawn until dusk, but the truth of the matter remains unchanged.

By Jack

June 2, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

TT my post from yesterday afternoon you want proof. Show me where I am wrong. If I am wrong I’ll admit it. Why are athletics separated by sex, top chefs of the world are men, science dominated by men. Please provide an example other than child birth where the best woman can beat the best man in anything. BTW I don’t live in a trailer, they don’t fair to well in storms. Everyone who has been on this blog knows I’m somewhat of a male chauvanist. Women should not be in combat roles nor should they be beat cops. If it got down to hand to hand the woman would lose.

RS your lovefest with Tim is amusing. Does hubby know? I’m sure he would approve. Maybe the three of you could hookup.

I’ve enjoyed this blog but it has deteriorated greatly.

Tim, I hope you find the man of your dreams.

Later, but I doubt it.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Well Good MOOOORning Everyone!

A couple of thoughts from what I’ve read this morning. Cheers to all who apologized for the personal attacks! They do not get us anywhere. Rather they close the minds and hearts of the person at whom they are directed as well as those of similar opinion. This is counter productive as the point of this blog is to debate and challenge ourselves to expand our minds. Surrounding oneself with only those of like mind accomplishes very little other than allow oneself to create a false sense of superiority.

Ben….I’ll engage my blond brain in an attempt to help clarify the ‘men need to be responsible, but women get the final say position.’ I believe that this position stems from the apparent truth that more frequently than not it is the man who freaks over the pregnancy announcement and pretty much runs away. Too frequently the baby daddy is not present in the child’s life nor does he provide financial support on a consistent basis. I can see where this scenario becomes a foundation for the responsibility position on the part of women. Based on the numbers of single mothers and dead beat dads too many men do not want to either take responsibility for putting on a condom or supporting the child that results from either unprotected sex or failed contraception. At the same time heterosexual men seem to overwhelmingly believe that abortion should be illegal. These two positions are quite counterintuitive to me as it appears that hetero men are saying “I don’t want to wear a condom or be responsible for birth control use. I don’t want to have to support a child for which I didn’t plan nor do I want. Women who are pregnant should not be allowed an abortion and be made to birth said child that I don’t want nor will I support financially because life is sacred.” Thus the sole burden is unfairly placed on women to be the guardians of virtue, responsible for birth control, and if abortion is made illegal forced to have a child that they may not want either. The duality of the female position is in direct response to the duality of the male position.

By Zack

June 2, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

We need to take illogical and insane animals like Whiley and lock them up in prison until they become fit to be a part of society. She sounds like a Nazi saying that the Holocaust is perfectly normal and that anyone refuting her and her cause needs to be dealt with. Go back and read what she said. She honestly seems to believe her nonsense. Talk about an albatross to society.

Honestly, there’s not an abortionist in this country who doesn’t deserve capital punishment. Obviously, the same goes for those who fund them. Life should be protected, and those who do not do so should not be revered, as Whiley endorses.

Nice to come back to the blog. I might drop back by tomorrow or Monday.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Hard40, you haven’t made a single, rational point yet, and frankly I find it laughable that you have the gall to suggest that I look up a word in the dictionary. Do you know how many words you misused in your last post? It was more than one. I won’t even start on your innability to punctuate correctly or use, you know, phrases.

Frankly, I don’t care what you think - you are a pitiful, bigoted excuse for a human being. I don’t have the patience to address your numerous misconceptions, nor, frankly do I care if you go through the rest of your life being the hateful, spiteful little man that you so obviously are. I wouldn’t respond to your “questions” anymore than any self-respecting black man or woman would respond to a question on why they like fried chicken and watermelon.

Everything about you screams immaturity, no matter how much money and influence you claim to have. Your handle, your cavalier attitude about women, your pathetic attempts to impress people with the restaraunts you claim to have patronized. Frankly, you sound far more like a ghetto thug with too much time on his hands than someone who has managed to accumulate wealth through his own legitimate efforts.

If anyone is going to end up lonely and bitter and shriveled on this blog, Hard40, it will be you. And frankly, given your claims about how many women you’ve been with, I suspect the person in greatest danger of contracting an STD is you as well.

Please, do the world a favor and keep your ignorant ravings to yourself from now on.

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Zack, here’s a solution to all your strange issues.

Don’t have an abortion.

By Ben

June 2, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Well let me unconfuse you for a second. First, I’m not gay. Second, if engaging in what’s supposed to be mature conversation about the topic is what you consider taking myself too serious, so be it. If you aren’t interested in talking about social or political issues, then by all means, no one will miss you. And if you, for one second, think that talking like a middle school kid is funny and that’s how you get your laughs, well that speaks for you level of intelligence.

If you take a look back I’ve never really entertained your ridiculous comments and engaged in any lenghty dialogue with you. And the men that think they way that you do, are just as ridiculous. I do not feel emasculated because I don’t share your ridiculous, neanderthal beliefs buddy. And aren’t you the one who told me racialistic wasn’t a word? If so, it is you who needs the dictionary.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Jack… don’t know if your comment about me finding someone was sarcastic or not but thanks… I already have

oh and I have to say that you win ‘quote of the day’… the ‘they don’t fair well in storms’ very funny

RS… the ‘love fest’ is mutual :)

By TT

June 2, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Zack: I’ll pose the same questions to you that I posed to Robert. Are you for the war in Iraq, or war in general? Do you honestly believe that a woman who is a victim of a horrendous crime such as rape should be forced to give birth to a child who will be a lifelong visual reminder of that incident?

Do you believe in birth control? Do you believe in personal responsibility, social welfare, universal human rights, and health care for the poor? And do you think that the low adoption rate has no effect on the number of unwanted children being born into this world and then shuffled through our horrendous foster system?

As for genocide, why are you not more concerned about Sudan? Abortions have killed far fewer cells (and biologically, that’s what they are) then the violence in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, and the Holocaust.

Pro-choice advocates are not full of hatred, they just believe that pro-life should really be pro-life, meaning that you advocate a collective, caring society. Abortion clinic bombers such as Eric Rudolph are the ones who bring barbarism into the debate. I don’t see any pro-choice advocates with murder on their record.

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Has anyone ever dated/married an anti-choicer? I’ve never ever & would never consider it. Wonder what it’s like? How do you react to a man (that can’t get pregnant) that wants “forced Pregancies” in America? I’d have to back-hand him till he got some sense. And I have big hands for such a petite woman lol !

By mel

June 2, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Ben, isn’t it funny that nobody called you dizzy or stupid for saying the exact same thing I said yesterday? At any rate, I agree with you at the stupidity of those statements.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Eaton… well said… however I must say I got a sudden craving for some fried chicken and watermelon

By Ben

June 2, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Eaton and NetBanker. My “you” was the same as yours Eaton. I understand a little better what you mean, but I think that goes back to my point. If you are not going to choose wisely who you share a pillow with, if you don’t want to have a baby that’s cool, and if the ultimate responsibility lies with the woman — the woman should make sure she is on birth control. The issue of responsibility shouldn’t be considered as an after thought. It’s like the fat people saying McDonalds made them fat to me.

If I know eating Quarter Pounder might make me fat, I need to be on a diet or not eat the Quarter Pounder. But if do eat the Quarter Pounder and get fat I can’t blame Ronald McDonald.

By Ben

June 2, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Mel, I don’t think you are dizzy or stupid.

By Sheila

June 2, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Full disclosure is only complete if all risks associated with bearing and raising a child are also disclosed. There are serious medical, emotional, and financial risks at stake when the decision is made to carry a child, and there is no guarantee the child (or children) will be healthy.

It’s my opinion that anyone requesting an abortion has already weighed the risks from both perspectives and has made their choice accordingly. Therefore, I consider full disclosure legislation a pro-life gimmick.

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

“But if do eat the Quarter Pounder and get fat I can’t blame Ronald McDonald”

You can if Ronald refuses to wear a condom, just because it cuts down on his “pleasure”.

lol !

By TT

June 2, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

How about full disclosure of the risks of sex althogether for men and women? Full disclosure about the responsibilities of child-rearing? Hmm… No one seems to be pushing that legislation in the culture of life? I’m sure Zack, Jack, and the rest of our chauvinist friends would consider those measures to be a part of the liberal, social agenda.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

I’ve been sick and out of commission and just read back over the last day and a half. Isn’t it amazing how angry some men get when someone dares to say the obvious, that men are just as responsible for a pregnancy (and therefore for abortion)as the woman is? Whoever said maybe 14, 15 and 16 year old girls should keep their legs together in response to my suggestion that teen boys should have to listen to heartbeats and see ultrasounds, of course, chose to repeat previous postings about “women getting themselves pg” which was what I responded to. As far as men being superior in all ways except giving birth, obviously you are not familiar with the findings of the early days of the astronaut program when it was proven that women are physically able to deal with space even better than men are! That was before the government cut the women’s program, of course. They decided it just wasn’t fitting for women to be in space. So the first woman in space was a Russian and not an American! And now it’s no big deal for women to be in the space program. Times do change, and all you neanderthals will die out eventually. To the open minded and thinking people on this forum: If you haven’t seen What the Bleep Do we Know? get it now if not sooner!

By Ben

June 2, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

But you knew Ronald was ridin bareback and let him on anyway!

By kimberly

June 2, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I had this fight, oh sorry, DISCUSSION with my boyfriend the other night. While he wouldn’t take the anti-choice stance of outlawing it, he went on and on about “his” moral dilemma with it. “How can you say it isn’t murder?” I’m all “YOU don’t have a uterus, therefore, it’s not YOUR dilemma!” Sadly though, he did toss around some common anti-choice arguments that are not based in the issue of the affected woman’s life. Rhetoric has permeated people’s minds, and reality and logic fall by the wayside. My solution (for now) is to keep the otherwise good boyfriend and avoid all discussion of such issues. This is not an election year; I might as well enjoy it. Next year may be different.

By mel

June 2, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

As for you trusting your husband, I think you should. But, don’t pretend that just because you are married, bad things can’t happen. The new word for the day is “Naïve�. A bitter woman, who wants kids, would have walked away and never looked back. Loving someone is not about having children it’s about the person. I love this man very much and I know that he loves me and more important (himself).

AMAZED, when did I ever say that nothing bad could happen to me because I’m married? I simply discussed my situation in the context of a point I was making and I was attacked. My situation works for me and my family, and that is all that matters. I hardly think I need you to tell me what I should be worried about. I know what goes on today and I know that I’m not immune to it just because I’m married. I just don’t think constantly worrying about what could happen is conducive to a healthy realtionship. Believe me, we have overcome many obstacles in our marriag, so any naivete I possessed going in has surely been wiped clean.

I’m happy for you that you found love with a good man. But you don’t have to be jaded and keep your guard up. You can relax at some point and EXHALE.

Lyrazel: I agree with you. We need to adopt the attitude that when a girl gets “knocked up” after “spreading her legs”, the guy is fully expected to be there throughout the pregnancy and thereafter. There is not an expectation of responsibilty.

By mel

June 2, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Sorry, I meant Lozen

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

OH MY Kimberly ! As long as you stand your ground girl, keep him.

Good luck hope everything always goes well ! :)

By HARD40

June 2, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

You sound SO FRAGILE Eaton. I urge you to check into a mental healthcare facility before you commit suicide. YOU SILLY F*.(laughing)I never told you how many sexual patterns I have had. You must be confusing me with some one else on the BLOG. Anyway I’m not going to waste any more of my precious time, talking to you. I love my new blackberry phone (model 7520). It has so many great features on it. It is equipped with a GPS system to give me directions, no matter where i am in the continental U.S. If i miss a turn, it will give me an alternative route to my destination. If I enter my mom’s address in San Diego, it will tell me exactly how to get there from Geogia. It can also be used as a walkie-talkie. The blackberry comes with a wireless earpiece (for an additonal 30 dollars) so I can conduct conversations without holding it to my ear. I’m not really into gadgets, but it’s so cool. It has voice recognition capabilties. I can check my email on it and surf on the internet. It has all these great features and I can still fit in my jacket pocket. It even tells me where i can get the cheapest gas. It’s totally amazing. I am getting service support from NEXTEL, for 29.99 a month. The blackberry runs on a lithum rechargable battery. Cingular will be supporting blackberry phones within 3 months. There is also another model of blackberry phone that has a small camera attached to it,so you can email pictures. I’m not really into e-mailing pictures anyway.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 2, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Ben, I gotta admit that I’m still reeling from your response. Let me get this straight: You and your wife would choose the baby’s life over hers?! I’m guessing that your wife could make a difference in this life, too, especially if she is already a mother. Do you have other children? Do you have any children? Would this make a difference to you? Or what if you and your wife disagreed?

Of course the obvious issue here is that you and your wife make the choice together. But what if, by some twisted legislative fate, someone tried to force a decision that you would not have made? This is exactly what American women are facing from those who would roll back Roe V. Wade. Will Zack settle for that? Or would he and the other anti-choice and/or misogynists insist that birth control be eliminated on the grounds that it prevents implantation? What if your wife had a reaction to pregancy early on that risked her life? Would you be willing to risk her life for a nonviable fetus? Zack would, if he really means what he says, that abortion is wrong 100% of the time. So, what next Zack, you going to put people to death who even talk about supporting choice to while building your your culture of life utopia?

This trmps the stem cell “slippery slope” discussion all the more because we are talking about lives of actual people, male and female, postnatal children, who are imperfect by human standards, but still have lots of loving, giving potential. There is indeed a lot of healing to be done.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 2, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Mel,

It sounds as if you need to EXHALE and stop taking things so personally. My original blog was not directed at you at all.

My heart, mind and soul is free as a bird. My guard is not “UP” and doesn’t have to be. EXHALE!!!! I relaxed two years ago and have felt truly blessed since that day. By the way, a condom is not a guard, it’s a shield. Breathe, “honey” because I know that a shield can break……

Also, having a choice is always a good thing.

By Lyrazel

June 2, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Sorry Archie. Perhaps if I explained myself better when I make remarks I would be clear and succinct. My wandering stems from a deep troubling of watching my values of life be flushed daily by TV and political do-gooders. I do feel women should be able to recieve decent and proper abortions without any government interference. I dont feel it should be a substitute for bc—which is why I float my opinion from a—z on this topic. I see many people who dont accept responsibility with their personal sexuality. Pity so many think its the governments duty, or just a womans, or just a mans. It takes TWO. Its a sorry state of life that we are constantly bombarded by feel-good ideas like requiring disclosure legislation instead of making progress toward a male contraceptive. Its very difficult for me to explain I feel abortion is taking a life—but feel a woman should have such a right to do so. Its hard for me to understand how 9 million mistakes happen every year and it disgusts me that abortion is used instead of BC by so many. See? I float to both sides. Im so sorry.

By RS

June 2, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Welcome back, Lozen. Hope you’re feeling better. Soft40, did it ever occur to you (no, probably not) that what YOU do in bed is equally repugnant to gays? But the gay people I know don’t go around getting all up in other people’s business like you do, they have lives. So, Jack, except for getting pregnant, men are superior to women in every way & women are incapable of having “men’s jobs”? 2 words for you: DANICA PATRICK! Oh yes, my husband is very much aware I’m a “f*g hag”. In fact, one of my favourite gay men started out as a friend os HIS & is now a friend of mine as well. Whiley, I’d NEVER date an anti-choicer (see? You’re safe from my evil clutches, Zack). OK, Zack, read back on some of my earlier posts today. Assuming you ever find anyone crazy enough to marry you (scary thought!), let’s say she was pregnant, wanted to abort, you convinced her not to & she ended up with labour complications that killed her while in the process of giving birth? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL? 2nd scenario: Your pregnant wife had a sonogram that revealed the child would forever have the IQ of a handball (like father, like son??), be crippled, horribly deformed & would die at a relatively early age, spending every day in inhuman, racking agony & illness? Would you opt for an abortion THEN? I’d really love to know. And are you willing to pay MY share of the taxes that support welfare offspring? Don’t forget, I’m the one that never wanted that scum to be born so why not put your money where your mouth ad?

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Lol Hard40. Only in your twisted mind would standing up to a bully like you be considered “Fragility”. Sorry I refuse to fold to your oh-so-harsh words. How many people do you have to slam in order to make you feel better about yourself

Oh - Keep trying to impress everyone with your material posessions…maybe one day you can fill that hole in your soul.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Ben…I don’t disagree with your position at all. I was just trying to point out that I see a duality in the positions of both men and women. Your McD’s analogy made me laugh because of the lawsuit that was filed on the behalf of several fat teens. We are living in a society that lacks responsibility and frighteningly are teaching this to future generations. Just look at the McD’s fat teen lawsuit, the teacher fired over the kid who fell asleep in class and had his grade cut, etc.

Where I’m just not getting the logic or consistency of argument on this topic is the pro-life, take responsibility for your action crowd. Let’s start with the Pro-life part…what I take that to mean from statements I read is that pro-life only applies to American fetuses. Once the child is birthed in America there is little to no support for them, but a HUGE amount of complaining about social support. I say American fetuses because I don’t see Pro-life speaking out about the innocent lives killed in wars, or the slaughter in Darfur, or millions of children in poor countries who die for lack of safe, clean water every year, or the thousands who starve to death, or even the American children who go hungry, are unadopted, etc.

On to ‘take responsibility’…Why does that mean if you become pregnant you must have the child? As another poster mentions (TT, I think?) there is a responsibility to children and family members who are already alive. Why does a fetus trump that responsibilty? While life would be so very easy if black and white every day many of us must decide between the lesser of evils (like during Presidential elections ). It seems that the take responsibilty crowd is solely focused on the pregnancy and the overall life responsibilities of the couple or individual. How many of us would say that it is responsible to jeopardize or destroy an entire family for a single life? That is a heart wrenching decision that hopefully most of us will not face.

Hard40…the outrage you hear from gay people isn’t because there is some deep truth you’ve struck in them. Rather it is because arguments against gay people are tend to be based on a religion in which the savior advises us to walk in another’s shoes for a mile before judging them. Judgement is passed by heterosexuals on homosexuals, yet they’ve never walked in their shoes nor will most anti-gay heteros accept what gay people say is their experience (such as they were born this way) without some proof of which the heteros approve. There is a certain smugness that comes for putting oneself in a position that is impossible to combat and corresponding outrage by those being judged by the smug crowd.

By Ben

June 2, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Sandy, yes we probably would. But that’s hard to say considering we aren’t faced with the real pressure of the situation. We don’t wholly agree, but we look at it just like a parent would jump in front of a moving truck to push their child out of harms way. We do have a child and plan on having at least one more. A similar situation is with the typhoons when the lady was holding her two children and had to let one go. She let the strongest go with the idea that he was more capable of surviving and enduring the fight. He did!

I, we, would tell the doctor to deliver the baby and give it a chance and my wife would fight for survival.

By RS

June 2, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Oops..Meant to type “friend OF his” & “money where your mouth IS”. I was on the phone at the same time & wasn’t concentrating. Soft40, if your blackberry can direct you to your mommy’s house in San Diego, why don’t you take a permanent trip there? We already have a surfeit of redneck ignoramuses. And if you’re so rich, why would you be so concerned about finding the cheapest gas? Why, I’d think that anyone as savvy as you would have his own private jet…Jack, a “love fest” with Tim would be just fabulous & it wouldn’t entail what you’re undoubtably thinking..get your mind out of the gutter..

By Archie

June 2, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

First of all in a life-or-death-pregnancy situation I would choose to save my wife’s life regardless of how long she has lived because the vows say that she comes first. Secondly cold hard logic should never take a step back because it is logical to be a decent human being compared to being an indecent human being. As men we don’t always wear condoms when we should thus disease and unwanted pregnancy but if logic is used we would do all we could to prevent those things from happening. It’s always better to do things logically and I agree with Ben that it doesn’t make sense to make all the decisions yet blame someone else if those decisions you made don’t work out. I have been involved in a pregnancy situation and a joint decision was made. Women are not the only ones that act illogically and I hope I made that point clear. It’s hard to think before you act but it’s worth it and even then sometimes we may do something wrong even if we know it’s wrong but the main thing is accept the consequences of your actions.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Have to clear up some numbers here: There are 1.20 million abortions in the U.S. yearly according to the last statistics I read. It may be 9 million worldwide.

A farmer goes out to plant her field. She plants three squash seeds in each mound, because she knows all seeds do not germinate. When she returns 10 days later and sees that there are three seedlings coming up, she culls two of the seedlings. She does this so there will be enough nutrients and enough room for one plant to grow and become a healthy squash plant. Let those who have ears hear.

By RS

June 2, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Omigosh, Ben, I am DUMFOUNDED! Honey, no offense, but I’m SO happy I’m not married to you; I’m married to a man who very much wants me alive & in fact, one of the reasons he shares my childfree lifestyle stance is because of the strain pregnancy & childbirth put on a woman’s body

By Zack

June 2, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Whiley—It’s flattering that someone with issues tells me that I have them. To say, “Don’t have an abortion.”, and implying for me to ignore the ones that do occur is just downright without reason, not the first time such a post has come from you. Such a post is like saying, “If you’re against what Michael Jackson has done, keep him out of jail and just don’t do what he has done.” Your “logic” is absolutely crazy.

TT—Don’t ask me if I’m in favor of responsibility. Talk to your irresponsible pro-choice advocate friends. As for war, there are such things as just wars. Abortion is an unjust war on the unborn, and don’t try to downplay it, my friend. You can’t, no matter how hard you try or how long you stay on here today. You’re not alone, though. NO pro-choice advocate can justify abortion. You sound like those who ask, “If you’re against abortion, why are you for the death penalty?”, as though the death penalty and abortion are the same.

Abortion should be outlawed, and anyone having one should be executed.

As for birth control, abstinence is the answer. Oh, yeah, you and your friends are against that also. I’m not surprised.

Have a good weekend, everybody.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

oops..that should have been “solely focused on the pregnancy and NOT the overall life responsibilities of the couple or individual.”

By lozen

June 2, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Archie you are so right. Men make mistakes and don’t use condoms when they should. Women make mistakes and don’t insist that their partners use B.C. every single time they have sex! All of us make mistakes. I just do not think a 14 year old girl who gets pregnant the first time she has sex with a 21 year old man (statistics show most teenage girls have their first sexual experience with older men), should have to pay for her mistake for the rest of her life. That seems to be the position of many anti-abortionists. A 14 year old does not think about the consequences of her actions. How many of us thought about getting in the car with reckless drivers when we were 14? When you’re 14 you have a surging sex drive (and yearning for love if you don’t feel loved by your parents.) Nobody ever told me when I was a teenager that I would want to have sex! I was told all a boy wanted was sex and I should never do it but I should say no in a way that would not hurt his fragile ego. I was supposed to control the boys and my own sex drive while he did everything he could to get me to do it! Looking back on it now I wish I hadn’t been so worried about his fragile ego. I wonder sometimes if that isn’t what happens in many date rapes. As a teenager I was put in an impossible double bind about sex.

By Sheila

June 2, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

To the men that comment on whether abortion should be legal: when you can carry a child then you can decide and not until then.

To the Christians: Everybody does not belive in God, keep religion out of this debate!

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Ah but Sheila, the circular logic of the religious fanatic says that it doesn’t matter if you believe in God or not. God is real because they say God is real, therefore their opinion is relevant and yours is not because you do not believe in God who is real…and on and on and on.

By mel

June 2, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

AMAZED, these are your words.

I’m not trying to argue with you, but I really want to understand. Are you saying that married couples should use condoms 100% of the time to prevent diseases? If so, what do they do once they decide to procreate?

Lozen: Again I agree. That was sort of what I was getting at yesterday. We don’t teach young girls about their bodies and that yes, there will be times when they will want to have sex just as much as that boy does. It’s not about the girl being the keeper of some great mysterious heavenly promised land. That type of thinking creates guilt and shame about a natural function of the body. These young boys and girls should be taught that they are BOTH accountable for controlling their own urges.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Zack is all for murdering people in war and on death row. But it is murder to scrape a clump of cells from a uterus. It’s only abortion that is so bad that any woman who has one should be executed! It’s all about control of women, folks. Women should not have sex! If they do have sex, then they should suffer and pay for having sex! If women have sex, then they should be forced to have a baby if they get pregnant! Zack, you are so transparent.

By HARD40

June 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

RS you birdbrain, do you have any idea of how much a lear jet cost? Let me give you a clue, tens of millions of dollars. Even someone as rich as Oprah does’nt own a jet and she is a billionaire. She charters private planes instead of purchasing a jet. It costs 150,000 a month to maintain a jet, not to mention the costs of fuel. Do the math R.S. I drive a SUV. It costs me 50 dollars a week to fill my tank. I would’nt be as successful as i am, If i threw away my money . I am very frugal with my money, THAT IS WHY I HAVE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. I may move back to San Diego as soon as I conclude my business deal with UPS. This town is filled with nothing but restaurants and malls. This comment is directed to Pearl. I am currently looking for a beautiful lady to spoil.

By Boscoe

June 2, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Sheila, when women become asexual, then I’ll stay out of it. Since you can’t become pregnant all by yourself that won’t happen anytime soon. Unless of course women agree as a whole that men should be free from the responsibility of paying child support for 18 years. If women decide to have the baby the man will pay, he should he is the father; but if you decide to have any abortion, men should have absolutely nothing to say about it because after all it is your body right? Isn’t that a little contradictory?

By mel

June 2, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

A married man and woman should protect themselves from all the things that singles come across. To think that, just because you are married, it can’t happen to you is just plain Stupid.

Sorry, computer acting up. These were your words yesterday, AMAZED. I’d like an answer to my question.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

actually Oprah does have her own plane you ‘birdbrain’… which she uses to fly to CA 2x a month to have her eyebrows waxed

By RS

June 2, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Lozen, note that Zack is adamantly agaist abortion because “it’s murder” & then turns around & says anyone who has an abortion should be executed..THAT’S what he calls logic?? Soft40, I’ll help you pack. So, are you saying that a woman is only worth spoiling if she’s outwardly beautiful? That means on top of being a sorry-a$$, pathetic, bigoted, knuckle-scraping loser, you’re also shallow & a pig. Know what? You deserve someone like Pearl (shallow, selfish & conceited). You’re completely unworthy of any intelligent woman with inner beauty.

By mel

June 2, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I can see what you’re saying, but let me ask you this. Does that mean that a man who doesn’t want his girlfriend to have an abortion should take sole custody of that child after birth? I don’t think abortion is right, but I can understand why some women are angry that men want to have a say in it when statistically, it’s still the woman doing most of the child rearing.

By RS

June 2, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Tim, if SOFT40 was capable of reading, & managed to get his head out of his posterior for just 2 seconds, he’d have known that about Oprah

By lozen

June 2, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Abstinence is a fantasy; it’s never going to happen. The sex drive is too strong to be denied, at least for most people! If you believe god will punish you for following your natural human drive for sex, then by all means be abstinent. And leave the rest of us alone to deal with our lives as we see fit. I want to say I thoroughly understand the feelings of the woman who wishes she had an abortion at 15. No woman should ever be forced to have a child she does not want. Motherhood should be freely and joyously chosen because it is a huge responsibility and for a woman motherhood always becomes your life. I’ve heard that if a woman takes a large amount of birth control pills after making “a mistake” there will be no pregnancy. Does anyone have any info or experience with that?

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

And now Hard40’s lies begin to catch up with him…a 2002 Learjet 60 can be had for around 7 million, used. A Gulfstream 2002 G200 - which frankly, is much nicer than the Lear, is a mere 13 mil. Who wants to bet that his maintenance figures are similarly flawed?

There are lots and lots of millionaires out there with their own private planes, dumbkoff. My sister and brother-in-law, ACTUAL wealthy people, have a mountain home in a community with a private airport to accomodate the jets of many of the community’s residents.

$50 bucks a week to fill an SUV tank? He must not drive much. My Acura sports car has a 15 gallon tank and it costs me $30 to fill it up…

Interesting how now he is frugal, and that’s why he’s rich. Why, just yesterday he was telling us about his high-tone life style that “most people only dream about”, and today, he’s Mr. Frugal non-spender. Yesterday, he was bragging about all the restraunts he frequents, and today Atlanta is nothing but malls and restraunts.

Which is it, Mr. Important?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

June 2, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Mel,

You’re starting to bore me. For once and for all, I could care less about “MEL” and her “MAN” wearing condoms. That is none of my business. I am just an advocate for safe sex for all who choose to listen. When the time comes to procreate, I will take the condom off and take my chance. But, I am sure that if it is something that can be cured - it would have been by that time. If not, I will choose not to procreate - because I would not want to bring a child into this world at that point. I’m an advocate for a regular doctor check-up as well. Just in case you want to know how I would know if there is a problem.

Mel, I don’t claim to know it all - nor do I want to know. But, I am a careful risk taker, because I love myself and my daughter depends upon me.

With that said, I will not respond to anymore “knowledge” request from you my dear. I’m sure you will have a long and happy marriage.

By DeltaX

June 2, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Please partake in answering question people:

Can you see a future where abortions, because of new techniques/BirthControl/etc, are no longer needed? If so, what is your stance: Should abortion stay legal even if we have pleanty of alternatives?

I am (for lack of a third movment that would be more like “pro-choice until another option comes along”) pro-choice - but if another, less harsh, choice emerged; I would expect/hope abortion to become a relic.

Same goes for leathal injection. Keep it until we have better means of dealing with the situation; but understand that it is our job as a society to find better means to better EVERYTHING we do over time.

No DeltaX = No Growth

(Lozen - I own What the Bleep. All people should have to watch that before they get those peptides habitual.)

By HARD40

June 2, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

I love beautiful women, my life is incomplete without one. What’s a matter RS. Are you UGLY? It figures. Nothing gives me a bigger thrill then walking in a trendy club, like SHOUT or TWIST with a beautiful woman on my arm. If she’s is stunning, well-educated, and has an engaging personality, I will do anything to keep her.

By Boscoe

June 2, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Circular logic? Eaton, didn’t you say that abortion should be allowed because a women’s life could be in danger if she proceeds with the birth? When I pointed out that the odds of such a situation are remote you respond with That really isn’t the point, Boscoe. Frankly, I don’t care if the odds are 1 in 100,000,000. The option should still exist. Actually Eaton, that is the point. You’re going to justify the abortion of over one million children a year in the U.S. alone for a remote situation that happens less than 1% of the time. That’s circular logic right there!

By lozen

June 2, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

If you really think your entire worth depends on how much money you have to spend, of course any town will consist of nothing but malls and restaurants. Speaking of Oprah, I watched her show yesterday. The show was about parents pushing their kids to succeed. One man in the audience said he yelled so much at his kids’ ballgames it embarrassed him later. His fiancee was so embarrassed she refused to go to games with him anymore. He then said yes, he was a demanding parent. And he said the Jackson father was demanding and look how much money they have! Oprah told him in so many words he was crazy if he thought the measure of success was money and the sad, troubled Jackson kids. She said that’s the disease of this country to think money is more important than anything else. Sorry for the long post but she was right on. It sounded funny coming from a woman who is so rich, I must say.

By mel

June 2, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

AMAZED, it only takes one sexual encounter to become infected with any disease. But, seeing how you no longer want to discuss it, I think you realized the fallacy of your argument. You’re all emotion and no logic. Don’t worry, I have no more questions for you. You’ve told me everything I need to know. Take care.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Lozen…sorry to hear you weren’t feeling well. Despite being a goy, I’ve good connections in the jewish community so in the future let me know so I can get you some good jewish penicillin (aka matzo ball soup).

Lyrazel…you aren’t alone in your ‘wanderings.’ This topic is emotional and therefore comes with conflicting feelings and positions. To me that points out that there is much grey.

Zack makes life always sound simplisticly neat & tidy with straight edges and no wrinkles. And hopefully for him it is, but for most the reality of life is very messy and zero tolerance-type rules don’t fit. If God was willing to sacrifice the life of His Son to save countless souls, then why is it off the table to consider that the sacrifice of one unborn fetus in order to save multiple lives actually IS the right thing to do? Even if a soul is already infused in a clump of cells, would that soul not go directly to heaven? Isn’t making it into Heaven to live in the presence of God the goal?

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Um, no Boscoe, that’s not circular logic…please look up the definition of circular logic. Though, you shouldn’t have to because your “God is real because God is real because God is real” spiel is a perfect example.

And yes, if you get right down to it, I would justify the abortion of 1 million clumps of cells if it would say the life of one, living, breathing, sentient, person with parents, friends and family who would mourn her loss. You say “children” as if we were talking about little tykes running around barefoot with ice cream on their faces.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

oh lord there is someone on this blog with serious self-esteem issue… and that is obvious by that person overcompensating in other areas of their life

By HARD40

June 2, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Eaton, or should I call you DEEP THOART, you c** sucker. You really expect me to believe that you are related to rich people.(laughing my a* off) I can’t help it. Give me a break. You and I can hurl insults at one another all day long. You don’t intimidate one bit. So keep it up. Have you ever had the pleasure of dining at FOGO DE CHAO? I think not. EAT S** AND DIE F*.

By Boscoe

June 2, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Abstinence is a fantasy; it’s never going to happen. The sex drive is too strong to be denied, at least for most people! lozen stop, I can’t breath! I haven’t laughed so hard in such a long time. Didn’t you say you are a grandmother. That paints an ugly picture when a grandmother can’t control her urges. I don’t think I’m hungry for lunch anymore. Mel, what I am saying is that the Its my body excuse is being used to justify shirking responsibility. On the same token the child support laws are not severe enough to prevent a father from shrugging off his obligations.

By Boscoe

June 2, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Eaton, if people like you don’t interfere with that “clump of cells” it will become a child. I’ve seen your logic in action…..you could justify anything.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

lozen… that does sound kinda funny coming from her… but I guess she would know what she is talking about seeing as she didn’t have anything growing up… I think she is amazing

Limpy… there is actually a Brazilian steak house in Ft. Lauderdale that is much better than Fogo de Chao… what are you doing? getting on accessatlanta and looking for the names of nice restaurants in the area?

By Tim

June 2, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Boscoe… that was rather immature… I don’t know how old lozen is but I highly doubt she is to the age where she no longer has sexual urges most people don’t magically lose their sex drive once they hit a certain age… at least I sure hope not! I say go granny go granny go!!!!!

lozen… if you want sum you go get you sum!

By DeltaX

June 2, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

HARD40, My god, this is not your board! - at least show that you respect yourself by presenting yourself as more than foul mouthed kid.

You model terrible for kids.

I think your posts should be shown to your peers.

Highly inappropriate.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Actually Soft40, I’m quite entertained by your attempts at self-agrandizement. Keep ‘em coming. As to my various dining experiences - it so happens that I’ve eaten at many of the best restraunts in Atlanta. I notice that you are only spouting off the names of trendy, touristy restaraunts. If you were actually able to name some real top-quality restaraunts, I might believe you…just a little. Frankly, I doubt if you can tell fois gras from demi glace.

Oh and…seriously - you need to learn new insults. Now you’re not just sounding ignorant and uneducated, your being repetitive and completely uncreative. Work harder, Softie.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Well now it comes out. Hard40 has self-esteem issues. He’s not complete without a woman. Partners in life are meant to compliment us, not complete us. If we do not come to the table as a whole being and instead need someone to do that for us, then we are likely to fail to establish a life long relationship. Fulfilling the role of making someone else complete is generally exhausting and not something that people tend to do very long before they wake up and realize that life is miserable having to sustain someone else’s completeness as well as their own. I’ve already been through that several times…I’ll take care of me, and you take care of me, but you have to take care of yourself.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, we don’t have to justify abortion. Any woman who wants an abortion can have one without your consent. Abortion is legal. Abortion is an option, a choice, that is happening as we sit here and write. It’s happening all over the planet. In the places where it isn’t legal, it’s happening illegally, endangering the life of the woman who’s crime is that she does not want or cannot take care of another child. Death is happening all over this planet with all species. Death comes to everyone and everything. What is so horrible about not allowing every fetus to come to term? No woman has to have a pregnancy she does not want. You can’t stop any woman from doing what she thinks is best for her. You can’t stop women from having sex even if they’re not married. Now exactly what bad effect is that having on your life right now? How is that preventing you from being healthy, wealthy and wise? It has no effect on you! You can’t even get pregnant, man! It’s a problem you will never have to deal with and do not understand.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Actually Boscoe, there are a lot of things I can’t justify. Choosing a living, breathing human over a clump of cells isn’t one of them.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Lozen your summary had me laughing. It comes down to “Killing is acceptable to promote life because life is sacred!”

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

For some reason, I’m having a Schroedinger’s Cat moment here, considering Boscoe’s post about “if left alone by people” post.

By HARD 40

June 2, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

What do you know about fine dining, and what is considered excellent cuisine. You grew up poor, and ate nothing but fatback and collard greens. You cannot afford to dine at Fogo De Chao anyway. Tim, I don’t know why I’m arguing with an ignorant KAFFIR like you anyway. I bet you don’t know what the word KAFFIR MEANS.

By Archie

June 2, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Lozen I agree a woman or a teenager should not worry about the male ego. Heck if you say no the guy will just have to get over it. Grown men should not be with 14-year-olds but there was a time when this was perfectly legal but that’s another issue. If I had a son I would tell him the same thing your people told you — don’t do it. I have had more fun after age 25 than I ever did as a teenager. You are absolutely right to bash men that can’t pick up a grown woman. On the other hand the same bashing should be given to women who can’t pick up a grown man. Lozen I know full well the sex drive is strong but some people namely the young lady named Misty, she would have been better off abstaining from sex until she was ready financially,etc. People do illogical things because the sex drive is strong and that’s why the idea of abstinence is good for some folk. Coming to an internet forum to vent out your frustrations is good but it would be better to never be in the position. Not one person told Misty it would have been better to have abstained and that’s the only guaranteed way that she would not be in the situation she’s in today. I am not trying to take away anything just pointing out that for some they need to be abstinent. Conservatives and liberals need to agree on some things that are just right. This reasoning applies to a young man as well. Plenty of young men don’t get to hang out or go to college because they have to work to support an out-of-wedlock child. Young people may get married too young because of an unexpected baby. Abstinence is a guaranteed way that young folk won’t be in that situation. I say this for the young folk that may be reading this blog.

By TT

June 2, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Hey Softie— I bet you don’t know what the word egocentric means either? Fogo is not that expensive of a place, most any lower-middle class cheeseball could afford to go there, as you have proven. Does Mommy know you’re on the computer trying to chat with big boys? Take your Blackberry and your Gameboy and your 18-year-old, acne-faced self to one of your citysearch restaurants. Just get off this post. It’s for adults. We’re trying to discuss larger issues and your childish sales pitches are getting in the way. Anyone want to discuss the full disclosure legislation without interference from adolescents?

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

DeltaX - very good questions! Unfortunately I’m not sure we’ll ever get to the point where BC is fool proof and thus there will always need to be some level of abortion even if just to handle medical issues. I am starting to hear more of a movement to attempt to reduce the number of abortions by focusing on sex ed and use of contraception. I think that this is extremely important. Where this seems to be tricky in America is that the anti-abortion crowd tends to also espouse a position of abstinence only for sex. This second position would seem to make the goal of reducing the number of abortions even harder to achieve.

I’m also hearing the Pro-choice crowd thinking globally and the pro-life crowd locally.

By mel

June 2, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Archie, I also agree with you. But again, if abstinence is to be taught, it should be taught to boys and girls equally. And it should not take the place of sex ed. There has to be a happy medium.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

LOL Soft40, you just get funnier and funnier! Listen to the way you call everyone poor - does this make you feel more important? I think perhaps it was YOU who ate nothing but fatback and collard greens, hmm? Again, I’m guessing you wouldn’t know vichyssoise from paella.

And Kaffir, softie, is an Afrikaner insult for a black South African. Do you know what AFRIKANER means?

By Tim

June 2, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

limpy… actually I don’t like collard greens… they smell bad and I don’t like how they taste… but thanks for letting me know where I have dined… like Eaton said… why don’t you name some of the not so ‘touristy’ finer establishments in Atl… I never said anything about knowing excellent cuisine (is that your ‘word for the day’ one of the few you actually spelled correctly) either… I simply stated that there is a steak house in Ft. Lauderdale that I liked more (and even if I couldn’t afford to eat at those places wouldn’t make me any less of a person… how sad that you view people by social status… you really need help… use some of your ‘money’ and get a good therapist

oh wait… Kaffir must be your word for the day… impressive you have made it to the ‘k’s… I am not african (although from earlier posts I would be willing to bet there is a lil soul in the tree somewhere) nor am I muslim… so why don’t you just keep on flippin through the dictionary for other insults

thanks for playing we have some lovely parting gifts for you

p.s. a little info about my ignorance… as soon as you can finish a BA by the age of 20 (that is a bachelor of arts degree… just in case you didn’t know)… oh since you are already in your 40s that is obviously impossible… so we’ll put it this way… as soon as you can finish a 4 year degree in 2 years and 9 months… we’ll talk about ignorance

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Personally, I find the idea of 100% effective birth control a little spooky as well. Maybe it’s just the science fiction buff in me, but it conjures up “government approval required” procreation rules. Not that a little federal interference wouldn’t have been welcome in certain notable cases.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Oh Boscoe you are such a stereotype. I bet you’ve never seen “Harold and Maude”. It’s a wonderful film and full of characters that are just like you. I was not speaking about myself individually. I was speaking about human nature in general. But, if you want to picture me, a young grandmother enjoying sex instead of practicing your ridiculous idea that we should all be celibate, go for it! Shows where your mind is, not mine.

By DeltaX

June 2, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - I could see a spray on BC as someone noted earlier, gene alteration that inhibits eggs/sperm until turned back on, a valve for the male to keep sperm from joining semen (Hey, they have cows at UGA that have screwcaps on their stomach to reach inside for bile - crazy)…etc.

The point being, IF/WHEN these options come to pass, what is to be done with the legality of abortion?

By HARD40

June 2, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, are you a shrink or did you take an online course in psychology? Stop babbling, all that psuedo psychology is boring me. I can assure you I don’t have self-esteem issues.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Woops, there went my own spelling. Kaffa is what I was defining. Darn, I made a mistake.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Actually, check that again. I was right the first time. Tim’s right too. Shucky darn.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Softie, you’ve got issues that they haven’t even named yet.

By Boscoe

June 2, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

What is so horrible about not allowing every fetus to come to term? Lozen, if I follow that logic….What was so horrible about slavery? Not evrybody was a slave. What was so horrible about preventing interracial marriages? Not everybody was going to have one so what was the big deal? What was wrong with making sure colored people were second class citizens?

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Lozen and Archie. Good points each. Way back there yesterday I pointed out that we have not genetically changed much in the past million years or so, but our lives have changed dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. Here’s where the teen sex thing gets difficult because as a species it wasn’t relatively all that long ago in comparison to human life on earth that life expectency was in the mid-40s. By the time one is 16 you’re only a few years away from middle age at that point. We are fighting an inherently deep-seated biological urge/need with reason and logic and religion and from a perspective in which our life expectancy is significantly longer.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Deltax, I don’t understand what you’re driving at. If there is ever a birth control method that’s 100 percent effective, AND if people stop living in a fantasy and peventing young people from having info about birth control, the legality of abortion will be a moot question. You know, as I do that we’re moving into a new paradigm no matter how fiercely the traditionalists fight it. They are such a small segment of the population anyway. Are you a modernist or a cultural creative?

By Tim

June 2, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES!!!! someone has issues :)

Netbanker I don’t think you needed a class to tell you about what you stated about being complete did you?

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

lozen, just let it go. The religious conservatives need the abortion issue to latch onto and get all emotional about. They can’t muster up any concern at all for living, breathing people, so they need something to make them feel like they’re doing what Jesus wanted. They don’t particularly care about wars, or actual genocide, or poverty or starvation or anything like that, so they get worked up about non-entities and call themselves caring.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

No Boscoe, you’re talking about living, breathing human beings who were slaves and second class citizens versus a clump of cells that is not a human being, not breathing, and not able to live on its own.

By TT

June 2, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

ATTENTION: Is there anyone on this blog that is not bigoted or chauvinistic and has a pro-life point of view? Please speak up. I would love to have a reasoned debate, but it is seeming less and less possible thanks to comments from the likes of Boscoe and Softie. Newsflash Boss Hog, no one should be a second-class citizen in America. If you believe in that nonsense, move somewhere else.

One day, when the backwoods bigots have died out, we might have a shot at adult discussion of these issues. Until then, they’re out in droves voting and imposing their skewed view of morality on others. The Bible is very clear on equality and judgement. Perhaps those of you who feel you have divine insight should review the book (if you can read).

By Hard40

June 2, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Tim what do you do for a living? You probably make 25,000 dollars a year. What do you know about anything? I don’t take you seriously. You like to sit in your barkerlounger and let the cable TV washover you, so you don’t have to think about how miserable your life truly is. People like you are so common. You will work until your 65 years old and draw a measly social security pension and live in povery for the remainder of your days. My friends and I went to FOGO DE CHAO, and by the time we left, we spent 250 dollars. You don’t have 90 dollars to spend on dinner in one night. Your so busy struggling to pay your gas bill, carpayment, rent. I know your not a homeowner. You probably live in a cruddy apartment on the westside of Atlanta.

By DeltaX

June 2, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Lozen, My point is only this:

I am pro-choice; but primarily bc it is the only choice after fertilization takes place (morning after pill is close, but seems to still have issues). I must, in order to push myself, think in an expanding world that outgrows the rules we lay down; but I do not hear that echoed by other pro-choicers. I hear that it is a right; wheras I believe it is the most humane last RESORT.

So, in thinking ahead, I posed the question: What do other pro-choicers think should happen the day we have better means? Are we leaving ourselves open for such change?

I do not, and will not label myself. I have a name and that name is me - and I change over time.

My name means Vast.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

just keep proving my point… issues issues issues

and I’m spent :)

oh but one thing… HOW INSULTING to suggest I have a BARCALOUNGER (obviously skipped to ‘b’s and went right to the ‘k’s) in my home… honey I am gay… we have taste and know how to properly decorate a room!

call me a c** sucker, fudgepacker, etc… I don’t care… you suggest that I have something like that in my home… oh the earrings and fingernails come off and there will be a fight hahahahaha

By TT

June 2, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

I doubt Tim lives in poverty, Hard40, because he sounds so much more educated than you. And he probably doesn’t spend all day in front of FOX News either. You have no idea what any of us are like, but based on your post, we can all deduce that you are an immature, ignorant, single, sad excuse for a man with low self esteem. Have friends, do you? I’m shocked. But if they were honest friends, they would tell you to get a life and an education. For the last time, go back to your video games and leave the discussion for those of us who finished the eighth grade.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

No Tim, I sure didn’t. Life experience taught me how exhausting it is to have someone else else pin responsibility for their happiness on you.

Where is that steak house in Lauderdale? I’m heading that way the week of July 4th. I recall going to an excellent one a few years ago with friends from London who were in Lauderdale on vacation, but can’t recall the name or location. CRAFT disease kicking in again.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Hmm. The phrase “Methinks the Softie doth protest too much” comes to mind. Show of hands - how many people think that he is what he is decribing others as? I am getting a LOT of anger at poor people out of him, probably because of his own circumstances.

Softie, your own claims betray you again. A tab of $250 for a few people at a decent restraunt in Atlanta is really not that impressive. If you are trying to lie and impress people, make your numbers a little higher, ok? What did y’all order - salad?

And, I don’t know about Tim, but I personally don’t sit in a BARCAlounger (yes Softie, you misspelled yet another word) at home - I prefer the very comfortable italian leather armchair my “poor” parents gave me as a graduation gift last year when I finished my MBA. Softie, did you even graduate from high school?

By Boscoe

June 2, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

lozen, those “clump of cells” will be living, breathing people without abortion. Who are you to decide which “clump of cells” gets to develop into a living breathing person.

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

“I find the idea of 100% effective birth control a little spooky as well.”

SPOOKY??? I find it fantastic ! About time ! Think of the money saved for the whole world ! Think of how the quality of life for ALL FEMALES will improve ! Think about how WONDERFUL it would be to have sex & not have to worry about pregnancy ! !

What a great day that will be. Lets plan a huge party. A HUGE SEX PARTY ! ! LOL Oh no that’s what the religious are afraid of. THAT’S WHY THAT BIRTH CONTROL DOESN’T EXIST ! AH HA !

By lozen

June 2, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, as usual you bring up very good points. Yes, it hasn’t been that long since people were married by the time they were 14 or 15. And many times, even back then, they had to get married because they were already pregnant. The sap begins to rise, as a psychologist friend once said, at puberty (and that is getting younger and younger for females). It is nature. It is natural. We can do nothing to prevent it. We can’t stop it. To expect modern young people with all their exposure to the “sex sells” mentality in the U.S., to remain virgins until they finish college and perhaps grad school and get married is just pure idiocy. The society has changed and we need to change the way we think so that we can deal with the resulting problems instead of pretending things are (or ever will be) the way they used to be. Females have sexual freedom now, just as males always had it, thanks to science and the pill. We aren’t going back to preserving our virginity until marriage. And anybody who thinks we can tell teenagers not to have sex and that’ll stop them, is laboring under a huge illusion. So, if we see that they are going to have sex and there will be slip ups and unwanted pregnancies for people too young to be parents what do we do? It’s so obvious. We teach them how to prevent pregnancy and hope they listen. That would really cut the number of abortions. But still, abortion is necessary because teenagers don’t always listen or think about the future and because no B.C. method is 100 percent.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Money does not make one rich, but NEW money absolutely makes one obnoxious and boorish.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

TT… thanks :)… you are correct… I don’t live in poverty… I think for a 23 year old the place where I live is pretty good… how sad that he thinks like he does though

Netbanker… it is called Chima… go hungry! they believe in feeding you… we were there last year on the 4th

Eaton… classic case of projection… oh and excellent point about the $250 bill… not a very high bill for some friends at a ‘nice’ place… and you are correct I don’t sit in one of those… I would rather sit on the floor lol

By lozen

June 2, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Tim, you are hilarious. I would not have a barko..whatever in my house either. I guess this strange person who is spending so much time imagining what you are like (and don’t we know what that’s all about, honey?) doesn’t know he is outdone in the taste department! Love ya, mom.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, who am I to decide which clump of cells? Who am I? I am a woman who gave birth to two children. I understand what’s involved in pregnancy and how it effects a woman’s life. Who are you to think you should decide? A man who has about as much understanding about being pregnant as I do about cancer of the prostate! I am never going to experience cancer of the prostate but let me tell you how you should deal with it if you get it. I think you should just let those run-a-way cancer cells live. No radiation and no chemo because you would be murdering those poor, innocent little cells!

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Puberty arriving earlier for females is kind of frightening. I was talking to a friend of mine whose daughter is 11 about this. We know there is a theory that it’s being caused by the increased levels of hormones, etc. in food these days. I was actually wondering if it’s because of significantly improved nutrition. Those of us under 40 pretty much grew up with fortified foods and prepackaged stuff. That’s almost all kids get today so is there some correlation? We know people are fatter today because our bodies are biologically built to be hunter/gatherers not grocery store grazers.

If I had a daughter she’d get a BC pill in her OJ every morning. I was raised by those kind of parents that took us to church, gave us a moral foundation, expected us to live up to it, and realized that those expectations aren’t always possible to meet so here’s Plan B for when you fail. It’s too easy for adults to forget the peer pressure and hormonal rages of our teen years.

By Hard40

June 2, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Tiny Tim you are 23 year old little snot, with no real life experience. You have not lived long enough to have an informed opinion about anything. Netbanker, I’m sorry if I insulted you. I realize now you were being perfectly honest. Well, I’ve got to checkout. I’ve got better things to do. By the way i did not misspell BARKERLOUNGER.

By Tony

June 2, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Our founding fathers, in the charter of this republic spoke clearly, stating “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights â€â€? of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For two millennia in our Western culture, written into our constitutions, specifically protected by our laws, and deeply imprinted into the hearts of all men and women, there has existed the absolute value of honoring and protecting the right of each human to live. This has been an unalienable and unequivocal right. The only exception has been that of balancing a life for a life in certain situations or by due process of law. Never, in modern times â€â€? except by a small group of physicians in Hitler’s Germany and by Stalin in Russia â€â€? has a price tag of economic or social use-fullness been placed on an individual human life as the price of its continued existence. Never, in modern times â€â€? except by physicians in Hitler’s Germany â€â€? has a certain physical perfection been required as a condition necessary for the continuation of that life. Never â€â€? since the law of paterfamilias in ancient Rome â€â€? has a major nation granted to a father or mother total dominion over the life or death of their child. Never, in modern times, has the state granted to one citizen the absolute legal right to have another killed in order to solve their own personal, social or economic problem. And yet, if this is human life, the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in America and permissive abortion laws in other nations do all of the above. They represent a complete about-face, a total rejection of one of the core values of Western man, and an acceptance of a new ethic in which life has only a relative value. No longer will every human have a right to live simply because he or she exists. A human will now be allowed to exist only if he measures up to certain standards of independence, physical perfection, or utilitarian usefulness to others. This is a momentous change that strikes at the root of Western civilization. It makes no difference to vaguely assume that human life is more human post-born than pre-born. What is critical is to judge it to be â€â€? or not to be â€â€? human life. By a measure of “more” or “less” human, one can easily and logically justify infanticide and euthanasia. By the measure of economic and/or social usefulness, the ghastly atrocities of Hitlerian mass murders came to be. One cannot help but be reminded of the anguished comment of a condemned Nazi judge, who said to an American judge after the Nuremberg trials, “I never knew it would come to this.” The American judge answered simply, “It came to this the first time you condemned an innocent life.” Ponder well the words of George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it.”   Wm. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster, 1959 Is this unborn being, growing within the mother, a human life? Does he or she have a right to live? Make this judgment with the utmost care, scientific precision, and honesty. Upon it may hinge much of the basic freedom of many human lives in the years to come.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

thanks lozen… I am all too familiar with what is really going on with him… so sad… and I am sooo glad that my mom knows better than to get one of those :) love you too! :)

By Tony

June 2, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Trying to Survive By Judith Evans

My childhood was brutal. I was abandoned by my father when I was two-and-a-half. Then when he reappeared in my life again at the age of eight, it became worse. I survived incest, starvation, and beatings. I clung to life. It was the two abortions I had that nearly destroyed me. When I became pregnant for the fifth time in seven years, my doctor asked me if I really thought I should “continue the pregnancy.” Abortion had never occurred to me until he suggested it. My husband said, “It’s your decision. Do what you want,” and left for work. Naively, I began looking for women who had had abortions. I wanted to know what to expect. But I couldn’t find anyone who would admit to having had one. I asked my doctor and he said, “It only takes a few minutes and it’s over.” Having already had four babies, I am now appalled at how ignorant I was about fetal development. My doctor said the baby, at six-and-a-half weeks was “just a blob,” and I believed him. I had my first abortion in another state. Afterwards, before I even got home, I began to cry. It didn’t help. I continued to cry after I got home. I cried on my knees beside my bed. When finally I stopped crying on the outside, I kept crying on the inside. I felt so dirty and alone. Something deep inside of me froze, I think. I dreamed a lot about snow and ice, as well as about babies. I felt cheated, betrayed, and manipulated. I went to counseling and the psychologist said “Forgive yourself,” and “Let yourself go on.” She didn’t say how. Two years later, I was pregnant again—on purpose. But still, I wanted to die, or at least go crazy so I could escape the torment, the nightmares about babies, the self-disgust, and the degradation I felt. This time I waited until the baby was 12 weeks along before I murdered him. My doctor tied my tubes at the same time, and he said he would never do another abortion. I made him tell me about the baby, just as I had made the man who did the first abortion. (The first one was a girl. She died January 15th. The second was a boy, March 29th. I learned to dread every January and March.) I wasn’t told that there could be complications which wouldn’t be discovered for years. I wasn’t told that the strength of the suction machine is such that it can turn a uterus nearly completely inside out. I had to have an early hysterectomy because of it. I wasn’t told that after having an abortion an unbelievable self-hatred would consume me and lead to distrust, suspicion, and the utter inability to care about myself, or others—including my four children. I wasn’t told that hearing babies cry would trigger such anger that I wouldn’t be able to be around babies at all. I wasn’t told that it would become impossible to look at my own eyes in a mirror. Or that my confidence would be so shaken that I would become unable to make important life decisions. My self-hatred kept me from pursuing my goal of becoming a registered nurse. I didn’t think I deserved success. I wasn’t told that I would come to hate all those who advised me to have my abortions, because they were my accomplices in the murders of my babies. I wasn’t told that having an abortion with my husband’s consent would end up causing me to hate the father of my children, or that I would be unable to sustain ANY satisfying, lasting, fulfilling relationships. I wasn’t told that I could become suicidal in the fall of every year, when both of my babies should have been born. I wasn’t told that on the birthdays of my living children, I would remember the two for whom I would never make a birthday cake, or that on Mother’s Day I would remember the two who would never send me a card, or that every Christmas I would remember the two for whom there would be no presents. My abortions were supposed to be a “quick-fix” for my problems, but they didn’t tell me there is no “quick-fix” for regrets. I had gone to my pastor before both abortions. He said the babies were “just blobs” too, so when I went afterwards and asked why I felt so dirty, he said, “God forgives.” I asked God to forgive me, and my pastor said He did. But I didn’t feel forgiven. I still felt unclean and undeserving. I went to a psychiatric hospital and they gave me shock treatments. It didn’t help. The nightmares continued. I became a workaholic. Work didn’t help. I became a compulsive eater. Food didn’t help. I became an anorexic as a form of self-punishment. That came close to killing me; I had two strokes. I tried alcohol. It only helped temporarily. The torment would still be there when I woke up. That effort to escape the pain only lasted two months. I worked at a crisis pregnancy center for a year. But that didn’t help—three clients aborted. I started the only pro-life organization in southeast Kansas, and was president for a year, and that didn’t help. Three things finally helped. First, I participated in a ten-week post-abortion healing program. At the end of the program, we held a memorial service. We named our babies and entrusted them to God. By formally recognizing their humanity, we were able to complete our grieving process. Our grief wasn’t blocked by denial, anymore. It was incredible! It did so much for me. I took two peach-colored rose buds with me and by the end of the memorial service both buds had opened. I saw in that a sign of reassurance that my children are alive in Heaven with Christ. It was a sign, too, of my forgiveness and my hope. Second, I took the training to help lead others through the post-abortion healing program. Every time I lead a group, I witness the miracle of God’s mercy restoring the joy to these women’s lives. That has helped me. Third, in September of 1997 I received a phone call at two in the morning. A girl in Texas had seen a brochure containing my testimony. She was scheduled to have an abortion at three o’clock the next day. We talked until five in the morning. Then she called back around noon and we talked for another hour. I was so concerned about her. Finally, at five o’clock she called and said she had decided against having the abortion. Finally, I knew with a certainty that God had used my experience to save someone else from making my terrible mistake. That helped a lot. Healing does not mean forgetting. I will always regret what I did and always miss my babies until the day I am with them in Heaven. But I know now that God can use every part of our lives, even the worst parts, to help us to help others. Praise the Lord. He is kind and merciful. He has done wondrous things in my life.

Judith would welcome correspondence with anyone whom she can help who is considering an abortion or has had an abortion. She can be reached at talcrft@kans.com or (316) 848-3642.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

limpy… first I was poor now I am a snot?.. can you be a poor snot? how sad that you don’t even know you spelled that incorrectly… and concerning age… age does not define experience or intelligence… you are a prime example of that… must suck having your a* handed to you on a platter by a 23 year old snot

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

DING,DING,DING…I got it! Yes, I’ve been there Tim. Not far from Cathode Ray. Sits between there and where you turned onto SE 2nd to get to The Sea Monster. Lordy I miss that place for Sunday Tea Dance.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Um…Softie, you DID, in fact, misspell BARCAlounger, as a visit to their website…www.BARCAlounger.com will indicate. Though, I notice that you remain unable to reject a single counter-argument to your silly claims.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Tony, cut-and-pasted anecdotal experiences and subjective editorializings passed off as scholarly discourse do nothing to advance an argument. Unless you have something original to say, kindly be quiet.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… that stuff sounds familiar… so probably is around there lol… place was very cool… we are going to Lauderdale sometime again this year… I hope we make it back to Chima… this time I am going to fast the entire day though before we go there lol

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 2, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, not all those cells will become living breathing people some day. Some will not attach to the uterus lining properly and hopefully will cause no harm to the woman, as in ectopic pregnancy. Some will become hydiform cysts, but will never become human, despite being a product of conception. Some fertilized material will develop where it should not, ovaries, fallopian tubes, in the uterine muscular wall. Some fertilized cells will degenerate and form tumors. Some pregnancies will develop relatively normally, but the brain will not have formed, as in anencephaly, and will not survive very long.

These are human by-products, but not human. At some point they have the correct number of chromosomes, but will never become human, despite no interference from anybody or anything.

Many miscarrriages occur before periods are missed, and are called spontaneous abortions.

Thus, some of us just can’t believe that human life begins at conception, because science does not support this.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Tony, things change. Yes, only men were guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by our founding fathers! But now women have that right also because our fore mothers fought in the streets and in the prisons of this country to see that we got that right! We are now entitled to life (without children if we so desire), liberty (to live without becoming mothers if we so desire) and the pursuit of happiness (and if that means having sex and not having kids, so be it!) Women are the ones who give life; therefore woman are the ones who should decide when to give life. You want to take away our right to control our bodies and our reproductive choices. So please don’t talk to me about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a fetus. Why aren’t you preaching to other men? That’s the part you do understand.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 2, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Tony, forming totalitarian states often outlaw abortion early on as one means to control the masses. Hitler and Eric Rudolf have more in common than most people know…

By lozen

June 2, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Hey, on Oprah they just said statistics prove african american men are the best endowed! Asian men are the smallest.

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

OK, from this moment on, men have absolutely no say so concerning their p***’s. They aren’t allowed to touch it or use it unless they get permission from their wives/girlfriend. Any unauthorized use shall be punishable by fines and/or jail time.

It is now GA law as of 4pm today. Hopefully if we all band together we can make it a national law.

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Tony I think the point of your first post is the one that is the tricky part here. Defining when the clump of cells becomes a human. For many it is when that clump can viably live outside the womb. Once again, though the sole focus of your post seems to come down to looking at each possible life as one that is more important than an actual life and/or outweighs a group of lives.

The only thing that is going to bark in my house wil be the dog! Amazingly Lazyboy has some really nice leather, club chair recliners that I’m thinking about for my den or when we remodel the basement into more of a home theater than the family room with big screen TV it is now. I had to be dragged into the store because I had this “All in the Family/Archie Bunker” vision in my head.

By Eaton

June 2, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

If I’m going to have to wait for a wife or girlfriend, I’m in trouble.

By Lola

June 2, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

I missed blogging with you guys this week, but I just can’t do this topic. Much too touchy a subject for me. I’ve been lurking, though… :)

Tim, you totally make me LOL as always. I’ll be (actively) back on next week.

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

LOL EATON ! I’ll approve ya if you need it !

By Tim

June 2, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

lozen… I knew there was soul in my family… your statement proves it… I kid I kid!! :)

Netbanker… I was very surprised at what they had in Lazyboy… ended up not buying anything in there but there have some very different stuff in there now

Eaton… I will be in trouble too!

By Tim

June 2, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Lola… thanks :) missed ya this week!!! I understand what you are saying though… hope to see ya more active next week ;)

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Whiley…slow down there sister. I’d like to propose an amendment to Whiley’s Law that it applies to hetero appendages only.

Tim…I get down there about every 6 weeks or so. The Sea Monster is no more so don’t look for that. Cathode Ray is still around and hopping. So is Colliseum if you want to shake your wild thang on the dance floor. Hey, just let me know next time you’re going that way and I can give you a quick run down.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Okay, statistics (and we all KNOW they can be skewed)— They asked people (male and female?) in different countries how many sex partners they’d had in their lives. And the averages were:

The Brits - 9 Australians - 10 French - 11 Americans - 14!!!

We beat even the French! Ahhhh, the difference between what we do and what we say we should do! The difference between what we think other people should do and what they really do! Sex, sex, sex! Married people are doing it. Teenagers are doing it. Single women are doing it. Gays are doing it! Single men are doing it! It’s a fact of life. Imagine it Boscoe; it’s going on all around you all the time.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… thanks… I will take you up on that offer… last year we were there for a week but didn’t go out anywhere… just to dinner… everyday we would wake up… eat breakfast… walk to the beach and lay out till 4… come back and lay by the pool for another hour or so… go in get ready for dinner… then come back and just chill… it was AWESOME lol… this year we may decide to be a lil more active though lol (and dang I had the best tan lol)

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Whiley…I need to pee!

Tim..love the stuff in By Design too. Here’s another tip for you (and RS too). For $75 you can register a business in Atlanta (i.e. get a business license) and if you do so as a decorator you can get into the merchandise mart! Had friends in Ansley who did that and ended up getting some fantastic stuff from the showrooms when they were changing out stock, etc. You can also usually get into import warehouses to pick up pieces at wholesale or close too. The mark up on furniture is HUGE, but makes sense since most people don’t replace their sofas or furniture every couple of years.

By lozen

June 2, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

And Boscoe there’s not one thing you can do to stop all that sex going on all the time.

By RS

June 2, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Soft-o, I can’t be the judge of that. I myself think I’m not much to look at, but I have a husband so…Plus, ask the 2 men (both rock musicians, who, categorically, are always around beautiful young women) I know offhand who, for some strange reason, lust after me. Ask the moving man who flirted with me 3 days ago & the Creative Loafing delivery guy who flirted with me today. And what if I AM “ugly”? I suppose that makes me less of a person. I have great idea, Floppo! Why not use some of your (cough, gag!) “vast wealth” to fund Nazi-style death & torture camps for “ugly” women?? You freak. At age 45, dear, if you get your thrills walking into a 20-something hangout with an empty-headed fluffball on your arm, you’re an even more miserable excuse for a man than I’d realized. And Eaton is right…your tales of fabulous wealth are quite inconsistant. You must be awfully jealous of Tim & for good reason; he is anything BUT common. He’s got more class in his little pinky than you have in your (probably flabby, sagging) body. And I KNOW where he lives & you can’t be poor to live there. So you’re not “complete” without a piece of eye candy hanging onto you? My, my, someone is very insecure here…And it’s not even that you want a REAL woman, just a piece of fluff with no substance. DeltaX: Great question! I doubt BC will ever be 100% foolproof so I’m afraid we’ll always need the option of abortion, because, Boscoe, one viable person is worth millions of blobs. And humans are designed to desire sex. You can’t stop that urge. Can we help aging? Our toenails growing? No, it’s nature. Don’t YOU ever have “the urge”? Oh that’s right, look who I’m talking to! Netbanker: You want really off-the-chain chicken/matzo ball soup, you must try mine! Oh, Tim, honey, I laughed myself SICK! Looking through Access Atlanta! I bet he did! And I’m sure he’s never been to any of those midtown clubs. They wouldn’t let the likes of him through the door! (By the way, I LOVE collard greens. I am such trailer trash! Ha!) Tim AND Netb: I lived in South Florida 18 years till 2002; you BET I know Cathode Ray & Sea Monster!! Tony, that story by “Judith” what’s-her-face had me convulsed with laughter; either she wrote it as a joke, she’s a big drama queen in sore need of attention or she’s a wino!

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

14??? THAT’S ALL????

they must only counting everyone before the 60’s.

By Whiley

June 2, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Go ahead NetBanker. (god I love my job !)

hehehe

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Can we change the topic tomorrow (kind like we blew off Paula and Corey) so Lola join us?

By RS

June 2, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Netb, great idea, thanks but we’re pretty much all stocked up, maybe just want to pick up a few odds & ends.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Netbanker

oh and that is a great idea… I am going to have to look into that!

By design has cool stuff… I like the stuff in Intaglia… great mixture between modern and classic

By RS

June 2, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Yes I miss Lola but respect what she’s saying

By lozen

June 2, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Zack, 1.20 million abortions a year and none of the men who impregnated those women are being executed! 1.20 million a year Zack and none of the women having them are being executed. I know that makes you feel terrible but I guess you’ll just have to get your jollies from the war deaths (the few they let us know about), and an occasional death sentence in our prisons. I take this to prove that your god doesn’t agree with you about what should happen to the men and women who have abortions. Well, of course I know men don’t have abortions! But they contribute half of what it takes to have an abortion so in a way, they have them too.

By Tim

June 2, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

well said RS… well said… oh and liking collard greens isn’t anything to be ashamed of :)… my Nana supposedly makes killer greens also… but like I said… I wouldn’t know for sure b/c I don’t like them… oh and you are correct… the area our home is in is not the cheapest around… but I have nothing to prove… no need to tell someone if I live in a Million dollar home or a 5 cent shoe box… does not matter either way… obviously telling someone like you that is like preachin to the choir :)

ok everyone have a wonderful night!

By Netbanker

June 2, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Whew! That’s a relief! Bladder is all better. NOw about that amendment proposal…

RS…I was at the grand opening for Sea Monster. I kind of miss The End UP even if it was kind of trashy/beat up because they had great music and a fun crowd. Boom is OK, but not the same. Anywho…what part of SF? My place is in Hollywood.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Backing up a little. Just to clear a few things up, I am a choice person. When I’m talking about choosing in the scenario presented to me, I’m talking about making that choice during labor. Early in the pregnancy is a no-brainer.

RS, I don’t take offense because we all live our lives differently and make decisions based on how we feel. Like I said before, the decision I make at that moment if it ever happens may be different. But when it comes up like this, I like to think of myself as a selfless person and would like to think that my decision would benefit the defenseless baby. And I guess my wife feels the same way. But if there’s a possibility of my wife surviving and the baby being delivered, we’d take that chance. Doctors have been wrong before.

I guess that’s all I can say about that. But I am actually going to have to agree with Boscoe for the first time I think. — “Since you can’t become pregnant all by yourself that won’t happen anytime soon. Unless of course women agree as a whole that men should be free from the responsibility of paying child support for 18 years. If women decide to have the baby the man will pay, he should he is the father; but if you decide to have any abortion, men should have absolutely nothing to say about it because after all it is your body right? Isn’t that a little contradictory?”

By DeltaX

June 3, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

Ben, I have a problem with that logic also. It is separatist.

The way I would like to see that contradiction resolved (ie. Pregnancy is equally males and females responsibility, so is raising the child, but if abortion is the topic; the father should have no say).

Besides not being what democracy and equal say in matters concerning society is all about; if people would talk about all these issues as a human dellimma, the left-handed sexist remarks would drop out of the equation.

But that takes Pluralistic thinking and I have met only a few people who are to that level of cognitive ability.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 3, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

Ben and Boscoe, taking a pregnancy to full term sometimes has lasting detrimental effects on a woman’s body, which depends on lots of things, age, health, mental health, etc. Without going into graphic detail, my body and immune system were never quite the same after I gave birth to two 9+ pounders (with large heads). There is inherent risk in pregnancy whether men (and some women) want to acknowledge it or not, and sometimes there is no way to predict the adversities of sequelae. With all due respect, as committed as many men are to the mothers of their children, they cannot know first-hand the emotional and physical trauma and joy of childbirth in the same way a woman can.

By RS

June 3, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

Tim: Judging by the appalling lack of class displayed by old Floppo, I can only surmise that you & I, indeed, live better than he does. Those who feel the need to brag..well, can we all say “overcompensating”?? Netbanker: I haven’t lived in Florida since 2002 & in the last few years I became so disgusted by the lame nightlife, I didn’t go out much so The End UP & Boom are unfamiliar to me. I went out more in the heyday of Squeeze, remember that? Sure, I know Hollywood. I’d lived in, respectively, Coconut Creek, Pompano Beach, Sunrise & Boca Raton. Ben, I guess as long as your wife feels the same..

By Ben

June 3, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Sandy, I understand what you are saying. But you can’t legitimately say that men have no say but turn around and expect their responsibility. If women have complete control and responsibility, whether men use condoms (to avoid pregnancy) is not an issue. Women should be on the pill.

And I think you should know, women may have to endure both pain and pleasure through pregnancy, but us men have our fair share of both too. We have to put up with you when you are evil and p**, and complaining - we have to accomodate you and make you happy. We also get to experience the miracle of birth and enjoy the glow of our pregnant wife or girlfriend. It’s a shared experience. Just like me working so my wife can stay home. She’s not working 40-50 hours a week, but she’s enjoying the benefit of not having to. It’s a shared responsibility and part of life and marriage.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

Ben, your wife may not have a job outside of the home, but unless you have a hired maid, cook, nanny and chauffeur… your wife works. And even if you do have all of those, she probably works to run the household to maintain that all of them are doing their jobs. I am sure men do experience some of the joy, but what you put up with when we are evil and p**… is not pain. Usually you are a well-spoken man, and I enjoy your post. I even agree with you on the issue that the man should have some say in the decision making… but it is ultimately the woman’s choice. Depending on the type of relationship the two parties have will effect the choice that woman makes. From your post, I feel you really enjoy your relationship with your wife and value her… and it was probably a mutual decision that she not take a paying job…. But I’m willing to bet she works diligently to keep your home functioning so you don’t have to worry about not being there while you are doing your 40-50 hours a week. So you enjoy her not ‘working’ as much as she does.

By Jack

June 3, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

RS I never said women could not do men’s jobs. I said the best man is better than the best woman in anything other than childbirth. (and I’m not talking sex either) I’m all for = pay for = work. I noticed TT hasn’t given me an example where I’m wrong.

I would never want my wife or daughter to serve in combat. I would gladly go in their place. Hand to hand, woman will lose. If this p** some of you ladies off, I’m sorry. I value women too much to have them on the front lines.

If all the women were killed, mankind would be gone. If all of the men were killed, the ladies could raid the sperm banks and re-populate the world.

By Lola

June 3, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Netbanker. You’re a doll. :)

I’ll be lurking around today…

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Ben, I hardly think you can compare having your kidneys nearly destroyed and permanently damaged with having to put up with a hormonal spouse.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Jack, if the army sets basic physical requirements for participating in combat and women meet them, then where are your objections? Can you make a legitimate objection that does not involve your antiquated paternalism? The problem is, you’re arguing from a superlative position - the strongest man vs the strongest woman. Well, not every man in the army IS the “strongest man” but they are still participating in combat. By logical extension, your argument would ultimately leave us with only the very very strongest in combat and anyone marginally weaker barred from those roles.

As for the best man doing a better job than the best woman, how about YOU provide us with examples? I work for a company where the majority of the officers and directors, including the CEO, are women, and I can assure you that their abilities are in no way inferior to their male counterparts.

By Jack

June 3, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Eaton, my arguement WAS hypothetical. I am smart enough to know that there are some females that can out perform some males. My hypotheticle scenerio was the best vs. the best. I can think of no example other than childbirth where the Best man would NOT beat the BEST woman. I don’t care what the army’s qualifications are. Women should not be in combat. Period. No, I don’t think they should be kept barefoot and pregnant. They can serve, just not in combat. Tell me they would win if it were to get down to hand to hand. If you say the would, well then, you’re full of it. Some say it will never get to hand to hand in this day and age. Ask other veterans what they think. Maybe you think my paternalism is antiquated, I don’t. I guess you would prefer to send all of the women to the front lines to fight MEN from other countries bend on killing as many of us as they can?

By Ben

June 3, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

JJ, my wife does help to make the household run, but it is a shared responsibility. You are absolutely right about the pain, and it far exceeds what I have to deal with. But my wife never once complained about the pain of childbirth. She actually said it’s not half as bad as people made it sound. BUT I know that’s just her. And I do enjoy her not working, and so does she for the most part.

Eaton, I’m not comparing the two, I’m just saying that woman aren’t totally in it on their own. They endure the physical aspect of pregnancy, and they face the risks, but they are not in it by themselves, at least not mentally. But I’ll say it again, THAT’S why the burden of birth control is the responsibility of the woman. If a man will never edure what a woman has to endure and never has, he naturally will not accept or understand the true consequences (if you want to call them that) of pregnancy. And if the bottom line that it’s a woman’s decision whether to have a baby or not, then it’s her responsibility to make sure it happens or doesn’t happen. DON’T MAKE ME COME UP WITH ANOTHER ANALOGY! LOL

By Ben

June 3, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Jack, I can agree with you on one thing, hand-to-hand combat is still VERY necessary.

By mel

June 3, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Hmmm. Ok, some people are about to hate me, but….I somewhat agree with Ben. And Sandy. Ok, I had a difficult pregnancy. I had severe morning sickness for the first trimester, then premature labor scares, then poor weight gain, then excessive Braxton Hicks contractions, then excessive salivation which led to constant spitting. My entire pregnancy was eventful. However, my husband took up ALL the slack. I couldn’t work my entire first trimester, so he went to work, came home and cooked (but it had to be something I could smell, which wasn’t much), did all of the housework, grocery shopping, and comforted me. Then after birth, I had a hard time with recovery. So yes, I had a VERY rough time, but he was right there at my side the whole time. So I agree with Sandy that pregnancy does something to you that men can never understand. But I also agree wtih Ben that it is a shared responsibility. I’m a little torn on this issue as you can tell.

By Jack

June 3, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Thanks Ben.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Jack, you avoided my question. If a woman meets combat standards just like a male counterpart, then why should she not go into combat? It’s a simple question. Whether or not hand-to-hand combat is involved is irrelevant if the woman meets the same strength and conditioning requirements as the men.

And yes - your paternalistic attitude IS outdated. It assumes that you, as a man, have some innate responsibility to make decisions for a woman and guide her away from things that may cause her injury, as if she is incappable of making that decision herself. I say, if a woman wants to assume the risks of combat, then let her do it. It’s none of your business if she’s an adult.

And…while I will concede that as far as physical strength goes, the strongest man is going to be stronger than the strongest woman. However, you seem to be saying that you think that men are intellectually and creatively superior to women as well. That is hogwash.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

I see G Dub is out pimping social security again! Why is the easiest solution the last on to be considered or never considered?

By JJ

June 3, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Ben, I’m agreeing with you on the mutual responsibility. Most relationships that work do have mutual responsibility.
I’m with Mel on this one. Each of my 3 pregnancies did things to my body that my husband would not understand. Has far as the responsibility of birth control… my husband did not want anymore children. He told me I needed to choice a form of birth control. My choice was vasectomy… he was the one that didn’t want more children, he should be the one responsible not to make anymore. I don’t think any man has the right to tell a woman she can’t have or should have an abortion. If he doesn’t want children or the responsibility of a child… He needs to do something about it, if he doesn’t he accepts his responsibility (I am really looking forward to a male birth control pill.) If she does not want a child, she should be responsible to prevent it or if that fails, be given the options of abortion, adoption or accepting her actions and the outcome.
I did read your post about your married friend whose wife was deceitful concerning her birth control. I wish I could say it is an isolated case… but I know better. But now your friend knows his wife’s character, I hope he is smart enough to learn from this and is using some form of protection to prevent further unwanted (by him) pregnancies.

By Jack

June 3, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

I did not avoid the question. You just didn’t get the answer you wanted. Guess you want women on the front lines? Why? To eliminate the competition? Its none of my business if she is an adult? I’m pro-choice but that has nothing to do with war. I’m gonna put you on ignore. It would be nice if some of the females on this blog would weigh in. I’m putting you on ignore.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Yeah Jack, you did ignore the question and you still are. If a woman meets the same physical standards as men then why shouldn’t they be on the front lines? Your “hand-to-hand” argument is IRRELLEVANT, Jack. If a woman meets physical combat standards then she is at least as strong as other men who may be engaging in hand-to-hand combat. Your only rationale is that the poor little woman shouldn’t be doin’ men’s work.

Go ahead, put me on ignore like you always do when your arguments get shot down. Or call me a snot-nose kid, or an a*****, or whichever other tactic you like to use when someone fails to acknowledge your natural superiority.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

By the way, Jack - the “eliminate the competition” comment - very juvenille of you. I think that women who WANT to be on the front lines should have the opportunity to do so without some narrow-minded, chauvanistic, egotistical fossil telling them they can’t because said fossils are too pig-ignorant and mule-stubborn to let go of the preciously held preconceptions that allow them to continue to believe that they are the superior beings of the universe.

By RS

June 3, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Jack, dear…2 words…ISRAELI ARMY!!! I’m sure any of those ladies can kick your a$$ easily, and the collective a*******es of any man here

By mel

June 3, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

JJ, I hear you! Down the road, we WILL be discussing the Big V.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Eaton, to speak honestly, it really depends on the woman. There are a lot more factors to being on the front line than physical strength. As a matter of fact, physical strength is one of the least important factors when it comes to being on the front lines. Strength and endurance are great and necessary, but it doesn’t ensure success or survival.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 3, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

At the risk of splitting hairs, not all women can use birth control pills or hormonal contraception due to risks of clots, etc.

I agree that there should be open dialogue about these gender issues, but how realistic is to expect that before engaging in sex, all couples will have had this thorough analysis of where they stand? How many even know this about themselves? I of course did, and would only ever involve myself in relationships where my values and opinions were heard, if not agreed with. I consider that foreplay. But obviously not everyone shares my sense of responsbility.

Not to state the obvious, but there is an inherent mistrust between men and women perhaps because we are so dependent on each other to get our needs and wants met.

As far as men wanting a say in reprodution decisions, you must ask yourself honestly: Do you want your opinion heard, or do you want complete control? Because a woman bears the physical burden and medical risks, and is the best judge of whether she is ready for motherhood, and because time is of essence in decision-making, I gotta side with her choice when it comes down to my reality. I approach this with a great deal of thoughtfulness and soul-searching, not as a man-basher.

I acknowledge that men can be hurt by womens’ decisions, and vice versa. Hurt and disappointment are the price we all pay for being human and for being involved with each other in any relationship. Ideally partners should always try to lift each other to their highest potential; someimes we have to be carried and other times we have to do the carrying. That so many relationships survive is truly remarkable…

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Ben, don’t you think it depends on the person? Not the “man” and not the “woman” but the person? Physical strength differences are EXACTLY what Jack based his argument on, and now you’re saying that physical strength isn’t important. Now you’re suggesting that there are characteristics that women lack OTHER than physical strength - what are they? I’m sure our female participants would LOVE to hear.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Okay Jack, got the female and the vet part covered for you. I’ve been out of the Corps for 16 years. This is a big debate in my family. The older generation (uncles, mom and dad, all vets) does not believe in women on the front lines. The younger (cousins and nephews, active duty) believe it is okay. Then there are those of us in the middle, (brother, with 29 years, so pushing retirement, sister who has been out for about the same amount of time as myself) we see both points of view and agree there is some logic to both viewpoints. I’m not sure I would want women in a frontline unit with men of my generation or my parents… they would feel the need to protect that female above themselves. But the men of today, do not have that same drive to protect women, they are growing up with ‘women are equals’ and ‘women can do the same as a man.’ The men of today are willing to let the women do just that. So if my niece or daughter decided she wanted to join the service and she signed up to be with a combat unit, I would support her decision.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

I agree with Eaton. If women can pass the requirements for the front lines, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be on the front lines. What are the “lot more factors…than physical strength,” Ben? Please don’t go into that old “men will protect a female at their expense” because they won’t if they’re trained not to! And please, please don’t go into the “women will tempt men to be doing something other than paying attention to business” because if they’re trained to overcome a lifetime of being taught “Thou shalt not kill,” they can be trained to overcome the brain in the pants syndrome if their lives depend on it.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Also lozen, its just a variant of the same old tired argument they used to justify segregation in the military, and a variant of the same tired argument they use to keep gays out now. I’m sure that the fossil - er, Jack - will swear that gay men are all, as he has said before, “fems” and have no business in the military, just like all women are too weak to fight, but that’s just more of his stereotypical, I’m a WASP, hear-me-buzz b******.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Well Lozen and Eaton, the arguments you suggest I was going to make, I wasn’t. The bottom line is that regardless of man or woman, a Marine or soldier is going to do whatever, even give his life, to protect his brothers in arms. Sorry, brothers or sisters in arms. And I hate to tell you, but the last thing on my mind, and I’m sure the mind of any other vet that saw combat, when bullets are flying is a piece of a**.

My reason is not based on some scientific experiments but based on MY experience with the women I came across in the military. Women (again the ones I know and have dealt with) tend to lack the fortitude to make the tough decisions, and are too analytical. On the battlefield those factors will cost lives. It’s kind of like driving in the car, some women will swerve to avoid the rabbit in the road and risk their own safety, while the majority of guys will say better him than me.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

On the question of making a decision about an abortion. We women do not ever know if the father of our children will still be around in 5 years! That’s facts, folks. I think the native american tribes in which the mother’s brother was the one responsible for his sister’s children and their upbringing were very wise! Divorce rate in the U.S. is around 50 percent. Of course we all believe when we’re in love that our man is different, our marriage is different, and we’ll always be together. For 50 percent of people who marry, that dream goes up in smoke, lawyers’ fees, divorce court, and anguish. I still do believe that the man in a marriage or a committed relationship should have some say in an abortion decision; but the person who will be most effected by having a child is the woman, both physically and emotionally. The man may have a few sleepless nights but she will be the one doing most of the childcare. Women’s lives go thru big changes when we have children. Only women can bring forth life, women take on most of the responsibility for caring for children for many, many years. The only way women can be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is when women make the decisions about when we reproduce. And I still believe men should accept part of the responsibility for birth control. You should have all the fun but none of the responsibility?

By Ben

June 3, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Lozen I love you but you should have stopped before the last sentence! It sort of contradicts most of what you said.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Ben, you are contradicting yourself… first you say,

‘The bottom line is that regardless of man or woman, a Marine or soldier is going to do whatever, even give his life, to protect his brothers in arms. Sorry, brothers or sisters in arms.’
Then you say

‘Women (again the ones I know and have dealt with) tend to lack the fortitude to make the tough decisions, and are too analytical.’ Either the Women Marines and Soldiers ‘will do whatever’ it takes, or they ‘lack the Fortitude’ to do what it takes.

So you’re reasoning is if a woman that is trained to do whatever it takes may lack the fortitude to do it? And because she may lack that fortitude should not be able to perform the job she is trained to do? Do you think all Male Marines & Soldiers have the fortitude to be on the frontlines? And if the Male Marines & Soldiers lack that same fortitude, should they be kept off the frontlines also?

By Crystal

June 3, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you speak only for yourself, certainly not all women. If men don’t consider women equal in every way, you would call them male chauvinist pigs. If men think women are equal parts of the human race to be cherished and protected, you think they are some kind of overbearing baboon. Make up your mind.

Men who LOVE and marry women don’t like the thought of having them killed in combat. They are not saying they couldn’t be in the military. They just wish they wouldn’t be faced with often dreadful circumstances. That is not bad. Stop calling decent men all kinds of ill deserved names. We need them and they need us.

By Tom Turner

June 3, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Perhaps Ms. Feldham should engage in full disclosure when quoting from sources.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Ben, love ya also! Please explain why my last sentence contradicts everything else I said.

By LaShelle

June 3, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Well well well…seems I have stumbled upon a very interesting discussion.

By DeltaX

June 3, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I agree with what you are saying, but also agree with Ben that the last sentence kinda let the steam out.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Crystal, I think that any man who thinks that a woman needs his guidance and control is a chauvanist, you are exactly right. I never said a word about loving and cherishing, only controlling. I’m sure that women who have had their husbands go off to war worry as much about them.

If you want to wallow in the “love, honor, and obey” nonsense perpetrated by the Christian Right, then go right ahead. It’s a prison of your own making and you’re welcome to it.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Crystal, women who LOVE and marry men don’t like the thought of having them killed in combat either, do they? Some of us just believe there should be no limits on women just because they’re women. Some of us believe along with equality, comes responsibility to stand up to the task alongside men.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Ben, I do appreciate that you said the women tend to be too analytical… usually we are accused of being too emotional. ;o)

By TT

June 3, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack—

How about we make this statement: the best women can compete with the best men at anything except primitive, hand-to-hand combat? I as a woman may agree with you on that point. But then, men want to keep women out of combat, so how can we really measure a man’s abilities compared to a woman’s in that situation?

As far as intellect, creativity, scientific innovations, medical technology, education, and the business world, women are every bit as equal. Considering that you and men like you tried everything in your power to keep women out of corporate boardrooms and in the kitchen, out of voting lines and confined to the home, they have succeeded in meeting and exceeding your abilities as a species. More women that men are enrolled in college at this point in time.

We have brilliant leaders like Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Muriel Siebert, Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth Dole, Hillary Clinton, Sandra Day O’Connor, Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stewart, Carol Loomis, Carly Fiorina, and Ann Bancroft. The list could go on and on. Women are at the top of so many fields, even those considered to be strong suits for men.

Your original statement was that men can beat women at anything other than childbirth. And in making that false statement, you did nothing more than assert your opinion, not state a fact. Women and men may have different biological strengths, but many of the attributes given to either sex are societal constructs.

I cannot believe anyone in support of life would undermine the great contribution that women make to society. Women can give life. In the short history of humankind, men only seem to be capable of taking lives. Men fight the wars and women undo their damage. Can we agree on that much, Jack?

By lozen

June 3, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Hey Eaton, I guess I missed something! When did you call men overbearing baboons? I really am enjoying your posts because they are intelligent and thoughtful.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Right back at ya, lozen…and I don’t remember the overbearing baboons part…must have posted that while in a fugue state!

By Ben

June 3, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

JJ, I did not contradict myself, you misunderstood the context and the attempt at a PC joke. The comment suggested that a man is not going to be overly protective because there is a woman around. Marines and soldiers in combat are protective of those around them, and sometimes sacrifice themselves. Putting a woman in the middle of that probably won’t change the bond or the courage it takes to protect those you fight with.

The women I have come in contact with were NOT trained to deal with combat. I was referring to other challenging decisions that don’t even compare to the stress and reality of combat. If a woman has a hard time ordering a person to do an every day task, how would they choose to select a person to be the first one to enter a house, or go check out an enemy position.

Here’s a REAL example. Once the invasion was over and we set up camp, as usual we created a base that was protected by fighting positions covering the perimeter of the base. Well, you obviously don’t pull the grunts to stand post, so they take Marines from the different units and post them. One of those Marines was a female and she was posted with a male. Typically, in the middle of the night, one will sleep and the other will watch. Well it was her turn to watch and she saw three combatants sneaking toward the camp. She freaked and woke the other guy who without hesitation popped illum flares and lit up the 50 cal machine gun.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

TT, Good post! I would have to disagree on some of the women you call brilliant, but I agree with the rest of your post. It’s really impossible for us to know the true differences between males and females because we are all trained at such a young age to fit into societal constructs of what a girl is supposed to be like and what a boy is supposed to be like. Many parents aren’t even aware they’re doing that. jWe think they were born that way. We treat them differently and we expect them to act differently from the day they’re born. Many of the contributions women have made to the world were considered inconsequential at the time and were lost to us. A good example is all the women artists we’re discovering who were just as good as the men of their time; they were ignored just because they were women.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Lozen, contradict make not be the best choice of words but it ruined your whole reasoning in my eyes. When you totally and completely suggest that women regardless of the situation bare the responsibility and choice to do what the want because it is their body and they are the ones who birth, care for, and have to go through the emotional and physical pain you can’t then turn around and HOWEVER men share the responsibility in birth control. If we don’t have a say, then WOMEN should be the ones to allow or PREVENT pregnancy.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Ben, you yourself admit that the women you worked with, and I quote, “Weren’t trained for combat”. Do you think, just maybe that training makes a difference? If women were trained just like the men from the beginning and given the same challenges and responsibilities, don’t you expect that the ones fit for command will step up, just like their male counterparts?

The simple fact is, this isn’t a hypothetical argument. Other nations have women in combat and haven’t suffered for it. Women have proven their ability, but with typical American arrogance we’ve chosen to ignore that fact and hold on to our silly prejudices. The same, by the way, goes for gays in the Millitary.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Ben, honey! I have several questions about your post. 1) If you had been in her place and saw combatants sneaking toward camp, what would you have done? It’s obvious you wouldn’t have freaked and woke the other guy on duty with you, but it’s unclear what you think should have been done. 2) Who was it who freaked? She woke him up? He popped illum flares and lit up the machine gun? Sounds like he’s the one who freaked. Am I missing something?

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 3, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Very nicely stated, TT.

Jack-How about nursing? How many men excel in nursing, a splendid mix of empathy, intuition, intelligence, and physical stamina. Not as well paid or respected as one would hope, but absolutely necessary in the medical and healing arts.

Of course the whole male versus female thing is a male construct where males are the measure of all things. Women are often less interested in competition, i.e. “being the best” than they are in getting the job done for the greater good; they are negotiators and compromisers; it takes a lot of that to be a good mother, teacher, nurturer, which gee, incidentally are often not held in very high esteem nor paid well by society.

Ultimately I think it’s more destructive to choose a career or vocation with the goal of “being the best” as though it’s not worth doing unless you get a a medal for it. Feeling good about what you do and doing it well, is every bit a measure of success as monetary payment or notoriety, and in fact may be more substantial in the long run as it guides relationships, compassion, and cultural and spiritual evolution.

By TT

June 3, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Again, Ben, you’re working within a societal construct that women would be less inclined to think on their feet and more inclined to falter when it comes to tough decisions. Think of lionesses: They have been conditioned to kill, to protect their prides, and to be fierce and fast. They haven’t had male lions questioning their abilities along the way.

Women are perhaps more inclined to engage in collaboration and obey orders (again societal conditioning). But then again, do we really want rogue soldiers that do not follow protocol and start firing off rounds at the first hint of danger? I had a friend die in Iraq due to friendly fire. His counterparts were a bit too eager to act without consulting their peers and leadership.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

I don’t know about the other services but I know female Marines recieve very BASIC training called Marine Combat Training. It’s nothing compared to what the infantry units do. A lot of women can’t handle that stress alone. If there were a woman who could endure the training and could prove her ability to lead in all environments, then hell, I’d be right next to her. Training makes a lot of different but that training starts with people that are already capable to a degree of handling the environment.

But the bottom line here is that the front lines are a mans world. It sounds chauvanistic, but that’s just the way it is. There is so much that goes on out there and so much that goes on within the unit that 95-98 percent of women just couldn’t handle. My wife was a Marine and she’d be the first to tell you that the majority of women couldn’t handle it. And she spent a lot time hanging around air and ground units.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Ben, the point I was trying to make yesterday was that from an ethical or moral perspective, what you are suggesting is flawed.

Look at it from a different angle. Let’s say you’re a shop owner. Ultimately, it’s YOUR responsibility to prevent theft in your store because it’s your store. However, ethical shoppers in your store make this easier on you by not attempting to steal. If someone does steal from you, you suffer for it - they don’t. However, the ethical and moral compasses of the average individual prevent that person from stealing and inflicting that upon you, the store owner.

An unethical person might steal without remorse, thinking that if you failed to provide adequately for your own defense you deserved whatever happened to you. However, society as a whole does not condone that behavior.

So, if we are to behave ethically and morally, extending this metaphor to sexual activity, yes, one could conclude that the ULTIMATE responsibility does rest with the person who is most affected. However, our ethical, moral structures suggest that there in an equal onus on other involved parties as ethical individuals to do one’s best to avoid circumstances that might inflict harm or distress on another.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Lozen, My first reaction would have been to pop light and eliminate the threat. That moment of poor judgement could have cost people their lives. The could have been getting in range to send ordnance into the camp, or they could have been there to plant IEDs on a route frequently traveled by our forces leaving. That is not a time to freak out or analyze the situation or go say “what are you doing here?”

TT, I have friends that died in Iraq because others hesitated. There are plenty of rules and guidelines in war, depending on how you assess the situation, their isn’t time to get “permission.” Sometimes that’s a reality of war even though it isn’t what people want to hear. Protocol when you are protecting a post in combat is to eliminate the threat without risking the lives of those on your team that you are protecting. And the first hint of danger can sometimes be the last hint if you know what I mean.

Lions don’t have anything to do with this. Blame societal construct if you want, but until women are raised like men, they won’t be on the front lines.

By Netbanker

June 3, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! OIY I’m having a meeting day from heck so I’m in and out of here quickly.

RS…I do remember that place. You must have learned to make that matzo ball soup in Boca from a fabulous bubbie.

Jack…I think there is some research on women fighter pilots out performing men. It goes back to how their bodies handle G forces, etc. Wish I had more time today to research it, but running from pilar to post.

Lola…hope to see you next week. And what is UP with the WEATHER? I’m just waiting for an announcement that GA Power is going for another rate increase to make up for the money they aren’t making due to no one using the air conditioners or heat in this freaky weather pattern.

Where is Whiley?! I have to pee again! Am I breaking her law if someone else touches it?

LaShelle…what’s the car status?

Everyone…have a dry weekend and safe weekend if I don’t get back here before 5pm. Off to dazzle with brilliance or baffle with BS in the next round o’ meetings!

By Netbanker

June 3, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

One last thing. A few words of wisdom sent today from my Mama:

Don’t assume malice for what stupidity can explain.

The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at a tempting moment.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Ben, You are right, I guess I didn’t get your PC humor. I thought you were making a statement that trained Marines & Soldiers regardless of their gender would do what needed to be done.
In your real life situation, what type Marine was she prior to being put in that situation? Would a male Marine of the same caliber freak in the same situation.
I’m not sure that her gender is what caused her to ‘freak.’ History tells us the males ‘freak’ in war zones also.
Please clarify something for me? According to your wife, the majority of women could not handle ‘it’ ‘It’ being? War? Training for the USMC’s? Does she think the majority of women trained to be Marines couldn’t handle doing their job as Marines? Regardless of whether that job is pick up a M-16 and join the lines or work as Air Support?

By the way, I really enjoy your post, and find you to be an intelligent man with good insights.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

I understand what you are saying Eaton, but I guess I’m just too big a fan of personal responsibility. I just think that if a woman believes so strongly in her right as a child bearer, deliverer and that men have no say, then she should bare the responsibility of protecting or not protecting herself. And if a man chooses to sleep with a woman that’s not on BC and he doesn’t wear a condom, then he need to accept the consequences of his actions.

And on a side note for all of you that insist that women reproduce, and women can give life. Well you can’t do it alone.

By TT

June 3, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

I agree, Ben, hesitation has no doubt cost many lives in war times, but so has impulsivity (and if you want to assign that characteristic to men, you need only look at who is usully first to take off their pants in the bedroom or who speaks out in a first-grade classroom).

Men have been running wars for so long and the death tolls have only decreased with technology, not with more hand-to-hand combat or troops on the ground. Technology is the future of warfare, because it erodes human error.

Women will not be raised like men if barriers are constructed to prevent them from adhering to the intuition to protect themselves and others. Men have rendered women the protected and not the protectors. The lionesses represent a perfect example, because they show that innately, females of a species have the same, if not better capabilities for killing, defense, and garnering food (earning a living, so to speak).

Women may not be able to compete on the frontlines, but one day, when you stop trying to tell them their place, they will be able to. The question is: are you going to stand aside and allow women to embrace these capabilites or are you going to be an obstacle to societal evolution?

By Ben

June 3, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Thanks JJ, she was talking about women in combat. She was a photographer and had to tag along with ground and air units, shoot helicopter crashes and junk like that.

As far as the freak out thing goes, most of the male Marines were dying to shoot at the enemy and would have gladly unloaded the 50 cal. There are great women Marines out there that are excellent in their fields, and I don’t have a problem with women or homosexuals in the military — as long as they carry their weight. I just don’t think women should be on the frontline and with infantry units.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Ben, I’m sorry for your loss. One question, those that hesitated, where they always female Marines? Or did males hesitate and were some losses related to their ability to handle the situation? War is difficult on all, especially those on the front lines, hesitation, freaking, whatever does not have a gender bias.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

TT, I’m not telling a women her place. I’m saying I don’t think they should be on the front lines, but I’m not making policy. But you are absolutely right, technology is taking over the battlefield, but guess what, that technology is manned in the rear not on the frontlines. And I said I would stand next right to a capable woman.

I don’t know how much you know about the military and the units that fight on the front lines, but to know them is to understand why allowing women to be a part of that life is not a good thing and will actually be counter productive in a sense.

JJ, if she is still here, can probably tell you a little about Marine grunt units. If not I have a couple of scenarios for you.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Ben, I see this as two issues, and I don’t mean this in an insulting way at all, but it sounds like you’re big on OTHER people’s personal responsibility. It would seem to me that it is as much the personal responsibility of the man to put on a condom as it is the woman’s to make sure the man is wearing it. As you pointed out, it takes TWO to create life.

I understand where you are coming from, really I do. You think that a man should have a say-so in whether he becomes a father. But I look at it this way - forget pregnancy for a moment, the minute that one person has the right to dictate what another fully competent person does with his or her body against that person’s wishes or best interests, we have a problem.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Ben, I respect your postition… as someone on the front line, you probably know better than most. By the way Thanks for putting your life on the line for our country, freedoms and the ablity to have these discussions.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

JJ, not always. And I see the point you are getting at, but the scenarios were much different. Hesitation and inaction are two different things.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Now, maybe I’m being overly sensitive, so if I am, tell me. But what did you mean by the “— if they carry their weight” crack? Is there something that would lead you to believe that gay men and women are somehow inherently less likely to do their duties?

By JJ

June 3, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Ben, inaction would of been not waking the other guy up… you said that the situation was handled, maybe not the best way…. but without loss of life of any of her team.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Eaton, it probably is two is, and I have no problem with what you said. I guess when I argue a point, I argue it from my perspective and not the perspective of others. I believe personal responsibility for everybody. In my eyes it’s crazy for a woman to argue about men not taking responsibility in protecting against pregnancy and say that they are in total control and have the say so over their bodies. It only makes perfect sense that if you have that control and say, you should either make the man wear a condom or be on the pill. You just can’t blame a man for you getting pregnant if you are protecting yourself.

Then again, I have never had sex without a condom with anyone that I wouldn’t have stayed with and supported the child.

By Lyrazel

June 3, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Hopefully one day soon the pharmaceutical companies will actually create a spray-on condom with advanced spermicidal active ingredients that also prevents 9 out of 10 sexually transmitted diseases. Used in conjunction with a womans pill or patch it assists men to be: never decieved by her NOT on the pill, always ready for lovin…with zero inconvienence. Or a patch for men that decreases the sperm count—for the Married-Without-@%$###%! pill. Why they have YET to do this is strictly politics as usual. Wink wink. Anyway, hope you all have a wonderful weekend….

By Ben

June 3, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Yes Eaton you were being sensitive. lol I meant as long as they can perform and do their job, I have no problem with anybody being in the military. I would rather have a gay guy in my unit that could do his job before a straight can’t who couldn’t. Like I said along time ago, I don’t judge people by who they share their pillow with. I’m sure some gay guys are quite capable.

JJ, I wasn’t actually a grunt. I was a combat correspondant babysitting an imbed. But as you know, every Marine is a rifleman first. NOW. That inaction could have cost lives. The three guys were actually carrying grenades and small arms, the inaction could have allowed them to get close enough to actually get the grenades over the fence and in there effective range.

By TT

June 3, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Ben—

I have knowledge of the military, particularly women in combat. My master’s thesis was on women in military movements. I am pursuing my doctorate in International Security, and I do hope to make policy one day, rather than merely discuss it.

I would love to hear your examples of women not succeeding in combat, but I suspect that the failures you attribute to femininity are actually the result of a myriad of other factors. You have only given individual examples and they appear heavily colored by your personal opinion. I have heard all of the arguments against women on the frontline and none of them are sound; they are all rooted in misperception and social constructs that other, egalitarian societies (Israel, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua, Colombia, a few that embrace women’s contributions in conflict) do not contort to fit.

Please show me statistics that indicate that a woman, for example, one in the Israeli army, could not compete with a man on the frontlines of battle. In the United States, women have been cloistered from conflict and they have been denied access to the frontlines, even today. How do you know that they cannot be on the frontlines when they have never been allowed to stand alongside men in the battle trenches?

By Ben

June 3, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

I meant AREN’T protecting yourself earlier. oops

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Ben, yeah I figured that’s what you meant. Knee-jerk reaction.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Ben, although I respect your opinions… I still feel ‘freaking out’ and waking the other guy was an action. Not the best in that situation. Freezing up, doing nothing allowing the combatants to get in with the grenades… that is inaction. What strikes me the most… the situation you give of a woman doing a substandard job on the front line did not result in loss of life…. but you acknowledge that males may have hesitated and you lost friends related to those actions. Seems it is easier to blame a female for not handling frontline conditions than it is to blame a male.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Well TT, let’s start with the Israeli Army. Israeli women just like everyone else is obligated to serve 2 years in the military. They are raised and brought up knowing they will serve. Their military service is different because their social makeup (feud with Palestinians over Gaza) and they are not involved in typical combat. They are fighting mostly terrorist, and they actually serve in a similar capacity as American women who end up in combat “situations.” Israeli women don’t see frontline combat anymore because of a study conducted by their army medical corps in Jerusalem last year that found they weren’t as physically capable.

I don’t have a lot of examples because women don’t serve on the front lines. I only know of instances where they were in combat situations and failed to act. The girl didn’t even grab her M-16 while the guys was shooting. And let’s take America’s sweetheart Jessica Lynch. Her convoy was overran and she didn’t even fire her weapon. Had she, she may have never been captured.

No matter what you study and what you think this opinion is based on, women shouldn’t serve on the front lines. Yes it hasn’t been tested, but when IS the best time to test it? Maybe right now when lives are at stake?

And to be perfectly honest with you, the only women griping about women on the front lines are the women that arent’ even in the military. If you want to do a study, take some young guy who was on the front lines and let him give intimate details to a bunch of women that want to be GI Jane and see how they feel.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

JJ, I see what you are saying, and their are guys whose actions are much worse. I’m just giving examples of women in pressure situations. And as far as the males hesitation costing lives, there’s no guarantee that had he reacted differently, things would be different.

I don’t blame anybody for anything. You know as well as anyone here Marines train everyday, every month every year. But when you are actually put into these situations life is a lot different and all the training in the world doesn’t matter. One second can cost lives or save lives, and the two scenarios are really different.

And the reason I asked you about grunt units is because a lot of people don’t understand how these guys live, and 98 percent of the women I know couldn’t handle that aspect of being on the front lines.

By RS

June 3, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Netbanker: It’s nice to talk about “home” although I hated the place & am much much much happier here in Atl. Actually I taught myself to cook. You can ask my husband how good I am at it too. Oh wait. You can’t; he’s in the hospital having his stomach pumped (LOL)

By JJ

June 3, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Ben, if that same young guy that was on the front lines gave the same details to a bunch of men that want to be GI Joe, the majority of them would change how they feel about it also! War isn’t pretty; it really isn’t what the majority of people want to do.
What women want is the same right to volunteer if they feel like they can do the job. We still have volunteer armed forces in the US; all citizens should have the right to put their lives on the line if they choose to.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Ben, missed the question about grunts… could you repeat?

By Ben

June 3, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

JJ, you are absolutely right! Let the women volunteer if they want to, but make it so NO rules are changed to accomdate them. Let them live the life of a grunt in the rear and not just on the battlefield.

Make them sleep in the same squad bays, use the same showers, carry the same size gear, pee on the trees without a bodyguard and no sexual harassment when they get offended by the language or way these guys talk and live. Give them the full experience and we’ll see who stays. If they do, I would follow them.

But until that happens, they don’t need to be on the frontlines.

By TT

June 3, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Ben— The point is this: you are representing your personal opinion, not the facts. You don’t want women to serve on the frontlines, so you must attack their ability to do so, using nondescript, personal examples.

And right now, when we have a shortage of troops and the army cannot meet its quota for recruitment, seems like the time when women could really contribute to the war effort. In a society where strength is given precedence over other values, women must be given the chance to prove their mettle, if they so desire. If a good citizen is one that serves in the military, then women should have the opportunity to prove that they have courage under fire. By denying them that right, you are relegating them to second-class citizens.

Have you ever heard of the Tigers of Tamil or the FARC in Colombia? The women in those separatist movements are considered more dangerous than the men. They wear vials of poision around their necks in the event that they are captured, they can load a machine gun faster than most of the uneducated recruits that the U.S. ships to Iraq, they are willing to die for their cause or sacrifice themselves to protect their fellow fighters.

If anything, the scandal at Abu Ghraib showed us the caliber of some of our troops on the ground in Iraq. If we are sending troops that come from one-stoplight towns and men who can’t make it through college or cannot find a decent job and have to resort to the military for employment to fight in our wars, surely we can send some qualified women.

In fact, the irony is, all of those little men on the ground in Iraq would not be there if one woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had said no. Perhaps you’re right, keep us off the frontlines and back at the Pentagon, calling the shots for the people who have more brute strength than intelligence (not all of our troops are that way, but the demographics of our enlisted men indicate that the majority of them do not have a college education and come from rural areas).

By Ben

June 3, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

I said if you were still on the blog, you would know how grunts are, how they live and how they act. And how no woman would really want to be a part of that

By Ben

June 3, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

and for those of you who say women are the way they are because of societal contrust — Change society before you go changing the military, it’ll save lives.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Lol Ben - I got to say, this has been an interesting discussion, but…your statement “how no woman would really want to be a part of that”…totally based on stereotype and assumptions. How do you KNOW there are no women who would want to live like that? You might say “most” women and I would be more inclined to agree with you, but you’re talking in absolutes.

By TT

June 3, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Ben—

You do not understand what social construction is. Social construction refers to the attributes that society assigns a particular gender. It does not mean that women are actually physically weak, more prone to hesitation in conflict, or more protective of life, it just means that society labels them as such. What men define as femininity may not be what it is in reality. Stereotyping would be a better term. For example, you are stereotyping women as unfit for combat, but you have no proof that they are really incapable of fighting on the frontlines.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

TT, now you are starting to NOT make sense. Everybody here is representing their personal opinions. And if you want facts for your study, put down the books and put down the paper and go over to Iraq and hang out with a Force Recon unit or Specials forces unit, or an infantry unit and then come back and inform your opinion.

No one is calling women second class citizens. But you describe men that fight on the front lines as barbarians, neanderthals and uneducated one stoplight town people.

I think you need to reevaluate your study and put down the Vietnam books, most enlisted military men are educated and are enrolled in college courses, news flash, some even have degrees.

And I know of all of the female military groups you speak of. There is a big difference between them and us and that is they were are destined to serve in the military usually by LAW. And like I said, if you want to change society, don’t start with the military.

And just for your information, the President doesn’t need Congressional approval to send in the Marines.

By Ben

June 3, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Have a good weekend people. I have to go pick up my wife from the airport, so I can make her clean the house, cook me dinner and bare my child. lol

By Crystal

June 3, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Ah, Ben, you are dealing with a woman who has “knowledge of the military”. Your actual experience in the military will not affect her foregone conclusions. She has already decided that women are perfect and equal in all ways to serve in the military. Even her “facts” are from the smaller countries of the world. What a way to write a thesis.

I deal with scientific research where conclusions are not reached on “feelings” or minutiae. Tests and experiments are conducted and results and statistics are presented. Then conclusions are drawn from facts. Even a social experiment must be done without bias. JJ shows no evidence of an “open mind” or what might be called impartial research.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Ben, I have no problem with most of that statement. If women are willing to take equal responsibility, volunteer, etc… I don’t believe that they should get special treatment. I do believe that they’re females that are capable of doing that job. I don’t believe that any person male or female should have to tolerate crude sexual innuendoes. I know men that are just as uncomfortable when they are with women that make sexual comments…. Neither group should have to be subjected to it. It does effect a person’s performance in a job. However if neither the females nor males are uncomfortable with the language or discussion… all is fine.

I did have the opportunity to serve with a grunt unit for a year. It was not the best time I had in the Corps, but it wasn’t something I wasn’t physically up to. Because as TT points out, they aren’t the most educated group in the service. I still believe women have the right to decide many things, like whether to have a baby or volunteer to be in a combat situation, and men need to stop legislating what women can or can’t do.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 3, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Then change society before rolling back abortion laws. It will save lives, too.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Ben enjoy your weekend. Crystal…. I am not research… I speek from my time in the Marine Corps, and a life time of family members serving. TT is doing research, sorry if initial/details aren’t your strong suit.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Crystal, I wonder what qualifies you to discard TT’s research so lightly? Is it your area of expertise? No? Then why in the world do you think you are qualified in any way to dismiss her methodology with such flippancy? Just because she doesn’t buy into your Donna Reed fantasy world, she must be wrong, huh?

And since the US is just now beginning to integrate women into its combat roles, I think it makes perfect logical sense to look to other groups where the practice is more ingrained.

Oh, I don’t believe that Condoleeza Rice ever served in the military either, yet she has been responsible for policy. Are you suggesting that she shouldn’t be doing so?

By RS

June 3, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

I work with a lady who served in the Army when she was younger & she was able to keep up with (& even surpass many) any of the men. ANd for any of you fellas rolling your eyes & thinking “Oh I can only imagine!”, she also happens to be very feminine & attractive. So much for old stereotypes.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

excuse me…. doing research.

By TT

June 3, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Ben—

You are incorrect and once again making fiction seem like fact. I have a good many friends in the military, some serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are college educated and many of them are officers. But they send sad narratives home of the uneducated masses that make up the majority of their units.

Give me an example of our stellar military men with amazing educations. The truth is: people who have a higher level of education and marketable job skills rarely opt to serve on the frontlines of the military unless they feel called to do their patriotic duty.

And I believe you need to pick up some books, instead of advising me to put them down. Some of the posters on this blog have been backing up their opinions with facts, instead of more offering more opinion and fictional stories. GIVE ME PROOF THAT WOMEN ARE LESS QUALIFIED TO SERVE IN COMBAT instead of your opinion, because the facts indicate otherwise.

There have been so many parallels between military service and being a good citizen, that even you cannot deny the correlation. You seem to be incapable of drawing the logical conclusion that if women cannot serve in the military and defend our country, then society renders them less valuable.

In addition, the groups I mentioned do not require military service, the women of that society feel empowered and equal to the men, and they choose to fight. And for your information, the Secretary of State is not a member of Congress, but she does set our foreign policy and advise the President on what military actions to pursue.

By JJ

June 3, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Have a great weekend all… enjoyed today discussion. TT keep up the research, maybe with documentation we can start changing the minds of those that make policy.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

I remember an older woman saying she would have gladly traded places with her husband when he was in the military. He got to travel all over the world while she got to stay home and wash diapers, mop up vomit and take care of four kids 24/7. He got paid for what he did while she was expected to do her “job” for nothing… but love! He got medals, she got criticism for the mistakes the kids made. People praised him for serving his country and made it obvious to her that what she did was of no importance.

By TT

June 3, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Crystal—

Are you pursing a doctorate in International Security and have you ever written a thesis? My work had to pass through several channels of approval (including a panel comprised of several CIA operatives and military officers. In this forum, I was evaluated on the soundness and validity of my facts and the practicality of my research question.

I set out to find out if women were physically capable of serving on the frontlines of combat. I was not sure they were, and in fact, I would prefer that women (or men) did not die in wars. But, time and time again, across regions and cultures, I found the same thing. Women could be trained to kill, and they could do so with the same capabilities as men. In many cases, they were gifted at stealth, they could conduct missions in broad daylight because they were not suspected of being combatants, and they were better able to endure missions in inhospitable climates where food rations were limited.

I feel more than prepared to defend my research, especially to someone who considers any nation on this planet to be small and insignificant. We live in a global society where every country matters and we can learn lessons from other societies. Why do you think we even practice diplomacy and free trade? Why do you think we travel and seek knowledge of distant lands?

What expertise do you have to bring to this topic? Are you only passing through to spout disdain for women’s equality? Are you merely here to flatter the men on our board by playing the weaker sex? It seems that you are the one with the preconceived notions that women are not capable of accomplishing the same feats that men can. It’s quite sad, really, for you to underestimate yourself. I only hope that you do not pass along the same ignorance to your daughters.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Everybody, same place, same time? This week’s topic was pretty good, let’s see what they come up with next week! If anybody is a Barbara Kingsolver fan, or concerned about the environment, U.S. politics, global issues or just some things to think about, read this:

http://www.centre.edu/web/news/2005/kingsolverbread05.html

By Crystal

June 3, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

TT,JJ,ET,et al….

Do try research, the real unbiased kind. You’ll like it.

As to Condi Rice, smart lady that she is, likes being Secretary of State, not general in the army. She does not want or need “groups” empowering her or opening doors for her. Smart people are like that.

By lozen

June 3, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

And TT, you go girl!

By Tim

June 3, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

nice response Crystal… go bake another pie

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Way to respond there, Crystal. Wow…you really blew us away with that one.

By Eaton

June 3, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

One wonders how Crystal knows what smart people like.

By Crystal

June 3, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Oh, I almost missed TT’s sermon. Sorry, TT, no PhD, just a degree and post grad work in biology to become a member of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. You know. Science! I don’t need a “lift” on women’s equality because I was raised with it. Great home. Great family. Fine father and husband. The greatest and the great ones don’t denigrate women. Sorry you haven’t discovered that in your “research”.

By TT

June 3, 2005 05:12 PM | Link to this

Crystal—

I have done plenty of research, the kind you conduct in college, as well as graduate and doctoral schools. But I doubt you are familiar with higher education. I was able to pursue my education thanks to my ambitious mother and grandmother, as well as positive male role models like my father and grandfather, who told me that I could do anything I set my mind to. What a novelty! They thought women could be equal to men!

But I bet that you, being so smart, probably got where you are all on your own, without the women that came before you fighting for your right to actually be in the workforce and do “research” (sarcasm). I also see you’ve yet to provide your qualifications. Maybe you can research them this weekend or find some man to do it for you.

It’s obvious from all of your posts that you are a needy, ignorant person, probably the kind or irresponsible person that latches onto a man no matter how bad it gets. You’re probably consistently disappointed with the relationships in our life. In fact, you might just be the kind of women who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. And to bring it full circle, you’re probably lobbying against the rights that you and other women have to make decisions for yourself.

Have you ever heard the expression, “those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it?” Perhaps you would like returning to the dark ages of brutality and rape or the Victorian era where you could not work and had to rely on a man to support you.

I pity you for your ignorance and arrogance. But a college education is relatively inexpensive in Georgia, so perhaps you can grow in the long run. It’s independence, my friend, that is expensive. It’s what all of the pioneers for women’s equality fought for, and it’s what you stupidly thumb your nose at.