Woman to Woman

By Brian Curtis

August 1, 2005 07:31 AM | Link to this

Well, Shaunti has convinced me. We definitely need to make abortion safer and less medically risky to allay women’s concerns about having one.

By Bruce

August 1, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this

First we have the question of when life begins and now Diane is questioning the term birth. Talk about spin-marketers……..

By Whiley

August 1, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this

Women need abortion rights because as far as I know, there is no perfect contraceptive yet. And as far as I know, there are no perfect women, either.

By Archie

August 1, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

The question should be will women set women back? Women voted for Bush in substantial numbers. I mean you can’t complain about who he puts on the Supreme Court when you voted for him. It was terrible what this administration did with Schiavo but this administration has done whatever it wanted to do since Bush took over. Shanti seems to be so agenda-driven beyond objectivity.

By Whiley

August 1, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

YES SOME women do/will set all women back. (funny how they all seem to be religious fanatics)

Choice means the right of each person to control their own life. It means that you can decide whether or not you have sex, whether or not you are pregnant, and when and if you have children — and that no one can make those choices for you. In order to make these decisions for ourselves, we need education about our options, access to reproductive health services regardless of where we live or how much money we make, and the freedom to make our decisions without government interference.

By Jack

August 1, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

Nice to hear from you Whiley. Thought you had given up on us. :)

By Joe

August 1, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Consider this: All Americans have certain inalienable rights, among them the right to LIFE. Doesn’t an American child, once conceived, deserve this most fundamental right?

For those of you who no doubt disagree, why do you not also advocate a woman’s right to infanticide? Who should force a woman to care for an infant that while out of the womb, is still totally dependant on her for survival?

By Macon

August 1, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Why does Shaunti bring in international studies when the question is about the United States? What does a Finnish study have to do with abortion in the U.S.? The healthcare here is far superior to that of Africa. Any comparison of the U.S. to Africa is ludicrous and off point.

By Chilao

August 1, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

looks like we about to have another week of Kommunista/Liberal vs. Fascists/Conservatives..

LOL

I do find it interesting that Pro-Lifers are usually the most prone to be FOR Capital Punishment and Pro-Choicers are most prone to be AGAINST Capital Punishment.

huh?

on topic, of course Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation will set women back, as well as the country. Seems we have another WASP male as the nomination. Must not have been any qualified women or minorities..

By Chilao

August 1, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

The human body does not have national boundaries.

By Patrick

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

Joe,

If you/they can take care of a fetus that has been removed from the womb, I say go for broke. I am sure there are ways to remove the fetus without killing it. A woman is not forced to take care of an infant. They can leave the infant with one of the many agencies/organizations created for that purpose.

The problem with the “right to life” is deciding when life actually starts. Is it at conception, birth, or somewhere in-between.

By Whiley

August 1, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Thank you Jack ! I never gave up, the topics didn’t interest me. This one is personal. Remember I was around when abortion wasn’t legal.
Too many people have forgotten what that was like.

Republican view on Choice: We believe that abortion should be legal in four circumstances: (1) rape or incest, (2) risk to the mother’s health, (3) risk to the mother’s life, and (4) me.”

By Bruce

August 1, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Life begins at conception, before conception there is nothing but a dormant egg and sperm. Once the two meet changes begin. Those changes are called LIFE. Any smoke sent up to cloud that fact is strickly non-sense……

By Archie

August 1, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

It is interesting that Shanti uses a Finnish study because I thought it was wrong to compare the USA to any foreign country. We live in America and if it’s better somewhere else we would all move there(sarcasm). We need more conservatives to get away from party-line-thinking. No one had a problem with comparison studies across international lines until Bush made his statement about foreign countries not setting policy here in the States. I hope women retain the right of choice and anticipate they will.

By Ken

August 1, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

I hope this issue doesn’t just devolve into whether or not we should have legalized abortion in this country. There are so many other issues that are as or more important.

The question was about setting back women, and to be honest we simply do not know. There are many appointees who did not turn out as expected (i.e. Justice Souter and Justice Stevens) when based on the President nominating them.

This question should also be discussed while considering that Justice Rehnquist will most likely not be on the court much longer. Who will the President nominate for his position. Probably another minority, either a woman or a hispanic.

As for an international study… I normally do not like to compare the U.S. and other nations, however, this was not a societal study or an opinion study, but a study based on scientific data. A Finnish group made those conclusions about the death rates of women. The last I checked, Finland was European, not African, and I would imagine they have comparible health care to us. It is conclusive of nothing, but could be relevant to determining the dangers of abortion.

By Jack

August 1, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Looks like this one is turning into an abortion issue. Who are we to tell a female what to do with her body? Do you think it would be better to go back to the days of the back room & coat hanger? I think not.

By Brian Curtis

August 1, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Patrick: That’s an excellent idea! Republicans have already come out in favor of frozen embryos… so why not develop a procedure to extract and freeze any unwanted fetuses? They’ll stay “alive” (as alive as they ever are), and the woman will be free of an unwanted pregnancy. Who could argue with that?

Silly question, I know. There’s always someone who will argue with ANY solution in this area.

By kimberly

August 1, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, you’re a GENIUS! That being said, I’m gonna stay out of this one this week. No point in arguing with some of these yay-hoos.. But my answer is YES, we’re totally screwed. But any woman over 30 already knows that. I shall try to be good, so that in my next life I can come back as a man.

By BWILSON

August 1, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Heck,who knows what they do in Finland or what their procedures are like? I certainly am not going to believe any study from a foreign country. This America, so lets stick to American studies done in-house with US patients. We don’t need the input of any other country. After all, didn’t we learn a lesson when the FDA found out that purchasing drugs from Canada was potentially dangerous because of their loose regulations.

By Ken

August 1, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Jack… Have you taken the left-wing talking points, or did you simply read the attacks against Robert Bork?

There will always be extremists on both sides of any issue, so please don’t believe that all conservatives or liberals always take that extreme side. The extreme is always the side that the media portrays b/c it is the most sensational.

I don’t believe there are many folks who would want to go back to the days where abortion was illegal. I think the vast majority of folks would like to see a time when:

By Jack

August 1, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Ken. No I’m taking the Jack talking points. I consider myself in the middle-right. I being a man don’t feel qualified to tell a woman what to do with her body. I don’t consider abortion in the first triminster murder either.

By Hirbod

August 1, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Assuming Roe is overturned, and every state in the Union decides to outlaw abortion (neither scenario likely), there is still an argument to be made about how this is actually good for women’s rights.

If Shaunti’s statistics are correct in that over 1 million women get abortions every year, we can assume 1/2 of those will be male and 1/2 female. If we take a modest estimate that of those females 1/2 will be viable (will result in live birth), then 250,000 women are going to be given the right to decide for themselves whether they will want to reproduce. Now that is what I call reproductive rights!

By Lily

August 1, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Jack, you hit the nail right on the head with your comment, “Do you think it would be better to go back to the days of the back room & coat hanger?” Should we run the risk of creating thousands of medical cases every year of women who, out of desperation, try to abort their own fetuses? Health care costs would skyrocket! Women who couldn’t afford a baby in the first place would be creating an even bigger burden on our pocketbooks by subjecting themselves to such barbaric measures.

To me, this is not an issue of when life begins or alternatives to abortion; it’s about my choice. My government has no business telling anyone what to do or not do with his or her body. Wouldn’t men be furious if they were restriced from having vasectomies? (Not all men, mind you, but a significant chunk of the population.) The choice to end a pregnancy is between me and my Maker. I don’t advocate abortion as a means of birth control, and would tell anyone who asked to give up the child as opposed to abort it, but not all women make that choice.

Losing Justice O’Connor will be a travesty because she is one of the few that seem to know all this.

It’s about my freedom to make the decision. Big Brother, stay out!

By Nikita

August 1, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

re: the study, i suspect shaunti is using it in a way that is misleading. there is a book out there, freakonomics, which explores the grey areas of statistics — specifically the ways in which they can be inaccurately correlated. shaunti seems to be implying that abortion itself makes a woman 3.5 times more likely to die than does birth. however, given some of the many reasons that people get abortions, the truth may be that the statistics actually support a pro-choice argument. namely if the women who have had abortions are more likely to die due to high-risk behavior (crime, drug use, etc.), then it’s better that they not give birth.

By Whiley

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

The anti-abortion promoters may be pro-embryo, but they certainly are NOT pro-life. It’s just possible that it’s not life that’s so precious to politicians. Maybe it’s control over women. Let us hope it will never have to come to that, but it’s starting to look grim though. Too many women are just allowing this to happen. Not doing anything to prevent it, and men like George Bush certainly don’t help. Do not tell me there were no qualified women available for the supreme court position. We are over 50% of the population ! This is madness.

By Augustine

August 1, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Lily that’s crap! Abortions are NO LESS dangerous now than when they were done back in day before there was a law making it legal. BACK ROOM & COAT HANGERS? Lilt I don’t know how to break this to you but the day the “LAW” went into effect the only thing the “doctors” did was to put the sign out front. It was the same room! The only improvements made to the “Industry” were assembly line approaches in order to get more women into the money making clinics!

By Bruce

August 1, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

The answer to that one is simple. Not all women feel they are being taken advantage of or controlled as you do. In fact I would guess that those that feel as you do are a very slim portion of the female population. Not everything is a conspiracy!!!!!

By Whiley

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

“Not all women feel they are being taken advantage of or controlled as you do.”

Bruce, yet another man speaking on behalf of what he thinks women want or need or feel. No offense but you have no idea what most women want, need or think.

Short of a takeover by the Taliban, it’s hard to imagine abortion being banned outright. If Roe goes, whoever has political power will determine the most basic, intimate, life-changing and life-threatening decision women — and only women — confront. We will have a country in which the same legislature that can’t prevent some moron from burning a flag will be able to force a woman to bear a child under whatever circumstances it sees fit. It is hard to imagine how that woman would be a free or equal citizen of our constitutional republic.

By Liz

August 1, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Augustine: While what you claim may be true of abortion providers for the wealthy, it is certainly not true of the less fortunate who couldn’t afford a “D&C.” Those people were left to the back alleys and coat hanger procedures. That’s the danger in restrictions on abortion. Each hurdle put in place may not make any difference to the middle and upper class of society, but they become insurmountable for those unable to afford multiple trips to a metropolitan area, one for the “talk,” and one for the “procedure.” But it’s no surprise to me that this doesn’t matter to politicians who pocket the money of the morally superior wealthy. Give me a break, please.

By Jack

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

Augustine. You may want to enter the real world.

By Heather

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

Women have full reproductive rights without abortion, its called saying no to sexual activities that might result in pregnancy. We want to be able to have sex when we want, with whom we want, in any way we want, and we want to not suffer any consequences for our decision to do so. Life just doesn’t work that way.

There are always the hard choices of rape, incest, and the death of the mother to consider but most of what has been posted here has been whining about women losing rights. Women losing the right to end the life of an unborn child when that child is not convenient. Take this right away from me. We women will be much better off without it.

By Whiley

August 1, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Women have full reproductive rights without abortion, its called saying no to sexual activities that might result in pregnancy.

Heather, Heather my dear, you are so incorrect. Forced pregnancy is having reproductive rights?? You must either be religious, or a man.

So instead of creating a birth control that would prevent unwanted pregnancies, or having abortion available, you’d rather control female sexuality.

Isn’t it ironic that it’s been almost a century, & hardly any new safe birth control has been invented? Do I think there is a conspiracy to control female sexuality? You bet I do.

Do I think George Bush PURPOSELY avoided electing a woman or minority so he could push his own agenda of “reproductive rights?” (which will never directly affect him BTW)

You BET I DO.

By Whiley

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

Heather I apologize. Choice & freedom mean you have every right to have your own beliefs. If you don’t want abortion you have every right to give birth when you don’t want to (for whatever reason) And as long as you don’t discriminate or oppress other women in the process.

By Eh Nonymous

August 1, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Nice parry and thrust by each side.

Shaunti: excellent use of your opponent’s argument against her. A gleefully malicious move, well done.

However, a medical opinion is not unenlightened- or perhaps better worded, “ignorant and wrong and blind”- merely because a left-leaning media or public or scientific body feel it is (assuming any of those are, in fact, left-leaning- an argument about which I simply could not care less).

A “medical” opinion - an opinion about the medical facts and prognoses and therefore likely causes and prognoses for the future - is “wrong” and “incorrect” and “stupid” when it has no basis in reality, in fact directly contravening it. When a doctor looks at a video of a patient, who is blind, because the visual cortex is utterly destroyed, and concludes that she is seeing and responding to those in the room, this is Bad. Bad, very bad.

I like erring on the side of life when there is doubt; thus, I believe the death penalty will often be a violation of due process, because courts are not in fact demanding that juries find that the defendant is proven guilty to a virtual certainty, such that any doubt cannot be reasonable.

But I don’t like erring on the side of faith, when medicine or science or facts line up a different way. I worship no God of Lies, and while others may choose to (And Yet It Moves) their faith is no matter for the public sphere. Let them chose doctors who don’t know or understand science, let them elect politicians who can’t count or understand models, and see where it gets them - and us.

Eh Nonymous is a law blogger who maintains Unused & Probably Unusable.

By Heather

August 1, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

I would definitely not wish to control female sexuality. Sex is great and should be available to all who wish to have it. But if a baby is created as a consequence, then give the child a chance to be born and enjoy the sexual act him/herself.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

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

Heather, you already have the right not to have an abortion. Just don’t do it! But, don’t try to Dictate your choice to the rest of the female population.

This whole thing is definitely about forcing other people to live as “you” want them to live. It’s not about the abortion, because there are many kids in foster homes and orphanages that are waiting for good homes. There was an article last week about the number of kids who do not have health insurance or are lacking healthcare at one point. If the anti-abortion people truly love women and children, they would provide better paying jobs, free healthcare, sex education, birthcontrol and child support laws.

By Whiley

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

Not giving women full rights to their own reproduction IS controlling women’s sexuality. If true equality is what you want, you & everyone else would be pressuring the govt. for a birth control that all women could take, have access to, & that was safe & affective. But preventing pregnancy has never been the goal. Stopping female freedom of sexuality is. That’s the perception anyway.

By Chilao

August 1, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

If it was not abortion rights(certainly the current hot-button issue), it would be something else. Tobacco, Alcohol, Adult Material, Hair length, dress-length, worship-method(and day), the list of possible FORCE ALL TO BEHAVE LIKE US is endless.

By Heather

August 1, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

So Amazed, you see abortion as the best way to cure the lack of jobs, a bad healthcare system, poor sex education, less that perfect birthcontrol, and terrible child support laws. If that’s the case, maybe we should go one step further and eliminate the lower classes who need these support systems. Is death preferable to experiencing these things?

By Bruce

August 1, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Now do you see what I mean Whiley. Not all women think and feel the way you do on these type issues. And look when a women (Heather) does speak out you attack her only because she doesn’t believe what you believe. Now who is using scare tactics?

By Heather

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

Controlling female freedom of sexuality sort of puts a crimp on male sexuality too, doesn’t it?

But there are ways to prevent pregnancy. And if those ways fail, have the baby and put it up for adoption.

We do not kill children after they are born, no matter what the situation, why are we killing them before they are born?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

August 1, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Heather,

No, death is not a preference - but these are real problems that need to be corrected, before conservatives try to fix a problem that is not specifically their problem to correct. Another womans choice does not directly effect the anti-abortion crowd at any point. The choice is between God and that woman, there is no third party intervention.

In addition, your statement regarding the lower class says a lot about you as a person. Also, the lower class(es) are not the only group seeking abortions. Abortion is very big in the middle and wealthy households. Poor people usually seek abortions because of financial circumstances. Young girls, because of bad choices. I’m still wondering about wealthy women, but that is still their choice.

By Whiley

August 1, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Bruce, did I or did I not apologize for being judgmental about her backward sad views? (hehe sorry I had to say that) What scare tactic are you talking about? Heather can believe what she wants. But I’ll bet YOUR life on it that the MAJORITY of women do not want their uterus owned by a bunch of grey haired men in Washington.

I mean, if we just sit on our arses & let this happen, before you know it we’ll have to start smuggling terrified pregnant women & teenagers into secret clinics where Dr’s perform in secret. We’ll have our own underground railroad. How charming. What’s your plan? Ban abortion and monitor everyone’s womb ? How about local government officials monitor women’s menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives?(if they still allow THAT) Do you realize not that long ago only married women had access to birth control? I can’t even imagine. Talk about scare tactics.

By Heather

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

Chilao, you said, “If it was not abortion rights(certainly the current hot-button issue), it would be something else. Tobacco, Alcohol, Adult Material, Hair length, dress-length, worship-method(and day), the list of possible FORCE ALL TO BEHAVE LIKE US is endless.”

So you see preventing unborn children from never drinking alcohol, smoking a cigarette, reading porn, growing hair, wearing clothes, and worshipping in any way is a victory for human rights?

By Heather

August 1, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Amazed, actually I am a proud member of the lower classes, single parent that I am. That was sarcasm. But I guess if you can’t recognize the value of human life then you might have a little problem recognizing sarcasm. I am glad to be alive, even though I struggle with near poverty. These children being killed everyday are not being given even that opportunity. Yes, I see these are problems that need to be corrected, but killing innocent children is not going to correct them.

And Whiley, don’t apologize for saying what you think, I certainly am today. Instead of smuggling women into underground abortion clinics, why don’t you encourage them to give birth and put the child up for adoption? Two lives saved that day.

By Chilao

August 1, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Heather - think you missed the point of that post. If there was NO abortion, there would certainly be another ISSUE that needed to be addressed by those that need to address what OTHERS do.(in other words, if you think abortion is wrong, SIMPLE, DON’T HAVE ONE)

right now it is abortion. but trust me, if EVERYONE got in line and there were NEVER any abortions AGAIN, there would always be ANOTHER hot-button(read control of others) issue.

By Patrick

August 1, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

Have you ever seen the movie “Fortress?” In the beginning of the movie, they have a checkpoint to find illegally pregnant women during population control. The female lead has a flak jacket around her so the scanners cannot detect her unborn baby.

By Heather

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

Chiloa, I didn’t miss your point. But I was asking you to consider it from a different angle. Not allowing children to be born is the ultimate in control. In that one act, a person is making every single decision for that future child it is possible to make.

We are not talking about preventing people from drinking or smoking dope here, we are talking about preventing people from committing murder. This is something that is already considered obvious by everyone’s standards. No one thinks murder is acceptable. What so many people don’t seem to get it that an unborn child is a life.

By Jack

August 1, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Ok. Where is Zack & Randy?

By Whiley

August 1, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Instead of smuggling women into underground abortion clinics, why don’t you encourage them to give birth and put the child up for adoption?

I would never EVER EVER try to talk a woman into going through an unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pain, unwanted risk to their lives, UNWANTED UNWANTED UNWANTED LABOR. If there are that many people waiting to adopt, WHY are there THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS of unwanted children being rotated around in bad foster homes?

WHEN has anyone ever heard of a pro-choice official trying to legally force all unwed mothers into having abortions that want to keep their babies? SEE HOW CRAZY THAT SOUNDS ?!! It’s just as insane to legislate forced pregnancies.

I mean really, to say a fetus is the same as a baby is a little nutz. To give a fetus rights over a grown woman is insane. Why is there only focus on a fetus, not the woman & what she wants.

Yes, I am terribly depressed a female wasn’t nominated to supreme court. WE deserve to have 50% of all positions in Govt. Nobody is going to give us our rights, we have to demand them & take them.

By Whiley

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

Heather IS Zack !

hehe

By Patrick

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

I was put up for adoption when I was born. I am thankful everyday for the parents I have. However, I am not going to try and force women to have babies. It is not my right. If my birth mother would have had an abortion, well I wouldn’t know because I wouldn’t be here. So what. I am amazed that more Christians don’t support pro-choice. I mean, the infant gets a free pass to heaven without having to experience all the heartache on Earth.

I suspect it is as others have stated. This isn’t about the infants but about control.

By Chilao

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

I wonder how many Pro-Lifers have written their congressman/woman to put a Federal ban on the death penalty? Murder is Murder, correct? Never understood why it was okay for the state but not for me. Guess it not the current hot-button issue.

By Heather

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

Let me share a story of my own. My mother did have an abortion. I was already grown when she told me about it but I remember when it was all going down. Her husband did not want the child and manipulated her into having an abortion. My mother became very depressed, suicidal really. She laid in bed day after day with no energy. She later developed an unrelated reproductive problem and had to have a hysterectomy. She told me when I was grown that she hated herself afterwards. She felt she deserved to have her womb ripped out because of what she did. She started drinking and that took her years to recover from. The right to an abortion is not all its cracked up to be. It brings with it severe emotional and mental complications that in some cases can never be erased. And before any of you jump to the conclusion that my mother must have been some “religious” person, she was not. She was your average woman on the street.

By snottyNozeBrat

August 1, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

If you are going to side up on “pro-life” please also post how many adopted children you have. If you have some, your opinions probably are the only ones with the right to be heard. The rest of us are noise.

Gosh, but if you’re for abortion, have them early, before it isn’t a viable human being. That third trimester abortion is a truly gruesome murder, but I guess it’s probably kinda nasty to be murdered even if you’re just a few weeks old and still look more like a fish than a human.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

August 1, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Heather,

Maybe it was the way you conveyed your sarcastic remarks. I do not advocate abortions, only the right to make that choice. I am a single mom as well and I value life. I do not see abortion as a way to correct the problems I pointed out earlier.

But, if you take the blinders off, you will see a much larger picture than your narrow view of precious life. You must love children outside of the uterus and be responsible for their well being - regardless if the child is your child or some poor uneducated woman. I am for all children being born, but society must be ready to meet the challenges once the child is born. Don’t cut the child off, because you are not happy that the mother continued to produce more off springs. “Hey” keep them coming…. The more you have, the happier the conservative republicans will be and they will continue to take care of you. I love life………. the above was true sarcasm at it’s best.

In addition: If you have a career/great paying job - poor women are not likely to have an abortion. This would lead to medical benefits and you will have the means to take care of the children in more ways than to just give birth. There is life after birth you know and without medical services, many children die from disease.

If we would allow sex education in school and birthcontrol, many young girls and boys would not find themselves in the situation that leads to the CHOICE. Parents don’t always talk with their kids as conservatives would like us all to believe. I know it’s bad parenting, but I’m more concerned about the kids than I am about the parents at this point. Then the conservatives will yell about Parent rights and not wanting someone talking with their kids about sex and birthcontrol. I call it preventive care for the blind.

So you can take your sarcasm and shove it.

By Whiley

August 1, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Just because a prim and proper Christian lady says she’s vehemently against abortion does not mean same prim and proper lady will not partake in the practice when its her womb (and future) on the line. She’ll make all kinds of sorry excuses about her own abortion is DIFFERENT than others—extenuating circumstances yadda yadda—to try and put herself on a higher moral plane.

And Heather, NOBODY should be forced to have an abortion, just as nobody should have a forced pregancy. Your mother should have stood up for herself though. Sounded like she needed a boost in self-esteem.

By Shaunti

August 1, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Hi all — on the off-chance that some of you questioning the validity of the Finland study might actually want to read more about it, here’s a helpful link. And yes, if you want to learn about more studies done in the U.S. about the after-effects of abortion, the same organization has some good data. If you’re willing to consider the various findings honestly, I hope you’ll see that there is certainly cause for concern about the risks of abortion.

http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

And by the way, Heather: you go girl.

By Chilao

August 1, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

boy this is a toss-up, what is the more ultimate in control.

Murdering obviously WANTED babies…

or

Insisting they be born and contribute to the CONTINUED over-population of the planet.

what to think, what to think….

By Patrick

August 1, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Nobody is saying that there are not emotional side effects to abortion. Heck, you could probably take post-partum depression and multiply it by 10 to get the emotional state of a woman after an abortion. But women should still be able to make that choice.

While I would rather my daughters not get an abortion, if the time comes, I will help them with their choice any way I can. If they decide to keep the child, I will help. If they decide to have an abortion, I will support them with love. I just REALLY hope that time never comes. I am not pro-aboriton, I am pro-choice.

By Jack

August 1, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

If that was the real Shaunti then I’m Abe Lincoln.

By Whiley

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

Once again, it’s the obsession with the unborn, instead of the welfare of the PERSON that would have to gestate this fetus. Never about the woman, about her life, doesn’t matter.

OK…I’m getting prepared for the underground railroad again. Seems just like ole times in the good ole days when pregnant girls just disappeared. Nobody cared about us then, nobody cares about us now. Only about the unborn. Somethings never change.

See, this is what happens when you let grey haired old men take over. (and their church going pukey goody goody big haired wives.) And Shaunti, the only feeling everyone I’ve ever known that’s had an abortion felt was RELIEF. And anger birth control was so awful. Giving birth is SO MUCH MORE DANGEROUS than abortion. Don’t forget post pardom depression, exaustion, your career is down the tubes along with your body. How would you like that forced on you? Why doesn’t anyone want to tell the truth about what it’s really like to gestate, give birth & raise a baby?

By Jack

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

No one on this blog has ever said that there were no risks to abortion. The females on this blog have more smarts than that.

By Heather

August 1, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Whiley, you bring up a good point. Many women are out there with very low self-esteem. Many women are in very manipulative relationships. Many women are abused by the very system that seems to value women’s rights. This is a human issue, not some idealistic principle or higher ideal of human rights. These are people, women and children, who are caught up in an evil system that convinces them that white is black and black is white. When did women ever begin to think it was okay to kill the life growing in their wombs? I would be willing to bet it was a man who originally gave her the idea. Not to knock all you men out there, I love you guys, but there are a few bad apples in your basket.

By Zack

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

Please clarify the phrase “…set women back.” Many would say that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would “set women back”, although it instead would help them, the unborn, and the rest of society.

Why don’t we spend a month, or at least a week or two, discussing how men are attacked by social norms and status quos. The Shaunti Feldhahns of the world respect men and our right to fair treatment, and the Diane Glasses of the world do not. I guess the latter are too busy eating chocolate and watching “Desperate Housewives.”

By Whiley

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

Jack, (Abe) OH I CAN’T believe I fell for the fake Shauti. hehe

By E. Lewis

August 1, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Like there isn’t enough representation on the US Supreme court by the white Christian male.

By Heather

August 1, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Patrick, I understand your stance. I once felt the same way, but then I really researched abortion. I took a look at the different procedures. The details are horrifying. I listened to what my mother had to tell me. I spent some time at an abortion clinic. It is a horrible thing to have legal in this country. I can see that some exceptions might be necessary but we are in dire need of more regulation and control on this issue.

If you don’t want your daughters to be faced with this issue, education them, please.

By Whiley

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

OH Zack we knew you’d be back ! (or Zack-lover poser) (remember you don’t have a womb) You still have hatred toward Deparate Housewives? Gee, it must be frustrating for a woman hater to see such a popular TV show about strong women.

Here is something to think about: Although women throughout history have chosen to end unwanted pregnancies, this is never mentioned in the Bible. In fact, Exodus 21:22 says that if men are fighting, and one of them injures a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, the one who injured her may be required to pay a fine to the woman’s husband. The Bible views this occurrence as a property crime against the woman’s husband, which should be financially compensated – not as a violent crime against a fetus.

Interesting isn’t it. it’s either about a fetus, or the husband, never about the woman.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

August 1, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Everyone knows that there are risk involved. I am at risk with everything I do daily: eating, drinking(not alcoholic beverages), driving too and from work, child birth, most surgery, most medicines, etc….. and being struck by lightening.

Shaunti’s case for risk doesn’t have enough merit, considering all the risk we take daily. I do believe that risk should be pointed out, but don’t make it seems as though that risk is greater than any other surgeries.

As far as Heathers mother, I’m sorry she made the Choice, but don’t blame the abortion. The abortion did not call your mothers name, some of the blame can be put on her husband, since he pushed her into making the choice. So your anti-abortion stance should be anti-jerk.

By Chilao

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

well, not a Bible scholar here, but I think it mostly treats women as chattel/property so no surprise there.

I think it would be pretty gross to tour a slaughterhouse as well, should we all become vegetarians? In fact I had a former boss of a boss, who I lunched with sometimes, he used to provide tech support to several meat-packing plants in the midwest. HE NEVER ate meat, and not for religious or health(directly) reasons.

By MarkMyWords

August 1, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Just thoughts:

Sitting downtown having a coffee one day talking with a friend about heavy issues like this. I asked her what she thought the response would be if someone was handing out pro-choice buttons. He responded (especially since we are in Athens) that most people would rally behind the person.

Then I asked what he thought would happen if the person was wearing an “I got an abortion today” t-shirt, or made it part of normal conversation. He replied as I though: Man, those same people would shame her.

This is NOT to make ANY other point than I am glad I am not a woman and dealing with the hypocrisy of my own gender.

By Chilao

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

Desperate Housewives is the best TV they have come out with in at least ten years. I am going to get cable(DirectTV) this summer before the next season starts so I do not have to watch episodes on the computer after they are old.

and I am a guy(older,greying at that..LOL… but would not consider telling a woman what to do with her body)

By Whiley

August 1, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

MarkMyWords, What???

By MarkMyWords

August 1, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

What what?

As my 3rd grade teacher always said: Speak in complete sentences, otherwise you sound like an idiot.

Actually I added the last part;)Hehe. No offence; only find it stupid to do. Really, not poking - just trying to help.Hehe.

Idiots.

By Heather

August 1, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Whiley, you said, “Why doesn’t anyone want to tell the truth about what it’s really like to gestate, give birth & raise a baby?”

I would be happy to tell you what its like.

I found out I was pregnant a week before I got married. I was scared and thrilled and happy and in shock all at the same time. I had terrible mood swings during my pregnancy. My husband hated me and we were unable to have sex because it caused me too much pain. When I was 4 months along they told me I might have cancer and an abortion might be necessary. For several weeks I went through agony thinking I might not be able to give birth to my child. Fortunately, the biopsy came back negative.

Then I caught the flu when I was 7 months along and never recovered. At 8 1/2 months my midwife induced my labor and I gave birth to a screaming, crying, angry little boy who didn’t seem to like the world he was forced into. My labor was extremely painful, it lasted almost 48 hours because of the induction. I suffered terrible postpartum and was suicidal for a while.

When he was 2, I divorced his alcoholic father and spent a year afraid of ending up in a shelter.

Now, he is 9. He is the greatest gift I could have ever been given. I love him with all my heart and soul. When he looks up at me and tells me he loves me, I know my life is worth living.

Thats what it is like to gestate, give birth & raise a baby.

By Whiley

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

Chilao want to get married?

hehe

By Nikita

August 1, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

shaunti, thanks for posting the study. however, a) the bias of the page is quite evident through its language, and b) the problem of false correlation hasn’t been addressed.

By raylene

August 1, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

As a young mother, I was told to I had choices to make when I became pregnant. The thought of abortion never once crossed my mind. While I was young, I was in the right situation to have my son. His father and I are married, and we had been to together for a long time before I got pregnant. But even if we had not, I still dont think that I could have had an abortion. In my opinion abortion is ok for certain reasons. if you were a victim of rape, incest, or you are just not in the right place to bring a child into this world. After finding out that my own aunt has had four abortions, besides losing respect for her, I thought a lot about it. Her reasons for doing so, were not in my mind the right reasons. She used abortion as birth control. I think that it is a right that everyone should have, and I dont have to agree with their reasons, but they should have the right to choose.

By SB

August 1, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Abortion seems to be the symptom, not the problem.

We need education, affordable (and widely-distributed) birth control options, social and medical support (the whole it takes a village thing), and overall empowerment - so women won’t stand for the type of treatment Heather’s mother endured.

Only then can we really debate whether or not abortion should be illeagal. Until then, like it or not, it may in fact be the lesser of two evils in many lives.

Heather, btw - I feel for your mother. That is a horrible situation no one should ever have to find themselves in.

By MarkMyWords

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

Just debating to debate. Heck, I am a guy and have no say-so in this matter that holds weight (but I do have a right to voice my ignorant perspective).

Chilao, I would think that it does mean something if 9 out of 10 people that witnessed abortion changed their point of view.

I certainly think that chicken/slaughter houses turn people off for real reasons; and that means we SHOULD look at them - they just are not a priority. The family farm had RESPECT for the animals they were eating.

By Shaunti

August 2, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this

Jack, I guess you should post under the name Abe from now on, then.

And Nikita, are you saying that just because the objective Finland study (and others) concluded something negative about the aftereffects of abortion, that a pro-life (“biased”) group shouldn’t publish an article about it? Obviously, pro-CHOICE groups aren’t going to be writing much about it.

And about the false correlation, if you read the analysis, you’ll remember that it is almost impossible to isolate every factor, but by focusing solely on death records and then working backwards to see if the deceased had any pregnancy-related events (birth, miscarriage or abortion) within one year, the Finnish government was able to ensure a far more ‘clean’ sample, void of troublesome judgment calls. Plus, the main correlation that would skew the data would be if women with self-destructive behaviors had greater tendencies to seek out abortion in the first place — in which case, don’t you think its even LESS likely that abortion should be available to those women?!

By Bruce

August 2, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

I find it so hard to believe that the advancments made in the womens movement can be wipped out with the retirement of just one judge. Are the liberties women now have in this country hanging on such a thin thread? Is it possible that maybe you chicken littles out there are over-reacting?

I can and never will except abortion as a positive means to advance women. Has legalized abortion really helped women? Maybe a few but as a whole women still face the same problems they faced before abortion was legal. And no matter what color you paint the picture with, it is still murder.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Anti abortion has absolutely nothing to do with PREVENTING unwanted pregnancy. Nothing. The solution is so simple and would make everyone happy. Safe affective available birth control for all. But lets face facts, its not & has never been about saving a fetus. If it were there would already be this wonderful birth control. It’s about stopping female sexuality. Call it anything you want, the facts are facts. If the pro-life wanted to get rid of abortion, they would fund birth control clinics & research which THEY DO NOT ! First it’s this fakey concern about saving babies and now they are slowly proceeding to attack contraceptive rights. A lot of “pro-lifers” are abandoning the pretense that they care about babies and are back into the more comfortable tactic of punishing women for having The Sex. This week’s casualties are the students that attend University of Wisconsin schools, as the legislature there just passed a bill banning all schools from dispensing any kind of birth control. (The bill is aimed at banning emergency contraception from university health centers, but it will easily soon ban health centers from prescribing any kind of hormonal birth control to female students, due to the vague wording of the bill.) And they didn’t even come up with a good argument to justify it. Not even a speech about the poor suffering sperm who either bonk their heads on condoms or manage to get to their destination to be crushingly disappointed not to find an egg there to fertilize. Just straight-up stick it to the sluts reasoning. Actually, I’m joking about the sperm bonking their heads. As you can imagine, the only people who are banned from obtaining birth control on campus are women, not men. In reality, what contraception does for college age women is leads to getting that diploma without being encumbered by childbearing. Perhaps that is what’s really p** off the legislators who passed this. There are actually public figures up there right now (men of course) making it clear that they dislike birth control precisely because it gives women the ability to limit their childbearing so that they can have careers and lives outside of the home. I’m not kidding.

This is what happens when you don’t pay attention. This is scary stuff.

By Jack

August 2, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Yeah “Shaunti” funny how you haven’t graced this blog with your postings since I’ve been on. (about 2 months)

By Chilao

August 2, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

to quote from Monthy Python’s The Meaning of Life, “Every Sperm is Sacred”..So yes, we do not want their poor heads bruised at all..(actually I think that is Catholic doctrine, on the Sacred part)

I found it interesting that the major premise of the book, The DaVinci Code was that you are closest to God when you are having a full orgasm, presumably/hopefully within a woman’s womb(and not anywhere else..LOL..)..Back to the primitive-ism of the early Gods, nearly all females, who were/are the only ones who could VISIBLY create life.

this could go on and on(abortion rights), so let’s see what next Sunday’s paper brings….

I’ll reiterate my first post on this subject: ANY Bush nominee will put us ALL back.(well, except major corporations and WASP males)

By anonymousella

August 2, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

irritating linguistic point that drives me absolutely batty:

abortion = birth control. it prevents folks from being born. it is not however “contraception” which prevents conception, and therefore is also a form of birth control.

what we need is better contraception so that abortion does not become the birth control method of choice.

however, a woman’s body does not belong to the community. we don’t tell men they can’t have a vasectomy correct? (nor, interestingly enough, do we expect them to exercise sexual responsibility.)

By FreeWoman

August 2, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

How about this little bit of info. I’m a woman. If I were to get preganant I could not see myself having an abortion. But as a FREE woman, I think it’s only fair and just that I have CHOICES as to what I can do with MY body.

How has this country gone so wrong as to try to legistlate morality? Drugs are illegal, yet we still have addicts and money goes toward rehabilitation centers. Do we really believe that abortions will go away if they are deemed illegal by a panel of 12 MEN??

Some of you spouting the keep your child mantra need to ensure that your children are growing up well. And those without children let me ask you this? If you’re so concerned with children’s rights, when is the last time you visited an adoption agency? Donated to a children’s charity/center? How many of you are mentors?

We spend so much time trying to make women keep unwanted children, that in this country, we don’t do such a good job of the ones that are already here. Talk about hypocrisy.

By Ken

August 2, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Free Woman/Whiley… Do you have the RIGHT to take your own life?

By Randy

August 2, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Abortion is murder, if you don’t want the baby, give it up for adoption. If you don’t want to get pregnant out of wedlock, do what the creator intended, get married first and then make love with the one you really love and raise a family. I know it’s old fashioned, but it works, and it’s a step in the right direction for happiness. Or you could be selfish and self-centered and do what you want and be unhappy. Who are you listening to????

By SB

August 2, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

It’s all well and good to give a guilt trip, tsk tsk and talk about should have been… Goodness knows that sort of talk certainly has a place, and let’s hope it convinces some people.

But that’s not going to change the reality of the situation for many women. Pregnancy is expensive. Time consuming. Physically draining. And ends in a massive surgery.

You can’t force someone to undergo any sort of major surgery that they explicitly don’t, regardless of whether it will “save a life” (which, for the record, I do not consider anything before the third trimester to be - and even then it’s a gray area).

If someone walked into a doctor’s office and signed up to donate an organ to save a loved one’s life - they can change their mind. It’s their decision, and the fate of the loved one isn’t their primary concern.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

I love it how most all the men rally to call us murderers & tell us how we should only be having sex if we are married & wanting to make babies.

How typical.

We gals are just sluts that are selfish and self-centered because we don’t want to be breeding machines. Nice.

By Kyle

August 2, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Setting the abortion issue aside for a moment if I may, I don’t understand why people think Bush should have only considered women or minorities for the Supreme Court vacancy. Our highest court should not be hampered by some warped form of affirmative action just to ensure that every race/gender is appropriately represented. The positon should go to the best qualified person for the job, period. Leading up to the nomination, many thought that Bush was going to nominate a woman, and the left was already preparing to attack a list of possible women nominees. It didn’t matter who Bush nominated, the left was going to complain. As for setting women back, I just don’t see it. Personally, I would respect the ability of a Supreme Court Justice less (or any person for that matter)if I knew they got their position mainly for their race/gender and not their ability. Yes, there were qualified females and minorities that Bush could have nominated, but isn’t it possible that Roberts was simply better qualified. Is it fair to pass up a person who is better qualified for a position simply because he’s a white man? Have you seen this guys credentials? There’re pretty damn impressive - and the democrats certianly agreed when they almost unanomously appointed him to his disrtict court seat. I believe an earlier post on this blog said that a much higher percentage of women voted for Bush than Kerry, and Bush was clear as to what kind of person he would nominate if given the chance. So, haven’t the majority of women already made their choice as to what type of justice they would prefer?

Also, a nominee should never be forced to answer how he/she would rule on a particular issue (i.e. Roe v. Wade). Ginsburg was never asked such questions by republicans during her nomination - but this is exactly what democrats are promising to do to Roberts. A nominee should field questions on his/her judicial philosophy, backround, and qualifications. Btw, do you remember republicans complaining so much when Ginsburg was nominated - no - and she is much more of an extremeist on the left than Roberts is to the right.

By Kyle

August 2, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

FreeWoman, a panel of 12 men? Don’t you mean 9?

By simon

August 2, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Could someone help me to understand something that I find confusing? Why is it that:

Pro-life = Pro death penalty?

Pro-Life = Pro War?

Pro Life = Pro fetus/ant-child (not universal health care for children, mercury laden vaccinations that have caused record rates of autism, but still no regulation, record numbers of unwanted, un-adopted children)

If your objection to abortion is religious, remember “judge not lest ye be judged” In other words, this matter is between the woman in question and her maker, somewhere not of this earth, therefore out of your purview.

While abortion is not something that most advocate, the womans choice over her body is something that is advocated.

If you don’t want/believe in abortion, don’t have one.

By Saul Olvera-Rubio

August 2, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

What a salient comment regarding abortion. Clearly, abortion shouldn’t be used as a habitual method of birth control. Key phrase was birth control. But to say it’s muder is another thing. To those who are pro-life, I hope you all make visits to orphanages or are foster parents. If you’re so pro-life, please adopt a child…don’t just recommend things.

Back to the real question regarding O’Conner and her resignation - I think it was a tremendous set-back for women’s rights and the movement in general. I strongly believe that the President should’ve chosen a woman, regardless of her political agenda. Oh well, the Senate still has to confirm Robert’s nomination.

By Randy

August 2, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Yea Whiley it’s all about you, has nothing to do with the innocent child in your womb. What about the innocent child??

By Mara

August 2, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Until they can write restrictions in for male reproductive choices, they shouldn’t try legislating female reproductive choices. And you do notice, I hope, that these “parental notification” laws only apply to the parents of the girl, not to the parents of the guy who knocked her up…

It’s amusing to me that these anti-choice advocates never seem to dwell on the dangers of pregnancy like they do those of abortion. It’s like somewhere in there rose-colored, happy little world women just get pregnant, wander around blissfully contemplating their happy little bundle of joy, then one day….pop…out it comes. No muss, no fuss, no fear, no pain, no incurable deseases (like diabetes), no physical damage (like fistula, stretch marks, traumatized genitals…)no psychological trauma (like depression, post- or pre-partum) and absolutely nothing but happiness from that wonderful man who impregnated you. Despite the happy-happy, not everyone has a nice life. Not everyone has resources or good sense. Sometimes even nice girls get lonely.

By SB

August 2, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Kyle- Totally agree with you … The best qualified person should get the position - and in the case of a judge, one would hope those qualifications would include the ability to rule on a case based on the law (be it the spirit or letter, which ever pertains to the case in question), rather than individual experiences, biases and opinions.

That being said, I don’t think it’s the gender of the appointee that’s an issue. I think it’s the fact that Justice O’Conner was the ultimate swing vote on the court, and was the deciding factor in many cases that granted women, minorities or other underprivliged (sp) groups additional rights / protection / fill-in-the-blank.

There’s obvious concern that an affluent white man can’t understand the day to day experience of, say, a poor Native American woman. I think the concern is a little much, as I have faith that intelligent and empathetic men exist.

But the Bush administration doesn’t have a reputation for being female-friendly - which is why I, for one, am skeptical of any affluent white male appointed by our current administration. However, I’m open to the idea that Roberts may be a fabulous judge. I just don’t know enough about him - which is why I want to know how he would rule in a number of different cases. The lack of a paper trail is why he’s undergoing such intense questioning.

By Chilao

August 2, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Oh Whiley, on your yesterday’s proposal of marriage, did not mean to ignore you….You were on one bended knee weren’t you?…LOL

Ya, I know what you mean, it is certainly VERY DIFFICULT, especially in certain areas of the country, to find compatible/more evolved/’enlightened’(to use Diane’s topic term) people.

Roberts will pass, most Democrats will be saying YEA. They(DEMS) have already stated they do not plan to grill about hypotheticals. (which neither party should do anyway).

By Chilao

August 2, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

I wonder how many sperm I murdered last night? (trying to create life in a sock…okay, old Johnny Carson joke)

hmmmm…..

By FreeWoman

August 2, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Kyle, you are correct 9 men. Got a little caught up. Thanks for correcting me.

And to Ken, yes, I have the RIGHT to take my own life if that is MY choice. We all have the right to follow through with our CHOICES. If consequences come after whatever choices we make, then that’s the bed we lie in. And that’s what we will have to live with.

If you read my entire statement, you would see that although I personally would have an abortion, I would allow each woman to make that CHOICE for themselves.

I’m not trying to tell anyone how to live their life. I’m a proponent of people being able to live their lives freely and make their own decisions.

I keep hearing the keep your baby answer, but no one answered the questions I posed regarding what do you do for the rights of children that are already here?

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Randy, A fetus is not a child.

Views like that absolutely prove our bodies & lives are in danger of being govt owned.

By FreeWoman

August 2, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

CORRECTION: If you read my entire statement, you would see that although I personally would NOT have an abortion, I would allow each woman to make that CHOICE for themselves.

Sorry for the confusion.

By David

August 2, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

This morning Shaunti suggested that by sticking to the pure correlation between abortion and death, without adjusting for other factors, the government was able to obtain a more “clean” sample.

Shaunti either lacks an understanding of how to analyze data or is being willfully obtuse. Ignoring confounding factors does not make your data more clean; it completely obscures the issues. If you don’t take confounding factors (in this case it appears to be risk-taking behavior) into account, you can get some pretty bizarre correlations. For example, people who gamble regularly are far more likely to develope lung cancer. Of course, it’s not the gambling that’s the cause, but rather that gamblers also tend to be smokers, which is a causal factor of lung cancer.

She then implies that the risk-taking behavior is a result of the abortion. That’s pretty hard to call. One would probably want to do a cohort study and see if risk-taking behavior actually increased after an abortion. I’d tend to think that risky behavior caused the unwanted pregnancy.

By dakotawoman

August 2, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Randy and other men so against abortion: You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about so shut up. Only women can bring life into the world. Only women can make the decision when and if to bring life into the world. No woman should ever be forced by anyone to carry a pregnancy to term unless it is her wish to do so, or to have an abortion she doesn’t want. It is the woman’s decision and only the woman’s decision. Get it through your thick skulls! And Whiley is right; for most pro-fetus advocates, this is really all about controlling women’s sexuality again and taking away the freedoms we fought so hard to gain just a short 40 years ago! I remember when abortion was illegal and women died from infections in back street abortions. I remember women who had children just because they had no choice. Those women never really appreciated the gift of a child because they were forced to have children they didn’t really want. My grandmother had 8 or 9 pregnancies and three children who lived. Back then nature provided abortion for some women who could not raise so many children (or maybe they knew something about herbs that we don’t know anymore!) I remember when the birth control pill was still not available in the south. Randy’s little posts say it all. He believes if a woman doesn’t want to breed she should never have sex! What a bunch of backward bullsh..! He and other religious fanatics want women put back in the place we were in 50 years ago.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Randy you are so full of it! I can’t answer for Whiley but as for me, yes, it’s all about me! Life is all about what is best for me and creates a good life for me and I’m not worried about a clump of cells (that you think is a “baby”) from the moment of conception. You do not want women to be in charge of our own bodies, our own lives, our own worlds. You think (how incredibly selfish of you) that you should have some say about controling women’s lives and what we should and should not do. Your real motivation is to control women. You just can’t stand the idea that there are all those women out there having sex, enjoying themeselves, feeling no guilt about it, and refusing to pay any price at all for being free. That’s your little problem Randy; get a life and have some fun of your own!

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

YEA

WHAT LOZEN SAID !

By lozen

August 2, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

And on the other question: Yes, a woman should replace Sandra Day O’Conner! Women make up over 50 percent of the citizens of this country. You can’t tell me there isn’t a woman who is qualified for the supreme court. Why should there be only one woman out of nine judges?

By Heather

August 2, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

On and on about how horrible it is for a woman to be FORCED to bring a life into the world. Nothing about what a great honor has been given to womankind. We women should be proud of how our bodies have been made to function. Our Creator gave only us women this beautiful gift. Men can wish and pray and wish and pray but they will never bring life into this world. But to those whom much is given much is expected. We women should hold ourselves accountable for our own actions and decisions.

But it seems we women are more concerned with being just like men. We want to be the same as men and do exactly what men do and behave just like men, even if we personally don’t like men very much. Isn’t it incredible stupidity to want to be just like something you personally dislike?

So what if men are free to have sex whenever they want without any consequences? It would not be available to them if women banded together and quit giving it to them without love, marriage, and consequences. What is so great about being able to give yourself to a man who doesn’t love you or care anything about you and not have any consequences for your actions? Doesn’t that really give all the control to men anyway?

So go on and on about women’s rights and protecting women, what you are really doing is allowing the corruption of womankind to continue. You are allowing the continuation of a system that tells girls in grade school they are valued by their looks and how many members of the opposite sex they can attract. You are allowing the continuation of a system that tells girl in high school they can only be popular if they lose their virginity as soon as possible.

Its really a sad world when our own selfish needs come before whats truly best for the society we live in.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

And I loved your post Mara. Parental notification only for the parents of the female. Oh, no way can there be notification for the parents of the male who got her pregnant! Only some clueless men would think going through a pregnancy and having a child are so great. I had two children and it was not great! According to the statistics I am familiar with, there are many more deaths from complications of childbirth than from abortions. Motherhood by choice, not ever, ever, ever by force!

By Augustine

August 2, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Dakotawoman, do you get pregnant all by yourself? Basic biology dictates one cell from a man and one from a woman. Shouldn’t I have a say since my body is involved as well? Just because it was decided, in nature, that women would bare the burden of childbirth does it give women the license to determine what is or what isn’t viable. You cannot do it by yourself - the decision then is clearly not only yours to make! Here’s to over turning Roe V Wade!

By Ken

August 2, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Lozen… We’ll all remember that comment “it’s all about me” for future discussions. Funny how if anyone you suspected was a white male would say that, then you would curse him to oblivion.

BTW… Since when did any part of the government require a quota system? We elect our government. Women are > 50% of the population and can vote. Women are represented throughout the goverment. We have women in every facet of the government except the executive branch. The Supreme Court is one of the few nominated positions. How many women are in the Senate? They could all reject the nomination if they wanted to force a woman Justice. But they won’t b/c Judge Roberts is qualified and it would look petty if they did.

FreeWoman… Glad you answered the way you did. You may think you have the right to take your own life, but our society doesn’t accept that. That is why we talk jumpers down from cranes and buildings and have air pillows below them in case the jump. That is why we send EMTs to save folks who slit their wrists or shoot themselves. Those actions, by definition, prevent you from doing to your body what you choose, don’t they…? I don’t think you’d disagree with that, would you…?

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

HEHE Heather is cracking me up !

By SB

August 2, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Heather, we can talk about what SHOULD be until we’re all blue in the face. But it doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t our reality. And, if our history as a civilized society is any guide, will never be.

Some women don’t feel that having children is always and unequivocally a blessing. Some people see shades of gray.

Those are the people who do, in fact, need legalized abortion - not to mention all of the “only this once” and “oops” pro-life girls I went to school with.

It may be an evil, but in many situations it’s either necessary or the lesser of two.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

I must ask Heather. Exactly what would be so great about a bunch of children running around in this society who aren’t wanted or cared for? If a woman, in your opinion, is too selfish or dumb to be able to make decisions about whether she’s able to raise a child or not, pray tell me, what would make her a great mother? Having a child, being responsible for that child for the next 18+ years is a very heavy responsibility. It’s only an honor when a woman is ready for that. Women who have abortions are holding themselves accountable - they realize they aren’t prepared to raise a child and so they don’t try to do it! The corruption of womankind? Jeez.

By blablabla

August 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

i’d be curious to hear what people think of the following:

unmarried couple. woman gets pregnant, doesn’t want to keep the fetus/baby. father wants baby and will support and raise child to maturity. in this scenario, under most of our current laws, the father has no ability to compel the woman to see the pregnancy out and have the child despite his willingness to care for it.

now reverse the situation. woman gets pregnant and wants to keep child. father doesn’t want to support the kid. in this scenario, under most current laws, the father will be forced to pay to support the child for many years, against his wishes.

does this strike any of you as a double standard? and is it really all about the woman and her decision with her body when it ends up impacting not only the fetus/baby, but in many situations, the father? if it is so patently unfair for the gov’t to tell the woman she shouldn’t have to go through an unwanted pregnancy is it any more fair for the gov’t to tell the man that he has to support the unwanted child from a pregnancy?

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

OK we have proof there are too many people out there that would take everything away from women if given the power. SO, we need to start by finding out WHO is currently working on birth control research. Who are these people & how can we help them? Public service announcements to start? Demanding our elected officials directly support these specific groups? Maybe instead of aid to Africa, why not aid to these scientists? NEXT we find out who is trying to halt this research, who is taking possible funding dollars away. Who is trying to make birth control less available? Where do we go to find out these important things?

By Heather

August 2, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

SB, the only thing preventing what SHOULD be from BEING is people whining about how life is all about them and everyone else can rot.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Dear blablabla , If the sperm donor does not want to be a father, then maybe he should keep it in his pants.

(SEE HOW REDICULOUS THAT SOUNDS?!)

Maybe, if he actually used birth control himself, no man could ever be “trapped” into fatherhood.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Ken, so you’re saying your life is not all about you? You make decisions about your life, do you not? You decide what job to take, how much education to get, what to eat today. I freely admit to being selfish and caring about my life more than anyone else does. Ohhhhh how terrible! Women are supposed to always put everyone else before themselves and take care of everyone else before taking care of themselves aren’t they?

By blablabla

August 2, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

lozen,

“it’s all about me.” what a wonderful thought. i sincerely hope you don’t sport such an attitude for every issue. do you really have that attitude when it comes to your family, friends, co-workers, neighbors and the environment? you sound very selfish.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you just don’t get it. If we women valued ourselves more, there would be no reason for children running all around or abortions.

Men have their part to play in this as well. If men thought with something besides their “third” leg, there would be no reason for children running all around or abortions.

But we aren’t talking about men here today, we are talking about women. We need to hold ourselves above men and quit trying to be just like them.

By SB

August 2, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Bla - Situation number one - goodness, I would hope that the woman would make an informed decision (finances, like the cost of pre-natal and post-natal care or child support, emotional and physical tolls, the father’s ability to care for the child, etc.) and not an emotional one. But, ultimately, she’s the one forced to go through with it - thus, the final decision shoul be hers and hers alone.

Situation two - women fought long and hard to be able to control when and where to have children. In all fairness, men need to be able to sign an agreement terminating their rights to and the responsibilities of fatherhood. This needs to be done before the middle of the second trimester, so the woman can make a decision about whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

IMO, anything else is a complete double standard … You shouldn’t be able to trap anyone into parenting.

By SB

August 2, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

And you know what, Heather? You and I are never going to be able to change that.

That’s the bottom line.

By sandra

August 2, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Some women here seem to think this is an issue about personal freedom. I think what you really want is not freedom, but autonomy - that is freedom without limits. All freedom has limits. I would like the freedom to drive on I-75 at 150 m.p.h. It is my right to control my actions. No one else can make that decision for me. But wait, my freedom to drive fast overlaps with others freedom to drive to Town Center Mall without a crazy woman speeding up the interstate at unsafe speeds. Personal freedom has limits.

I could say that I am pro-choice. I believe that people have a right to do with there bodies as they see fit. Men have the right to choose to rape women. After all, it is their bodies, they can do with it as they please. But wait, that cannot be because their freedom to do with their bodies as they please comes into conflict with another person’s rights and freedoms. Again, personal freedom has limits.

As a woman, I have a right to do with my body as I please. However, if I choose to have an abortion, my decision does not just effect me. It effects the baby inside of me. Oh wait but it is not a baby, it is a fetus. Of course fetus is the latin word that was used to describe babies in the womb and those out of the womb as well. As I am typing this my young fetus is crawling on the floor next to me. But the point is this again - personal freedom has limits.

To me, the abortion issue has little to do with personal rights. It has to do with life. When does life begin? That is the crux of the matter. I believe that life begins at conception. Abortion is simply wrong. Freedom always has limits.

By Ken

August 2, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Actually Lozen I DO NOT see myself as the most important thing in my life…

God and my church comes before me. My wife comes before me. My future children come before me. In many cases my immediate family (mother, father, in-laws,e tc.) comes before me.

I see it as a blessing to be able to provide for so many others. To think that I my life can be more than my own hedonistic pursuits is wonderful.

By blablabla

August 2, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

whiley - thanks for the response. btw, it’s RIDICULOUS, not REDICULOUS. and no, personally, i don’t think it sounds so ridiculous for men not to engage in sex without considering the consequences.

as to your answer, can’t the shoe go on the other foot - if the woman didn’t want to become pregnant, she could have just declined to have sex? (obviously my example excludes instances of rape). in my mind it is no less ridiculous for women not to engage in sex without considering the consequences.

nowhere in life are we able to make decisions without being exposed to the consequences. why would sex be somehow different? by and large, people should always think before they act.

i was just curious to see if people see my hypothetical situation as a double standard.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

No Ken I would not curse a white male who said, “it’s all about me” if he were saying his life is more important than a fetus! We humans are all selfish and want what’s best for us. People give to charity because it makes them feel good. Humans are also capable of great sacrifice and each of us has to make our decisions about all of that. No one else can make those decisions for us; that’s what I meant about it’s all about me. I’m not surprised you didn’t get it!

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Heather, women are NOTHING like men. (unless you live near midtown.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

How dare we not want to cook & clean all day long, bake cakes stay pregnant & raise a house full of kids ! How unnatural!

OH Lozen I’m selfish just like you ! We must really be men trapped in a woman’s body !

By BWilson

August 2, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Ken, Explain why we don’t have a RIGHT to kill ourself, if that is our choice? If I don’t want to live, why can’t I terminate my life - its value is equal to that of which I give it, not what anyone else gives it.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

blablabla, Sorry, didn’t spell check hehe

When men have the burden of becoming pregnant themselves, each sex act a risk, THEIR bodies directly being affected, then & only then will men have more say-so. Sorry, I wish it were different too.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Sorry Heather. I do not consider myself above men and I’m not trying to be just like them either. I’m living my life to the best of my ability just as you are. The big difference is that I don’t think I should ever be able to control what you do and force you to have a child you did not want. Apparently you believe you should be able to force me to have a child! Just because I’m a woman doesn’t mean I live in the world of “If” as you do. Someone once told me “If” is the most worthless word in the vocabulary. Just because you wish things were a certain way does not make them that way so deal with the situation as it really is and forget the ifs. Just because I’m female doesn’t mean I have to carry every fetus to term. And BlaBla, I was speaking about one specific situation, can you understand that?

By Heather

August 2, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Blablabla has a good point as much as I hate it. If we women are not held responsible for the children we create, why should our men be?

Now, as Whiley said, SEE HOW REDICULOUS THAT SOUNDS?!)

btw Whiley, why is it so ridiculous to think a man might be able to keep it in his pants?

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Heather, we don’t demand men keep it in their pants, we demand women do.

Well, YOU ALL do.

By BWilson

August 2, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

“There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena” - Nietzsche

There is no such thing as an unnatural or untimely death.

By blablabla

August 2, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

whiley - so since men cannot become pregnant for approximately nine months, their bodies are unaffected. i think many men would argue that you are definitely affecting a man’s body if you require him to pay child support for several years. his paycheck, in most cases, is the fruit of his bodily and mental labor.

are you ok with getting pregnant, deciding to keep the baby and sticking him with the bill for a child he doesn’t want, and then telling him it won’t affect his body to have to work an extra amount to support a child for 18 or so years?

By lozen

August 2, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Oh good grief! Whiley, why are all these men picking on me for saying if I have to choose between my life and a clump of cells, it’s all about me? I do not believe life begins at conception and I’ve carried two children! And now how many have you men carried? Heather you’re the one who doesn’t get it. Let women keep control of their own bodies and make the most important decisions about their own lives instead of the government or anybody else doing it and I think they will value themselves more!

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

If we women are not held responsible for the children we create, why should our men be?

hehe yet another blame it all on women thing. No WONDER we haven’t come a long way. So much garbage we have to deal with. Now, about those birth control research facilities, where are they?

By BWIlson

August 2, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Why should either party be required to “keep it in our pants”? Why must we suppress what is innate?

By lozen

August 2, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Sandra your arguments are so flawed there’s no way to begin to respond!

By SB

August 2, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

BWilson … I think this particular debate is grounded in law and (to an extent) how it’s affected by day-to-day morals and ethics.

Philosophy - and Nietzsche’s theories in particular - is wonderful, I’m certainly a fan. But abstract ideas and quotes may not be the best way to convey your message - it would be helpful if you grounded your philosophical ideals in the debate at hand.

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 2, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Because I am a little behind in my reading, I picked up Newsweek from July 11, with Sandra Day O’Connor as the cover story. Anna Quindlen’s Last Word column contains the following regarding the morning after pill that stops pregnancy but does not end a pregnancy, entitled Now Available: Common Ground:

“If easy access to a pill that decreases the number of abortions is not a welcome development, what is the real point of the anti-abortion exercise? Is it to safeguard life or to safeguard an outdated status quo in which biology was destiny and motherhood was an obligation, not an avocation? America leads the industrialized world in its abortion rate. Perhaps that is because it leads in hyposcrisy as well.”

My own thoughts: As for those who believe that abortion is murder and that a fetus should have all the rights of the born, why don’t women and their families who have early miscarriages name the products of conception, have funerals, and have autopsies done? Is it because they are unfeeling and want everything done their way? Or are there personal, private reasons?

While I understand that some women might benefit from this form or grieving, not all would wish this. Should anyone be forced to grieve the death of a fetus as they would for a living, breathing, born child? Or is this too an issue of choice, of individual determination?

A key underlying issue of reproductive rights is privacy. If this is suspended, and women and men are judged solely on their reproductive circumstances, would the anti-abortion people attempt to go so far as to outlaw out-of-wedlock sex for both men and women? How about requring investigations for any and all miscarriages?

Abortion and fetal death are a part of our reality. Abortions, natural and induced, will always be with us. My pro-choice stance rests on the fact that I would prefer this to be part of the medical sphere and the privacy therein; to make abortion a religious issue will not eliminate the practice; to legislate it thusly will make it more dangerous for society at large, pushing the issues underground, silencing those in need of medical and social support.

To impose religious and moral dogma as law on those who don’t share it, especially in terms of one’s biology, is murder too, murder of the human spirit. Imposing draconian and finite solutions in the name of moral superiority to issues that are constantly evolving and changing, i.e., the instituion of marriage and by proxy, sexual politics, is a recipe for disaster for all freedoms, social, political, religious, spiritual, and economic. Theocratic law will not provide a more moral, caring society, but will push the disenfranchised to further lawlessness every bit as much as indifference to physical, educational, and emotional needs does.

Preservation of the dignity of self-determination and compassion for all suffering is the touchstone of our humanity.

Namaste, all.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Sandra, I loved what you said about freedom having limits. You were right on track with that one.

Lozen, what IF before women had the right to vote everyone said, “Just because you wish things were a certain way does not make them that way so deal with the situation as it really is and forget the ifs”

Things in this country need to change and IF it is necessary for a few people to come along and say hey what IF then so be it.

Also, I don’t truly think I am above men, we are all created equal under God. But there is so much anger here about how MEN are trying to keep us down when in actuality, the only thing keeping women down is women.

By Randy

August 2, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Reguardless of what you believe, LIFE DOES BEGIN AT CONCEPTION. Thanks for confessing that it’s all about you. Selfish and self-centered people are bad for this world and thank goodness there are some people who aren’t, or this world would be worse than it is. Being selfish does give you the illusion of being GOD.

By blablabla

August 2, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

what would be really funny is if lozen were married to a man who’s at work right now busting his tail to support the family so that lozen can stay at home with the kids and argue on the internet that it’s “all about me”, that all humans are selfish and that people give to charity to feel better about themselves.

i guess if your house catches fire, we’ll know you make it out. but the kids, who knows. it might not be convenient for ms. “all about me”.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

“i think many men would argue that you are definitely affecting a man’s body if you require him to pay child support for several years. his paycheck, in most cases, is the fruit of his bodily and mental labor.”

That’s because they are idiots. Poor babies. MOST women do it all the time all by themselves without help, while keeping a full time job, AND GIVING BIRTH. Hell, if any of those men experienced even ONE menstrual cycle, they’d all commit suicide. The ones that survived it would march to Washington & demand a cure.

I don’t feel sorry for any “trapped” man. cover it or keep it in your pants then.

By David

August 2, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Randy thinks lozen looks like GOD?

By Heather

August 2, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Lozen said, “Let women keep control of their own bodies and make the most important decisions about their own lives instead of the government or anybody else doing it and I think they will value themselves more! “

Then lets get rid of all the laws regarding drunk driving. I think I want to get drunk tonight and drive myself home. Its my body and I’m going to do whatever I want with it. I don’t care if I kill someone on the road. I don’t care how it affects the rest of society. The government should not be able to tell me not to drive drunk.

When you take out the sex/abortion part of the issue and replace it with any other law the “controlling” government has in place it sounds a lot different, doesn’t it?

By BWIlson

August 2, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

All death is natural. The phenomena never changes. We add morality to it. If I die fighting for my country it’s a NOBLE death. If I kill myself it is a SHAMEFUL death. These are human perceptions. If the innocent are killed it is BAD, if murderers are killed it is GOOD. (This explains how people who are pro-life can also be pro-death penalty -even though they seem to contradict -they really DO NOT) Morality fluctuates from individual to individual. The death of a terrorist to Americans is GOOD, and the death of an American to a Iraqi insurgent is GOOD. The death of a priest who molested me is GOOD, the death of the same priest to someone who didn’t know he was a pedophile is seen as TRAGIC. The abortion debate is not YES/NO because individual morality is applied differently to different deaths.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Only CERTAIN women try to keep women down. It’s just more ridiculous when men try to do it when it has to do with sex & pregnancy.

By SB

August 2, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Really, Randy? Because I think that immature people who step into major responsibilities without either the support or forethought to come up with a plan to deal are bad for the world.

Thank goodness there are educated, responsible people who understand the commitment and sacrafic involved in raising a family, and will only enter into that situation when they’re aptly prepared to do so.

By Bruce

August 2, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

I really do not care who is appointed to replace Justice O’Conner as long as it is the most quailfied person. But some of you have suggested that regardless of qualifications it should be a woman. What if the President recommended a women that was Conservative in her beliefs and was Pro-Life?

By SB

August 2, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Yikes, sorry for my spelling - I’m trying to keep up in between calls and written work.

By blablabla

August 2, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

whiley - thanks for the comments. “men are idiots” is a great, carefully crafted response. and your information is flawed - most mothers in this country are not single mothers with full time jobs.

so men who become trapped should have just kept it in their pants, but women who said yes to sex should be able to use abortion as a big “get out of jail” free card? if that’s truly your position, you need to do a better job of convincing people that you’re correct beyond simply saying “men are idiots”.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Randy you believe LIFE DOES BEGIN AT CONCEPTION. That is just your belief. Just because you believe that, doesn’t make it true.

By SB

August 2, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Bruce - actually, I could care less about gender.

I care that personal beliefs, issues and biases (I may have just made that word up) won’t interfere with the ability to rule according to the law.

Actually, I think it’s good that Roberts doesn’t have his personal beliefs on the record. But that does open him up to all of that ‘hypothetical’ questioning (e.g., how would you have ruled in Roe vs. Wade).

By QuoterHere

August 2, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

but selfishness is the cornerstone of Capitalism. to paraphrase from Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, “The self-interest of the individual benefits society as whole”. might not even be paraphrased.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Have any of you actually read how abortions are performed? The “tissue” is sucked out into a jar. In the second trimester, an instrument is inserted in the cervix and the “tissue” is cut into pieces and pulled out. The head is crushed so that it will come out. In the case of partial birth abortion, the “tissue” is delivered up to the head, then an instrument is inserted up through the top of the neck into the head and the contents are sucked out so that the “tissue” is born dead.

Does that really sound like something you want to support?

By sandra

August 2, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Lozen, You said, “Sandra your arguments are so flawed there’s no way to begin to respond!”

Could you not just humor me a little and show me how my arguments are “so flawed”?

Thanks.

By blablabla

August 2, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

quoterhere - i think if smith were to see how unfettered capitalism (being in the selfish best interest of the shareholder) can impact society through environmental destruction, he would have slightly changed his tune. this is not to say that i don’t agree with the concept in general of people following their own self interest tending to benefit society, but i just don’t believe the invisible hand to be anywhere near an absolute truth.

By BWilson

August 2, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

QuoterHere, Excellent point. Why should any individual be forced to do something that is against their best interest. This is an unnatural act, to do something that would ultimately hurt the individual. Here’s a quote from London’s The Sea Wolf, “One man cannot wrong another man. He can only wrong himself. As I see it, I do wrong always when I consider the interests of others.”

By SB

August 2, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Heather, that’s a very late term procedure - the kind that is typically done only to save the mother’s life (and, may I point out, very legal and always will be, at the very least to save the life and health of the mother).

There are other types of procedures.

By Jack

August 2, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Randy. Have you ever had sex for anything other than pro-creation? If you have ever done it for fun, can you spell hypocrite? If you say you haven’t, I doubt that>

By Bruce

August 2, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

I read somewhere recently that Justice O’Conner was the swing vote a many issues. I read that to mean she was pandering to which ever group best suppoerted her agenda.

By BWilson

August 2, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Heather, A question: If the goal of every Christian is to go to Heaven, (thus we accept that our current lives are temporary and a test for our soul)and we accept that conception IS the beginning of life, than that would mean all aborted babies GO TO HEAVEN to be with GOD. Why would this be upsetting? They have, through no fault of their own, been blessed to be exonerated from earthly trials and now reside with God. How is this bad? If anything it is the soul of the women who HAS the abortion you should pray for - for she is condemned to hell.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

SB, what are these other procedures?

By lozen

August 2, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

BWilson, that’s also one of the things I wonder about. If death is good and through dying you reach paradise, as christians believe, why worry so much about whether life begins at conception? Why aren’t they happy those pregnancies will never have to go through this ‘veil of tears’ that is life? So we force women to have children they don’t want? What happens to those children? They grow old and die. The outcome is the same.

By FreeWoman

August 2, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Still can’t agree with your statement Ken. But I think you know that. I understand what you are saying though. We as a country want what is best for our people. But at some point, we cannot allow other’s opinions to dictate how we want to run our lives.

I have a HUGE problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. There are so many papers out that detail the discrepancies between health care for women and men. So I’m looking at this topic from a few different angles. Not just the act of having an abortion. I’m looking at the topic as being a free and informed adult, I should be able to make the decision.

And sue me if I think that some sort of XX chromosone should be on the highest court of the law making that decision.

Pregnancy is such a hot issue. We need men to help us get pregnant. But we carry the child ourselves. We give birth ourselves. Teenage girls who are pregnant are scrutinzed, but the teenage boys have no scrutiny upon them. Teenage girls have to go to alternative schools. But teenage boys can live life as if nothing happened. I just have a sincere problem with a man telling me what I can do with my body. If I keep my baby, give me that choice. If I abort my baby, give me that choice.

By Mara

August 2, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Heather…have you seen any intrusive medical procedure performed? They all are pretty disgusting unless you have an interest in anatomy. The one you describe is no more disgusting than a lipo and tummytuck. The only thing that makes this medical procedure any different is your opinion that the tissue is a sweeet widdow baaaayyybeee. And I don’t share that opinion. And if my doctor, my husband, and I decide that an abortion is called for, then an abortion I shall have. As Whiley and lozen (among others) has pointed out, it really is only about control. Heather thinks women should control their libidos and any who don’t are just trying to be like men. Sandra thinks its just pure anarchic selfishness, or, as she says “autonomy” which, I might also add, she should look up before defining (which I did…n 1: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence 2: personal independence) as well as checking the synonyms (freedom, liberty, self-determination, self-government, self-rule, sovereignty). Evidently, Sandra, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Being autonomous does not mean being immune from the law. It doesn’t mean being selfish, being violent, or having unlimited freedom. It means having the right to care for MY body as I see fit. To make the decisions that will affect MY health and welfare. Decide for MYSELF if I am mature enough to parent a child…THAT, my fellow bloggers, is what CHOICE is all about. You all can moan and groan and hypothesize about exactly when “life” begins (I heard life begins at 40, so who knows…). It’s neither here nor there. I am an adult. This is my body. NO third party has a right to force me, to do anything with it or to it, be that third party the government, my husband, my doctor, or that widdow iddy biddy clustew of cews. So there!

By lozen

August 2, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Bruce, the way I interpret O’Conner’s swing voting is that she thought things through, tried to make the best decision for the country in each case, and did not pander to whatever group supported her agenda.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

BWilson, if you really want to argue it from the Christian perspective we can. If God allows two people to create life during the sexual act, He has a reason for that life to be here. He is giving a gift to two people and creating a life that could affect society in a million different ways.

When one or both of those people decides to abort that life, they are telling God that His will is not their will and what they want is more important than what He wants. Will they go to hell for having an abortion? If they do not repent and ask Him to forgive them for what they did then yes, they will go to Hell. But the society that allowed this thing to happen will also be subject to divine judgment.

By Jack

August 2, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

I’ve asked you that before and got no response. Guess I won’t get one this time either.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, but a man that thinks he has the last word when it comes to a woman gestating or not, especially if he doesn’t even know her, IS AN IDIOT. A man that doesn’t use his own birth control, IS AN IDIOT.

A woman who doesn’t use birth control at all IS AN IDIOT. But that doesn’t mean she should be forced to bear a child. You can’t legislate morality. Or legislate an “Oops we got carried away” innocent act of love between two people.

OK, now does anybody know WHO IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON new birth control? Please tell me I want to send them money. I want to write to my representatives & ask them how they are encouraging & supporting them.

By FreeWoman

August 2, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Heather, don’t be so naive that women who have the procedure done don’t know what’s involved. They are informed. I learned about abortions in school. Sexual education which some in this country poorly lack.

You speak of women who want to make that choice as selfish. But you come off in your last comment as pretty selfish yourself. Please read your comment at 2:26PM: “…Does that really sound like something you want to support?”

While I commend you for fighting for the lives of children. You are in essence being selfish in thinking that only your way is the right way.

Once again I ask all the anti-choice people. What have you done in your life to uplift the children who are already here? I’m not just talking about your own kids either. Would someone please just answer the question.

By Eaton

August 2, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

You know, I was going to stay out of this one this week, seeing as how it’s just an old argument rehashed yet again, but Bruce’s comment (surprise) really ticked me off and I just had to jump in.

Bruce, why in the world do you think a Supreme Court Justice would need to pander to anyone? They have permanent appointments, Bruce. They don’t have to win anyone’s approval ever again.

I realize that the idea that someone can actually see theshades of gray is beyond your fundamentalist grasp, but there are actually people out there who really do come down on different sides of different issues. That’s why she was a swing vote.

And Heather, sweetie, trust me. Your Christian perspective is meaningless.

By QuoterHere

August 2, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

If you kill a man, you are a murderer. Kill many, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a God.

By Victor

August 2, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

I’m often reminded of an old saying ” The most dangerous people are those who abolutely believe they are right”. A woman’s right to conduct her body in a way she feels is appropriate, is her business and not the business of a government or administration, especially one that has taken a country to war on false claim, set back environmental policy by over a decade and feels it right to indicate that in America some jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists, jains and others that the only god is a christian god. When will the stubborn ( or perhaps wilfully ignorant ) republican voters realize that they messed up and voted for a brutal capitalist who has used morality as part of his arsenal to gather the support of a people, only so that his own buddies are financially bettered from it ?

By TT

August 2, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Bruce: The correct spelling of her name is O’Connor, as listed in the headline in huge font. And the only reason a swing vote is necessary is because we have allowed our judges to form partisan affiliations. Justice O’Connor spoke for many who were underrepresented. It think it’s highly unlikely that she was hanging out with special interest groups or “legislating from the bench,” as you crazy right-wingers like to call it. Perhaps if she spent her free time being felt up by Clarence Thomas you would be more approving?

By lozen

August 2, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

By Mara

August 2, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Ah. So it seems Heather is one of those Jerry Falwell-Pat Buchanan christians that believe “God” used 9/11 to punish America for their wicked, wicked ways. Par for the course. And her argument presupposes the actual existance of “God” as well as the superiority of christian morals over enlightened self-interest.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Freewoman, you learned about abortions in school? Good grief thats terrible.

Eaton, I was responding to BWilson’s comment regarding Christian beliefs. And its only meaningless to you, you can’t in any way know what is meaningless to everyone.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Freewoman, you also said, “You are in essence being selfish in thinking that only your way is the right way.”

Aren’t you doing the same thing?

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 2, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

August 2, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this It took me so long to compose this, I think it got lost in the shuffle. Forgive me for reposting.

Because I am a little behind in my reading, I picked up Newsweek from July 11, with Sandra Day O’Connor as the cover story. Anna Quindlen’s Last Word column contains the following regarding the morning after pill that stops pregnancy but does not end a pregnancy, entitled Now Available: Common Ground:

“If easy access to a pill that decreases the number of abortions is not a welcome development, what is the real point of the anti-abortion exercise? Is it to safeguard life or to safeguard an outdated status quo in which biology was destiny and motherhood was an obligation, not an avocation? America leads the industrialized world in its abortion rate. Perhaps that is because it leads in hyposcrisy as well.�

My own thoughts: As for those who believe that abortion is murder and that a fetus should have all the rights of the born, why don’t women and their families who have early miscarriages name the products of conception, have funerals, and have autopsies done? Is it because they are unfeeling and want everything done their way? Or are there personal, private reasons?

While I understand that some women might benefit from this form or grieving, not all would wish this. Should anyone be forced to grieve the death of a fetus as they would for a living, breathing, born child? Or is this too an issue of choice, of individual determination?

A key underlying issue of reproductive rights is privacy. If this is suspended, and women and men are judged solely on their reproductive circumstances, would the anti-abortion people attempt to go so far as to outlaw out-of-wedlock sex for both men and women? How about requring investigations for any and all miscarriages?

Abortion and fetal death are a part of our reality. Abortions, natural and induced, will always be with us. My pro-choice stance rests on the fact that I would prefer this to be part of the medical sphere and the privacy therein; to make abortion a religious issue will not eliminate the practice; to legislate it thusly will make it more dangerous for society at large, pushing the issues underground, silencing those in need of medical and social support.

To impose religious and moral dogma as law on those who don’t share it, especially in terms of one’s biology, is murder too, murder of the human spirit. Imposing draconian and finite solutions in the name of moral superiority to issues that are constantly evolving and changing, i.e., the instituion of marriage and by proxy, sexual politics, is a recipe for disaster for all freedoms, social, political, religious, spiritual, and economic. Theocratic law will not provide a more moral, caring society, but will push the disenfranchised to further lawlessness every bit as much as indifference to physical, educational, and emotional needs does.

Preservation of the dignity of self-determination and compassion for all suffering is the touchstone of our humanity.

Namaste, all.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Heather, grow up and take responsibility for yourself and your own decisions instead of pretending some invisible big daddy in the sky will do it for you! Why do the gods persist? So humans can refuse to ever grow up and take responsibility for themselves and their world!

By Jack

August 2, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

It took long enough for Eaton & TT to join the fray. Whiley needs some help. The fundies are on the offensive.

By Dimples

August 2, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

“Pro-lifers should dig themselves ‘Cause life doesn’t stop after birth And to a child born to the unprepared It might even just get worse. Supporters of the h-bomb and fire bombing clinics What type of sh-t is that? Orwellian in fact. If Roe v Wade was overturned would not the desire remain intact? Leaving young girls to risk their health And doctors to botch and watch as they kill themselves” ~femme fetal by digable planets

By Heather

August 2, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Mara, you made me smile, thanks. If you only knew honey. Wow, I actually got called a Jerry Falwell-Pat Buchanan christian!!! I just don’t know what to think about that. There was a time when I would have been terribly insulted but now, I just don’t know.

All I did was answer a question regarding Christianity, you will notice that I never once brought up God before that.

But anyway, I’m smiling.

By Eaton

August 2, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Heather, sorry to break it to you, but when discussing the laws of this country, your religious perspective is meaningless. If you don’t want to have an abortion, that’s great, but your religious beliefs don’t entitle you to tell others how to live.

That’s why you’re selfish, by the way. Because you’re trying to make everyone do it YOUR way, and others are content to let you do things your way as long as you let them do things theirs.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Your post did go thru before Sandy, but you are one of the few people who post here whose mail I don’t mind reading twice! It’s refreshing to read mail from people who think for themselves. I know you are a very spiritual person and you also think. That’s a great combination.

By Eaton

August 2, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Don’t worry Jack, I won’t be on much this week. Had to throw in my two cents of hostility towards the fundies.

Heather, if it sounds like a Christer, quacks like a Christer and smells like a Christer, it’s probably a Christer. You didn’t have to mention God - your sanctimonious preachy language and frequent use of anti-choice buzz words and catch phrases pegged you early on.

You just put icing on the cake when you started talking about how your infinitely loving God punishes whole societies who p** him off.

Nice guy.

By Mara

August 2, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Whiley, may I recommend the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals? Unfortunately, because of the right-wing witchhunts regarding anything having to do with sex and taxpayer funding (except for Jeff Gannon, of course) has severly cut the funding for many research groups. As far as I know, the “male pill” is still on the drawing board (dontcha know that if MEN had babies that sucker would’ve been OTC by 1960…) There is some good science going on though. They’re working on injectable contraceptives, and a new “insertable” ring that works like Plan B (only without the nausea and vomiting). There is still research going on, but the pace has slowed due to lack of funding, political intimidation, and the view that contraceptives aren’t big money makers for Big Pharma or major universities (via patents).

By lozen

August 2, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

And what a wonderful question: “If easy access to a pill that decreases the number of abortions is not a welcome development, what is the real point of the anti-abortion exercise?

And of course, we all know that pill is being fought by some people. Why would anybody be against a pill that would stop a pregnancy and therefore a number of abortions? But, no NO! There’s something wrong with that pill too, isn’t there? Women can keep having sex and just take a pill and not have to PAY for having sex! More proof that it’s all just to control female sexuality.

“Is it to safeguard life or to safeguard an outdated status quo in which biology was destiny and motherhood was an obligation, not an avocation? America leads the industrialized world in its abortion rate. Perhaps that is because it leads in hyposcrisy as well.â€? MAY BE!

By Heather

August 2, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Sandy, you said, “Preservation of the dignity of self-determination and compassion for all suffering is the touchstone of our humanity”

What about the self-determination of the aborted baby? It has no say at all in it’s fate. Compassion for all suffering? When I was pregnant, my baby reacted to loud noises, how much more does an unborn baby react to pain? Can you say with absolute certainty that babies don’t feel pain during the abortion process?

The touchstone of our humanity is compassion for all suffering and dignity of self-determination? From what a lot of people have posted here, I would have to disagree with that statement.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

I think everyone needs to realize this is not just a woman’s issue. Men’s lives will be affected. Your 16 year old son’s first sexual encounter could force him into fatherhood. You think if females are forced to give birth that males will be able to just walk away? Think men are already being trapped into a lifetime of financial prison now?

By Mara

August 2, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Ah but heather, you did say that any society condoning abortion would be punished by God…just like jerry and pat.

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Thank you Mara !

By Bruce

August 2, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Maybe these groups have been padding her pocket for the day she did retire? It wouldn’t be the first time that has happened now would it?

And excuse me for mispelling her name. How picky can you be. Oh and by the way here’s one you missed, guess you wrote it. “It think it’s highly unlikely that she was….”

By lozen

August 2, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Nope Heather! Freewoman is not trying to tell you you can’t have children if you want to. She’s not trying to tell you you can’t have an abortion if you decide that’s the best thing for you. She’s not trying to say you have to live your life based on her religious beliefs. So she’s not doing the same thing as you.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

August 2, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

My body, My Choice

Two people converged as one in this world, And neither thought of the consequences And of the two lives, they created one.

What do we do now? I know we have a Choice. Each looked over their lives as far as they could To where they would be a few years down the road; Then looked at their lives currently, As both prayed and prayed and prayed, One made the decision as best she could.

Knowing the choices made today, I doubt they would make them again. But, sometimes lessons are not learned And that will make all the difference.

Birthcontrol is the best invention for both men and women. But, when bad decisions are made - only a woman can make the final CHOICE.

To the Pro-Life folks, there are so many children in this world you could be trying to save. They are trying to raise money at this time for Foster Care in this state, Six Flag is offering $5.00 of their proceeds per visitor this weekend. I believe that is the correct amount.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you tell me to grow up and take responsibility for my own decisions! You obviously know nothing whatsoever about Christianity. Before you presume to make such a comment, maybe you should pick up a Bible and read just a little bit of it. You don’t have to agree with it, but you might be able to make an intelligent comment about it.

This entire discussion is about people taking responsibility for their actions. If your actions create life in your body, be responsible for it. Be an adult, not a child who throws away toys when they aren’t fun any longer.

By SB

August 2, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Heather, sorry I’m late in a reply - I was stuck on a conference call for an hour or so.

Well, for starters, during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, medication abortion is an option. Completely and utterly non-invasive.

This is done either through a dose of mifepristone (which blocks progesterone, causing the lining of the uterus to to break down, bringing an end to the pregnancy and v**** bleeding) or through an injection of methotrexate (which ends pregnancies both in the uterus and in the fallopian tubes).

Misoprostol will be administered after the fact, which will contract the uterus and empty it via v**** bleeding.

Please note that I’m not challenging that what you posted was a real method - because I’m not and it is. But it’s rare, and reserved for late term terminations.

By Eaton

August 2, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Gee Bruce, good to know that you have such faith in your fellow man. Obviously, the only reason that O’Connor would have ruled the way she did was because she was being BRIBED! I SEE!

Kind of like Scalia going out on expensive duck hunting trips to luxury hunting lodges with Cheney, is that the kind of padding you’re talking about? I guess in HIS case it’s OK, since he’s a religious nut too?

By FreeWoman

August 2, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Heather, you just can’t be wrong can you? I learned about abortion is school when learning about sexual education and reproduction. Fortunately for me then, our education on the subject didn’t have limits. Nothing is terrible about being informed. Being misinformed is a problem.

“Freewoman, you also said, “You are in essence being selfish in thinking that only your way is the right way.â€?

Aren’t you doing the same thing?”

How is a woman’s right to choose selfish? Am I for telling a woman not to have an abortion? NO Am I telling a woman to have an abortion? NO You’re whole argument is women NOT having the choice. That’s what makes it selfish.

By raylene

August 2, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Freewoman,

By Heather

August 2, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Wow, a Christer and a “jerry/pat”. It’s my lucky day.

Mara, I don’t really see divine judgment as punishment. When my child gets in trouble at school for cusing, I correct him so that he won’t do it again. When his school gets in trouble for not protecting him from bullies, I take it to the board. The whole school will be subject to judgment by the board for failing to take care of one small child. If the board doesn’t take care of it, the state can be sued and subject to judgment. This is so that one small child will be protected in the future.

If God decides to subject the US to His judgment for the way we are treating children he created, it would be so that sometime in the future other children would be saved.

By raylene

August 2, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

freewoman, i happen to agree with you. we should be taking better care of the children that are already here. i plan on foster parenting/adopting when i can. i think that it is so unfair to all the thousands upon thousands of children who arent loved. and it isnt their faults. why shouldnt every child on earth be loved? as far as abortion goes, everyone has their own opinion, whether we think its right or wrong. and everyone has rights. i think that although i dont agree with abortion, it should be legal to those who choose to do it. just because some people dont think abortion is right, doesnt change the fact that people do it. and will continue doing it. even if the make it illegal. and personally i think that would be a bad choice, it is far more dangerous to have an abortion illegially. women will be trying to do it themselves, using a coat hanger like they did before it was legal. doctors who do the procedure illegially will be considered criminals. so really no one wins either way. they people who think it should be illegal wont be happy until it is. and once(if) it is they wont be happy with the results.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Freewoman, its only selfish when looked at from the perspective of the woman. When looked at from the perspective of the unborn child, your choice becomes highly selfish indeed.

By Eaton

August 2, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

I have other choice names for people like you as well, Heather, but since most of them would look like “**” I won’t bother.

I love your logic - God is going to punish America to stop the “abuse” of the “children” he created. So basically, you think God is going to hurt a lot of people including many innocents because a that nation does something you deem wrong? Oooo, where can I sign up for YOUR church?

Tell me Heather, what are you in your infinite Christian compassion (gag) doing to help all of the actual LIVING children in this country who are the victims of poverty, illness, abuse, etc.? Or, like your typical Jesus-freak anti-choice self-righteous pinhead, are you only worried about life before it actually emerges from the womb?

By Heather

August 2, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Raylene, since you are sitting right here next to me, I could just say this to you, but I think I will post it instead. :)

You must consider that many people, like your aunt, use abortion as birthcontrol. She had 4 abortions, correct? If the US had stricter controls over abortion, your aunt might have decided to use a different form of BC that didn’t involve killing innocent life. You did say that you lost complete respect for her, didn’t you?

By FreeWoman

August 2, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

raylene, much luck on your path to adopting a child. That is a wonderful choice for you to make.

Heather, we’ll have to agree to disagree. But I do want to know why are you against women having a choice? Notice I didn’t say why you are against abortion. I asked why are you against choice.

Also, could you answer the question of what have you done to help the lives of children who are already here? No one except for raylene has even stepped to the podium on that question.

By Jasmine

August 2, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Abortion is one of the most selfish things a woman can do. It is not as simple as one may think…There are serious consequences to the action. I know…I’ve been there. Yes, I think “Roe v. Wade” should be overturned. Because if it hadn’t been law, I would’ve taken responsibility for my actions. It is not a good law and I no longer agree with it.

There are women to this day suffering consequences of abortion and repeated abortions. Some physically, some mentally, but it takes a toll on all involved. It is more than a religious belief. It is a moral belief which has nothing to do with religion. But, if you are religious, you know what you did is murder.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Oh Heather I have read the bible; i would bet money i’ve read much more of the bible than you have. I’ve also read about Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, Islam, Egyptian religion, Greek religion, Native American religion, Aboriginal religion. They all have one thing in common. They are stories created by people who wondered where they came from, what life was all about, what rules they should live their lives by, and what happened after their loved ones and they themselves die. They came up with a thousand different answers to those questions but each culture found answers that suited them. That didn’t make any of them the TRUTH. Buddhism, my particular favorite, was able to change with every culture it went into, unlike christianity which expects the culture to change to what the bible says is right based on the writings of men who lived thousands of years ago and didn’t even know the earth revolves around the sun! I read it. I studied it. I saw it for what it is and I do not live my life based on superstitious tales of wandering nomads who lived a life so different from our life today. But if you want to please be my guest. Just don’t try to force it on me!

By David

August 2, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Heather,

You think that God laying down his judgment against individuals who abort is meant to be a deterrent? You know, lately I’ve been getting lots of visits from spirits telling me not to let my wife have an abortion, because they did and now they’re in Hell. Seriously.

And how do you presume that God brought two people together, then violated his will by having an abortion? Wouldn’t it be equally likely that they violated his will by gettin’ freaky and then were divinely inspired to get rid of the fetus that God didn’t want?

By lozen

August 2, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Heather, do you really believe if your mother had had an abortion you would care at all? Why is it so difficult for you to look at it from the perspective of a woman? Why do you identify more with a fetus than with grown women?

By SB

August 2, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Heather - I’m not trying to start anything, but I’m curious about your reaction to the examples I provided?

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounded like you thought the original method you mentioned was the only one. I’m just curious what your thoughts are now …

By Nikita

August 2, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

shaunti, sorry this has taken me so long to review. i think the Finland study appears to be done properly — the pro-life group, however, has interpreted it and extrapolated from it in a way that is predictable, but not entirely accurate. as someone who would prefer that abortion be safe, legal, and rare, i find it quite interesting. i happen to believe that the place to stop abortion is before one is sought by creating a society full of healthier individuals who make better choices and don’t conceive unwanted and unsupportable children. as such, the study indicates to me that one of the best ways to reduce abortion is by addressing the high-risk behaviors that correlate with it. the idea of a “clean” sample is dangerous, though attractive because it’s far less complex than the full range of experience. people neither get pregnant nor abort in a vacuum and any attempt to understand either in a vacuum is doomed to failure.

you said: Plus, the main correlation that would skew the data would be if women with self-destructive behaviors had greater tendencies to seek out abortion in the first place � in which case, don’t you think its even LESS likely that abortion should be available to those women?!

no, actually, i don’t. i think it proves that those women were correct to recognize that they could not provide for children. it may indicate, however, that additional psychological services would be useful for such women. interestingly there was an argument regarding the global gag rule and some attempts to make it federal along the lines of it being a horrible idea because post-abortion care has the greatest ability to prevent future abortions and provide meaningful counseling to women who are in crisis. by eliminating funding for counselors and other such people from establishments where abortions can be sought you reduce that opportunity.

By Nikita

August 2, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

heather: woman, what woman?

By Kyle

August 2, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

This whole abortion argument is really quite pointless. People on either side have made up their minds, and neither will be swayed by the others argument - b/c we’ve heard the same thing over and over. It just comes down to when you believe a life is created. Once you have determined that for yourself, your stance on abortion should be a fairly simple decision. So it comes down to changing someones mind as to when a life is actually created - I must admit, there are some pretty good debaters on this blog, but this just isn’t going to happen. You guys will just keep throwing back and forth the same arguments the whole week, this should be fun. Although I must say, you guys on the left sure are quick to insult and degrade those that disagree, especially anyone who may have faith in a religon. I am not a religious person by any means, but it’s still annoying to see a person looked down upon or insulted simply becasue they believe in a religion. Correction: simply becasue they believe in Christianity, to degrade another religon just wouldn’t be politically correct.

I do have a question though. Could someone please explain to me why so many, if not all, pro-life people are against stem cell research? I really don’t understand the problem. If the research is done on fetus’ that otherwise would have been thrown away by a clinic, how is opposing this research protecting life? This research could potentially save lives.

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 2, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Heather, none of us has self-determination or say in our fate while we’re in the womb. We’re also not sentient. I don’t believe we even have souls yet. Thousands of things can happen at any stage of our fetal development that could cause a spontaneous abortion, some natural, some not.

To believe that sentient human life begins at conception is a religious or spiritual belief, and not acceptable basis for law in our country. Or it didn’t used to be. Can you say with certainty that abortion is never God’s answer to a woman’s prayer?

Repealing legal abortion laws will not eliminate abortions, but it will increase the number of orphans. Adequate health care won’t eliminate them completely either, but it will help reduce the number that are performed. I’m all for that for everybody’s sake.

Food for thought: Abortion is largely illegal in Peru, with 400,000 performed illegally annually. But even Peru sees the wisdom in making emergency contraception available to reduce the number. Pataki doesn’t.

By blablabla

August 2, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

My body, my choice. That pretty well sums it up from the pro-choice women on the blog. Question - can the man use that argument when he gets a woman pregnant and she decides to have a kid that he wanted aborted and he’s now got to use some portion of his life and bodily labor to support that kid for 18 years?

By Whiley

August 2, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Jasmine & Heather & all you other woman haters, We’re all sending between 10-35 homeless foster kids over to YOUR homes this weekend. Then at least 10 more per day after that since you think all children are precious wanted innocent children. Anyone else want to save the children? Let us know so that we can send you some too. There are thousands just in Georgia. NO? not your problem? Well, isn’t that selfish of you !

By Jasmine

August 2, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Actually, I have been saving them…I have to because of what I did.

By Eaton

August 2, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Seriously Kyle, I’m not quick to attack because someone has faith in a religion. I came to the realization a long time ago that religious fanatics are incappable of understanding anyone elses point of view and are entirely incappable of allowing others to live their lives in peace. Truely religious, faithful people do not have this problem and I have a great deal of respect for them.

There is, as you have astutely pointed out, NO point in this topic. The pro-choices will continue to believe that women should be able to control their bodies with out the government injecting religion to interfere, and the anti-choicers will continue to believe that their religious belief trumps everyone else.

Now, personally I find “the fundamentalist” to be the lowest form of life on the planet. They are nasty, vicious people who try to destroy the lives of anyone who disagrees with their religious dogma, so I don’t bother to debate with them. I don’t bother to be civil to them, because they have never been civil to me. I would like you to give me one reason why I SHOULD be civil to a group of people who have as one of their main goals destroying my basic legal rights? The Jews of WWII Europe didn’t “Play nice” with the Nazis, and I’m not going to “play nice” with the Fundinazis.

By raylene

August 2, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

thank you freewoman. having been fortunate to have my own child, i dont understand how a woman could give up her baby. i know there are reason, and some may be very good. but i cant imagine how it would feel to do that. and that is why i want to adopt, to give a child the chance they deserve to be loved. and i can promise that no matter what, my son and a child that i bring into my home will be loved equally. even if i have more children of my own(i plan on at least one more). i donate money to MDA and the Children’s Hospital of Atlanta, when i can. i figure, i cant stop people from making their choices, and i should help save the children that are here. the ones that are dying from disease. and we should take into account that sometimes an abortion is recommended when a test comes up in a pregnancy that shows a serious risk to the baby.

By Heather

August 2, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Okay, let me take this one at a time. Eaton, I have done so many things to help children. There is not enough space here to write them all down. I have offered to take in children from women who were unable to keep them. I have kept an eye on all the children running lose in my neighborhood. I have given money and more to mothers in need. You don’t know the first thing about me so back off.

Lozen, I have studied all of those religions as well, even Jainism which I thought was very obscure until I researched it more. I seriously doubt you have read the Bible more than I have although you might have read it just as much. But it does seem to me that you might have missed a few crucial points here and there. I felt the same way you do once so I do understand your point on this.

You also asked if I would care if I had been aborted. Well, yes. I am glad to have been born. My son also thanked me this morning for bringing him into this world, his words with no prompting from me.

David, God would never inspire anyone to commit murder. End of comment about that.

SB, I have heard about the methods you described. But unfortunately it seems they do the same thing, just in a less invasive way. Maybe tomorrow we can discuss this more.

Well, its been real folks. I am out of here for the day.

By lozen

August 2, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Jasmine, grow up. This is the first time I’ve heard someone blame the law for their abortion. The law didn’t force you to have an abortion did it? Nope. You decided to have the abortion. Now you regret it. Well, I got married when I was 18 and now I regret it and if marriage hadn’t been legal I wouldn’t have done it! There are women today suffering the consequences of having children. It is impossible to murder a clump of cells just as it is impossible to murder a tumor!

By Randy

August 2, 2005 05:16 PM | Link to this

In discussing abortion, here is my perspective. I use to ask people if they died today how would God judge them on judgement day. Most of the non-Christians would answer “I’m a good person” so I would get to go to heaven. Then I would say, let’s test that thoery. Then I would ask them questions like 1)Have you ever lied? 2) Have you ever took the lord’s name in vain 3) Have you ever desired something so bad, you had to have it(Covet)4) Have you ever not honored your mother and father, 5) ever stolen etc. I would ask them these questions on the 10 commandments and they would answer, yes I have done those things I guess I would be found guilty. I never asked them if they had committed murder as most people don’t think that they have(now I realize I need to ask that question, because they may have aborted a baby or influenced someone to do that). So now I will ask that question also. After asking them these questions, then I ask them if it concerns them that they will be found GUILTY?? Most say yes, then I give them Jesus’ solution(the salvation prayer), really makes you think.

By Anne

August 2, 2005 08:25 PM | Link to this

After reading this entire post, I’m still waiting to see why St. Heather and her support team hasn’t answered ANY of the questions posted to them concerning exactly what they DO for any child not their own. Clearly, no answer IS the answer. They do nothing but sit back and hurl judgements at others for their choices. None of us care what your choices are. If you want to have more kids before marrying the ‘donor’ then feel free. Funny thing tho, your sacred God-given marriage didn’t work out? Why? Did God make a mistake choosing the father of your child? The man you swore to be with until death? Your story didn’t exactly sound like the bastion of christian piety and virginity. I also notice Bruce never answered the question concerning Justice Scalia’s date with Mr Cheney. I guess he forgot about that act of obvious impropriety.
When they have no answers, they just go back to the talking points memo and redirect. It’s straight out of the Rove playbook.
The questions concerning if the ‘pro lifers’ are also against w’s vendetta war (plenty of innocent children killed in Iraq) and capital punishment (how many cases have been proven bogus with DNA lately?) How many innocent people did the state kill using bogus evidence just for a ‘win’ for the DA? And when one takes into consideration how many children were sexually abused at the hands of church leaders… well… I think you see where I’m going. They won’t answer. They can’t. It won’t fit their idea of ‘righteousness’. These nice folks might want to check the bible. “There is no man righteous. No, not one.” Stop judging everyone else and live your own life. We were given free will for a reason.

By Randy

August 3, 2005 07:13 AM | Link to this

Oh Great Lozen has dehumanized unborn babies(clump of cells), unfortunately the clump of cells are ALIVE. I just watched a special on Joseph Stalin and how he killed millions of his countrymen and women. I wonder how he justified killing those people. I’ll bet they were just clumps of cells to him also. Everybody has the need to live with what they have done, so people like Stalin, Hitler, Pot, etc justify what they do. Listen to Lozen and some others on this forum and you to can be a murderer and feel OK about it. The real test is, put yourself in the other persons or living beings shoes and see if you feel the same way.

By Bruce

August 3, 2005 07:43 AM | Link to this

Anne,

I didn’t answer Eaton’s question because I got busy and could not get back to my computer. Patience will do you justice….

In answer to Eaton’s question about Justice Scalia’s date with Mr Cheney. I say this, if we are to hold our Supreme Court above reproach then yes it is wrong for any of them to accept gifts they did not pay for themselves. Now what do we do about it?

We pro-lifers have been asked the quesion “who many children have we taken in to care for”. I believe, after being on this blog for several months now, that no matter what answer we give it will not be good enough for you left-wingers. Take Heather for example, she has listed several things she has personaly done to help those around her. Probably all of us could make a similar list. If we did would it change your mind on abortion? If all the unwanted children were being taken care of by loving, carring families would you then be in favor of making abortion illegal? So I send the question back to you. How many children have you taken in to care for? Or does being pro-choice exempt you from having to help them?

By Brian Curtis

August 3, 2005 07:46 AM | Link to this

So, “any living being” is up for grabs, eh? Human or otherwise? Great! I assume Randy’s a vegetarian, since he couldn’t countenance slaughtering innocent cows and pigs just for food. I assume he’s opposed to antibiotics, which kill thousands, even millions, of innocent microbes every day. And I assume he’s never used an indoor fogger, bug spray, or exterminator service in his life (let alone mousetraps).

Get over it, Randy. All life deserves respect, but all life is NOT of equal value. We draw the line at humanity—human life is more important than nonhuman life. And before you ask, yes: a fetus is not a person. It’s a lifeform, but it’s not on an equal footing with a real, live, breathing human being.

If your religion says otherwise, fine. Then don’t get an abortion; no one’s forcing you to. For that matter, if your religion says the earth is flat, no one’s stopping you from believing it. Just don’t assume that your particular superstition should have any power over the rest of us.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this

Here they go.

An outrageously absurd question about whether or not a Supreme Court Justice is going to “set women back” turns immediately into another ridiculous abortion debate.

The future of women as a whole and in their entirety - depends on a Supreme Court Justice and Abortion…!

Priceless comedy.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this

And before you ask, yes: a fetus is not a person. It’s a lifeform, but it’s not on an equal footing with a real, live, breathing human being.

Well then, you need to inform all the major media sources that Scot Peterson did not murder his wife and un-born child.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this

He was convicted of one count of first degree murder for killing his wife and one count of second degree murder in the death of the son she was carrying.

Just in case you were wondering…

By Ken

August 3, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Great post from 5:00 yesterday, I would only want to interject one item… All folks who are pro-life do not base their position on religion. I know multiple “pro-lifers” who base their opinion on the belief that a human life begins at conception. No religion, just personal belief.

Also… All religious folks are not “pro-lifers”. I am a deeply religious individual, but I do not want to see abortion made illegal. Even though I believe it is morally reprehensible, I believe it should be kept legal. There are many things I believe are wrong and immoral but the government should not regulate.

However, I would ask this question to all of the folks who do not think there is anything wrong with abortion…

How many of you would actually admit to having one…?

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

It is crazy to me Whiley, Lozen et al. and mokes no sense at all.

I am a 48 year old woman who has owned her sexuality (read: have sex if/when I want and with whom) and has been sexually active since around 17 years old.

I have NEVER needed an abortion because I took the precautions that exist BEFORE that decision. Maybe it is because I was raised to REALLY own my body, which means I am RESPONSIBLE for what happens to it and comes out of it.

This BS that BC is so shabby that abortion is NEEDED is unfounded. When used correctly (read: like an adult and everytime), TriPhazal + condom = NO NEED FOR ABORTION. The ONLY arguement against this is that you are too ignorant to take a pill and demand the bit gets wrapped - but you do not want that responsibility, do you? That one requires too much adult behavior and thought?

I believe that there should be safeguards in place to allow termination of a pregnancy in extreme cases - but that is because those are the only ones you CANNOT control.

Grow up girls, I did; and you are a shame to femininity.

By Whiley

August 3, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

It’s not a good idea to admit you’ve had an abortion, because the radical’s will hunt you down & bomb your house.

By Whiley

August 3, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

OK so lets say we all sit back & ALLOW the religious “take over” of our government. Abortion becomes totally illegal, and we get 1.9 million more unwanted children every year. This will likely go the way of Prohibition, so we’ll have ten years of women dying on tables and in back alleys and trying to self-perform abortions. Ten or twenty thousand dead women a year should do it; get a million real, live women who are now dead and talk about their deaths in front of a higher court, and we’ll go back to allowing legal abortion. Of course, a lot of women, maybe you, your sister, your wife, your girlfriend, will have to die to get that to happen, but hey, that’s politics. Freedom means nothing if you are only considered a “baby mill”.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Taboga, wonderful point.

Sandy, you say that an unborn child is not sentient. What do you base this great knowledge on? Do you remember the point in your life when you became sentient or is your time in the womb and birth a little foggy? I would say that since you can’t know when you actually became sentient you should hold off proclaiming when this great event occurs for others. If we assume it was at the moment of conception and we are wrong, then we are wrong. But if we assume its at the moment of birth and we are wrong, we have sanctioned the end of many sentient beings.

By Whiley

August 3, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

A shame to femininity????

hehehe A shame to femininity is not allowing girls to be educated about birth control. That’s the way it was/is in a lot of families & schools. Don’t talk about it & they won’t do it. (eye roll) Don’t be open about sex & birth control?, girls get caught up in the moment & become pregnant. Don’t tell girls about the truth concerning horny boys & all the tricks they use to get you in bed? Girls become pregnant. Instead of being honest with girls, we hold them back, try to guilt them into not having sex.
That’s nice.

Give me a break with the shame to femininity, that doesn’t even make sense.

A lot of responsible married grown women already with kids have abortions. Birth control can fail. Remember you aren’t supposed to take the pill after 35. Guess what? you can still get pregnant well into your 40’s.
I’m amazed some people are so clueless. It’s a miracle women have come as far as they have considering the rediculous standards that still exist.

By Mara

August 3, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Ken…I will. Yes, I have had an abortion. I’m no more ashamed about it than I am of the tonsilectomy, the hernia repair, or the pin they put in my broken leg. I’m no prouder of it than I am of the stitches I had in the 10th grade or the laser surgery I got done on my eyes. It’s a medical procedure and that’s all. Even though I believe that abortion should be an individual decision, I wouldn’t go around wearing a “I had an abortion” t-shirt anymore than I would a “I had an apendectomy” shirt. Firstly, it’s nobodys business but mine and secondly…it’s nobodys business but mine. Personally, if you’re anti-abortion, I couldn’t care less. Bully for you. Being anti-choice is another thing.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Joan, it is great to hear from a woman who thinks women can be free and aborton still be illegal. I for one am glad my own personal sense of freedom is not based on one court case.

By MarkMyWords

August 3, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

I think that a guy should have the right to terminate a pregnancy in a woman who is carrying his baby.

I mean it is his body that goes to work each day and earns money, right? So should’nt he have the same right of: I did not want or plan this baby you are carrying; therefore it is a parasite on MY life and MY life is ALL ABOUT ME, not you and some inconveient kid.

That sounds about right, wouldnt you say?

By sandra

August 3, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Lozen, Thanks for attempting to show me where my logic is wrong. Actually, after reading your post, I believe we are almost on the same page. I used absurd examples to illustrate that our personal freedoms have limits. Our freedoms are limited with they conflict with another person’s rights. You seem to agree with that. That is why I say this is not a debate about freedom. It goes back to what I believe is the real crux of the debate - life. When does life begin? Is it at conception? Is at some point in the womb that the baby should be considered a valued life? Is only after birth that the baby should be considered a valued life? I recognize their are different positions within the medical community. Because there is no real consensus, my question is simple - Why would anyone take a chance? Wouldn’t we want to err on the side of life?

By Augustine

August 3, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

“I would like you to give me one reason why I SHOULD be civil to a group of people who have as one of their main goals destroying my basic legal rights?” Eaton, what basic rights of yours are being destroyed?

By Van

August 3, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

JoanFromAtl, Bravo to you, a smart, thinking and intelligent woman, willing to take responsibility for her actions. Society does not know how to treat women like you. It is hard to find people like you.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Heather, your question about sentience is woefully disingenuous. Obviously, sentience rests in the BRAIN, Heather. A clump of undifferentiated cells doesn’t have BRAIN, now does it Heather? But then again, neither do religious loons.

By Augustine

August 3, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Mara, whats the difference between being anti-abortion and being anti-choice?

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

That’s a whole other equally contentious debate, Augustine, and since I’m guessing that you are one of the religious fanatics who would tell me how wrong and silly I am, I’m not going to get into it with you.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Anne, you said something about how my God-given marriage didn’t work out? Then you said something about how my life wasn’t so “holy”. Well of course it hasn’t been. Wisdom is not gained from living in a bubble. Its gained from living and making mistakes. I never once claimed to be perfect. As a matter of fact I think I made it plain that I wasn’t. But now that I am much older and wiser, I would like to help others not make some horrible mistakes in their own lives. If I had listened to some wise people in my own life, things would be easier for me today.

Of course once I actually answered a question asked regarding the Christian viewpoint, I was seen as a self-righteous bigot. Oh well, I went home proud of having stood up for what I believed in regardless of whether someone would disagree with me or choose to verbally attack me for it.

By Brian Curtis

August 3, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Mark: I know you’re being sarcastic, but there’s actually a lot of value to the idea that the male partner should be able to “abort” his responsibilities in an unwanted-pregnancy situation… something akin to signing a form and paying a fee (equal to the cost of a safe, legal abortion).

This method would preserve the woman’s core right to choose what happens to her, while recognizing that the man has the equivalent right to control his own participation in the process. Good idea!

By Brian Curtis

August 3, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Hey, Joan makes a valid argument. If I’m reading her correctly, she’s saying that widespread knowledge and use of birth control would be better than widespread abortion. And I think most pro-choice advocates would agree with that. She even (apparently) makes exceptions for special cases like rape, incest, etc.

I’m not on-board with her 100%, but at least her position has some merit. The whole “shame to femininity” thing is a puzzler, though; not sure what she’s getting at there.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Whiley, no one here is telling women they should not use birthcontrol. Or that girls should not be educated regarding birthcontrol. I do object to young children being educated about life being scraped from the womb as if its a valid choice but not birthcontrol in general.

By Whiley

August 3, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

(bigger eye roll) I don’t have much time for this today. I just hope that women wake up & don’t assume the rights to your own body & life will always be there. There are too many individuals out there that have their own agenda, which is pretending to be concerned about saving babies. It is not about that at all, it’s about campaigning their own religious beliefs & controlling women’s sexuality. Do not ever forget that.

The people who claim to be saving babies are spending millions of baby-saving dollars dollars promoting ultraconservative Republican candidates for political office. Why? Because those candidates support their political intention. They are antiabortion, anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-gay rights, and anti-almost anything pleasurable. I’m concerned that until women start dying from illegal, unsafe abortions as they did in the 1960s and earlier, American voters will not believe that abortion is a legitimate form of health care that women genuinely need. Not having final say in something so private & life changing does not make women free at all.

One last question though, how many of you guys out there got someone pregnant that resulted in abortion? (that you know of)

There’s nothing more to say. I’ve said it all.

By Ken

August 3, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Mara… Kudos to you… I suspect you are one of the few who would actually say it out in the open…

Also… If you read my entire post, you’d know I would not support making it illegal, even though I believe it to be wrong. That implies I would allow women to make that decision, even though I believe it to be immoral.

That’s anti-abortion, NOT anti-choice…

By Mara

August 3, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Markmywords, what makes you think that the guy is going out working? Or that he pays his child support? Or that the woman isn’t working also? Or that the paid labor the guy does to support a child comes anywhere near the physiological labor the woman puts into birthing one?
As discussed up-thread, I wouldn’t have a problem with allowing men to sign paternity waivers if they didn’t want to be fathers. If a woman is allowed to choose to be a mother, a man should have just as much right to choose not to be a father. However, the problem arises when a man wants the woman to give birth and the woman doesn’t want to. Because the pregnancy impacts the womans health far more than the mans, it should always be her choice.

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Whiley: You really think that “A lot of responsible married grown women already with kids have abortions.” ?????

And as I said, I am 48 - past your 35 year mark for no more BC.

Guess what? I use Films and a condom.

What is YOUR problem in getting educated on what BC is out there?? You have a rant that is grotest - BC is flakey?!?!?THIS is why kids think there is no reason to protect themselves. People like you convince them that: “it dont matter no how, if your gonna get pregers - it is fate; or some such nonsense.”

YOU try to provide a decent example for our daughters instead of blaming everyone and thing else for what you put in YOUR body.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Eaton, do you believe all lifeforms with brains are sentient?

By taboga

August 3, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

I’m not on-board with her 100%, but at least her position has some merit. The whole “shame to femininity� thing is a puzzler, though; not sure what she’s getting at there.

I will be glad to explain it you. She is talking about being a “woman” rather than a “girl”. She’s talking about being a grown “woman” and taking some personal responsibility for doing the right thing.

And what she mains by “shame” is that all the whiny little girls out there are giving a bad name to the real women in our society!

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Oh Heather, silly woman, you’re accused of being self-righteous, not because you’re religious, but because you seem to think that your religious beliefs should translate into law.

If you were to say “I believe abortion to be immoral and that’s why I won’t have one and will teach my children the same” that would be one thing. However, YOU and all other sanctimonious religious types DON’T say that you say “I believe abortion is immoral, so YOU can’t have one”.

I don’t expect you to understand the difference.

By Mara

August 3, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Augustine - being only anti-abortion means that you believe that abortion is wrong and that women shouldn’t have them (for whatever reason you prefer). BUT you don’t believe that you have the right to tell another how she lives her life and what medical decisions she should make. Anti-choice means you are anti-abortion and think you have the right to force women to carry a fetus to term.

FYI- i’m using the pro-noun “you” in a collective sense…

By Whiley

August 3, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

sigh geez haven’t I’ve been posting about the importance of birth control, education & more research???? This is JUST LIKE THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT to change the subject & go off on something else. Abortion MUST BE always an option for women, because women are not perfect & neither is birth control ! ! ! ! Women should not have their lives ruined because of one time of being caught up in the moment or failure of a condom ! ! ! !

I’m not going to get drawn up in a stupid debate. If you’ve read my posts you KNOW I’m very much PRO BIRTH CONTROL. I want there to be NO NEED for abortion, except in rare cases of birth control failure etc. (but always legal)

Stupid women, go ahead, push to get it illegal. Hope you enjoy watching your daughters, sisters & friends die or get permanently damaged from illegal abortions. I was there remember. Only allow in cases of rape? When you sons are hauled off to jail on false rape claims so a scared girl can get an abortion don’t complain. Idiots

By Augustine

August 3, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Of course you won’t Eaton, because that is a widely used excuse to justify ones hatred of religion. I doubt you could identify which “rights” you claim are being trampled on. You spout that excuse due to your inability to comprhend the “fanatical right” as you call us. Somebody feed you that line of BS and you repeat it over and over again because it sounds effective, not because you can actually discuss it.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

If that’s what you want to believe Augustine, go right ahead.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Here’s a simple logical exercise for you Heather. Simple is all you can handle, I think - All sentients have brains. All with brains are not sentient. Using this construction, must one have a brain in order to be sentient? Yes.

Basic logic Heather, something that religious folks lack.

By MarkMyWords

August 3, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Mara,

“Because the pregnancy impacts the womans health far more than the mans, it should always be her choice.”

Well lets look at this simple scenario to debunk that:

Well, if I am a guy and have a low paying job (or no job) and cannot pay for child support I shall be put in jail. I think that is quite a health risk seeing as it is not a possibilty, but is definite - unlike the possible (vs probable or as above, definite) risk to mothers health.

You want to say that if I cannot support a child then I have no business putting my sperm in someone else? Well that is my arguement to you now isnt it: You (the feamle) could think before putting dick on you.

You want NO responsibility! Not to HAVE responsibility of your body!

By Heather

August 3, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I believe abortion is murder.

Lets say that a law had been passed that all children under the age of 2 could be killed by their parents. This law was passed because people felt there was a possibility that children under 2 did not yet have a soul. They then rationalized that if a lifeform without a soul was too inconvenient to take care of it was okay to kill it.

Then a bunch of us religious fanatics got online and said hey, that’s murder. We can’t do that. What are you guys doing killing innocent children?

Would you still argue that the parents right to choose to kill their children was more important than the life of that child? Would you get on here and call me a stupid religious loon for feeling that way?

By Heather

August 3, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

So Eaton, if all creatures with brain are not sentient, what makes you think it is truly your brain that makes you sentient?

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

You can avocate something AND be ignorant, which it has been proven you (ignorant) are from your prose.

What would fail in the situation of you using film and a condom? HUH??? If there is a case, what do you suppose the odds are? And what part of your ignorance contributes?

We have more control than EVER over our bodies. This is a progression, not regression; but you subvert our attemts with your childish “BUT I WANT IT NOW!!!!”

Okay Veruca, you get no gobstopper - go home and grow up before opening your mouth with such idiotic statements.

By SB

August 3, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Joan - I’m on board with you so far as the idea of widespread birth control, as opposed to widespread abortion.

I think we differ on only one point: you’re of the mind that widespread use of BC will totally do away with a need for legal abortion, while I don’t.

I us multiple forms of BC, as well. But I’m aware that if I take something as mundane as, say, the recent antibiotics I took for a sinus infection - it will have an effect on my birth control. If I remember the warnings that come with my pills correctly, even aspirin lowers the effectiveness.

Condoms aren’t 100 percent, but they’re a fabulous back-up. I just happen to be of a mind that people who are in a “worst case sceanario” should have access to safe, legal and regulated options.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Heather, do you know what logical falacies are? Because you’ve just committed an enormous one. Strawman argument, with a touch of Slippery Slope.

Do I even need to address the absurdity of this argument?

By Jack

August 3, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

How many men are in jail for not paying child support? Not enough. Work 2 jobs to pay for the child.

By Whiley

August 3, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

idiots

sigh

By taboga

August 3, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Heather,

It’s ok to be religious - you just can’t be religious. And if you dare to be religious - you can’t express any of your religious views. If you express any religious view - you are then a religious fanatic.

And the Left can’t tolerate a religious fanatic. But they do have a tremendous amount of respect for your religion. As I am sure you have heard many times.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

I find it hard to believe that you are truly as stupid as you sound, Heather. When people’s spleens are damaged they don’t loose their cognitive functioning.

It’s called science, sweetie. It really does work, despite what your ignorant preacher tells you.

By Whiley

August 3, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Some of the comments & arguments some of you are using to justify Govt. owning all wombs is shocking. I can’t read this anymore.

Like I said, this isn’t about saving fetus’s, it’s about women having sex & punishment for it. No matter what idiotic argument is thrown out here, that’s what this is about. I’m otta here.

By Augustine

August 3, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

I agree with Heather, Eaton. You simply do not have the ability perceive or comprehend unless they are spoon fed to you.

By SB

August 3, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Heather - sorry, wanted to respond to your post from last night.

I understand that the results of the two different methods are the same, so I wasn’t expecting you to change your mind or anything. I was under the impression that you thought there was only one method used, the one you described.

I was just curious what your thoughts were on learning that there were less invasive methods. That being said, you mentioned you were already aware of them - so that answers my question!

Thanks for the response.

By blablabla

August 3, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

eaton, i am no religious fanatic. i would love to hear what rights you think are being destroyed. thanks.

By Augustine

August 3, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Eaton do you debate all topics in this fashion? You throw out a new word you just learned then belittle people with insults. The brillant stroke is referencing science without identifing scientific facts to support your veiwpoint. The only thing clear is that you can’t stand religion. Here’s a quarter….Go call someone who cares.

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

SB,

Thanks for debating like an adult, it is refreshing.

To reply:

I think that abortion is a RESORT, not a RIGHT. And my personal belief is that given ALL the ramifications that exist, there are very few single sided issues that warrant one (Rape, incest, danger to mother).

Therefore, I do believe in conditions set for extreme situations where aborting a pregnancy is possible.

Do you really think there would be a legal abortion if we had another route? I am quite sure everyone would agree that such a practice (abortion) is negative (to say the least) if there was a replacement.

This is proof to me that NO-ONE actually wants abortion as a RIGHT, but that pluarlistic-thinking takes too much brain power and responsibility for many.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Eaton, you are definitely the only person here I can say is truly stupid. You are the only one name calling. You are the only one using insults in the place of a true answer or argument.

I have ignored most of it because I realize an ignorant savage such as yourself doesn’t know what you are doing, but you might be dangerous to yourself and others. Go find a good book to read.

By SB

August 3, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as “religious = bad.”

Some people are seeing shades of gray, and this is one area where science isn’t a help. These people are saying that until science chimes in, quality of life for all involved (which is really, for me, the choice issue) trumps quantity of life in our non-supportive society.

BTW, didn’t GA just slash child care benefits for low-income women? I’m from out of state, so I could have that wrong - can anyone fill me in?

Thanks!

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

You are out of here? Good, you have only cause our daughters damage and have no place talking such subject before growing up and getting educated.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Augustine, you keep responding, so I’m guessing you care.

I didn’t realize I needed to cite evidence that conciousness resides in the brain…for most people that’s elementary.

I also didn’t realize that I needed to point out the absurdity of arguing that a hypothetical law allowing parents to kill a toddler had any REAL bearing on a discussion of abortion.

I’m abrasive because I despise you, you are correct about that. Because you use religion as a goad or a whip to make others live as you believe instead of living your own life, I despise you. Not because you are religious, but because you are would-be tyrants. I think you are scum.

BlaBlaBla, I invite you to read the websites of the Christian Coalition, James Dobson’s group, and other large, influential Christian groups. You will see how they not only are involved in the various “defense of marriage” acts around this country, but call for a return to the criminalization of homosexual behavior. They advocate taking children away from their natural parents, preventing private companies from offering domestic partner benefits, etc. Many states used anti-gay bills this past election as the heart of their anti-liberal fear campaigns. So yes, my civil rights are under attack.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Lol Heather - I’m a savage? Very entertaining coming from someone who so obviously has no grasp of science or reason. Do you seriously think you have offered any argument other than “God makes babies”? I call you names because you deserve nothing more than scorn and derision.

I have a suggestion, Heather, why don’t you go and spend some more time berrating innocent women at abortion clinics and threatening doctors? I’m sure you’ve got experience there.

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

Want to try taking me on?

I can show you how I can run circles around your 3rd grade logic and name calling.

For instance; Seeing as there are more dimensions than the ones we perceive (like where light resides until precipitating into our reality bc of interaction with something in this time/space (look at the double-slit paradox if you are ignorant to what I am talking about; or the oblique angle polarization paradox). And synapses (things in your brain that actually do the “work” of thinking, storing info etc) work on the same premise of charges “tunneling” through the same non-time/non-space. The thoughts very well could exist without a mind, and only need a brain to communicate with the physical world; which a fetus would not have, yet…

Have any intelligence that can talk about reality in the true complexities that exits? Or still 3rd grade.

Also, I am not religious, so that argument will not work.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

SB, GA has made some changes in the child support laws. I don’t necessarily agree with them but they came about to protect fathers from abuse. I think they are imperfect and could use some “tinkering”.

But we have can’t use abortion as the fix all for the problems in our society.

By SB

August 3, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Joan- And thanks for offering your point of view! It’s always refreshing to have a calm debate.

I think we agree on a lot. Personally, I don’t think it should be a right, so to speak. I think there should be more obstacles in place so it’s more difficult (not necessarily more time consuming, though - pregnancy being a “time is of the essence” type of situation :) ) to obtain one.

That’s where it gets hazy. I’m not a doctor, not a psychologist, and haven’t had to go through the procedure myself … In short, I’m not an expert, so I don’t know what these hurdles need to be.

Referrals from OB/GYNs, perhaps. Psychological screening to rule out anyone how thinks of it as a great form of birth control, maybe. Proof of financial burden, or lack of insurance.

I don’t think it should be an “anybody off the street” right. But I do think it should be available for worst case sceanarios - which, in my opinion, also includes some gray areas. Finances, family support, psychological issues, the health of the fetus, etc. in addition to the general health of the mother, rape, incest, etc. loopholes.

By Rodney

August 3, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Can’t we all just GET ALONG

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Evidence for eaton:

True:

A man was hit in the head by a prop on a plane while servicing it. He suffered a MAJOR slice through it. He was in a coma for something like 3-6months.

Now, originally he was a logical straight forward mechanical thinker. Upon getting his functions back (slowly) he remembered American Indian artifacts and began dreaming about them. He began painting, sculpting, etc Indian head-dresses and such specific items with perfection, but knew nothing of them before the accident.

Where would you suggest these thoughts were? Not his brain, but his brain did pick them up after the accident. No easy answer here buddy.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

All this logic stuff is fun!

If you’re against killing babies - you have to be religious whether you really are or not. And since it is determined that you are religious because you’re against baby killing, it is only logical then that your opinion shouldn’t count because it comes from your religious view. Even though you may not be - you must be.

This logic stuff is a ton of fun!

By Heather

August 3, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

Eaton, so you are angry with Christians because of gay issues? I sympathize. I know exactly where you are coming from with that one.

But we are not discussing gay rights here. We are discussing abortion.

Save up your anger for the next gay topic.

By Mara

August 3, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Mark…the difference between a man not paying child support and ending up in jail are addressed in my post about paternity waivers. Hey, I’m all for letting guys make their choice as much as letting women make theirs. In fact, I am deeply troubled by our present system. I don’t think it properly addresses the realities of second marriages, the increasingly (but not yet complete) equal wages per men and women, nor the depressed employment figures. So I dunno why you’re yelling at me about the system trying to victimize the man. I don’t think men are any more responsible for pregnancy than women are, except in rape situations, of course. And Heather, the analogy about the 2-year old is fallacious simply because the toddler is obviously and incontravertably singular. It breathes its own air into its own lungs, injests and matabolizes its own nutrients, and can exist independantly of any one particular caregiver. A fetus exists because I breathe air, I injest food and drink, I keep my body healthy. It is attached to MY body, using MY blood, MY air, MY nutrients. It is a part of ME and not singular unto itself.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Interesting theories, Joan, but theories they remain.

Personally, I fail to see how the duality of light or any other theories relating to the physical properties of light have any bearing on the concept of sentience.

And are you actually suggesting that brain function occurs in some non-physical dimension? I was always under the impressions that neurotransmitters traveled across synapses carrying the physical components of brain function. I’d be interested to see what research your using to suggest that your non-time/non-space theory holds any water.

I certainly understand the concepts of a multi-dimensional universe, but anything which attempt to postulate that sentience pre-exists the creation of the vessel which contains is either purely speculative or just plain science fiction. There can be no disputing that the physical mechanism of thought and being is contained in the brain. The effects of damage to that organ are observable, and it is even possible to predict what behavioral changes may result from damage to a specific area.

We’d all like to have scientific evidence of the continuation of conciousness, and the idea of conciousness existing outside of corporeal form is a popular one, with Babylon 5 fans at the very least, but you’re suggesting that conciousness pre-exists form? Possibly we could get into a Relatavistic debate here - if time is simply another non-linear dimension of existence, I suppose one could make the case that if conciousness exists at any point in that that dimension it exists in every point?

I have no argument with you, Joan, unless you’re trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives like Heather is.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Thanks for an intelligent response Mara. I do see your point, but I know that when my son was that young he was very dependent on me. My body was affected by carrying for him. I spent several nights up without sleep. I skipped meals when his care required I do so. My body, blood, air (diapers smell bad), and nutrients were affected, not to mention my financial resources.

By SB

August 3, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Heather- Thanks for the info. I’ll look around on the AJC web site to find out a little more.

You’ve mentioned that you’re opposed to teaching girls about birth control - would you mind explaining why? I’m curious what your motivation on that is.

By David

August 3, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

David, God would never inspire anyone to commit murder. End of comment about that.

I guess that he just does that himself then? Taking a look at my handy-dandy Bible, I notice that the Big Dude wiped out just about everyone with some massive flood. Now, I know the folks were wicked and all, but do you really believe that there were no innocent children amongst them? Or is it not murder because God did it? I’d say that God is certainly capable of inspiring someone to off an unwanted, as nowadays He apparently does his actions through more subtle means in the past.

As for the “debate” about sentience, if it does not lie in the brain, then it certainly doesn’t lie in the material body. Thus, destroying the body wouldn’t do a thing to the sentience of the being. Yes, I know what that implies.

As for life beginning at conception, yes, indeed a distinctly new life form has been created. It is, which Randy seems to disbelieve, an amorphous “clump of cells.” But it is genetically distinct. Then again, a tumor is also a clump of cells that is genetically distinct (barely, but it has a mutation in its genome that is causing the cell cycle to go crazy-go-nuts, so it is different). It’s also human. Rather than killing the tumor, ought we not extract it as preserve it in a petri dish?

And we aren’t the only sentient life forms, either. I wonder who amongst the pro-lifers are also adament supporters of Ape-Rights.

And Joan, I’m not a neuroscientist. Could you refer me to a good source where I can get information about what you’re talking about (oblique angle polarization paradox, etc.)? Thanks, I like to be informed.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry Heather, it’s all the same, it’s all related. And again, I’m not angry at CHRISTIANS, I’m angry at people who think that because they have a religious belief that they can tell other people how to live. It’s not about abortion, or gay issues, or anything specific, it’s about the basic belief that because you think you know what God wants, you get to make everyone else behave in accordance with that.

I have been very nasty to you, however, and I apologize for that. I’ll try to stay civil for the debate.

Joan, ooo can we start talking about Jung now? Or Joseph Campbell? The idea of archetypes and a collective conciousness is fascinating. Of course, it’s ALSO possible that the injury caused old memories to resurface. The brain is a miraculous thing - someone with an eidetic memory can see something once and have every detail clear. Is it so hard to imagine that we all store our memories in that fashion, and just lack the ability to retrieve them?

By Heather

August 3, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

SB, I never said that. I think girls should be given full information about birthcontrol and shown how to use it. I also think they should be encouraged to remain virgins until they are mature enough to know what they are doing.

My only objection is the teaching of abortion in a school environment.

When my son is a little older I will be getting out the cucumbers and condoms and showing him how to keep me from becoming a grandmother.

By lozen

August 3, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Feminists warned, when abortion was legalized, that we should never forget the right to choose could easily be taken away. If we do lose legal abortion, there are techniques anyone can learn that will enable women to help each other to choose whether to breed or not. So no, the right to choose does not hang on one supreme court decision. It will be sad to see women going to prison for performing abortions but it might be better than trying to live on social security!

By Mara

August 3, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

But Heather, does your breath still provide him with oxygen? Does the contents of your stomach still provide him with nutrients? If you die, will he? I’m not saying that an infant or child isn’t dependant on someone providing sustainence. Nor am I saying that an infant doesn’t affect the health and welfare of the caregiver. But…the choice to provide and care for a child are just that, a choice. You had (and still have)a choice on whether it is YOU in particular that provides for that small individual. Since a fetus is part and parcel of the pregnant womans body, she doesn’t have that same freedom. If she dies, it (usually) will die. A fetus is not a singular individual, a person if you will, until it detaches from the uterine wall.

By Kyle

August 3, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

-Is abortion really the only issue that we could be talking about to answer the original question of this blog: Will O’Connor’s resignation set women back? Some people out there must think that this resignation will affect women in some other way besides abortion, and besides, everyone is basically just repeating the same arguments over and over.

-But if everyone really does want to keep talking about abortion, I’ve got a question. I don’t understand why so many pro-life people are completely against stem cell research? Pro-life people want to protect life, right? If the research is done on fetus’ that would be thrown away by clinics to begin with, that fetus is lifeless and there is no life to protect. On the other hand, this research could potentially save many lives in the future. I honestly do not understand the objection here? Someone please explain.

Eaton, looks liked your getting ganged up on today. It don’t mean to simply follow the crowd but……. I have a question for you. Whenever I meet a gay person, or hear that some one is gay, I don’t automatically assume that the person is gonna be straight out of “queer eye”. I understand that people exhibit and practice homosexuality to certian extremes, as do heterosexuals for that matter. I would assume that you would appreciate people having that type of openmindedness. Why then do you jump to call a person a fanatic (and by the way you have used that term about 1000 times so far on this blog) whenever a person so much as hints that they might be religious. Not all religous people are religious fanatics. I would think that someone such as yourself, who deserves and probably expects openmindedness and understanding from others, would not be so quick to deny others the same in return.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Thank you Eaton. I’m afraid I got a little nasty myself. I apologize as well.

I really don’t think I can tell other people how to live their lives. I do however think our government has a responsibility to set guidelines for our people. I think our government is wrong to make it so easy for people to have an abortion. I see that as failing in its responsibility to protect the innocent among us, our children.

By Kali

August 3, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

How many times do we have to tell you? A fetus is not a child. A clump of cells is not a baby. Many, many people in this country (the majority) do not believe that abortion is murder. What right does the gov’t have to tell them it is? What right does the gov’t have to force women to breed if they don’t want to? Motherhood by choice, not by force. If you like the war and killing all those children and pregnant women in Iraq then shut up already about abortion, idiots! If you think the death penalty is just fine, then shut up about abortion you hypocrites!

By Jack

August 3, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Eaton is pretty good at this. Good luck.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Okay Mara. I technically agree with you. What you are saying is correct. It is a sacrifice for a woman to carry a child she doesn’t want. But pregnancy is only 9 months. Labor is only a few days at the most. Yes, there is a risk involved in bringing a life into the world. But if women use birthcontrol properly, use condoms as a second protectant, possibly avoid sex during the most fertile times of the month, and get their tubes tied/husband fixed if they never want kids, the risk of getting pregnant is slim to none.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Kyle, I’ll admit to having a big chip on my shoulder when it comes to religion, or at least religious extremism, and for a lot of reasons.

You’re probably right - fanatic is an unproductive word, but then I find “It is because God says it is” to be a pretty unproductive argument.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Kali, I have never heard of the government forcing anyone to have sex. All adults know where babies come from. If I eat too much food, I get fat. If I drink too much beer, I get drunk. If I have sex without protection, I get pregnant, HIV, VD, etc.

And are you absolutely positive that an unborn “fetus” is not a child? Would you be willing to stake your own life on that?

By Jack

August 3, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Now all we need is Norman added to the mix and we’ll have a good “brawl on the blog”. I try to argue but find I get mad and that does no good. Eaton will make you angry. He takes pleasure in it. It is fun to make folks angry on here but not so fun when you are mad. Took me a while to figure that one out. I’ve made my feelings on this subject known, I’ll sit back and enjoy the battle.

By SB

August 3, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Heather, my apologies … I took that from this comment:

“Freewoman, you learned about abortions in school? Good grief thats terrible. ” - answering Freewoman’s assertation that sexual education needs to be taught.

I’m sorry for my assumptions. But, this raises another question, where’s the line for you with sex ed? There obviously is one - what’s ok to teach, and what isn’t?

By SB

August 3, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Heather, ignore my question - you answered it in your previous post (and again, we’re finding some common ground - a fact I absolutely love).

Sorry for the confusion!! Apparently, my tuna rolls are the only thing I can concentrate on right now!

By Adam

August 3, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I just wanted to say that as a Republican, I appreciate you, and hysterical mudslingers like you, so much. Please keep shouting down your opposition with insults while claiming that you are only doing it because your “stupid” opposition doesn’t deserve a rational response. It makes elections so much easier for conservatives.

Until liberals formulate a rational way to respond to people’s moral reservations about liberal social policies they will never win elections. I guess conservatives will just have to be content with being the unenlightened majority party until then.

I’ll conclude by observing that hating conservatives or christians because they want to be tyrants is hilarious. Eaton, honestly answer the question -which group in American society relies most heavily on the democratic process and which group relies most heavily on unelected judges? Are we debating a democracy’s majority decision today, or are we debating the decision of unelected judges? And who is defending the social policy decided, not by elected majorities, but by unelected judges? Liberals or conservatives? Keep trying to sell the American public the idea that conservatives are the ones being tyrants. I think the results speak for themselves.

The fact that your other posts exhibit intelligence make your insults that much more inexcusable. Either way, I look forward to your insulting response.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

It breathes its own air into its own lungs, injests and matabolizes its own nutrients, and can exist independantly of any one particular caregiver.

So let’s take advantage of the one that can’t survive independently and kill it!

Let me put my 2 cents in on the Abortion issue.

I think Abortion should be legal. It’s Assisted Abortion that we should ban!

A woman should have the right to do with her body as she sees fit. She should be able to choose to abort her baby, anytime and anywhere she chooses - it’s completely up to her!

You Doctors can just stay out of her uterus - this is between her and her baby!

And for those of you who might be concerned about the woman’s safety, I must remind you of something — It is none of your concern! It is her choice, her body and is none of your damn business!

By Kali

August 3, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Heather, you’re a disgusting little dictator. I have taken the pill for years. It failed (we all know it fails!) and I got pregnant. My husband and I are both in our last two years of graduate school. My abortion was scheduled the day after the test was positive. There hasn’t been one second of guilt or looking back. There was no other choice for us. My husband and I take responsibility for our futures and our “future children.” In five years we will be able to financially support a family. We determine what we want for ourselves and our future family. Your beliefs about abortion do not matter to me or other young people with goals and dreams. We will do what we feel is right for us. Your opinion, you beliefs, your control issues are simply not important to us. The only thing that is important about you is that you and others like you, want to control the lives of people like us. You really believe you have god’s permission to force all of us to follow your beliefs. You don’t. The way we live our lives, the choices we make, are none of your business.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Sorry to disappoint, Jack. I’ve decided to play nice, too.

By Jack

August 3, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Taboga. Just curious, are you male or female?

By Jack

August 3, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

But Eaton, you were doing so good. I could feel the heat comming off my monitor. LOL

By SB

August 3, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Taboga - I’m trying really hard not to fight and to find some common ground. But, in all honesty, I found your post making light of abortion to be offensive. One thing we can all agree on is that it’s a very serious issue, and deserves some sensitivty and maturity in discussions.

Adam - Wow. Maybe it’s just the way I read it, but that post had the opposite effect on me (an Independent voter who takes pride in choosing candidates and issues by reading into them, rather than relying on a party mandate) than I think you wanted. It made me want to go toe the Democratic party line.

Forums like this are only successful when we actually listen to one another

By Heather

August 3, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Kali, even with my views on abortion and knowing that you have had an abortion, I don’t think you are a disgusting murderer. I hope you are able to have children when you are ready for them.

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

What I provided IS fact.

Tunneling b/w synapses is FACT; how do you suppose that the non-conected ends comunicate? It is an electrical storm in there (brain), which gets us into the same paradoxical (read: Non-logical) issues as light - the elcromagnetic field. It skips over space and time. The peptides that cause your emotions are first triggered by this other-worldly tunneling, which comes from the electrical storm. Why would that be needed if the brain was a self-contained system?

What do you have to say about double-slit and Polarization paradoxes? This dictates that there is a function/probability that things follow; BEFORE THEY EXIST.

And one can have this electrical storm turned off for a little (stroke, cold drownings) and when we apply a charge; the brain and mind reconnect.

As for the Propeller man. He is well documented also, and has sculpted, painted etc…items that were not common Indian artifacts in any way. The chances that he had seen these ritualistic items in the detail he provided is absurd. Also,where did these talents come from? The muscle memory, if nothing else?

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Adam, you sing the song of “unelected judges” quite well. Of course, that song didn’t emerge until the Supreme Court overturned Texas’ sodomy laws.

I’m not sure what you think you’re getting at - let’s look at just abortion. Surveys consistently show that the majority of Americans do not support overturning Roe v. Wade. So…who is trying to push an unpopular social party? It isn’t the Democrats.

You know, there was a recent article in the AJC identifying the number of times each Justice had “legislated from the bench” - that is, voted in the majority of an opinion that overturned a law duly passed by Congress. Who led the pack? Scalia and Thomas. Who was at the BACK of the pack? The left-leaning justices. So, you tell ME Adam, who is relying on unelected Judges more?

As to Tyranny, I suggest you read de Tocqueville if you want a good discussion of that. He created the concept of the Tyranny of the Majority, a tyranny that you seem to support. Because a majority of people don’t like a group, does that make it OK to take away the rights of that group, or persecute them? Was slavery morally justifiable 200 years ago because people agreed with it? Was segregation morally justifiable because people agreed with it?

Sorry Adam, but majority doesn’t and shouldn’t always rule. Majority opinion can help shape our direction, our policies toward the world, etc., but it should never, ever, ever be used as an excuse to devalue or discriminate against a group of people that you or anyone else deems “Socially” unnacceptable.

By BWilson

August 3, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Anybody change their position on abortion yet?

Will one of my small government, fiscally responsible Republican friends explain to me why I will start having to buy Nyquil or Sudafed from a pharmacist, after I produce a photo ID and sign a log book which will be entered into a DEA tracking computer? And if there is no pharmacy, store clerks will be “trained” to adminsister these dangerous chemicals. (No waste of taxpayer money here.) No intrusion of government here - but that’s right the government is doing this for our best interests. Thank God for big government.

By Ken

August 3, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

“We will do what we feel is right for us…”

I love this quote. I wish we could take that idea with us in every aspect of our society:

I feel not paying social security and investing it myself is right for me and my family…

I feel taking my property taxes collected for public schools would be better spent on private schooling for me and my family…

I feel being able to hire whoever I want, whenever I want for my business is right for me and my family…

By Chilao

August 3, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

@ Adam - and Heather and Taboga are not SHOUT DOWNERS?

snort

and so the Republicans have a majority right now? Big deal. (another snort), since Bush’s(et al) actions will see that that changes as well. Maybe not, Republicans manufacturers do control those electronic voting machines, don’t they…LOL..Just might be Republican until it is taken to the streets….

I am neither Repub or Dem

By taboga

August 3, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

SB,

Then you obviously didn’t understand my post.

I was not making “light” of abortion - I was pointing out the ridiculous absurdity in this nonsensical notion about the “right to choose”.

We don’t have the right to “choose” whether we want to wear a seatbelt or not, so why on earth should anyone have the choice to kill a baby!

By Heather

August 3, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

BWilson, its my understanding that drug users were making meth out of cold remedies. If it helps to keep my kid off drugs I am all for giving up a little privacy.

By Mara

August 3, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

So unless my husband or I is willing to alter our bodies, unless our birth control methods are 100% effective, and unless we only have sex on certain days I don’t have the right to decide, along with my husband and doctor, on what health care decisions are right for me? I don’t have the right to decide whether the risks of gestation are greater than the “reward” of passing on my genetic material? You say that “it’s only 9 months”…well, I wouldn’t want to be in prison for 9 months either. Or tortured for 9 months. Or undergo 9 months of medical experimentation. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t choose to do so if I thought the benefit outweighed the “sacrifice”, but there’s that word again…choice. And Kyle, you’re right that it’s about more than a womans right to choose. To the topic, I don’t necessarily think that O’Connors resignation will set womens issues back, it’s who replaces her. It is unfortunate that equal rights, civil rights, environmental and labor laws, religeous freedom, and the seperation of governmental branches hinges on what kind of justice Mr. Bush nominates. We have very little information to judge how impartial this Roberts guy is going to be. His statements have hinted at disdain for voting rights, Anti descrimination laws, government oversight, and environmental protections. What disturbs me most about him is his religious views. Not because they’re religious, per se, nor because I don’t share his religion, but because his faith is so important to him that the opinions of the church heirarchy seem to be as important to his legal outlook as the law is. I may misunderstand his stance, but if he starts ruling by his religious views instead of what the establishe law is, then that bothers me quite a bit. For example, during the last election many Catholic bishops said that even voting for a candidate who is pro-choice may be grounds for withdrawl of the sacrament. Will Roberts be willing to face ecclesiastical disapproval (and possibly eternal damnation) just to uphold the laws of the land? That, along with his hostility to equality, is what really worries me.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

I feel like walking down the Georgia Mall - butt naked!

And I would like all you do-gooders to stand up for my right to: Choose.

Thanks.

By Chilao

August 3, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

but I personally find it very interesting that for the 2000 election no less, Rove/Bush had to come up with a term: Compassionate Conservatism. Now, you would think the actions ALONE would have defined that, doesn’t the Bible say “By their actions, ye shall know them” or something like that?

Guess the ACTIONS did not let alot of people KNOW that, so they had to coin that slogan: compassionate conservatism.

like the no longer a “war on terror”, simply a war on, what is it? violent extremism or something like that.

this blog is really SO SO humourous.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Right on, Taboga. A very good point. I wonder if anyone here objects to the government requiring seatbelts to protect their own lives? Probably not, they only object to the government protecting the life of unborn children.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Joan, I see we have different definitions of fact…what you have stated is a THEORY postulated by Evan Harris Walker, as best I can tell, and seems to appear mostly in the literature of various websites that seek to reconcile quantum physics with new age philosophy.

Crazy me, I always thought that it was neurotransmitters bridging the synaptic gap between neurons that provided brain function. That the brain functions through an infinitely complex interplay of chemistry and electricity is not in question, but I’ve yet to see anything that suggests conclusively that some sort of abstract non-space needs to exist in order for that to continue. Why is the medium of our own space/time not sufficient?

I still also fail to see why the wave/particle duality suggests that consciousness pre-exists form. Ok, so light is neither particle nor wave until it is observed, which could suggest that it exists only as probability until observation - how does that translate to a discussion of sentience and consciousness?

By Chilao

August 3, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

@Taboga - you male or female? where’s the mall again?

LMAO

back to work…

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Mara,

You state: “So unless my husband or I is willing to alter our bodies, unless our birth control methods are 100% effective, and unless we only have sex on certain days I don’t have the right to decide”

That is as intelligent as saying:

Besides option A, and B, and C, and D: I have no choice!!!

So, you see; You do have choice. Its just that, like a 12 year old, you WANT ANOTHER after forgoing the earlier detours and relizing your mistake.

Fair, who said anything about fair. This is life people.

By BWilson

August 3, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Heather,

They do make crystal meth out of these. But why should I have to be tracked by the government for a legal purchase I make. They don’t track firearm sales. I don’t want any of my rights taken because some people are “hooked” on something. I’m sure you’ll discuss the dangers of these drugs with your children, which will help them do the right thing. So you being a responsible parent allows “us” not to have to rely on the government to keep us “safe.”

By SB

August 3, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Taboga - As this is a message board, we all have a hard time reading context into any given message. I took your words as a joke … Sorry for the confusion.

That being said, many people here don’t consider that absurd. I’m sure you have quite a bit to add to the conversation, and would like to hear exactly what you believe and why you believe it.

Would you mind posting an argument explaining why you consider abortion absurd? People here are sharing intimate details of their personal lives, and tempers flare easily… You might get more of a positive result that way.

By Chilao

August 3, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

before I go, I have to ask Heather, how exactly HOW does the DEA/gov control of formerly-over-the-counter medications: “helps to keep my kid off drugs”?

that is a major HUH?

think MJ, coke, opiates already fully illegal. Last I heard, some still widely used.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

taboga, I think I love you. I can’t stop laughing. I am trying to picture this, are you male or female?

By Ken

August 3, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Since when did “legislating from the bench” equate overturning a law from Congress?

That is one of the powers of the Judiciary, so long that they are determining the Constitutionality of the law. Their personal support of the law should not be a factor. I always thought the origination of the term came from when a justice does not base the decision on law, but on their own personal beliefs. Justices should NEVER do that.

Why do you think we have some our current ammendments?

Lincoln tried to tax our income. The Supreme Court said Congress couldn’t do it so we had an ammendment passed that gave them that authority.

In Massachusettes, the state Supreme Court said the legislature could not prevent same sex marriages b/c the law was unconstitutional. So we had several states vote for ammendments to the their state constitutions.

The same could be said for your slavery issue. It was not explicitly preventedin the Constitution, therefore we never had more “slave” states than “free” states. Any tip in the balance would have given one side the ability to get it into the Constitution, which therefore would have protected that awful institution.

We can make the same case for abortion. If this country passed a Constituional ammendment outlawing abortion, then there isn’t ANYTHING the Supreme Court can do. They do NOT have the ability to alter the Constitution. They can only determine if a law is Constitutional.

By Adam

August 3, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Eaton, 1) Any survey regarding Justices being overturned by subsequent laws doesn’t really mean anything. The social policies that have been legislated from the bench have been “discovered” in the Constitution. The issues that most anger those of us who would prefer to live in a democracy rather than oligarchy can’t be overturned by subsequent legislation because they are now apart of the Constitution. That survey really doesn’t speak to the issue at hand.

2) I have read Democracy in America twice. Once for an American Political Thought class I took in undergrad. The second for an American Democracy class I took in graduate school. De Tocqueville is brilliant. His “tyranny of the majority” observation is probably the most quoted political observation in American history. However, I would direct your attention to Chapter 6 of Democracy in America, 12th paragraph. De Tocqueville also realized that the power of the courts was immense, if unchecked, and that the more the courts strayed into theory, the more powerful politically they became.

“Whenever a law that the judge holds to be unconstitutional is invoked in a tribunal of the United States, he may refuse to admit it as a rule; this power is the only one peculiar to the American magistrate, but it gives rise to immense political influence”

De Tocqueville’s warnings against our tyranny of the majority did not mean that he believed unbridled power should exist in judiciary. Warren Burger famously said “with 5 votes around here you can do anything.” The pendulum has swung way too far in the direction of an unchecked court and is now coming back.

3) Charles Krauthammer (columnist for the Washington Post) wrote recently that the liberal trump card of segregation and slavery as a reason to hand the court a carte blanche to make social policy really negates the need to have any check whatsoever on judicial power, and consequently, the need for democracy.

SB - I don’t know how you read my post. My point was that insults never change minds, and therefore, Eaton should refrain from using them. If that makes you want to “toe the Democratic party line,” happy toeing.

By Bwilson

August 3, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Taboga,

Of course you can choose not to wear a seatbelt. I often do - and I’ve never been pulled over. I also have driven in the carpool lane by myself (However- here i’ve been busted). Don’t let the man keep you down - shed that seatbelt!!

Heather, I’m sorry everyone attacked you yesterday for responding to my post which invited you to expound on your religious beliefs.

Also, you give up alittle privacy when you go to an airport, you give up a little privacy on the subway now, you give up privacy when congress passes the Patriot Act, you give up privacy at the library, you give up privacy at the drugstore, etc… adds up to a lot of privacy given up.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I googled the definition of sentience, dozens of different definitions were given. It seems many people disagree on what sentience is or how we came to possess it. If we can’t agree on what it is or how we have it, how can we use it to determine whether a lifeform has the right to live?

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Once again Eaton, no theory as for what happens with the electrical charge and the tunneling. Now how it all fits together IS theory, but we know the oddities exists - the tunneling.

This provides a very real place for the mind to exist without the body. The mind has already shown that it has all the needed components to act between to states.

Dualality of light is not AT ALL what we are talking about - that is old highschool info. It seems to be the extent of your understanding though - seeing as you do not understand the paradoxes, and what they imply.

They imply that there is a function/probability that EXISTS before matter does. Why then wouldnt this system governing such things as light not governing other things that reside there, like the mind?

And further, why would these ideas and memories reside there? And if they do, it is outside time/space - hence why we are infinite.

(sorry about spelling this time around - have deadlines and am rushing)

By Heather

August 3, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

BWilson, one of the arguments here is that not all women can be responsible enough to keep from getting pregnant. Do you want to risk all children on the hope that all parents will be responsible and teach them about drugs?

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Gee Ken, I thought the republican party got to define what legislating from the bench was…you know, it’s anything done to advance freedom for non White Heterosexual Christians.

Alex, I don’t believe that the judiciary has unbridled power, nor that it should. However, I question the sincerity of your concern. If Bush is able to appoint a few more ultra-religious, ultra-conservative judges to the SCOTUS, and those judges overturn Roe v. Wade, or reinstate sodomy laws, etc., will you be complaining about unelected judges then?

I doubt it.

By SB

August 3, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Adam - I agree, insults don’t change minds. Neither does smug bragging, which is how I read your post.

Many others (off the top of my head, Whiley, Eaton, Ken, Chilao, Heather, etc.) have all expressed their opinions in ways I may or may not agree with - but they’ve expressed it on the topic.

I’m curious about your thoughts on the topic of whether Roberts will erode womens’ rights thus far (not necessarily the topic of “activist” judges). Do you think he’ll be able to decide each case on its own merits? Do you think he’ll be sensitive to women’s and minority rights?

By David

August 3, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Joan, I’m interested in doing some reading for my self. Do you have a scientific source for tunneling that I could look at?

By blablabla

August 3, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Adam, the US is a republic, not a democracy. the will of the majority must always be tempered by the rights of the minority. just because the majority of people want anything, does not mean it should be. tou say you are a member of the REPUBLICan party. remember what that means.

By Mara

August 3, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

JoanFromAtl you totally missed the point. You may as well say “you have a choice. Have sex and if you get pregnant (by your contraception failing, having sex on the wrong day, or not being willing to go under the knife) you should be forced to endanger your health by bearing a child, or don’t have sex if you don’t want kids. See, you have a choice…” Why shouldn’t my husband and I have sex even if we don’t want kids? It’s fun, it’s healthy, and it promotes the intimacy of a strong marriage. (It’s not just for procreation anymore!) I refuse to sacrifice my health, the health of my marriage, and my personal autonomy just because, in your opinion, a chunk of my body isn’t really mine.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Joan, dear, shall I explain it to you? I use the dual nature of light because it is the most elementary illustration of the dual slit experiment. Particles exist as a wave function prior to observation. The particle exists in an undefined quantum state until observation.

So…if you’ve got your consciousness shoved into a Schroedinger’s Cat box, it really is irellevant when you think it comes into existence, as it will be existing in a quantum suspension until observation…

Seriously, if you have studies you can cite I’d be happy to read them. Believe it or not, other people besides you can read and comprehend theoretical physics.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

BWilson, thanks for the apology but its unnecessary. I have only been a true Christian for a few months. Before that I thought I knew what Christianity was about but I didn’t really have a clue. I had a born again experience at the beginning of the summer that changed my entire life. Before that I would have gone home and cried after such a beating but instead I went home smiling.

By BWilson

August 3, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Heather, in a word “yes”. I don’t ask anyone to protect me and my family - I figure we’re equipped enough to take care of ourselves. I’m a bit of a social darwinist, not everyone can be or is SUPPOSED to be protected. Our genetics and environment determine our success. I don’t want a world we all live in personal panic rooms afraid to go outside. Strenght comes from overcoming adversity, from testing ones self, from winning and losing. he who is protected his whole life will have no strenght to stand on his own.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Mara, were you an only child?

By Kyle

August 3, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Mara: “We have very little information to judge how impartial this Roberts guy is going to be. His statements have hinted at disdain for voting rights, Anti descrimination laws, government oversight, and environmental protections.”

-Could you elaborate a little as to what statements you are talking about here? I really don’t know anything about the guy except that repubs seem to like him and most dems hate him. Also, you make an interesting point about how worried you are with respect to the importance of Robert’s faith in his life? I could be wrong, but I don’t think very many Christians who are extremely religious treat or view women with any less respect than men. So, the importance of his religon may not really arbitrarily affect women - unless of course we are talking about abortion. Your concern puts forth somewhat of a dilema as to whether or not a possible Justice can be too religious. Although I think your concern is valid, I don’t see how it would be fair to deny a person the opportunity to become a judge simply because they are deply religious.

-I, for one, do not think that Bush should have nominated another woman or a minority simply because a woman resigned. Nominate the best candidate, regardless of race or sex. Now I’m sure some people on here will disagree with that, right?

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

David, Sure; I will bring in the IBSN (think that is right) numbers of a few tomorrow; including some realy good stuff from Wilber.

No Eaton,

Again - The duality has nothing to do with double slit. The FIRST hypoth (decades ago, I belive?) was that the waves were anihilating each other bc of getting out of sync; but when sent in one at a time: The pattern still emerges. Meaning that there is a structure and function outside of time/space that is governing things.

So the above, plus frame-clipping, etc has proven there is a non-time/non-space reality in which these things exist.

Now, again:

Since the brain uses these same mechanics, why then is it not to comunicate with this timeless/spaceless realm? And given that premise, it is not a far jump to say the timeless/infinite precedes matter - which IS finite.

Every great scientist has repeated the devistating words: Matter does NOT create matter. Many did/do not want to believe it, but cannot argue against the proof; and now are trying to see how it fits.

THAT would lead to string theory, which also dictates multiple dimensions.

The science is spooky, and is heading in the oppisite direction of your a+b+c=D logic.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

BWilson, I actually agree with you that adversity strengths us. Lord knows I have had enough of it in my life. And you are right, we should not seek to eliminate every possible negative experience just to avoid pain.

But we should take the negative experiences that gave us pain and wisdom and use that wisdom to teach others not to make the SAME mistakes.

By Mara

August 3, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Nope. Three brothers, two sisters, and my grandfather stayed with us. Big family. Though my parents were fabulous, wonderful people who made sure we all knew that we were loved and valued beyond our accomplishments, I saw first hand the hardships and sacrifices required to raise children.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

The next thing you know, you folks in the tyrannical majority are going to tell me that I can’t have sex with my favorite prostitute: My Daughter!

What, you got a problem with that? She’s 21, so that makes us both consenting adults. And more than that, it makes us: Happy! And I pay her for her service, so unless you are willing to support my daughter - keep your nose out of our business. And our bedroom!

I’ve got a good job too, so I am thinking of taking on another wife as well. And I don’t want to hear JACK from you right-wing religious fanatics who want to impose your beliefs on society. Who the hell is society to tell me how many wives I can have in this society! You people people make me sick!

Well, enough for now, I gotta get home cuz me and my 10 year old have got some beer drinking and dope smoking to do! That’s right - I don’t play by your tyrannical rules! I choose not to obey your drug laws and legal age limit for alcohol, because you Bible-Thumpers are not going to deny me my: Rights!

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Ah Heather, you’ve gone and, through what I’m sure is an innocent comment, put yet another nail in the coffin of rational discussion.

Only been a “true” Christian for a few months? The implication of that is that everyone else whose experience isn’t just like yours isn’t really a “true” Christian and is therefore lacking your ultimate truth, is that what you’re saying?

By Brian Curtis

August 3, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Isn’t taboga silly?

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I do not have time to educate the people around me so that they are able to debate a particular subject.

Google the info yourself and get educated. I did a quick search on “brain, synapse, tunneling, electrons” and got tons of hits; you can too.

If you use your brain/mind and syth the info you find, you may begin to see that the state of mind/being very well could exist without the brain; it even suggests that it does precede it (given its timelessness/non-space existence) and at the very least is NOT created from matter.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

NOOOO Taboga, don’t go!!!!!!!!!

By BWilson

August 3, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Heather,

I agree and we already do this - so there is no need for government interference.

Taboga - Good points. Why should we only have one wife or husband? Prostitution - legalize it. Drinking age - get rid of it. The role of government is to protect the national citiznery (mostly in the form of national defense) not regulate every aspect of our lives. If you don’t want to smoke pot- don’t. If you only want one wife -just marry one woman.

By the way none of the things you listed goes on anyway - good thing the government is so efficient. And it has nothing to do with the Bible - I don’t think there was a drinking age in biblical times. Oh, and I’m pretty sure there were prostitutes and ways to get high. And they might have even had sex back then too. But i might have to look that one up.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

No Eaton, I was only referring to myself. I was continuing to live a very unChristian lifestyle while telling everyone what a great Christian I was. I was continuing to think and act unChristian all the while I thought I was such a great Christian. Its called being a hypocrite and I am afraid it was me.

By SB

August 3, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Lol, thanks, Taboga.

By Chilao

August 3, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

So how much does Taboga charge to rent his daughter out?

reminds me of reading Levitucus recently, all the rules and regulations related to selling your daughter as a slave-girl. As well as all the rules/regulations related to SPECIFICALLY the female-slaves. Been looking for a good Old-Testament-faith-based family to sell me their daughter, aw, the potential there….

I guess in our corrupted society, though, she would have to be at least 18…aw, shucks. Our government sure knows how to ruin what COULD have been a good thing. Maybe I’ll move to Utah.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Joan, I don’t need to be “educated” by you, but it’s good academic form to be able to cite sources. I did do a little looking on your pet little theory, and as I said, found a lot of writings by one person on a lot of new-agey web sites. Nothing particularly scientific, but a lot of pseudo-science.

I just thought you might like to be able to add some credibility to your claims. Apparently not.

By joe

August 3, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Taboga, are you an only child? I think you’ll be gone next week back to grammar school making them D’s again. Heather: “If” this and “if” that and “if” again. If god exists and if she doesn’t want abortion, would she have allowed us to invent suction machines? Kyle, do you truly believe Bush has picked Roberts because he’s the best qualified? If so I have some sea front property in Arizona I’d like to sell you! JoanfromAtl: What are you on? Eaton: Good job. Mara: Smart woman Kali: It’s good to see someone stand up for herself.

What is a “true” Xtian? What are the characteristics of an “untrue” Xtian?

By taboga

August 3, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Heather,

Just having some good fun!

You can’t take these people serious. But you can have a ball making fun of them and laughing at their silliness!

Or maybe it’s just my weird sense of humor, I don’t know. But there’s little else that is as genuinely funny as watching a bunch of lost bats parading around pretending to be some sort of intellectuals and the big defenders of Liberty and Freedom!

They’ll leave soon though, it’s about time for their parents to get home and they need to get the house cleaned up!

By Adam

August 3, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

SB- Point taken. Although I have strong personal feelings on this topic, the posts I read were largely unprovocative until I read Eaton’s shameful attacks on Heather.

The only person who can answer your questions is John Roberts. I think the strongest indication of the how he views minority and women’s rights is the Presidents he has served. From what I’ve read, Roberts seems to be a Reagan Republican, and his judicial thought seems to have been heavily influenced by Rehnquist.

The country should expect no less from a Bush nominee. Bush made no secret of the type of jurist he would appoint if he were elected/re-elected. In my opinion he actually gave liberals a break since the potential nominee that most resembled Bush’s professed model jurist (Scalia) is Luttig on the 4th circuit. Luttig was a Scalia clerk and probably the closest judicially to Scalia.

The Constitution is clear on who gets to pick the nominee. If liberals want jurists that will uphold the invented rights discovered in the Constitution by other liberal jurists, they have to start by winning elections.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

*Taboga, are you an only child? I think you’ll be gone next week back to grammar school making them D’s again. Heather: “If� this and “if� that and “if� again. If god exists and if she doesn’t want abortion, would she have allowed us to invent suction machines? Kyle, do you truly believe Bush has picked Roberts because he’s the best qualified? If so I have some sea front property in Arizona I’d like to sell you! JoanfromAtl: What are you on? Eaton: Good job. Mara: Smart woman Kali: It’s good to see someone stand up for herself.

What is a “true� Xtian? What are the characteristics of an “untrue� Xtian?*

Joe,

Now that you have critiqued us all - can we go home? We kept waiting and waiting for the big moment when Joe would finally pass grade on us!

By Ken

August 3, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Who can define “True Christian”…? Only God can.

Heather… Making remarks like that is very, VERY dangerous, whether or not you are on this board. However, the folks here are obviously more hostile and more anti-religion than in the normal populous so make sure to choose your words wisely.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Well Taboga you have certainly made me laugh this afternoon.

By SB

August 3, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Adam - thanks. Sorry for being a nag - I’m just fascinated by the topic (and this rather historic moment in time), so I’m trying to suck up every bit of info / opinion I can.

You make some interesting points, and I wish I could ask Roberts this … Alas, I doubt I’ll ever be able to!

You mention “invented rights discovered in the Constitution” - I think I know what you’re getting at, but want to make sure … Which rights are you thinking of? And how would you prefer the gov’t operate?

By joe

August 3, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Duh, Adam. John Roberts isn’t answering any questions! The Prz says he don’t have to! He’s a catholic and his wife is active in the “take away women’s freedom to choose” movement. It’s pretty damn obvious to anybody with half a ‘tunneled’ brain.

By joe

August 3, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Yeah Ta-booger, you made me laugh too! At you - not with you!

By Chilao

August 3, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

I think they did have sex back then, must be why there were all those regulations related to the FEMALE slaves…LOL

wait, gotta run, Pa just promised me a whuppin’, said I was looking at the married woman across the street with lustful intent. I’m only 10, what is ‘lust’?

By Mara

August 3, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

HA HA HA HA HA!!!! BWilson..Hahaha…says..(snort)…says that tobagos list “has nothing to do with the Bible” HA HA HA…woooo…stop! my side is killing me! Where the heck do you think all our “blue laws” came from, heathens and dens of iniquity?! Staunch church goin’ Christians all up in a lather about the immorality of society. Drinkin’! Cussin’! Loose women! A veritable Sodom and Gomorrah! (Come to think of it, wasn’t it in Sodom where Lot tried to pimp out his virgin daughters? Hmmmmm. Tobago, exactly how old are you?) Nope, “B” it certainly does have something to do with the Bible. HA HA HA!!!

And Joe - thanks for the compliment.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the advice Ken. You are right that it was an inflammatory statement.

I think I did answer the question in posting about being a hypocrite. I was also only referring to myself, not telling anyone else they were not a true Christian. If I want to judge my own behavior as being unChristian and tell people I have judged myself accordingly, I have the right to do so.

I think the people on this board have been exposed to too many unChristian Christians in their lives and so have a rather bad opinion of us.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Duh, Adam. John Roberts isn’t answering any questions! The Prz says he don’t have to! He’s a catholic and his wife is active in the “take away women’s freedom to choose� movement. It’s pretty damn obvious to anybody with half a ‘tunneled’ brain.

Joe,

To those of us with a full brain - it looks quite different!

By Jack

August 3, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Synapses? Haven’t heard that since the old days. Isn’t that the part of the brain that is affected by LSD making one trip (without leaving the barn)?

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

For conservatives, the “invented” laws mean things like separation of Church and State, Constitutional Right to Privacy, etc.

You know, anything that makes this country actually live up to out claims of freedom and liberty.

By Jack

August 3, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Everyone must admit that society would be much better off if everyone obeyed the 10 commandments. Life would not be as fun, but….

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

August 3, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

taboga

So, if a law is created that only allows 1 trip a day to the restroom, Taboga will be good to go. I’m sure you will be rushing to have that law overturned.

Laws are passed everyday, but it doesn’t make them right for everyone. So sarcastic remarks comparing seatbelt laws with other laws is extremely flawed.

Also, the right to Choose; also allows us to choose to have a doctor administer an abortion. So, saying that the woman should administer the abortion by herself is still not your CHOICE.

By SB

August 3, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Yep, that’s what I’m thinking he’s referring to - but it’s always interesting to hear how people formed their worldview, regardless of what that view is.

By Mara

August 3, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Heather, you are absolutely correct. I indeed have been exposed to far too many “un-christian Christians”. But it seems to me that these hypocrits tend to be the very ones who live the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do lifestyle. Nor does the opinion (held by many if not all Christians) that your (in the collective sense) values and morals are better than mine. It’s this (perhaps subconcious) arrogant exceptionalism that grates on my nerves so much. The “I’m-right-cuz-the-Bible-says-so” discussion killer is completely beyond my comprehension, but used so very often. Maybe if I’d been lucky enough to meet real christians before I began thinking for myself….(oops. sorry, that was kinda snide.)

By Heather

August 3, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Is it just me or does it seem this discussion is going nowhere?

By taboga

August 3, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Hmmmmm. Tobago, exactly how old are you?)

I’ll turn 135 next month - why you ask?

By SB

August 3, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Amazed - I tried reasoning as well, but if someone doesn’t want to hear it … Well, we really can’t make them

By Heather

August 3, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Well Amazed, lets go with that one for a second. One trip to the bathroom would benefit society how?

By Ken

August 3, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Heather… People on this board have not been exposed to “un-Christians”. they have been exposed to very narrow minded people who profess to be Christians.

Painting with broad strokes the way these folks do can be done for any type of group.

Unfortunately, people only remember the negative things about a person or a group rather than the positive. If I made broad stroke statements about any other minority based on the most extreme of that group, I would be labeled a bigot and a racist.

As the majority, we must endure the criticism. I take great solace in knowing that God will take care of me and that I will be in his bosom at the end of the age. Let others in this world live as they choose. They will make their own decisions as I will make mine. They are not accountable to me and my beliefs. We are all accountable to God.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Darn it Jack, have you been worshiping false idols again?

By Chilao

August 3, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

drugs are classified by what they do to the Synapses, the electrical ‘jumpers’ between nerve cells: Stimulant - speed up; Depressant - slow down, Hallucinogen(LSD, etc) - distort.

for some reason, opiates are in their own classification.

By FreeWoman

August 3, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

I had this conversation with a co-worker the other day that I’d like to post.

Gone are the days when people didn’t have to start each sentence with “I’m a Christian..”. You can say it all you want, but a “true” Christian doesn’t have to. It comes across in who they are, their words, their actions, etc. Just thought I’d put that plug in and let it marinate.

By David

August 3, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I’ve been doing some searching myself, and indeed, many pseudoscience websites have embraced the hypothesis and I don’t doubt there’s a lot of bad information out there. I also think that any new idea ought to be greeted with heaps of skepticism, and that we ought to be close-minded to stupidity. I did, however, find one source that is certainly legit science.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=50549

I’m not a physicist, so the details and equations are well above me, but a careful read will give you the gist of what’s going on.

I would, however, like to see some competing hypotheses and criticisms of this one. Also, in response to your “it’s just a THEORY” argument, I’d ask that you’re a little more careful with your nomenclature. It’s not a theory, it’s a hypothesis, unlike the theories of gravity, evolution, etc. I know it’s a picky detail, but that particular phrase has oft been spouted by the less-sophisticated Creationists, and I think it shows a general misunderstanding of the term in relation to science.

I don’t want to seem like I’m picking on you, though it is awfully funny when you get all worked up. Maybe I’ll work on that later.

By joe

August 3, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Jack, Jack. Thou shalt not covet! If we all lived up to that one - capitalism dies.

By Adam

August 3, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Joe - Hmmm. Very insightful. Thank you for that intellectual discussion. I’ll call the editors at the Washington Post, the NY Times and every other major paper that has yet to render a judgment about what he will do on the bench and let them know that “joe” has made the call. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

SB - Wow big question. I honestly don’t think I can answer your question in such a short time (I actually do have to work) or in such a short space. However, answering your second question will probably be enough to answer your first question.

I think that government should be as democratic as possible until it is necessary to restrain it. I think that restraints on democracy should be few, and that the phrase government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” should mean something. That when we limit the ability of people to control their own government we inch closer towards oligarchy or despotism. Restraints on the ability of people to act democratically should be explicit (freedom of speech, religion, from search and seizure, etc.). Restraints that have to be discovered within the text constitution and are not explicit (for instance, forbidding a democracy from outlawing abortion) are invented.

By David

August 3, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Oh, no, FreeWoman, you’ve inserted the word “marinate” into a discussion on abortion. Here I go again…

…and I’m talking REAL baby back ribs…

By taboga

August 3, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

*taboga *

So, if a law is created that only allows 1 trip a day to the restroom, Taboga will be good to go. I’m sure you will be rushing to have that law overturned.

Laws are passed everyday, but it doesn’t make them right for everyone. So sarcastic remarks comparing seatbelt laws with other laws is extremely flawed.

Also, the right to Choose; also allows us to choose to have a doctor administer an abortion. So, saying that the woman should administer the abortion by herself is still not your CHOICE

Please forgive me, but i’ve no clue as to your point.

That of course being a bold leap of assumption that there was one.

By David

August 3, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

And if that one doesn’t make your head throb, here’s another:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=44408

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

August 3, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Heather, It would definitely be conservation of water and good for the environment. Think about all the raw sewage created, we might need less treatment facilities. And all those healthy little kids, might just drink a nice clean glass of water.

By Ken

August 3, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Eaton… You are normally a stickler so be careful when you toss around Separation of Church and State. If I remember my Constitution, the First Ammendment refers to “establishment” of religion and the free exercise thereof. That is very different from separation.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Ken, you are a wise man. I don’t think I will use the “true Christian” phrase again. I think I am maybe too hard on myself for the way I once lived. I know that Jesus saved me on the cross but I hate that I had to be broken completely before I could see how bad I truly was.

I must say that being called names for being a Christian was a very rewarding experience. I have never in my life felt so proud of being verbally abused before. :)

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

August 3, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

taboga,

I’m not suprised, you didn’t understand. But, I’ll try to put it in terms you might understand.

J-u-s-t B-cause, IT is L-A-W does not make it R-I-G-H-T for everyone. This is in regards to earlier statements regarding seatbelt laws. I still have the right to choose to wear my seatbelt, but there are consequences that I will be accepting if I choose not to put it on. I will be making a CHOICE, to risk getting a ticket, which is still my CHOICE. It happens everyday, we make a CHOICE and we accept the consequences of that CHOICE.

I hope you get it this time, because I can’t make it any clearer than what I have written above.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

But that would conflict with Taboga’s right to pee whenever, correct? I see. You are absolutely right. On the basis of that argument I am going to say that all abortion should not only be legal but mandatory for everyone.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Yes Ken, but the Establishment clause has been interpreted as a Constitutional separation of Church and State, which is what strict constructionists like Adam object to. The actual phrase “seperation of Church and State” appears in a letter written by Jefferson.

By joe

August 3, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Heather, betcha you’ll be just another one of them backsliders in another few months. Jesus saved you on the cross? When were you on a cross darlin’?

By Heather

August 3, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Amazed, you said, “J-u-s-t B-cause, IT is L-A-W does not make it R-I-G-H-T for everyone. This is in regards to earlier statements regarding seatbelt laws. I still have the right to choose to wear my seatbelt, but there are consequences that I will be accepting if I choose not to put it on. I will be making a CHOICE, to risk getting a ticket, which is still my CHOICE. It happens everyday, we make a CHOICE and we accept the consequences of that CHOICE. “

Much of your argument here could be used to justify an anti-abortion position. When women CHOOSE to have sex, they must deal with the consequences of that CHOICE.

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

Really agravating that you are unable to look for your self (I am not teaching HS biology here); you could not have googled anything, did not spell correctly, or you are blind.

Chilao seems to know what is standard biology, or how to google.

Buy a book and visit me later - as I suspected, our conversation was held up by your ignorance.

By Heather

August 3, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Haha Joe. You so funny. This conversation has certainly benefited from your input today. I’ll pray for you tonight. ;)

By Heather

August 3, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Joan, you have the sort of quick wit I enjoy. I also found the ideas your were discussing fascinating but alas, I don’t know nearly enough about it to participate. Where did you come across the information, if you don’t mind my asking. I would love to do a little research on it myself. I also tried to google it but so much came up it was difficult to wade through.

By raylene

August 3, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

can i point out that you are not only risking a ticket, but not wearing a seatbelt, but also possibly your life?

By taboga

August 3, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

taboga,

I’m not suprised, you didn’t understand. But, I’ll try to put it in terms you might understand.

J-u-s-t B-cause, IT is L-A-W does not make it R-I-G-H-T for everyone.

I didn’t know that. I was under the impression that before we could pass any laws, we had to have total agreement by all the citizens! Thanks for clearing that up. I shall continue to read on - no telling what treasures lie ahead…

This is in regards to earlier statements regarding seatbelt laws. I still have the right to choose to wear my seatbelt, but there are consequences that I will be accepting if I choose not to put it on.

I agree completely! And if abortion were made illegal - women would have the right to choose one and accept the consequences. We’re in agreement here!

I will be making a CHOICE, to risk getting a ticket, which is still my CHOICE. It happens everyday, we make a CHOICE and we accept the consequences of that CHOICE.

I hope you get it this time, because I can’t make it any clearer than what I have written above.

Crystal clear!

We can make abortion illegal and women will still have the right to choose one!

By raylene

August 3, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

well now there’s some common sense. imagine that! like i said yesterday, women will choose to have an abortion whether or not it is illegal. there is no control over it. it will just be done illegally. plain and simple. and we all have our rights to say or think what we want about it, but it will not change the facts.

By Eaton

August 3, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

I see Joan, so because I don’t accept your interpretation of a particular hypothesis within a scientific discipline that is, because of its very nature, almost impossible to make conclusive judgements about, I’m ignorant?

Intersting…First I thought you were actually interested in a discussion, but it appears that really just wanted to try to make yourself look good by tossing out some obscure studies and then criticize me for not having an instant grasp of that theory.

Hey, let’s pick one of my academic specialties and see how well YOU fare off-the-cuff, hmm?

By Jack

August 3, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Taboga you enjoy getting folks mad more than Eaton. You’re quite good at it too. You sound like a Cajun. Are you?

By JoanFromAtl

August 3, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Heather,

Thank you for the nice words.

My father was a psychiatrist and my mother a Doctor. We had many fun debates and mind wrenching conversations while growing up (three engineers for brothers and a scientist for a sister). Most of my biology info comes from schooling and reading scientific articles, etc. Unfortuanately, this stuff I am debating today is old hack knowledge for me (learned from listening and talking quite a while ago).

I get mental exercise by those like Ken Wilber (a theory of everything) - one of the few people out there taking REAL science and folding it into our understanding of the human condition and spirituality to formulate who/where we are, and going.

One has to really learn these areas separate and then fold all this together themself.

By Kyle

August 3, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Ok, joe, maybe I was wrong earlier. Your right, Bush probably didn’t pick Roberts simply b/c he was the BEST qualified. I’m sure that there were others that had credentials equal to his. But you would be hard pressed to find another with qualifications that exceeded Robert’s. And this is where Adam’s point of winning elections comes in - due to his election, Bush has the right to appoint any qualified individual who shares his judicial philosophy. He was quite clear the kind of person he would appoint if given the chance, and he was subsequently elected. Seems to me that the people have spoken.

Also, I am a bit confused as to your assumptions that Roberts will be an unfit Justice. I am going to assume that you identify yourself as a democrat, or at least you vote that way. Could you please explain to me why almost all dems say that Roberts is an unacceptable nomination for the Supreme Court yet the dems almost unanomously voted Roberts into his current district court seat. Seems as if they have a problem with him now, they would have had a problem with him then. And, no, Roberts isn’t answering questions now - congress isn’t in session. But the dems sure are promising to make him answer questions such as how he would vote in a case similar to Roe v. Wade - eventhough Ginsburg was never confronted with such questions from republicans, but nevermind that.

I personally think Bush should have appointed someone like Luttig on the forth circuit. The Court is comprised of nine justices, seven of whom were appointed by republican presidents, yet we still have somewhat of a split court. Why is this? Republican presidents in the past have nominated to many question marks in an attempt to not upset the left. Clinton didn’t worry about upsetting the right when he nominated Ginsburg, a former member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU - how left can you get?Republicans have won the elections, and they should appoint those who share their judicial philosophies.

By taboga

August 3, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry folks, but I was re-reading some of these posts and just couldn’t pass this one up:

Thank you Jack ! I never gave up, the topics didn’t interest me. This one is personal. Remember I was around when abortion wasn’t legal. Too many people have forgotten what that was like.

Is he talking about the Great Depression?

“Yeah son, I remember a day when we couldn’t just kill our babies when we wanted to. Of course, you’re way too young to remember that I know, and kids nowadays are spoiled and take it for granted that you can suck the brains out of a defenseless baby any time you want. But it was us older folks that made all this available to you son and don’t you ever forget it!”

I don’t know if I will ever be able to stop laughing…!

By Ronald

August 4, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two livesâ€â€?the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unbornâ€â€?for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will’s moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure? The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the lawâ€â€? the same right we have. Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. Some have said that only those individuals with “consciousness of self” are human beings. I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence, (So much for the Establishment clause theory, Eaton)”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

No Eaton,

I do not care if you are unable to keep up. Why? Because that is my point to you; read your posts that prompted my intervention:

Heather: So Eaton, if all creatures with brain are not sentient, what makes you think it is truly your brain that makes you sentient?

Eaton: *Heather, do you know what logical falacies are? Because you’ve just committed an enormous one. Strawman argument, with a touch of Slippery Slope.

Do I even need to address the absurdity of this argument?

I didn’t realize I needed to cite evidence that conciousness resides in the brain…for most people that’s elementary.

I find it hard to believe that you are truly as stupid as you sound, Heather. When people’s spleens are damaged they don’t loose their cognitive functioning.*

So you see, you have some real growing up to do; otherwise it seems you may debate yourself into the hospital one day.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,”

Obviously this applies only to men.
Sigh, I just don’t get these ‘women are dispensable,’ and or ‘they should be controlled,’ attitudes.

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Unless you are a female, what you want for your own life is not considered.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Whiley, try and get past the fact that you are a female and see the bigger picture of you being a human being.

Ronald, great comment!!

By Bruce

August 4, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

Stop your whinning, you know full well that is not meant for “men only”. Stop acting like a little child and grow up.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Today I’m really going to try to stay out of the silly arguments & stick to what really matters. We already have too many people on this planet. In my experience, many of the “prolife” are also against the things that would truly make a difference, better & more available birth control. Make abortion less necessary. To me it is pointless to debate abortion until we as a world help women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Birth control & education are the only things that will make abortion a rare procedure. Outlawing it will NOT make it rare. Forcing women to give birth against their will - is slavery.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

“Whiley, try and get past the fact that you are a female and see the bigger picture of you being a human being”

I do Heather, that is why I am pro birth control, pro education, pro female sexual freedom, & PRO CHOICE.

By blablabla

August 4, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

whiley - who on this blog has said that women are dispensible? who has said that women should be controlled?

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 4, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Heather, sorry I could’nt respond yesterday, dealing with family medical issues…

No, I certainly don’t remember when I became sentient, which is kind of the point I was trying to make. Had I been aborted or miscarried, I wouldn’t know it, would I? Sentience may be dependent on the joining of the soul with the body; but we are souls with bodies, not bodies with souls. That said, souls are on the frontier scientific mystery.

In response to your 12:51 post yesterday, “And are you absolutely positive that an unborn “fetusâ€? is not a child? Would you be willing to stake your own life on that?”

Indeed, before abortion became legal, many women did just that, losing their lives, leaving prior children orphaned. Forcing motherhood puts pre-children at odds with women; if motherhood is not desired, no amount of legislation will change that.

I do not equate infanticide with abortion. I believe that bringing a child into the world requires sacrifices by the parents to ensure that children are cared for, loved, nurtured. To do so requires a certain amount of societal support, such as family, jobs, education, etc. But what of the mother who has nearly nothing, no self-esteem, no coping skills, no parenting skills, living in abject poverty, with no hope, or with mental illness, as we can assume was the case below? Outlawing sex outside of marriage is hardly enforceable. Limiting sex within marriage is seen as sinful in some religious circles as well.

In my hometown (Rochester, NY) a 5-year-old boy was recently buried; he was allegedly beaten to death and tortured by his mother during his short life. This boy’s family failed him, his father was absent; social services failed him. Hundreds of mourners showed up to grieve, exclaiming that they would miss him; unfortunately, while he was alive, he was invisible, unheard. The pragmatist in me wonders whether he would have been better off not being born, to be spared the betrayal of his parents’ love, indeed if he ever experienced any.

Who is to say that a woman choosing an abortion for whatever reasons is not choosing to free that individual’s soul? Who is to say that God has no mercy in any case?

You stated in an earlier post that God would never inspire one to murder; the old Testament God does just that with Isaac and Abraham. The New Testament God is more forgiving, perhaps even more understanding regarding the plight of families and unwanted pregnancies.

You take the position that it is better to err on the side of saving the fetus’ life rather than aborting, but since God works in mysterious and paradoxical ways, how do you know whose life is worth more to Him? I err on the side that we presume that all who are born have souls, and thus are worthy of self-determination, and that biology is not destiny.

Of course I prefer that unwanted pregnancies become obsolete, and prefer that the number of abortions be reduced, and I believe that there is middle ground until such a time comes. The anti-choice and/or regligous contingent do not seem to want to consider a woman’s repoductive rights unless she embraces motherhood as her ultimate destiny, disregarding her circumstances; they hold men to no such standard in any way that affects his physical well-being.

I don’t claim to be 100% right, but I do claim the right for women to determine their own lives, to give them voice, and to trust that God will never waste a soul, and will be merciful in his judgment of us all.

By Zack

August 4, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

No, Whiley, the Bible doesn’t support abortion or oppose women. You need to stick to the truth.

Someone said that those who don’t support abortion shouldn’t have one. That’s not enough. That’s like saying our country should have no laws and that those who want the law upheld should do so and let everyone else do their own thing. That’s clearly unsound advice.

Whiley, if you want to disagree with me, you have that right, but if you come across in the childish tone you usually do, you’re not going to add anything to this blog.

As I said before, let’s see a few blogs talking about how men have it hard. As I’ve mentioned, it’s very unfair how women talk to men and how men are allegedly supposed to sit there and just take it. We see a lot of man-bashing on TV ads and so forth. Whether you like Pres. Bush or not, these skits running him down are uncalled for. Of course, if Hillary or any other woman were president, such a skit would be deemed “insensitive.”

By Jack

August 4, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

I am pro-choice but we are here to do what ever other living thing is hear to do and that is to reproduce. (go forth & multiply) Over-population takes care of itself by means of disease, famine & war. Those that choose to reproduce should. Those that wish not to should have the option,when birth control fails, to terminate the pregnancy. Ones who think it is murder aren’t exactly rushing to orphanages to adopt the MANY children hosed there.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Whiley said , “Forcing women to give birth against their will - is slavery. “

I am truly sorry you see it that way. I am sure the plantation slaves before the Civil War would laugh in your face at your definition of slavery.

Slavery is being addicted to an activity to the point that you are unable to cease doing it even at the expense of your own life or the life of another. You can call that activity alcohol, drugs, sex, career, hobby, or even a relationship.

Slavery of the mind is much more destructive than anything this or any government can do to you.

By Zack

August 4, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Just read Brian Curtis’s opening thought. We don’t need to make abortion “safer” for women. That’s like saying we need to make serial killers less susceptible to being caught and put to death. Abortion is murder, and there’s not a shred of evidence anywhere that can even remotely refute this statement. Get it right. We need to make the unborn safe, not the women paying to have them killed.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

“Stop your whinning, you know full well that is not meant for “men onlyâ€?. Stop acting like a little child and grow up.”

You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no way whatsoever you can understand.
Are you trying to say women were considered equal to men back then? Come on, we had NO RIGHTS AT ALL. Which is why I hate it when someone uses that quote.

By Jack

August 4, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

I meant “housed” not “hosed”. Whiley is right. Women were NOT considered equal back then and in many places not now. Zack, do you endorse the destruction of abortion clinics and the murder of those who staff them?

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

I really feel for you. I have none of the negative views you have of women being so out of control, or men so overbearing. Have I encountered idiot men? Yes, but honestly have met just as many idiot females. To focus on one or the other is only the blame game, which does not work in any situation.

But you would not know that, would you? You have not learned the lesson that screaming in the corner, while stomping your foot, only lets the adults (men and women) know that you are still mentally/emotionally undeveloped: Which is why you encounter people coddling you like a child. It has nothing to do with your gender, only your attidude and awareness.

I would suggest you TEST this and begin to act like a confident aware adult for a few weeks with ALL those around you. I will put $50 on the bet that you will see a significant change. If you are honest with yourself.

By Jack

August 4, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

If there were blogs about how men have it hard it would be called “The Whiner to Whiner” Of course ther is a lot of man bashing. What fun is there in woman bashing?

By Heather

August 4, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Sandy, what you say sounds very logic and right, doesn’t it? God Himself is first putting life into the womb then inspiring the woman to end that life, does that pretty much sum up what you said? Oh yeah, you also said that God doesn’t give that life a soul until the moment it is born and breathes air? So something magical happens in those first few moments of breathing air?

One of the other points you make is that so many children are abused. Well, you are right there are a lot of innocent children out there being abused today. But wait, abortion is legal at this point in time and children are still abused everyday. Obviously legal abortion is not a solution to the child abuse problem in this country.

Why did God allow people who would abuse their children or have an abortion to become pregnant in the first place? I would say that it is because we all have the potential to do the opposite of what we actually do. We can all choose a better way and many of us just don’t.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

The bible NEVER mentions abortion. Except in one case (see my early post)

OK, like I said, WHY if abortion is so awful for prolifers, why don’t they even mention birth control? It probably doesn’t matter anyway. They do not care about women or prevention, they only care about the unborn. Once it’s out of the womb, not their problem, they don’t want to pay for it, don’t want to care for them.

THIS IS & WILL ALWAYS BE ABOUT WOMEN HAVING SEX. So please be honest with your daughters. Start teaching boys to be sexually responsible. Don’t hold back information. Don’t forget this is about grown women too. Rich teenagers are really not the ones I’m mostly worried about. I’m worried about working poor women who are already struggling to take care of the kids they have.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Whiley, are you married, involved with a man?

By Bruce

August 4, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Oh I am so sorry I had no idea you were that old…… I thought you were talking about the women of this day and age. Forgive me please…. But I still stand by my statement. And if it was meant just for men I think we changed all that years ago. Stop playing the victim and using all your scare tactics to insite women to fight against something that just isn’t true in THIS DAY AND AGE.

I do agree that birth control should be improved, education should be improved, but to use abortion as birth control is simply murder. Even if just one woman uses it that way.

By taboga

August 4, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

How much “education” is needed about sex?

*Girls, if you have sex with boys - you could get pregnant”.

Let’s put that on a billboard somewhere and call it a day. Just can’t see much need for a curriculum on this topic.

BTW - One of the posters yesterday (Liberal, needless to say) asked the question: Why are Conservatives against abortions but favor capital punishment?

I am glad to help wherever I can, so hold on tight here it goes:

Conservatives would rather put to death the vicious murderers and remove them (permanently) from our society and let the innocent babies live.

See how that works? 180 degrees out of course from the Leftist’s view, but it really isn’t that complicated!

By Jack

August 4, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Why are some against stem cell research? If they are using cells from embryos that are going to be discarded anyway, what is the harm? I can see being against abortion but I can’t grasp being against stem cell research. Help me out on this Heather, Zack, Bruce.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

I’m not married, yes involved with a real live man. And yes we have sex. (I look great for my age hehe) I’m much too old to have children, but I could become pregnant. If my birth control fails should I be forced to give birth? You’d better lock me up & throw away the key for 9 months then.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Whiley, you go on and on about how old gray haired men are trying to control how you have sex. But if we follow this thru, if women quit behaving so irresponsibly sexually, the men they would have sex with are subject to the same control, is that not so?

Maybe if it wasn’t so easy for a woman to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, the men she would have sex with would be more aware of the fact they might be making sons and daughters for themselves as well. They may even start to push for a male version of the Pill or get vasectomies.

By Jack

August 4, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Heather my dear. There is only one thing on men’s minds and it is not about the baby they are potentially going to create. We tend to think with our “Little heads” instead of our big ones.

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Time for some humor:

Women have: Advanced electrical toy

Guys have: Their hand

Women have: Over 8 types of BC (quick counting)

Guys have: Their hand, vesectimy or a condom

Women have: Ability to give birth

Guys have: Their hand

Women have: Clean sexual material packaged nicely (media)

Guys have: Seventies looking wrapping and situations

Women have: Comfortable dresses OR jeans/slacks, etc

Guys have: Slacks/jeans/shorts

Women have: Its hot to be with a guy or a girl nowadays

Guys have: The look funny in either situation

Women have: The LAST word on whether she will get preg

Guys have: Their hand

I am convinced that I as a woman have more choices than any man - and better ones;)

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

“How much “educationâ€? is needed about sex?*Girls, if you have sex with boys - you could get pregnantâ€?.Let’s put that on a billboard somewhere and call it a day. Just can’t see much need for a curriculum on this topic.”

You see, it is & always will be about controlling female sexuality. Women are sexual beings just as men. Not having better birth control & ultimate say so concerning how many children you give birth to, going so far as to being legislated into law is COMPLETE CONTROL over female sexuality. Other examples of female sexual control is refusal to dispense birth control pills, morning after pill. (Not condoms or viagra of course.)

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

“But if we follow this thru, if women quit behaving so irresponsibly sexually, “

See what I mean? Women who have sex are behaving irresponsibly sexually. The only sex allowed is married & wanting to breed sex. Another example of trying to control female sexuality. The oh so famous & widely used guilt trip. If WOMEN were responsible sexually, men would be. It’s all our faults. Right.

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Heather,

Just to help you here.

The statement: “They may even start to push for a male version of the Pill or get vasectomies.”

They have started many years ago on this research. It is common knowledge though that it is incredibly easy to stop one egg vs thousands of spem. The drug co’s are dying to come with this bc the surveys show the vast majority of men would welcome such a tool (survey poll guys and they overwhelmingly stated they would: wear a patch, take a pill, have an implant; and the ones testing such devices are proud to show them off to other guys)

Just want to stop a myth before it gets accepted. The research is going on - and guys are asking for it - , it is just extremely difficult work.

By james

August 4, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

To me it is pointless to debate abortion until we as a world help women prevent unwanted pregnancies—-Whiley, you said this in one of your posts. Throwing all the sensitivity crap and p/c crap outta the window, isn’t that the woman’s responsibility? No one elses. I, or anyone else for the that matter, is obligated to help anyone else. Especially, help you, to be read any woman, not become pregnant. If a woman choses to spread her legs for someone without looking out for herself, she shouldn’t expect someone else to do it for her.

By the way, Roberts won’t set women back in any way.

By SB

August 4, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I don’t really have a question, but you make a great point - you concede that the meaning of the Constitution has been evolved beyond the literal “all men are created equal” (which wasn’t too literal even at the time, as minority men weren’t considered equal).

Adam, you’re arguing against the rights “discovered” in the constitution - doesn’t this one qualify? Are you opposed to this one.

By taboga

August 4, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

You’re trying deperately to interfere with nature.

Women are the ones who get pregnant. If nature had directed it differently, it would be men who have the responsibility for their pregnancy.

Women own 51% of the stock when it comes to any sex being had. Women have the last word.

But I do agree that men need to be more careful. Consensual sex is too often labeled rape these days.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

“If a woman choses to spread her legs for someone without looking out for herself, she shouldn’t expect someone else to do it for her.”

Yet another way to try to control female sexualty. Only sluts have sex. Men aren’t responsible for all the sex they have & if they make a child, the sluts they sleep with have to deal with it. Punish the sluts. Nice.

By OldSchooler

August 4, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

What has worked in other parts of the world to control women’s sexuality is a cliterectomy. How about applying it to the USA, would take care of alot of the feminist problems? And the savings from no-shoes-needed could add up.

touché, SB, touché

culture and apparently the Constituion(interpretation) changes over time.

By Kyle

August 4, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Whiley, could you please just get over yourself and stop claiming to be a victim. No pro-life posters on this blog have made any comment that would imply they want to “control female sexuality”. There is no conspiracy here, calm down. Nobody is saying that females can’t have recreational sex just like men - they are just saying that the woman should take responsibility for their decisions. If a man is irresponsible and causes an unwanted pregnancy, he is held responsible for his actions through child support for eighteen years.

I also have the same question as Jack, could someone please explain the stance many pro-life people take against stem cell research?

By Jack

August 4, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Too many rapes are being considered as consensual also. Glad I had no daughters knowing how men think.

By james

August 4, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

no one said the woman was a slut but you (whiley). seems that you’re one of the ones trying to control female sexuality by judging them.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

“Whiley, could you please just get over yourself and stop claiming to be a victim. No pro-life posters on this blog have made any comment that would imply they want to “control female sexualityâ€?.”

hehe I’ve never been a victim because I do no allow anyone to victimize or control me. I made several examples of how some try to control female sexuality. How obvious can it be? Notice how you NEVER EVER hear of such anger or morality rules forced on men. “don’t have sex you may impregnate a woman” Don’t have sex you slut males because your sperm is dangerous to females. Keep it in your pants boys you are too irresponsible to control your sperm.” ” You bastards shouldn’t be having sex unless you are married anyway. etc.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

“If a woman choses to spread her legs for someone…”

THAT very popular guilt trip is, not me.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Kyle, I’m guessing you’ve never had an acquaintance force one of his parts into one of your parts after dinner and a couple of drinks, huh? Do you think it’s only “rape” if it’s a stranger in a dark alley, or if the woman is beaten nearly to death in her attempt to fight it off? Heh… How tall are you? Can you imagine life being five-foot-two and weaker than 90% of the men you meet? Do you think women only get pregnant because they are willfully hedonistic? That coersion does not exist in the world of romance? Do you have any idea how many ways in which a woman’s security can be breeched in her lifetime? Women will stop saying “victim” when we stop BEING victims, which is probably never. Ironicallly, women are condtioned to think that it’s OUR fault when we are compromised by a man’s willful behavior; further, when we stand up and speak out against victimization, we’re branded “feminazis” or some other such derogatory garbage. If you woke up tomorrow to find you were a female (premise of many movies) you would change your tune SOOOOO FAST!

By raylene

August 4, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

whiley is right. this is partly about controling females. why is it when BC isnt used and pregnancy occurs, its the womens fault? shouldnt the man have even thought to use a condom? even in a “heat-of-the-moment” situation? do men even think? my son was unplanned, but certainly not unwanted. but that was my choice. it is up to the indiviual if they want to keep their baby, give it up for adoption, or have an abortion. sometimes accidents happen, but the fault should not be on one person. it is the fault of the TWO people that engage in sex.

By james

August 4, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

to many consensual sex acts are being considered rapes because of ashamed women.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Whiley, we women have taught men how to treat us for thousands of years. There have always been sluts in our gender. There have always been plenty of women willing to give it out to men without commitment or the protection of marriage. There have always been women who deliberately try and get other women’s men in the sack. There have always been women willing to sell it to men for a price, the “oldest” profession in the book, right?

Men would not treat us the way they do today if we had not been allowing it for thousands of years. We have always had the power to make men behave themselves, we just haven’t used it.

Before you can go on and on about how men are trying to control our sexuality, maybe you should examine whether we are capable of controlling it ourselves. Because if we can’t control it, it doesn’t matter how many laws men pass, they will never be able to either.

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Lets all give Whiley a big AWWWW for being born a girl (although the real shame is her never graduating to a woman.)

Anyone notice that ALL of Whileys points gives the control over to the guy? It is you (Whiley), once again, that cannot own yourself and are trying to be taken care of by a MAN!

Whiley: “Who will take care of us poor girls? bc we sure cannot take responsibilty for ourselves.” “What are you guys doing to better OUR situation?”

Anyone else hearing the same from her?

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

James, you learned that from your fraternity brothers in your freshman year, didn’t you?

Heather, why don’t you spend some quality time with James, so he can teach you not to be ashamed of the things he’ll do to you because as we ALL know: “No means YES.”

By james

August 4, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

raylene: as has been stated in this forum…..it’s the woman that gets pregnant, it’s the woman that has to carry the fetus/baby for 9 months, it’s the woman that goes through the drastic changes, yada, yada, yada. it’s the woman’s fault if SHE gets pregnant. now, i can wear a condom if i don’t want kids. if i do want kids, i won’t wear a condom. but, my wants and desires has nothing to do with HER getting pregnant.

and, sigh, now it’s a man’s fault if a woman lets him talk her into having sex. i guess personal responsibility is out the window.

there is no guilt trip in saying that a woman has spread her legs. i could of just as easily said she did it doggy-style. whiley, the point is you’re judging.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Regarding stem cell research, life is being created. It doesn’t matter if it is created in a dish or a woman, it is created.

Someone here said that it would just be thrown out anyway, why not use it? Well, the problem is that it is being created to be thrown out when its served its purpose. But it is still life that is being destroyed.

There must be some other way to solve the medical mysteries of our time without creating life just to destroy it. No one is saying that the diseases that can be assisted by stem cell research are not important or don’t need a cure as soon as possible, but we can’t create human life just to destroy it for any purpose.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Whiley, don’t let these buttwipes get to you. You’re right and we KNOW it. You cannot change the minds of these self-righteous blowhards. They only way they have any self-esteem at all is to point out the “faults” of others. Let it go and hope they take themselves out of the gene pool in one way or another!

By raylene

August 4, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

James-

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Heather, living breathing human beings are thrown away every day in this country…. Perhaps in part because people like YOU seem to think that little clumps of cells have more value than living breathing human beings. Go visit a prison, a mental hospital, a VETERAN’s HOSPITAL, or a public housing complex and you’ll see this with your own eyes. Oh, but you don’t look at the world with your eyes, do you?

By james

August 4, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

kim, who has pointed out any faults. and, sorry, didn’t join a fraternity. and, Yes means Yes also (until the wrong person finds out she did it). and if heather chose to spend time with anyone and did whatever they wanted to do, i am sure she wouldn’t be ashamed of it.

seems that whiley and kim are afraid/ashamed of their sexuality.

By Tony

August 4, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

Yet You brought me out of the womb; You made me trust in You even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon You; from my mother’s womb You have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).

Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).

Know that the LORD is God. It is He who made us, and we are His; we are His people, the sheep of His pasture (Psalm 100:3)

This is what the LORD says—He who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you … (Isaiah 44:2).

And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

By Heather

August 4, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, all that just went in one ear and out the other, didn’t it? You just don’t get it.

I am not ashamed of the sexual act. With the right person it can be amazing and life changing.

But I am sometimes ashamed to be the same gender as some of these women who have so little respect for themselves or other women.

Adultery is the #1 reason for divorce in this country. It takes 2 people to commit adultery. Most of the women who have sex with married men are aware the man is married. But even if they weren’t aware of that, if they insisted on being married first, they would never have to fear being taken advantage of by married men. And sometimes it is the woman who cheated on her own husband. Such a fine example of womanhood.

We women need to accept the full responsibility for the condition of women in this country.

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

raylene, Kimberly

How is it that I do not have any of these notions that you say WOMEN are taught?

Why is it that all my parents had to do is teach me respect for myself, have open communication, and others (omitting the idiots - which is genderless) will treat me the same?

My mother also explained at an early age that she noticed the lack of respect nurses got and the few number of female doctors (her father was a doctor). Well, her mother/father said yes there is an issue with genders; but our job is not to avoid being a doctor because of it, but become a doctor to change it! I was blessed to have such sound parents, and that (the raising of kids) is the solution I see as wholistic.

The strongest people I hear touting the old bs “of what a guy should be and what a girl should be” notions are the women on this board!

Everyone else is talking about a persons obvious responsibility.

You arguements are in the same pot as: I am going to sue McDs because they just kept selling me food. How can you say I am a glutton for eating! They should not have sold it to me! And not that I have a weight problem, I need to do cocain since that is MY perferred rout of losing weight. And no I do not care if there are better alternatives - I want Cocain!!! Make it leagal, or I will scream you are controlling me!!!

Grow up and join us women in the world who are making a difference.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Thank you Kimberly ! :) (buttwipes hehe)

I’ve dealt with this type of discrimination all my life, so I’m used to it. Funny thing is, times have changed so much, but so little concerning women’s sexuality. Why is that?

By Jack

August 4, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Heather. They don’t create life just to destroy it. A couple we know could not have children the “regular” way and decided to use the invitro-fertilization method. Though they only wanted 2 children,because it doesn’t always take the first time, they had to create 12 embryos. They used 4 for their first child and 4 for their second. That leaves 4 left over to be discarded. Is it murder to discard the left-over ones? Do they have to thaw before they are alive or are they alive in a frozen state?

By Heather

August 4, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, go watch a second trimester aborton. I don’t mean have one, I mean actually watch one. As a matter of fact, watch every abortion done in one abortion clinic in this country for one day.

Then come back here and tell me the unborn are worthless clumps of cells. Come back here and tell me you still feel the same way. I’ll have more respect for your opinion then at least.

As for your challenge to visit the places you mentioned. I intend to. I want to help as many people as I can in my lifetime.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

“men would not treat us the way they do today if we had not been allowing it for thousands of years. We have always had the power to make men behave themselves, we just haven’t used it. “

So all men are just moronic dangerous irresponsible animals if we don’t police their every move? I don’t even believe that one, but you must. WE are responsible for the way men treat us????? Oh that’s right, everything is our fault. All men would behave if we just stop sleeping with them.

Gosh this is another good one !

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Joan, you’re rambling now, and making no sense. No one was talking about McDonald’s or cocaine. Maybe you should take a break and get your fix of whatever it is that calms you.

By the way, I think it’s just GRAND that you had parents to teach you self respect. I also try to instill this in my daughter. However, many people have bad parental examples, or no parental examples. And these women ARE victimized, usually by MEN who have bad parental examples. But what does that have to do with the government trying to control the bodies of women, hence denying the principle of “equal protection under the law?” Unless a woman can walk away the same as a man, there is NO equal protection under the law. And guys, don’t go screaming about forced child support, because I know PLENTY of men who never pay a dime, and they’ve never spent a single night in jail for it, because it’s almost NEVER enforced!

By raylene

August 4, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

James- Obviously you didnt see my point. that it isnt one persons fault. but, my wants and desires has nothing to do with HER getting pregnant. what the hell is that? do i really need to explain sex to you? in terms you would understand.when you have unprotected sex, the sperm goes in the woman. then it goes to the egg. and wow! sometimes it gets the woman pregnant. well omg! i can see how you could think that its not your fault that your sperm got someone pregnant. like i have said it takes two. no woman can get pregnant by herself.

By Jack

August 4, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Expensive way to lose weight indeed.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

…

By raylene

August 4, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Joan- What are you talking about? that makes no sense. excuse me, but i think you werent paying attention to what i said. i am grown-up, for one thing. i am trying to make this world a better place. if you happened to read what i have written before, i plan on adopting/foster parenting. so exactly what was your point? when did i say this? *How is it that I do not have any of these notions that you say WOMEN are taught? * i think you mis-read. i said nothing about what “women are taught”

By taboga

August 4, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Anti-Abortionists,

Want to stop Abortion…? Well, use the weapon the Supreme Court just gave you: Force closure on the Abortion Clinics and use the property for “public good”.

You gotta learn to the play the game that the Left does and throw it right back in their face!

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 4, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Heather, it’s you who says that God puts life into the womb; I’m not sure what God’s role is, which again, is why religion is not good basis for law.

As far as God giving life a soul, how do you know that the soul doesn’t choose the life? My belief is that the soul is the godlike part of us, the part of us that is the creator. As far as as a soul not appearing until the moment it is born and breathes air, there have been biblical scholars and saints who have proposed this. Ever hear of inspiration?

I agree, there are a lot of innocent children out there being abused today and while abortion is legal this continues, but not because abortion is legal. Do you think that making abortion illegal will decrease this with the tired Culture of Life phrasing? Pursuing quality of life seems more the answer, with access to health care, decent food, housing, jobs, etc.

You continue on about why people do what they do. We are all at different levels of understanding of our place within the divinity. Many of us approach this differently, not according to organized religion or dogma but on our own experiences and our interpretation of the world. It does not surprise me that my interpretation does not mesh with yours, but in my experience, I learn a lot more by suspending judgement of individuals who have made difficult, personal choices, even if I would not have made those choices myself. My judgment helps neither of us.

I do not equivocate early products of conception with full post-birth human life as a matter of conscience. I do not believe that biology is destiny. Your bringing God into the argument does not change this for me. God may be ever present and evident in your life experience, but it is not so for everybody, and nothing you can say or do will make it so. We have to experience our divinity in our own way, personally, through the creator. To insult and condemn another because he or she is not on the same page as you are creates unneccessary suffering and division. I’ll accept that you follow certain religious precepts, but not that that laws should be based on those precepts.

I understand wanting to avoid the slippery slope, but it does us no good if we do this to the degree that we crash headlong into another moral dilemma such as forced motherhood.

By james

August 4, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

no woman can get pregnant herself but all women can protect themselves by themselves. when i have unprotected sex, i don’t have a condom. when she has unprotected sex, she’s using no form of birth control. when we both do it, we’re both silly. all that doesn’t matter. if she doesn’t want to get pregnant, she should do something about it.

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

You fail to notice the ONLY solution we women have that means a damn thing is to be responsible for ourselves and our happiness.

You follow the same rabbit hole as every childish adult that wants someone else to be in control of their happiness; instead of controlling what they naturally can/should which WOULD lead there, IF they grew up and took the wheel.

There is nothing else to you’alls arguement besides; I do not want the responsibility of the choices I do have; I want the quick easy way out after all those have past.

We will all meet up after our lives are over (plannig on a green room like Opra’s), and when you are poo-poo’ing that yours sucked; it will be because YOU did not control it - not that others should have made sure your time was incredible and worth while.

I refuse to leave that up to someone else, but many women still want that it seems - including you and Whiley et al.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Whiley, men have taught us how to treat them just the way we have taught them how to treat us.

So in that way, they have taught us to give it to them whenever they want it. They have taught us to dress in revealing clothes so that they can get their eyes full. They have taught us to wear makeup so that our faces look more appealing. They have taught us that the thin girl gets the guy.

Maybe you are right, maybe men have always been in control of a woman’s sexuality.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

“Want to stop Abortion…? Well, use the weapon the Supreme Court just gave you: Force closure on the Abortion Clinics and use the property for “public goodâ€?.”

Like maybe birth control clinics?

You can’t stop abortion without a good birth control. When are some of you going to realize that???

By Brian Curtis

August 4, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

quote: “Abortion is murder, and there’s not a shred of evidence anywhere that can even remotely refute this statement. Get it right!”

Ahhh, it’s good to have Zack back pontificating on his very favoritest subject ever!

Zack won’t listen or understand it, but I’ll make the gesture of a reply: No, Zack. Abortion is definitely not murder, and there’s not a shred of evidence anyone has provided that can even remotely refute that fact.

You are, of course, welcome to believe otherwise in your little deluded-fundamentalist world. But as I and others here have repeatedly reminded you, your personal superstitions have no power over the rest of us; nor should they in a blessedly secular society like ours.

“Believe what you like, but leave me out of it” really is an excellent motto for freedom, don’t you think? (Don’t answer; of course you don’t. Something you and taboga have in common.)

By james

August 4, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

99% accurate is a good birth control. you’re asking for something 100% when you can’t even give a 100% certain answer to the question “is the baby his”

By raylene

August 4, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

that would be my point. one of you should be using birth control. if the woman isnt taking any, she should ask the man to use a condom. but the man should make sure on whether or not he should use one. ask the woman if she is on birth control. or use one anyway just in case. i can tell you honestly that the pill doesnt always work. thats how i got pregnant. but it wasnt just my fault. and i know that most men are like this. “i dont want the kid, its not my fault that she got didnt use birth control”. but where does that thinking come from. men should have to face the consequences that come from unprotected sex. and not only pregnancy, STD’s. if you dont know about your sexual partner you need to use a condom. even if she is on birth control.

By taboga

August 4, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Like maybe birth control clinics?

You can’t stop abortion without a good birth control. When are some of you going to realize that???

No, like: Jails. That way, once Abortion is made illegal - we’ll have the accomodations ready for those women who enjoy murdering innocent babies.

Works out good all the way around doesn’t it?

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

“So in that way, they have taught us to give it to them whenever they want it. They have taught us to dress in revealing clothes so that they can get their eyes full. They have taught us to wear makeup so that our faces look more appealing. They have taught us that the thin girl gets the guy. “

WHAT??!! BWAAAA HA HA HAAAAA ! ! ! Now everything that is feminine is bad? The examples of female sexuality suppression are just pouring out today aren’t they.

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

You can’t stop abortion without a good birth control. When are some of you going to realize that???

One pill a day, Film, Condoms, implants that last 5 years? This is not good BC???

You mean you want a BC you do not have to evan think about - no responsibility again! (Which most new BCs are getting to anyhoo)

Sandy, Nice prose, but like stoners: You think greath thoughts, but do NOTHING. Smoothing over an issue as you normally do is calming, but besides that it is fluff that has less grounding than most world-view systems. Sorry, you seem nice; but un-informed.

I wish Whiley could go back 100 years and preach this crap to the women then; you would be stoned by your own gender for your ignorance.

By james

August 4, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

ryalene, i think we’re at least in the same book. men do face the consequences of unprotected sex. men just don’t face pregnancy. if a man wanted a kid and decided that the next woman he had sex with he wasn’t gonna use his condoms. if she’s not using b/c and gets pregnant, it’s all her fault (denotes blame). he did what he intended to do. he was successful (at what he planned). if she didn’t want to be pregnant, she failed at protecting herself.

By Tony

August 4, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

If any religious philosophy has been imposed upon a nation, it is Secular Humanism. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Humanism as a religion. The officer corps of the pro-abortion movement is almost entirely made up of secular humanists who have imposed their beliefs upon our nation.

I have the right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your nose. A woman has certain (not total) rights to her own body, but not over another living human’s body just because he or she still happens to live inside her.

The Ten Commandments forbad murder and stealing. So do the laws of every civilized nation. Do those laws impose religious morality? Hardly!

This is a civil rights issue. It is a question of whether an entire class of living humans shall be deprived of their basic right to life on the basis of age and place of residence.

Perhaps the question should be turned around Sandy: What right does a mother and her abortionist have to impose their morality upon her unborn child?

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

99% accurate is a good birth control. you’re asking for something 100% when you can’t even give a 100% certain answer to the question “is the baby his�

I’ve never had that issue of is the baby his.

I’m assuming you are referring to the 99% effectiveness the pill? Well & grand if you can afford it, can handle the blood clotting it tends to do, or don’t have history of strokes in your family, or don’t take antibiotics, or always remember to take them everyday, or your not over 35 years old. Then yes, there is no excuse becoming pregnant. If you do anyway, go to preggo jail immediately. Yes, we realize you already have a job, 2 kids & a husband. WE just can’t trust you enough not to run off & get an illegal abortion. GET IN YOUR CELL NOW ! Ah,America the home of the free. (except for sexually active females)

By Jack

August 4, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Heather. Men did not “teach” women how to act. Women learned how & visa versa. In ancient times, men would just force the female to comply with whatever demand because of his physical superiority over the female. Females have learned to use manipulation to get the man to do her bidding. Before the beating starts, I am a male chavanist. I like to call um as I see um.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

“I wish Whiley could go back 100 years and preach this crap to the women then; you would be stoned by your own gender for your ignorance.”

uh yea right, whatever.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Joan, I know you are, but what am I? (hee hee) So WHAT if I’m childish? What does that have to do with EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW? Let the MEN in Washington start making intrusive, prohibitive laws about testicles. THEN come talk to me about someone else’s desire to govern MY uterus!

By Questions

August 4, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

speaking of clones, if a human is cloned, is the soul cloned as well?

By Heather

August 4, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Whiley, did you actually read and think about what you were writing when you said,”I’m assuming you are referring to the 99% effectiveness the pill? Well & grand if you can afford it, can handle the blood clotting it tends to do, or don’t have history of strokes in your family, or don’t take antibiotics, or always remember to take them everyday, or your not over 35 years old. “

You have a thousand excuses for women to not use birthcontrol but you keep talking about needing to teach kids more about birthcontrol. Let us have birthcontrol but don’t make us use it. Is that it?

By Jack

August 4, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

James. Bless your heart. How backwards are thee.

By james

August 4, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

grand if i can afford condoms, put up with chaffing, remember to pull out if it breaks…..yada, yada, yada. all you’re doing is looking for excuses.

it’s been fun though. i give you all the power over your own body and your own sexuality.

By Adam

August 4, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

SB - “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The idea that all men are created equal does not require discovering rights embedded in the Constitution. It is right there on its face. Now, has that idea been ignored/abused in the past? Yes. But correcting the misinterpretation of an explicit clause (as the Court did in Brown v. Board of Education by correcting the completely attenuated interpretation of Plessy v. Ferguson) is completely different than reading into the Constitution a right (abortion) that is not there (and never contemplated) by the drafters of the amendment.

I favor the first sort of jurisprudence (enforcing explicit provisions) and abhor the latter (discovering rights embedded, but not explicit, within the Constitution).

By raylene

August 4, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

no james, men dont have to be pregnant, but they should have to face it. the reality is, it is the mans baby too. he should be helping the women out during her pregnancy. and after their child is born. unless of course, both parents decide that the man should not be invovled. but so many men dont even make the effort. my friend became pregnant(condom broke)and her boyfriend broke up with her shortly after she miscarried the baby. they didnt know yet, he still thought she was pregnant. men dont like to face responsibility. he suddenly wanted her back after he found out she wasnt pregnant anymore. some men just suck is what im trying say.

By Bruce

August 4, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

More of your scare tactics Whiley? Poor Whiley she demands everyone do it for her becuase she is not responsible enough to do it herself.

Several have said men should use a condom becuase women’s b/c is not always effective. Have you ever heard that condom break? I would be willing to trust women’s b/c before I trust a very thin peice of latex…….

By Heather

August 4, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Questions, well I would say that since we have not ever been able to have a conversation with a cloned human, there is no way to truly confirm that. However, on a guess I would say NOOOOOO.

By joe

August 4, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Sounds to me like the Establishment clause, Ronald, only pertained to “men” and doesn’t say a word about fetuses.

By raylene

August 4, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

i dont happen to trust the pill further than i can throw king kong now. so many of people in my family have gotten pregnant on the pill. unfortunatly i didnt know this before i got pregnant on it. the depo shot seems to be working so far though. yeah condoms break, but if the woman is on birth control, and the man uses a condom, then the chances of getting pregnant are even less.

By Questions

August 4, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

are fetuses counted in the census count taken every ten years?

should answer the Constitution question.

By Jack

August 4, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Whiley is not using scare tactics. She just happens to feel strongly about this subject and is fired up. Birth control is not the woman’s resposibility only. AND pills are not always effective. We had 2 children on the pill then I got the big “V”. Best thing I ever did.

By Bruce

August 4, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

If you are looking for a 100% sure fired way of not getting pregnant… should I say it…. no… yes… no…yes, DON’T HAVE SEX. That is the ONLY 100% sure way you will not get pregnant. A proven scientific fact. If you are not looking for a 100% sure fired way stop complaining and enjoy yourself but remember YOU have to be responsible for YOUR action and the man has to be responsible for his.

By Quesions

August 4, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

So Heather is in favor of human cloning? if the soul is distinct, the cloned would be unique. not much different than identical twins.

By blablabla

August 4, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

the whileys and kimberlys of this blog want to have their cake and eat it too. cake…they want to be sexually active women. i say: great, go for it. eating it too…they don’t want to deal with the consequences.

every time people have sex, there is a chance of pregnancy, no matter how good the BC is. there is always some chance. i have no desire to control female sexuality. i would only expect women, just as i expect men, to deal with the consequences of their actions. it’s that simple.

whiley says she doesn’t feel sorry for a man who gets trapped b/c his partner gets pregnant and he gets stuck with the bill. but as of right now, whiley has all the power in making this decision. if she wants the child and her partner doesn’t, he gets stuck with the bill. if she doesn’t want the child and he does, he has no ability or right whatsoever to compel her to carry the child to term. whiley seems to have no problem with this obvious double-standard.

by nature, women are the carriers of the unborn. ultimately, and no matter how you slice it, because of this natural fact, women are responsible for providing the last line of defense if they want to keep themselves from getting pregnant. men should certainly be responsible for their actions and if they don’t want their partner to get pregnant, wear a condom, pull out, etc. it’s not that men want to control female sexual activity (at least certainly not this man), it’s that women are the ones who end up getting pregnant and encounter the risks/problems inherent in carrying the unborn.

if whiley and kimberly want to keep from getting pregnant, they must ultimately look to themselves and be responsible for their own actions and health. just like everybody else.

whiley wants to be sexually active and not have to deal with the consequences for her activities. that’s the biggest problem i have with her commentary.

all this from someone who happens to be marginally pro-choice.

By taboga

August 4, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Let the MEN in Washington start making intrusive, prohibitive laws about testicles. THEN come talk to me about someone else’s desire to govern MY uterus!

No “Men in Washington” have made any laws governing your uterus.

By raylene

August 4, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

“pulling out” does not work.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Questions, I have no opinion on cloning to be honest. I don’t know enough about it really.

However, I have enough faith in God to say that if such a thing does happen and become widespread, He will use it for good, one way or the other. Life is being created after all, not destroyed.

I would object if children were being created only for the purpose of providing spare parts for people wanting to extend their life further.

By SB

August 4, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Adam - Thanks for the response! I’m firm believer that (general rule of thumb here, there are exceptions to be found) as we as a society evolve, so shall out legal process. I’m not trying to debate or argue - just a civil exchange of thoughts.

I’m also a big believer that there’s a lot of middle ground to be uncovered. :)

The right to due process is certainly enshrined in the Constitution - but the right of women to be the legal equals of their male counterparts is not explicitly stated. Certain rights - like voting - come to mind, but that’s equality in one area, not overall. In fact, I’d argue that there are state laws still in the books that almost negate that (is it Utah where you can beat your wife with a stick no thicker than the width of your thumb).

Yet, old and unenforced laws aside, the legal equality of women to men is accepted today (to everyone’s benefit, IMHO). Women are no longer considered their husband’s or father’s property.

Sooooooo … What, except time and the evolution of a civil society, makes reading certain rights into the Constitution ok, but others not (I’m being general here, beyond abortion).

By Lilith

August 4, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

And James I guess we’re on the same page too: “i think we’re at least in the same book. men do face the consequences of unprotected sex. men just don’t face pregnancy. if a woman wanted a kid and decided that the next man she had sex with she wasn’t gonna use b/c, if he’s not using condoms and she gets pregnant, it’s all his fault (denotes blame). she did what she intended to do. she was successful (at what she planned). if \he didn’t want to support a kid for 18 years, he failed at protecting himself. Just turn it around and see how you like it

By taboga

August 4, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Joan stated something to the effect of “women making men behave” - and she’s absolutley right!

The majority of men are stupid! Women can/have and will manipulate men with ease!

Just a few examples:

Women have made many men feel as if they, as a man, look at women as “sex objects”.

Now, which gender is that starts out in elementary school - wanting to kiss the other?

Which gender has posters of the latest “heart-throb” of the other gender on their walls by the age of twelve?

Which gender is it, that as pre-teens and teens, keeps the phone tied-up talking about how “Cute this one is…how cute the other one is..who’s dating who…etc.”…?

Which gender reads the most romance novels?

Which gender is it, that will go to watch movies solely based on how good looking the actors are?

I could go on with a few more, but I think you get the point…But yet, all women have to do is accuse men of looking at them as sex objects - and many men will feel guilty and behave accordingly!

Women can get a “bad reputation” if they sleep-around.

Right, but who is it that gives them the reputation? Men, overall, really don’t care much about whether or not women have multiple sex partners. Women on the other hand, will talk about those women like a dog!

They get the reputation from women and then women throw it in a man’s face and accuse us of having a “double standard” when it comes to sleeping-around! And men believe that and accept that! Because we’re stupid!

Men “get women pregnant”.

It’s as if women have absolutely nothing to do with it. It’s like we just slip up behind them, tap them on the back and say: Ha, ha, I got you pregnant! And a lot of men believe that we are running around getting women pregnant! We’re stupid!

I could go on and on and on…

Real women understand that they have it made! It’s the little girls out there who haven’t a clue, so they run around whining and moaning, wanting laws passed left and right and end up right back where they started: With nothing!

At least we men are not that stupid!

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 4, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Whiley, you’ve outed them: your opinions are not so extreme anymore (though I never thought they were); today we’ve had suggestions of mutilization of female genitals to “solve feminist problems,” and suggestions of imprisonment for women who would choose abortion assuming the law is overturned.

Joan, I try to find common ground and areas to agree upon so I don’t have to get involved in name calling. That’s how I approach important social and ethical issues, calmly, because I think aggression and nastiness do not lead to good debate, good decisions, good law, and ultimately are not good teaching tools, pretty prose be damned. That you don’t agree is obvious.

As far as my doing nothing, how can you tell and why do you feel it’s your place to judge? Or perhaps you’re in need of a segue to expound on your own virtues. Sorry, I work for a living and don’t have the time or interest. Getting stoned would probably be more fruitful way to spend my day than reading your rants about how wonderful life is for you, but responsibility calls. Buh-bye.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Blablabla: How DARE you suggest to know what we WANT regarding sex? Hello? What we WANT is equal protection under the law, and for the government to not interfere with decisions about our uteri. You say we want to have our cake and eat it too? You know NOTHING of the cake we’ve eaten, you arrogant DORK!

By JoanFromAtl

August 4, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Sandy,

but responsibility calls???

Why dont you shilt that responsibility too? I mean it is your choice…but that would have consiquences, huh? So, lets start a movement to remove that consiquence too. What is it, that if you do not work, you will not get money, and thet leads to no rent and homelessness? Man you have it hard with so few choices! You should be able to sit at home and play all day - I mean sheesh!

There is no debating that if someone knows the risk of an activity (skydiving lets say), goes anyway, but the shute doesnt open; they should be able to blame someone!!! (sarcasm)

Grow up. Life does NOT come with a life vest besides your BRAIN! Try using it.

By taboga

August 4, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

and suggestions of imprisonment for women who would choose abortion assuming the law is overturned.

It was not a “suggestion” - more of a demand. And I wasn’t “suggesting” imprisonment for “Abortion”, it was for: Murder.

I can’t seem to remember terrorists aborting thousands on 9/11. I do remember the murder though.

By taboga

August 4, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

If your last comment was about mine before it - I will be happy to clarify something.

I was not talking about you. I was talking about women.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

I was responding to blablabla’s 2:30 post. Nobody is listening to you anymore toober-head.

By Questons

August 4, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Heather - thanks, been a thought of mine for awhile. (do clones have the same soul).

It seems for every good one(clone) that develops, there are many rejects. Kind of curious as to exactly when one would get a soul as well.

By DeltaX

August 4, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

As for my rights? Well the courts decided that if I have sexual actions with a woman, and she fertilizes herself with my sperm that she kept in a condom (real story concerned her mouth) - although it was understood I do not want children; I will still have to provide child support.

No laws concerning my testes huh? BS.

I agree with Joan, Heather et al; many of you need to grow up. My preteen daughters have more responsibility than many of you women on here.

By Kali

August 4, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Whiley, it’s just like beating your head against a stone wall. It’s feminist backlash; it’s a deep prejudice and hatred toward women. It’s been going on for thousands of years. All you have to do is read the comments here to see what you and I and many others see, but still, another one of them doesn’t hesitate to accuse you of bing crazy and irresponsible. You are not crazy my friend; you know it and I know it. If women don’t want to have kids then they just shouldn’t have sex! Well, listen up fundies; I’ll have sex as much as I want and there’s not one damn thing you can do about it. If we don’t keep those legs together then we deserve to be punished and have kids we don’t want! I have sex and I use birth control and if I get pregnant I will not suffer any consequences. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Who in the hell do you throwbacks think you are anyway? What I do is none of your business. I just wish there were some way to keep all of you from having sex so your backward mentality could die out with you! I know who you are - frustrated, guilt-ridden, joyless, fear driven fundamentalists who want everybody to live the dried up lives you live. You can’t stand the thought of women being free and sexual and enjoying it and not suffering any guilt. Who cares about you? You go pray to your best little invisible friend and I’ll go have sex all afternoon with my husband.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Questions, I can’t answer these deep-soul questions, but I can tell you this: My child learned to talk very young, and we had some interesting conversations when she was between one and a half and two years old. She told me she remembered the day she was born. She also said she CHOSE me to be her mother. This leads me to believe that souls exist, as our major religions tell us, but not necessarily in the WAYs that our major religions tell us, and those descriptions are vague at best anyway. If God creates souls and puts them into babies, would He not pluck one from a dying baby or fetus and put it elsewhere? If the body is indeed a “vessel” for the soul’s time on earth, then what is inconceivable about the idea of getting another vessel? Why would souls be created ONLY at the moment of fertilization, and then have no other option for life if that embryo terminates, in whatever fashion. I’ve seen my friends endure the heartache of miscarried and stillborn children. (Different heartache altogether, but that’s for another post.)

So my point is, while the particular, specific DNA pattern may be unique to each and every embryo-fetus-person, if that is independent of the soul, how is the death of one embryo a death to a soul? Isn’t it really a death to an unfinished vessel?

By whiley

August 4, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

“You have a thousand excuses for women to not use birthcontrol but you keep talking about needing to teach kids more about birthcontrol. Let us have birthcontrol but don’t make us use it. Is that it?”

You KNOW that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying that the state of birth control TODAY, in this day & age, is pathetic. Women suffer terribly because birth control has not evolved & gotten much better. A LOT of grown women can’t take the pill. A lot of women CAN & DO take the pill & enjoy a much better sex life because if it. A lot of women use other forms of birth control & have never had a problem & are able to control their own lives & the number of children they give birth to in their lifetime. Their lives & the lives of their families are improved. NOT every woman is perfect. Mostly the ages between 16-25 or so. Women should not have their entire lives ruined because of a moment of passion & just being young. Men certainly don’t & do just walk away way too often. Outlawing abortion will not make people “more responsible”. An excellent birth control would at least help everybody & save all your “FETUS’S”. Of course women will finally enjoy the sexual freedom men have always had. Or is that what is so frightening? I think that’s it, because of course, we are the ones that keep men in line right? Back to my point, MANY married women in good marriages don’t want kids at all, or are struggling to raise the ones they already have. Shame on this world for not doing better with birth control. But you anti choice don’t care about that, it’s only about the fetus. THE FETUS THE FETUS. The majority of all abortions are done VERY EARLY. IF YOU REALLY cared you’d be more supportive of birth control. For instance, when a stupid idiot pharmacist refuses to give out birth control pills, YOU GET ANGRY & DO EVERYTHING you can to get that person fired & let stores know you do not do business with companies that hire those types of people. That is one example, but I think you get my point.

By Heather

August 4, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Well, Questions, assuming you are serious, I would say that if Our Creator allows this creation to take place, He would give it a soul at the same time He gives children in the womb a soul, at conception.

By blablabla

August 4, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

try reading comprehension instead of hysterical insults. i stated twice that i have no interest in controlling what you do with regards to sex. please, by all means, do whatever you want, go for whatever you want. if you wanted to be sexually promiscuous, have at it. but if you got hiv or some other vd, you’d have to deal with the consequences. why is pregnancy so much different? are you so crude as to view pregnancy as a disease like hiv or vd that must be treated and purged from the body?

and equal protection my a$$. you don’t want equal protection. what you’re trying to say is that you want equal rights, but that doesn’t even make sense. i don’t have any abortion rights - only a woman does. only a woman can control what whether a child gets carried to term or not. no father has any rights like this. in most states men can get stuck with supporting a child they never wanted because of the choice of the woman. where is my EQUAL PROTECTION you scream so loudly for? here’s reality, sweetheart…you’re not asking for equal protection, or equal rights. you’re demanding SPECIAL rights.

since i know you can’t comprehend without getting emotional, i’ll say it again, with small words: do whatever you want with respect to sex. just be prepared to deal with the the situation the next day. that’s all anybody asks of anybody else.

By DeltaX

August 4, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Todays BC is pathetic????

Why is it that millions of responsible adult WOMEN have no problem with preventing pregnancy? Why is it so disproportionate bw upper class and lower classes in rates? You think that BC works different for them? For You? You think BC likes rich white women more, but sabatoges the poor (which really comes down to being uninformed)?

BTW - Not a single guy has ever avocated having sex all he wants without consiquences. I know you will jump on this and say some act that way; but that is not the point is it? A man would not try to pass law on his freedom to fertilize - thats why there are laws making him live up to his responsibility!!!!

I will say it again: thats why there are laws making him live up to his responsibility!!!

But that dont count huh?

I agree with Joan, Heather and the rest; You all want your cake and eat it too. Gosh you do womem a dis-service.

By OldSchooler

August 4, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

cliterectomy was supposed to be tongue-in-check sarcasm, note the implied following barefoot and pregnant.

sorry for alarming anyone. not to mean there are not people on this blog who would find that beneficial, seems there are, but not from here.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

“if I have sexual actions with a woman, and she fertilizes herself with my sperm that she kept in a condom (real story concerned her mouth) - although it was understood I do not want children; I will still have to provide child support.”

uh, yes women do that all the time, everyday in this country because it’s getting harder & harder to trick men into having sex these days. Condom stealers are confiscating used Trojans because $250 per month child support is worth being a single mother ! ! In fact, it’s such an epidemic, we need to pass laws immediately to protect men from these sperm thieves!

By taboga

August 4, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

There’s another way to end the Abortion debate: Put it up for a vote.

A national referendum. Only women can vote.

Women get to make a choice: Abortion or Child Support.

One or the other, but not both.

Men will have no say in the matter - it’s all up to the women. Whichever the women choose - the men will have to abide by it. Women won’t be able to blame men for anything, but can hold men responsible for abiding by their choice.

Which will it be: Abortion or Child Support…?

By David

August 4, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Joan, There is no debating that if someone knows the risk of an activity (skydiving lets say), goes anyway, but the shute doesnt open; they should be able to blame someone!!! (sarcasm)

I’m in absolute agreement. When I do a risky activity like drive to work, I should not be able to blame the aggressive driver who causes an accident and injury to myself.

I don’t think that your “all choices have consequences” mantra is particularly meaningful. You seem to believe that that fact means that what those consequences should be is obvious. Obviously its not.

Maybe I haven’t read closely enough, but what do you believe it is that makes humans so special that they shouldn’t be aborted/murdered?

By Kyle

August 4, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

since it looks like the name calling is starting: kimberly is an AUBURN fan! Ohhhhhh, that hurts.

By Questions

August 4, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Heather - well, I am sure the Creator would never allow human cloning since that seems alot of souls would be petridish flushed.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

“You all want your cake and eat it too.” You people should realize that the CAKE analogy is absurd. First of all, what does that even mean? Nothing. Second, you keep presuming to know what we want, and that you know something about our sex lives using the metaphor “cake.” Our point is simply that the decisions that affect our bodies are OURS to make, NOT the government’s to regulate.

You spout “take responsibility!” in one sentence, then argue in favor of government regulation of our bodies. That’s SOOOO hypocritical. If it’s MY f-ing CAKE, and MY responsibility, then how in the HECK can it be YOURs or anyone else’s decision?

And yes, I may be immature, but I’m an adult, so go suck the icing off your cupcake — I still have RIGHTS to my own body!

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

BTW - Not a single guy has ever avocated having sex all he wants without consiquences.

hehe not at YOUR CHURCH MAYBE. That’s about it.

By Questions

August 4, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

actually, why would God even permit a female abortionist to even get pregnant when he should know she would only abort? Should he be responsible as well?

By Heather

August 4, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Know what DeltaX, the sad thing is that many people actually believe what they are selling here. It makes me sad really. So many babies died today because of people with this sort of selfish irresponsible attitude.

Kali, I will tell you this. If it ever comes up for a vote in Georgia (Roe is overturned and it goes to the states), I will be using my right as a voter to vote against legal abortion in this state. I will be out on the streets telling people not to murder their children. I will do everything I can to ensure YOUR right to an abortion is denied you.

That is all I have left to say on this issue. Nothing said on the ProChoice side of this debate has convinced me.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Kyle, I ivite you to suck the icing off your cupcake as well. See ya in Athens, November 12th! {;->

By Questions

August 4, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

and I believe I heard recently that Marie Antoinette never even said “Let them eat cake”

I think we all want to have our cake and eat it too. why make a cake to rot? sounds wasteful on food, think of all the proverbial kids in China, or the inner city. Would probably beat Reagan’s cheese for tastiness. nutrition? who knows.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Heather, four more national guard soldiers from Georiga died today too. Where’s the outrage? These human beings had lives and loved ones. Where’s the outrage from your “culture of life?” Just asking.

By Jack

August 4, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Deep thought…cloning has been perfected. They are cloning humans thereby providing a vast source of spare parts for the living. The trouble is, the powers that be made it so expensive that only the very rich and powerful can get the spare parts. THINK ABOUT THIS. This scenario would allow politcians,depots ETC. to live for over 200 years. If they kept it away from the general populace, we could have had Sadamn, George “W”, Bill or Hillary for EVER. Wouldn’t that be nice.

By DeltaX

August 4, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Are you and the other women on here really saying that you do not know how to have sexual freedom without getting pregnant?

That is as far as I need to go with this. If your answer is “yes, you know how”: Then you ARE culpable; if not: you need to get educated.

Really sickens me that there are pleanty of options, and you all still cry foul and choose a proceedure you have obviously NEVER seen!

I have done it for 20+ years and KNOW how to prevent being a father.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I love cake & eat it whenever I want hehe as much as I want. I love to hear another strong woman stand up to BS ! And thank you Sandy/Sanhan.

“Men will have no say in the matter - it’s all up to the women. Whichever the women choose - the men will have to abide by it. Women won’t be able to blame men for anything, but can hold men responsible for abiding by their choice.” (yea that will happen) If this male pill is developed, men can NEVER be in the situation of forced fatherhood. I think this male pill is a wonderful thing.

By Questions

August 4, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

can you clone a clone?

By Zack

August 4, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Also, no, the answer isn’t birth control. In fact, birth control only makes things worse, as it promotes more immoral behavior and attacks morality and responsibility. Honestly, this is like saying the problem behind global warming is that we don’t have enough air conditioners.

By DeltaX

August 4, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Whiley,

Are you as slow as you seem? The example IS real and the courts DID rule on it against him.

You think that is funny? You are sick.

By taboga

August 4, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

I think we all want to have our cake and eat it too. why make a cake to rot? sounds wasteful on food, think of all the proverbial kids in China, or the inner city.

The saying is referring to the fact that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Because once you eat it, you will have it no more. You have choose one or the other; eat it or have it - you can’t have both.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

“I will be out on the streets telling people not to murder their children.”

So a 6-8 week old fetus is a child? When Toys R US Starts selling fetus car seats, bottles, & little fetus diapers, THEN & ONLY THEN will I consider a fetus a baby.

By Adam

August 4, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

SB - I’m not entirely sure I understand your question.

The evolution of civil society (at least the examples you provide) was and is accomplished democratically. Women’s suffrage, for instance, was accomplished through the 19th Amendment to the Constitution (a democratic process). The ability of women to own property independent of their husbands was also accomplished democratically (through the married women’s rights acts passed in every state in the union).

I think we are misunderstanding one another. I have no problem with the granting of rights democratically (after all, the bill of rights was adopted democratically, not through the Courts). Once those rights are granted, I have no problem with the interpretation of explicit provisions of the Constitution. An argument about the meaning of the Establishment clause is an argument over the interpretation of explicit rights democratically granted to individuals.

I take issue when the Court finds rights hidden in the Constitution that are not there explicitly. The Democratic process should decide issues so fundamental to our society, not unelected justices. The Democratic granted invididuals in our country free speech, freedom of religion, the equality of human beings (although misinterpreted and abused), and most of rights we hold fundamental. If our democracy desires a fundamental right to abortion, let each state decide (or the nation as a whole) to legalize it. But don’t deny people the ability to control their own government and their government’s morality.

As Ginsburg (probably the most liberal justice on the court) said, “Roe stunted the natural development in our society of a right to abortion.” When the issue was taken away from the people it forever enshrined it as an controversial topic in American politics. David Brooks (columnist for the New York times and a pro-choicer) wrote earlier this year - much like slavery in the 19th century, abortion will continue to poison American politics until it is returned to the people.

By Tony

August 4, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

A woman’s control over her body. Certainly this right is very important but is it enough to override the fundamental right to life? When one thinks about it, this right to control ones body is not absolute. No one would agree that a woman has the right to beat someone to death simply because she uses her fists which are a part of her body. In this case a persons right to life outweighs a woman’s right in regard to her own body. The example illustrates that this right is not absolute and is completely dependent on what it is that one is doing with their body. The important question really is - should a woman’s control over her body extend to “this”?

By blablabla

August 4, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

kimberly says: “Our point is simply that the decisions that affect our bodies are OURS to make, NOT the government’s to regulate.”

by this logic you’re also in favor of drug use, prostitution and abolishing the age of consent and the drinking/tobacco ages. since its our bodies, how on earth could the government regulate our bodies with respect to those activities.

see how flawed your logic is?

kimberly says: “You spout “take responsibility!â€? in one sentence, then argue in favor of government regulation of our bodies. That’s SOOOO hypocritical.”

i never said i am in favor of government regulation of abortion. i am in favor of regulations on things like drinking laws and prostitution. nowhere have i ever said that i was in favor of government regulation of abortion. however, and this may come as a complete SHOCK to someone as out of touch with reality as you: THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY REGULATES ABORTION.

wake up, girl.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

“The example IS real and the courts DID rule on it against him. You think that is funny? You are sick.”

I don’t think it’s funny. But please, YOU are worried about THAT????
Take care of rapists first. THAT happens daily. Your silly sperm robber story is a rare, probably ONLY case of that happening. Sperm robber is a reason to outlaw abortion? THAT is sick.

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, NO that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is, and listen c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y: It’s none of YOUR business! Whatever religious, philisophical, or fascists rhetoric you want to spout, go right ahead and spout it, but that doesn’t change the fact that MY uterus and MY sex life, and MY choice of cake is NUNYA! GOT IT YET?

By taboga

August 4, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

“Men will have no say in the matter - it’s all up to the women. Whichever the women choose - the men will have to abide by it. Women won’t be able to blame men for anything, but can hold men responsible for abiding by their choice.� (yea that will happen)

It’s already happening.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

“Also, no, the answer isn’t birth control. In fact, birth control only makes things worse, as it promotes more immoral behavior and attacks morality and responsibility. “

OK then Zack, how do you propose to stop men from having sex then? Or is this just about WOMEN not having sex?

And sex is NOT IMMORAL. Doing it with someone that is terrible IN BED IS.

By Jack

August 4, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Who doesn’t want their cake & eat it too?

By kimberly

August 4, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Yo DX, I did read about the court ruling for the woman who plotted to “keep” the seeds from um… “dinner” and use them to impregnate herself. I thought it was a bad ruling. (Court ruled she didn’t “steal” it because it was a “gift” so boys, be selective when you give your gifts!) I thought it was bogus for them to make him pay child support given that he never engaged in intercourse. But our justice system is FULL of inequity. What is it, every day now we’re reading about DNA evidence freeing men who have been in prison for decades.

By taboga

August 4, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

The government should stay out of a woman’s uterus - it’s HERS.

But if she chooses to have a baby, the government should hold a man responsible for what her uterus has produced.

Makes sense to me.

By David

August 4, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Dear Questions,

Yes, you can clone a clone. And I’ll add another question along your lines of thinking:

If life (by nature of God introducing a soul into the zygote) begins at conception, then why are so many blastocysts aborted (i’ve read 30-60%, need to check sources) when they are unable to attach to the uteral lining?

This is especially commen in women who have difficulty becoming pregnant. Yet these women/partner continue to try to have their own child. If they have been educated on the issue, aren’t they just as culpable as any woman who gets an abortion?

By taboga

August 4, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

OK then Zack, how do you propose to stop men from having sex then? Or is this just about WOMEN not having sex?

If women don’t have sex - I can hardly see how men can.

Gays not withstanding.

By mit

August 4, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

you anti abortion people are morons. what do you think will happen if abortion is illegalized and all these childern are born to parents who do not want them? huh, what? higher crime rates, for one thing. you want to walk down main street USA with a bunch of homeless childern asking for money? Oh, that’s about to be illegal too, so I guess you won’t mind when they just take it by force then. How many abortions are performed in this country per year? that’s how many childern will be breaking into your homes, using drugs, and spreading disease. and if you think the crime rate has nothing to do with unwanted/unattended childern you better look up. What do you think these kids are going to do with a unloving home? leave and live on the streets because its better than living at home. I just don’t think any of you people realize how much trouble overturning roe v. wade will cause. but it looks like you may be on your way to getting what you want. So 5 - 10 years from now when all these anti-abortion folks start crying over homeless childern clogging their streets and scenery you’ll have only yourselves to blame.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

“If women don’t have sex - I can hardly see how men can. Gays not withstanding.”

LOL ! ! !

By taboga

August 4, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Why are you Leftists worrying about Abortion and Birth Control anyway?

I would have thought that being a Leftist female - would be birth control enough!

By DeltaX

August 4, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, Then you know that “My Body, My Rights” means nothing. Try to commit suicide, self mutilation, or even take a 20 year old woman in to have a hysterectomy; they will not perform it without reason!

Why? Liability. They know you may change your mind and want the choice of having a child again. And given your past, you will demand a fix to situation you HAD control of; but were unhappy with the consequence. They you sue the pants off the hospital.

Whiley,

I brought it up because one of you children said something like “How would you like it if courts governed your testes?”

I am beginning to think it is because you DONT know what you want; and still adhere to the submissive role “I can change my mind because I am a female”

I really hope on death you get to meet all your aborted kids. What a poetic justice. And when they ask why, instead of being honest; you will say: men caused your abortion , right?

By SB

August 4, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

Delta, Heather, Joan- You all have made great arguments about responsibility. Which I whole-heartedly subscribe to … Widespread birth control and sexual education. Let’s bring the abortion rate down to almost nothing through these steps.

I guess I get hung up on the woman who was responsible enough to use BC, but it failed (yes, today’s BC methods are pretty darn reliable. But they aren’t totally foolproof.)

Also, as a rape survivor myself … That factors into my thoughts on the subject as well. What would I have done if I had found myself pregnant? I went through a lot of mental trauma (in addition to obvious physical trauma) - I don’t think I would have psychologically survived being forced to carry my rapist’s child to term.

By Whiley

August 4, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

taboga hehehehe LEFTIST females are the ones having the great sex ! Except on a rare occasion when you accidentally date a “small Right-winger”.

By casino online

August 5, 2005 06:06 AM | Link to this

Thank you, I just wanted to give a greeting and tell you I like your blog very much.

casino online

By taboga

August 5, 2005 07:08 AM | Link to this

taboga hehehehe LEFTIST females are the ones having the great sex ! Except on a rare occasion when you accidentally date a “small Right-winger�.

I tip my hat to you - good come-back!

By Chuck

August 5, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

Some years ago a British officer, Sir John Glubb, wrote a pamphlet on the rise and fall of empires. A sure sign of an empire’s decline and impending fall was, he said, the rise of feminism. I believe he is right. Of all the corrosive, nonsensical and damaging movements that have come and gone in American society, none has caused more damage than feminism. Thank God it now seems to be falling out of favor. It goes without saying that no country can be strong without strong families, and feminism directly attacked the very concept of families. It urged young women to slut around. If men are promiscuous, why shouldn’t you be? That alone shows the degree of stupidity that is characteristic of the feminist movement. That’s why the feminists bear responsibility for the plight of so many single mothers. Rules that conform to nature produce positive results. Rules that conflict with nature produce bad results. Through the centuries, Western civilization developed some rules that took into account the natural differences between men and women. The male is by nature promiscuous. Sex to the male is like eating a good meal - an enjoyable experience but one you can get up and walk away from without any thought. The woman, designed by nature to be a mother and susceptible to becoming pregnant, invests much more emotion in it. So society, to protect women, develops rules to discourage promiscuity by both sexes. Even in my day, the rule was iron-tight. If you got a girl pregnant, you married her. No debate. No excuses. If you abandoned her and the baby, you were a worthless, lowdown dog. There were also social penalties against the girl who slept around. These rules weren’t 100 percent effective, but they definitely put a restraint on the libido. There were far fewer teen pregnancies and single moms than there are now. But the feminists dismantled these rules. Women are just like men, they said. You pick your own guys to sleep with and walk away when you’re finished. Sex is for recreation. Well, anybody but a stupid feminist would have realized that the group that welcomed that message the most was the males. When females started saying, “Let’s have sex with no obligations,” the male said, “You betcha.” Of course, a necessary ingredient of feminist-promoted promiscuity is abortion on demand, since no method of birth control is 100 percent effective. This has literally led to the deaths of more innocents than the Holocaust. And for what reason? Simply as an adjunct to recreational sex without responsibility. Another stupid thing feminists did was attack motherhood and make it seem that working was the better choice. Anybody with life experience knows that it is 100 times more difficult and requires more intelligence and more energy to be a good wife and mother than to perform any corporate job. Corporations run themselves. Families don’t. Most of the jobs men do no sensible woman would want to do. As for the kids - those who escape the garbage dump behind the abortion clinic - they’re forced to play against a stacked deck. Any child who spends his babyhood and toddler years in day care and then comes home to an empty house in his older years is going to suffer. Sometimes there’s no help for it, but the feminist movement has absolutely encouraged it. You will notice that I’ve said nothing about equal pay for equal work or the right to vote. Those are civil rights and have nothing to do with feminist ideology. Feminism has given bad advice to women and encouraged the worst behavior in men. Arnold Schwarzenegger is right: It encourages the development of girly men. That’s probably why empires fall. The rule is simple: Anything that encourages strong families is good; anything that weakens or destroys families is bad. And let’s cut the bunk about families being any grouping you want to call a family. A family is a man and woman and their children. The hysterical harpies of feminism who tolerate chauvinist rogues like Bill Clinton while getting hysterical over any perceived threat to their beloved abortion industry should be relegated to the far-out fringes of the fruit-loop dump.

By Heather

August 5, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I agree with you 100%, but you left out why the feminist movement got started in the first place. Women were not being treated right in their homes. Men were abusing their natural advantages over women.

Our society has started to crumble with the rise in feminism, cause and effect. But feminism rose as a result of abuse, again cause and effect. So then society has started to crumble because men abused their natural advantages over women.

By Whiley

August 5, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Thank you Chuck for that wonderful fable. It is another helpful tool to try to control & blame women for everything.

Ah I love a good misogynist story first thing in the morning !

By TT

August 5, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Spoken like a true pig, Chuck. How laughable. You don’t even know what feminism is. You’re just lashing out at the movement because it got women out of the kitchen and into the workforce. Some of them are becoming CEOs and doctors and your poor wittle ego can’t handle that. Feminism has many forms, but most of them advocate equal rights and responsibility, not carelessness and the destruction of families. In fact, most feminists think that families are our top priority, and they want men to stop shirking their responsibilities at home and start participating in child-rearing. Raising a family involves more than bringing home the bacon. Perhaps I should put feminist ideas in a language your wittle noggin can grasp. Here goes: “Oink, oink, oink.” Got it now, Upchuck??

By OldSchooler

August 5, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Chuck - so many words to say barefoot and pregnant?

By Tony

August 5, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Morality may consist solely in the courage of making a choice. Wickedness is always easier than virtue, for it takes a short cut to everything. But over time you learn, you can’t make wrong work.

There are always two choices, two paths to take. One is easy. And your only reward is that it’s easy. You cannot do wrong without suffering wrong.

Work joyfully and peacefully, knowing that right thoughts and right efforts will inevitably bring about right results.

You can never lose anything that really belongs to you, and you can’t keep that which belongs to someone else.

You always experience the consequences of your own acts. If your acts are right, you’ll get good consequences; if not, you’ll suffer for it.

Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.

Author unknown

By Kyle

August 5, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

It’s finally Friday, only one more day of listening to the same abortion argument over and over. Chuck, this is just a guess, but after your last post, I would say that you might wanna get ready for a lot of posters on this blog to get all worked up and angry at you. I think you made some pretty decent points - but you still might wanna take cover.

Did anybody see Novak lose it on CNN last night? Of course, I can’t really blame him. Carville is probably one of the most annoying debaters I have ever heard.

By Whiley

August 5, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Chuck dear, it wasn’t the big-bad-scary feminists, it was ALL WOMEN that were & are sick of the system that YOU guys set up. A wonderful way of life for YOU maybe. What a deal. You guys had all the rights & didn’t have to do anything but your job. Women were trapped & left to do all the grunge work. But please, go on and on about women’s freedoms and independence and how unhappy it makes you. For over 2000 years you guys got to dominate and made a complete mess of everything. Now it is our turn. My only comment to you & others like you is: if you don’t like it, bad luck—and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.”

By Kyle

August 5, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I was listening to the radio yesterday and learned that Roberts actually took a pro bono case all the way to the Supreme Court, and he won. Guess who his client was; a gay rights organization. Many in the gay community point to this case as thier most significant legal victory. Do you still think Roberts will be a terrible, religious fanatic, right wing justice?

By TT

August 5, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Kyle: I cannot believe you think Chuck made some good points. So many people think they know what feminism is just by listening to Rush Limbaugh’s stereotypes. Don’t they teach you to think critically and evaluate the evidence in law school? You are reaffirming my belief that Georgia State still has a long way to go in education.

And while I agree that Carville is a piece of work, Novak is no Boy Scout. I hope CNN sticks to their guns and keeps him off the air. Novak is a sullen, hawkish pawn of the Bush administration. This Plame debacle (for which Judy Miller is sitting in jail for standing by her principles) just proves how far from grace Novak has fallen. With his bad attitude and his rotten language, I think reform school is the only answer.

By SB

August 5, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Heather - Thank you for your response to Chuck. If it had come from anyone else, I’m sure it would have fallen on deaf ears.

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 5, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Sounds like Chuck is blaming America first. He hates our way of life. That makes him a communist or worse. Perhaps he’d be happier living living in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Sorry, couldn’t help responding with the neocon mantra.

By SB

August 5, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

TT - I think that Chuck brought up some good point, as well - but that I don’t think he even realized he was doing it.

I think the American version of feminism isn’t the best the world has offered (hear me out, here). It doesn’t embrace essentially female traits - like the ability to give birth, and the caring and compassionate maternal instincts that are core to femininity. I could go on and on - the social, team building way women tackle problems, etc.

While American feminism certainly embraces the unique and innate strength women possess, it teaches us to model it after the aggressive male version (don’t get me wrong - we’re aggressive in our own way).

This is just one example, but it’s glaring:

In its rush to equality, we forgot that raising a family is hard work. Why didn’t we model ourselves after French feminism? In France, feminists ensured that working mothers have the kind of high quality social supports that we just don’t have stateside - generous parental leave policies, top notch child care, etc.

I think the strides we’ve made thus far in the corporate and legal worlds make the argument that feminism thus far was needed, and has worked. Now, we need to re-visit stereotypically female domains (such as the family) and see where these same ideals can help.

By TT

August 5, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

For everyone else: I have tried to stay out of the foray this week, because all of the anti-Roe buzz makes me sick to my stomach. But I have confidence that abortion will remain legal, and until the day comes that it is not, you crazy right wingers can shout your “abortion is murder” propaganda into the wind. Meanwhile, those of us on the other side will be working tirelessly to ensure that new full disclosure proposals and parent notification laws are infringing on as few women as possible. I personally would never be able to make the decision to have an abortion, but I do see it as a necessary alternative to millions born out of wedlock and into poverty, as well as children conceived via rape or incest. It’s not just about what is best for women; it’s about what is best for society. Until birth control is 100% effective and the anti-abortion crowd is willing to pony up the funds for children born to poor, teenage mothers (many of them minorities who don’t fall within the demographics of “Compassionate” Conservatives), abortion will remain legal. You conservatives may have principles, but they don’t apply to your wallets.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

What you stated is mostly: true.

The problem with what you stated is that it doesn’t: sound good.

We’re quickly becoming an emotional society and things have to sound good to us - or we refuse to believe it.

Feminism is a joke. Always has been - always will be. Women are not men and their equality should not be judged by how they can be more like men, but rather how they can be more like women.

Another fallacy of feminism, is that women have to seek equality. But if women are truly equal (the feminist definition) to men, why would they have to seek it? Or in other words, if women are truly equal (the feminist definition) to men, how could men supposedly be keeping them “barefoot and in the kitchen”…?

It should be obvious to all that men and women are equal by nature - but we are not the same.

By DeltaX

August 5, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Pro-Choice; Is it really about having a choice?

No, There are a multitude of choices along the path of sexuality that you are able to make.

Pro-Choice; Is it really about having equal protection/rights?

No again, Men have the same rights as women concerning preg: Make the choice not to fertilize before hand, or live up to the consiquences.

Is it that people really do not know how to be sexually active and not procreate?

No, people (in the us and developed countries) have the means and access to prevent having offspring. It is LAZINESS.

Lazyness is no where near a justification for the possible repercussions of abortion.

(I was pro-choice until Depo provera and all the other long term choices became available coupled with attending the pro choice march in DC last year, and the pro-choicers general mentality/logic made me ashamed of being pro-choice)

By Zack

August 5, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Whiley—Must you always try to speak in your whiny/adolescent tone?

Now, you have said that any laws against abortion impose on female rights. No, they don’t. Any laws FOR abortion impose on the rights of the unborn. That’s what you need to understand. You advocate the act of having sex at any time and with whomever (which sure doesn’t speak highly of you), and you’re bitter because men don’t have to think about themselves becoming pregnant. You’re not concerned with morality, responsibility, and good consequences ensuing; you just want to do whatever you want to whenever you want to and let everyone else pick up after Whiley. To make things worse, you’re not the only one with this frame of mind, and that’s not a good thing.

Brian—I’ve never ducked any of your questions. I don’t have time to read each post on here, as I work a lot of hours. You said there’s no evidence to show that abortion IS murder. Brian, why would you make such a statement? I think you’re one of the many folks out there who is smart, but unfortunately, ignorant also. THAT is as ignorant a statement as it gets. You have absolutely nothing to support such a statement, nothing at all. As for living and letting live, well, that has its restrictions and limitations as well, as the rights of others come into play. Abortion is such an example of an act where a person violates the rights of another and, to take it even farther, murders the person. If you knew our Constitution, you’d know that an individual’s rights end where another’s rights begin. Your system is unconstitutional and wrong.

By TT

August 5, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

For once, Taboga, I agree with you. I don’t think that men and women are the same. But I am not going to be told that feminism is a joke or what feminism represents by a group of people that cannot define it. There are many different versions of feminism, some that believe men and women are inherently different, but that society has not treated them equally, and some which claim that women can wage wars, be tough in business, and perform several other “manly” tasks equally as well as the other gender.

The word feminism mainly refers to the campaign for equal rights under the law. It does not contain connotations that women should be like men, nor does it imply we throw sexual caution to the wind.

I ascribe to a feminism that believes women have innate characteristics that make them better at many things then men, namely raising children and forming deep, emotional bonds with others. But they can also run Fortune 500 Companies. Women can be tough and nurturing at the same time, something men have a great deal of trouble with. My feminism says women don’t want to be like men, they want to be better than men. No worries, though, Taboga, I haven’t given up hope that men can evolve.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

The word feminism mainly refers to the campaign for equal rights under the law. It does not contain connotations that women should be like men, nor does it imply we throw sexual caution to the wind.

Name one right that men have - that women don’t have.

By Kyle

August 5, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Easy TT. I said I thought Chuck made SOME good points. I didn’t say I agreed with his whole post. I certianly agree that strong families are the backbone of a strong nation, and anything (notice I said anything, not necessarily feminism) that attacks the strength of our nations families attacks our nation itself. Do you disagree with that? Also, while it is definitely possible that I may be wrong here, and probably likely, I thought one of the aspects of feminism was the goal of women achieving the same sexual freedom that men have enjoyed. While sexual promiscuity is certianly fun, some people (both male and female) practice this lifestyle more responsible than others (i.e. birth control, std’s, etc..). And when irresponsible men and women choose this lifestyle and do not protect themselves negative consequences follow - std’s, unwanted pregnancies. All I’m saying is that perhaps the sexual promiscuous example set forth by many men is not the best goal for a lot of women to strive for. And, no, this is not a double standard. Some people (men and women) are responsible enought to take the proper precautions even in a promiscuous lifestyle, and some people simply are not. At the risk of sounding elementary - two wrongs don’t make a right.

Did anyone actually see Novak on CNN. I just wanted to know if he was actually yelling at Carville before he walked off. That was definitely a stupid move on his part. You can’t let someone really get to you in an argument, or they’ve won. I agree TT, CNN should not let him back on.

BTW, I can assure that I didn’t learn any of my worldly views at Ga State Law. The majority of the teachers there and many of the students are far left of me on several issues - so rest easy TT, State’s law school is seemingly in good hands.

By Brian Curtis

August 5, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Ahh, Zack: I know it’s your very favorite topic, and no amount of logic OR evidence will ever sway you from your superstitious belief… so why even post here at all? You’re certainly not interested in listening to anyone else’s views in your rush to beat the “abortion-is-murder-murder-murder” gong. Do you really think that accomplishes anything?

As for my statement being “as ignorant as a statement gets”—you’ll note it was exactly patterned after your own statement, word for word. So what does that say about your “position”?

You treat the opinion “abortion is murder” as a fact—and an unquestionably true one, at that. There’s certainly no logic or science behind such a belief; absolute certainty is the realm of religion and faith, not reason.

I, on the other hand, can cite plenty of precedent for my position that abortion is NOT murder: the definition of murder itself in our legal system being one of the most obvious. Murder must involve ending the life of a person—and under the law, a fetus is not (and has never been) a person. Is it alive? Of course. Is it human? Arguably. But is it a person with the exact same rights and legal standing as a full-fledged, indepdendent human being (i.e., the pregnant woman)? Nope. Never has been.

Now, what evidence do YOU have for your claim that a fetus really IS a person, and can therefore be “murdered”? Or will you not bother providing any because so obvious a thing cannot be questioned, or even explained?

If I thought you’d even attempt to mount a defense for your claim, I’d be eagerly anticipating the show. But somehow, I doubt you’ll try. Unshakable faith, and all that. Discussion isn’t welcome.

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 5, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

SB-Just a theory, but if the paternalistic male-oriented society had embraced the “unique and innate strength women possess early on,” throughout history, the feminist movement would have taken a much different form.

I see feminism as an ongoing evolution following a revolution. It’s by no means perfect, but I’ve yet to study a revolution that was. If the backlash against feminism and feminists continues its toe-hold, things will never go back to Chuck’s good old days—the economy would never cooperate. Those good old days don’t take into acount the civil rights movement, nor changes in race relations and demographics, either. Marriage, too has changed more in the last 30 years than it had in the prior few thousand years.

I referenced the Taliban above as tongue-in-cheek, but it too is a reactionary society that espouses (pardon the pun) many of the ideas in Chuck’s post. Rightfully so, we, as Americans, see this as an assault on humanity. To his dubious credit, Chuck did not not indicate outright that he would like to keep women ignorant, but the idea of keeping women dependent on men for their well-being and ultimate survival seems to go against the rugged individualist American attitude that many believe made this country great.

Unless, of course, that was just a myth, that it was a partnership between men and women that built this country, with women giving birth, making meals, doing laundry, raising the kids, with or without men being home or even alive. But if these jobs are so important, and every feminist I know believes they are, why aren’t they important for everybody to do? When families fail at these jobs, why are women usually the scapegoat? I guess you’d have to read Rick Santorum’s book to find out, despite the fact that he can’t name one radical feminist but claims they’ve taken over the country.

When Chuck says that most women would not want the jobs that men do, I guess he’s not including Eileen Collins, shuttle captain, mother. No doubt that she relies on her family to excel in her career, especially her husband. Is that really asking too much? Or is that what makes families strong.

“Anything that encourages strong families is good; anything that weakens or destroys families is bad.” I guess this all depends on who is doing the interpreting… For thinking people, it is never black and white, never simple, rarely easy. (See Tony’s post about short-cuts above.)

By TT

August 5, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

OK, Taboga, I’ll bite: Before the Women’s Movement, which brought feminism into the public spotlight, women did not have the right to vote. In the 1950s, women were barred from certain fields of occupation. Now, we do not have the right to fight for the United States on the frontlines of a battlefield, and we certainly do not get paid the same for doing the same jobs that men do. You can pretend the law treats everyone equally, or you can deal with the reality of our society.

And Kyle: I certainly agree that promiscuity has consequences and I don’t advocate having casual sex. Feminism does not advocate sexual irresponsibility, contrary to what Rush says. I get nervous when conservatives start making statements like, “anything that attacks the strength of our nation’s families attacks our nation itself.” It opens a gateway for all of the right wingers to impose their interpretation of family values on everyone else. Are family values the next front in the War on Terror? If you really were concerned about family values, you would advocate turning off the televisions, shortening the work day, and having men take an equal share of time in raising their kids.

And as far as your world view, it seems to me that you can have some intrinsic values that come from your upbringing, but if you don’t grow and challenge yourself (especially when you are paying big bucks for law school) then you’re only cheating yourself. Opinions should be based on a logical thought process, and not solely on what you were told growing up.

By TT

August 5, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

GO Sandy!!! What an eloquent way of putting it. Women are merely the new scapegoat being served at one of the Republican party’s $1,000 a plate dinners. Feminism isn’t a threat to men who are comfortable competing with women and who view them as equal partners in life.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Men walk away tomorrow.

How are women going to feed themselves?

Which of you Feminists are going to build the homes, roads, buildings, bridges, etc…?

When hordes of wanna-be dictators are stumbling over one another to get over here and enslave you - which of you Feminists are going to lead you women in battle to defend yourselves?

All you so-called feminists ever want to do, is focus on perceived things you supposedly can’t do and constantly whine and criticize men for your own shortcomings.

And being taken care of, provided for and protected; all of which you lack any ability to do for yourselves — is completely ignored.

By blablabla

August 5, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

tt: do you know of any recent studies that say there are any significant discrepancies between men and women’s earnings for performing the same jobs? if i recall, the famed study that said women make 73 cents ont he dollar compared to men never compared wages within the same job categories - it was akin to saying (crude example here) the dental hygenist should make the same amount as the dentist. is there anything more recent that i should be looking at? thanks.

By TT

August 5, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Taboga—I can take care of myself; I’ve been supporting myself for years now. I put myself through college and graduate school and I pay my mortgage, car payments, and any expenses I incur in life. I don’t need someone else to protect me or provide for me. So there goes your theory. And if roads and homes needed building and there was a shortage of construction workers to do it, well then, I could do that too. But first I would have to give up my professional job, which I earned by being more qualified (i.e. more education and work experience) then the men who applied for my position. There are women soldiers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, construction workers, architects. You name it and women have done it. Until men can plop out babies, women have one up on them. Men like you don’t like equality because you don’t measure up. Don’t blame feminism for “your shortcomings.*

By JoanFromAtl

August 5, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Does anyone know what the percentage of abortions that are performed because BC was NOT being used or used correctly?

It would be hard for me to believe that the number is below 85%

Do you prochoicers find this acceptable? If not, What do you suggest is done about it?

BC awareness programs (not headed up by Whiley though, she does not seem to know if she finds BC a great thing, or pathetic [tell that to the researchers that have made these incredible accomplishments!]) are not NEW ground, so please provide other examples.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

OK, Taboga, I’ll bite: Before the Women’s Movement, which brought feminism into the public spotlight, women did not have the right to vote.

And you have the right to vote, so that’s not a right that men have and you don’t

In the 1950s, women were barred from certain fields of occupation.

Which ones? And what does that have to do with today?

Now, we do not have the right to fight for the United States on the frontlines of a battlefield, and we certainly do not get paid the same for doing the same jobs that men do.

Men don’t have the right to fight on battlefields either. And the fact that women would want that (the vast majority do not), goes right back to what I said earlier: Feminists don’t want to be women.

You can pretend the law treats everyone equally, or you can deal with the reality of our society.

No, you can continue to pretend. And to do so, you have to cite ridiculous things like women on the battlefield and which occupations women might not have had back in the 1950’s.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Taboga�I can take care of myself; I’ve been supporting myself for years now. I put myself through college and graduate school and I pay my mortgage, car payments, and any expenses I incur in life. I don’t need someone else to protect me or provide for me. So there goes your theory. And if roads and homes needed building and there was a shortage of construction workers to do it, well then, I could do that too.

If it weren’t for men - you’d had no college to go to. If it weren’t for men - you’d have no mortgage to pay. If it weren’t for men - you’d have no car to pay for.

And in my previous example, I was not talking about a “shortage of construction workers”, I was referring to men walking away from it altogether. At which point, what would you women do?

By Jack

August 5, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Women should not be on the front lines in battle. Period. If it gets down to hand to hand, guess what? The woman loses. = pay for = work is fine. Women are too important for the front lines in battle.

By kimberly

August 5, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

TT, you forgot to mention that we’re multi-orgasmic. This is what men REALLY resent. And the older a man gets, heh heh, the more he resents that particular female quality, and the more he favors repressing our sexuality.

By Kyle

August 5, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Brian C, in no way am I saying that abortion is murder, but I do have a question for you. How do explain a man killing a pregnant woman and then being found guilty for the murder of his wife AND his unborn child. There seems to be soemwhat of a discrepancy with the law and your position.

And TT, just becasue I am right leaning on many of the issues, that does not automatically mean that I haven’t undergone any original thought myself. All young republicans are not simply a product of being brainwashed by their parents while growing up. I think I have been openminded and listened to others points of view on this blog in an attempt to “grow and challenge” myself. Isn’t it possible that I have thought about these issues, made up my own mind, and simply disagree with you?

By SB

August 5, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Sandy - I agree with everything you posted. What interested me about Chuck’s post is that beneath all the hateful rhetoric and horrible things … He did, in fact touch on things that should be on everyone’s radar

Example: If both parents are out of the home working, who’s taking care of the kids and housework? This was where my reference to France’s feminism comes in … Other countries have embraced ideals that our version of feminism hasn’t to-date.

I consider myself a feminist. But, like anything else in life, “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

For a long time, the cost of progress was outweighed by the progress itself. Maybe it’s time to start thinking of going back and addressing these costs.

By SB

August 5, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Joan - education, education, education. That’s part one of my answer.

However, this idea of “abstinence-only” education seems to be throwing a wrench into that. What’s wrong with abstinence-plus? Or taking a couple classes to teach kids how to put a condom on a banana, instead of the usual scare tactics?

The harder answer is that we have to find a way to make BC both necessary and glamorous. As with anything else in this vein, I suggest starting wth male fantasties … Pass a law to make it mandatory in adult films.

By Kyle

August 5, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

What? Until men can plop out babies, women have one up on them? I sorry TT, but can you women get yourself pregnant? If so, us men are in real trouble. I’m not making any claims that men are better than women, and neither is taboga. They’re just different.

By kimberly

August 5, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Kyle, are you a Young Republican? Seriously? Then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? Sign up! These people at Operation Yellow Elephant are calling young republicans “cowards” and “hypocrites” for not putting aside their selfish educational and monetary ambitions long enough to go serve the president they so vocally support. Surely this doesn’t apply to you, right? I don’t think you’re a coward or a hypocrite. I think you really believe in what you say. Do you?

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com

By Jack

August 5, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

You’re right on that one Kimberly…Hehe

By Bruce

August 5, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

TT,

“You name it and women have done it. Until men can plop out babies, women have one up on them.”

Where is your independant thinking on that one? It sounds like something straight from the NOW playbook. If woman can do everything men can do, and more, what are you complaining about? Just take over the world and let us men be the slaves for awhile.

By Whiley

August 5, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

“If it weren’t for men - you’d had no college to go to. If it weren’t for men - you’d have no mortgage to pay. If it weren’t for men - you’d have no car to pay for.”

If it weren’t for men, I wouldn’t have to need so many locks, alarms or my gun.

By Whiley

August 5, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Growing up it’s always puzzled me the amount of hostility & the need to control us that was so intertwined in every aspect of our daily lives. The real anger & need to control seemed to always be directed at the wrong group. Hopefully time & old outdated social rules would change. After all these years there is still so much hatred for a woman to have freedom & any power other than mother & homemaker. The reaction was & is that somehow our freedom took away precious rights of men. That somehow motherhood is natural & we were un-natural for even thinking other wise. How is that possible? I am thankful I did not give in to the madness.

As a child I was bombarded everywhere I went with the idea that girls are supposed to behave a certain way and not supposed to do certain things. Bizarre and obviously unfair, so I ignored it. I have a cousin who followed all those little rules and regulations, and she’s about as interesting as a doorknob.

By Jack

August 5, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

There are very few things other than child birth that a woman can do better than a man. If you think of some, name them. I already know about the female’s ability for orgasms. And the balance beam.

By OldSchooler

August 5, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

well the American Taliban knows how to take care of that view, Whiley…LMAO

There is a support group for the servicemen being treated at WalterReed, etc in the D.C. area, need donations to help out, a group there helps with lodging for family members traveling from out of town, etc etc. Apparently there is not much governmental support for those kinds of assistances. oldelephants site reminded me.

search “walter reed hospital support group”

By MarkMyWords

August 5, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Well lets see. Given the sampling on this blog.

Women are better at:

Dis-regarding logic in conversation

Communicating (but only in code)

Complain about having it too easy

Want cake and eat it too

Want control w/o the responsibility

Manipulate

Say a lot without saying anything

Go purely on emotional reactions

Cry, complain, bring attitude to work

Want more? Hehe - do not have the time.

I would not include orgasm. Although the possibility exists for them to have multiples; most women I have met did not know their body HALF as well as I did. In fact, most women I meet today still have major issues with their female parts and therefore act as though they are extra parts or such.

By Jack

August 5, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

What is LMAO? (sorry for my stupidity)

By taboga

August 5, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Is there one person on this entire board that can explain something to me:

If, as the feminists constantly moan about, men wanted to deny women this, deny women that, keep women “Barefoot and…”,etc. — then why is it not happening?

If men really wanted, women would be nothing more than slaves. Told what to do, when to do it and there’d better be no complaint about any of it. And there’s not a damn thing any woman could do about it!

So why is this not happening? I can only conclude through reasoned logic: Men don’t want that.

And I can also conclude; with positive proof, that men have taken care of you, provided for you and have defended you. All things that you could not possibly do for yourselves! And we have done these things, not because we chose to, but because that is the responsiblity that nature has placed on us.

And if the Feminists would try to be a woman for once; as nature has directed, and quit trying to be a man - all of this would go much smoother.

By Kyle

August 5, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

kimberly, maybe I wasn’t clear. I am not a member of Young Republicans or College Republicans. I was merely pointing out that I am young, 24, and I consider myself a republican. But that’s irrelevant. Am I selfish b/c I choose to continue my education as opposed to enlisting in the military? Maybe so, you could certianly make a valid argument for that position. Wouldn’t then all liberals be selfish for talking about how we need to help the less fortuante, fight poverty, etc… while the majority really do nothing to directly affect these problems? I definately hold people in the military in the highest regard, and I am aware that I owe them a lot. Despite what some may have you believe a vast majority of young people in the military consider themselves to be republicans, and they support their president 100%. I don’t think it is hypocritical to support the war while not being in the miltary myself. These people are fighting so that I have the option to go to school and better myself - for which I extremely grateful. Would you rather us all shut up, that way the troops can have their morale lowered by constantly hearing from the left that the U.S. and this war is wrong and evil? By supporting the war, I also feel that I am supporting the troops. You asked if I support the war then what am I doing here? I am hear living the type of life that many men and women are defending, and they take pride (and rightfully so) in the fact that they are able to protect and provide this option for me.

However, this argument reminds me of when Michael Moore was on O’Rielly about a year ago, and he would answer everyone of O’Reilly’s questions with the same question: Would you send your kids there? Moore dodged all the ligitimate questions and issues set forth by O’Reilly by asking the same irrelevant question. Of course no parent wants their child to go into harms way. Choosing to enter the military is a personal decision, and a life changing one. I made the choice to not enter the miltary. People fighting this war are protecting my ability to do just that, and I am grateful.

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 5, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

SB-Point taken about what should be on our radar, but I would add that these issues have always been forefront in womens’ lives. While we’re making slow strides in getting involved in government at higher levels, our numbers are woefully small, making legislation changes more difficult. The far right thinks they have the solution, but this is not realistic for most American families who rely on two incomes.

Taboga’s question about what rights men have that women don’t is clever, but it’s the wrong question. It’s not the laws that are lacking, but the attitudes of those interpreting and enforcing the laws and the respect or lack thereof that we deal with in our day to day encounters that hold people back from full democratic participation. For instance, the chances that Taboga would be harassed going into a men’s health clinic are much smaller than that of a woman going to a women’s clinic. All kinds of assumptions are made about her reason for being there. Those doing the harassing might be within the letter of the law, but their actions are no less intimidating. Is her access to health care violated? Technically, no. Ethically is it something she should have to endure to have a pap smear done? No.
Now a woman of a higher economic class can go to a private doctor and not have to endure the same stress. In either case, these women’s reasons for seeking health care are nobody’s business, but some feel it is up for public scrutiny.

I guess you can’t legistlate against somebody making assumptions, but this is the difficulty that unpopular minorities have to deal with everyday. Like looking “middle eastern” and being searched,or worse, gunned down; having assumptions made about one’s loyalties to their country, being shut out of the mainstream because of people’s attitudes. Sometimes this leads to rights violations, but because of the PATRIOT act, we’ve decided that your personal information can be searched and nobody has to tell you. Just because you don’t know you’ve been violated does make it any less wrong.

Attitudes and assumptions that presume the worst about people without having the facts increase radicalism, whether one is talking about feminism, Islam, the IRA, or whatever. It’s a knee jerk reaction when a group feels they are not being heard.

And, though I have been accused of using ‘nice prose to smooth things over, think great thoughts that amount to nothing, and not use my brain,’ I believe the solutions to these problems will be found at the middle ground through civil debate, not on the fringes of extremism with shrill accusations and hateful speech.

By TT

August 5, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Taboga, you’re delusional. If the men had not prevented women from having an education, voting, and working, then we would have accomplished similar feats…the founding of universities, businesses, and nations. If you would stop putting up barriers, then we would exceed you, and that’s what you are secretly afraid of. When given the opportunity, we match men’s accomplishments. There are more women enrolled in higher education than men, and we surpass men in earning degrees. Condoleezza Rice is a global powerhouse and many more progressive societies have had women presidents and prime ministers. Now that the playing field is more equal, women are starting to surpass men.

Blabla: As far as equal pay, I am aware of the discrepancies in studies done on the subject. I am doing research so that I can give you a direct job to job comparison for men and women.

And as far as the childbirth comment, certainly women cannot conceive without some male contribution (i.e. sperm). But I’ve never seen a man actually give birth or breast feed. I don’t think they could handle the pain the commitment, or the inconvenience.

And BTW, what’s so wrong with the National Organization for Women? I think some of the men on this site are threatened by change, progress, and strong, assertive women. But NOW is not going away and as long as there is breath in my body, I will fight for the progress that my foremothers made. I hope all of the chavinists here are afraid, because there are many women just like me.

On another note, to Jack, I am not certain women should be in combat, either, because I feel that women are too important to sacrifice to warfare. Moreover, I think that old-school, hand-to-hand combat is a waste of lives and money. Fighting a war on another continent is doing nothing but leaving more of our own citizens to go hungry.

By Jack

August 5, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

One thing I have learned. If mama ain’t happy, nobody’s happy.

By Whiley

August 5, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

“If men really wanted, women would be nothing more than slaves. Told what to do, when to do it and there’d better be no complaint about any of it. And there’s not a damn thing any woman could do about it!”

Well isn’t that special. That is NOT TRUE because thankfully most men are not animals & realize equality is good for everybody. And BTW, when women are armed, there isn’t a damn thing men can do.

“that men have taken care of you, provided for you and have defended you. All things that you could not possibly do for yourselves!”

taken care of us? Defended us? We couldn’t do it? BWAAAA HAAAA HAAAAAA

By taboga

August 5, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Sandy,

Let’s play in reality for a while.

Women being harrassed at a health clinic?

Can anyone on this board cite for us how many times you’ve seen that?

While you’re at it - how many Muslims have you seen being “gunned down”?

And if it’s not too much of a bother, how many here have had their freedoms curtailed because of the Patriot Act? (Special award goes to anyone who can testify to jack-booted agents snatching you from the bed in the middle of the night).

I guess that I need to find out where some of you people live!

By Jack

August 5, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

TT. That is the reason I feel women don’t need to be in combat. Women are way too valuable for that sacrifice. Women should be on a pedestal.

By Augustine

August 5, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

You treat the opinion “abortion is murderâ€? as a factâ€â€?and an unquestionably true one, at that. There’s certainly no logic or science behind such a belief; absolute certainty is the realm of religion and faith, not reason. Brian Curtis, could you be anymore arrogant than this? It is a scientific fact that if you don’t FK with that “Clump of Cells”, as you call it, it would develop into a fully functioning person in almost ALL cases** It is perfectly reasonable and logical then for someone to hold the point of view that abortion is murder. Let me see if I can make it simple for you. If you were to deposit $100 into the bank and leave it there for nine months with the guarantee that you would have $10,000,000 in the bank at the end of that period, but due to some unfortunate incident you desperately needed to withdrawal the said $100; you wouldn’t whine about how you had to spend the $100, but rather how you lost $10,000,000 you melon head.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Taboga, you’re delusional. If the men had not prevented women from having an education, voting, and working, then we would have accomplished similar feats…the founding of universities, businesses, and nations

The key word in that: prevented.

If you were equal to men - how could we have prevented anything?

By blablabla

August 5, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

TT: I look forward to seeing what you put forth. i really do. But before you spend too much time, let me ask you something: If women really make less than men for equal or comparable work, why would I ever hire a man to do anything? Why not just hire a woman that would come cheaper? Any meaningful disparity between men and women’s wages implies that my bias against women is outweighs my economic desires. common sense tells me that’s not true. thoughts?

By taboga

August 5, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

And BTW, what’s so wrong with the National Organization for Women? I think some of the men on this site are threatened by change, progress, and strong, assertive women. But NOW is not going away and as long as there is breath in my body, I will fight for the progress that my foremothers made. I hope all of the chavinists here are afraid, because there are many women just like me.

No, men love strong and assertive women - but you feminists ain’t them. And no, there not alot more like you and that NOW bunch. Humanity is grateful!

By OldSchooler

August 5, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Jack - LMAO = laughing my(butt) off.

By blablabla

August 5, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

what’s so bad about NOW is that it doesn’t represent all women. nor does it try. it is so squarely on one side of the political aisle, it has lost credibility with any woman who doesn’t fit into its box. in fact, when i look at NOW, i see an organization that is more committed to its political philosophy than it is to women. i highly doubt that when clinton was in office, there was a link on the webpage to “the truth about bill” that illustrated all the ways in which NOW believes bill had turned back the clock on women’s advancements, and pointed out all the flaws in his policies.

did you ever hear NOW complain about clinton during the whole lewinsky thing? set aside the names for a second, but just think about how an organization for women would respond to a situation where you have an older, influential male with tremendous power and authority, getting snarlings from some young, impressionable woman. most organizations for women would be all up in arms over a man “taking advantage of his position of authority”. did NOW care? heck no.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

If women really make less than men for equal or comparable work, why would I ever hire a man to do anything?

Damn good - pointing out the obvious! I wish I had thought of that…

By Jack

August 5, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Taboga is doing a good job of reeling you ladies in.

By Jack

August 5, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

OldSchooler, thanks.

By Jack

August 5, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

What would Bill think if he caught Chelsea giving a Lewinski to her boyfriend and she said, “but we’re not having sex.” ?

By Chuck

August 5, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

As a child I was bombarded everywhere I went with the idea that girls are supposed to behave a certain way and not supposed to do certain things. Bizarre and obviously unfair, so I ignored it. I have a cousin who followed all those little rules and regulations, and she’s about as interesting as a doorknob. I find this to be the most interesting comment of all. Whiley will spread her legs and sleep with whomever she wants because it makes her interesting. Whiley will have a developing child torn from her womb because it makes her interesting. I suspect Whiley would pass out condoms to grade schoolers because it makes her interesting. The question is, interesting to whom? The only people this behavior makes you interesting to is other feminists. Being interesting, or “doing what I want when I want” does not give you character. The ability to refrain oneself from over indulgence gives you character. I’m not so sure you could refrain yourself from any indulgence Whilely

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 5, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Women being harrassed at a health clinic?

Rochester NY, Used to see this weekly time at Planned Parenthood and outside Genesee Hospital, not to mention at a private doctor’s office in my hometown, (name witheld for his safety) where the doctor received death threats.

Can anyone on this board cite for us how many times you’ve seen that?

While you’re at it - how many Muslims have you seen being “gunned down�?

Well, remember last week, the poor Brazilian bloke in London? He only looked Muslim. Sorry, my bad.

And if it’s not too much of a bother, how many here have had their freedoms curtailed because of the Patriot Act?

Well, T, that’s just it. You might not ever know with the sneak and peak clause. Since you’ve talked about enslaviing women, I’d be extra careful if I were you…

(Special award goes to anyone who can testify to jack-booted agents snatching you from the bed in the middle of the night).

Jack, do you wear boots?

I guess that I need to find out where some of you people live!

Nope, I guess you need to read the newspaper and watch the news once in a while.

All this in a Red section of a Blue State.

By Augustine

August 5, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

I feel women don’t need to be in combat. Women are way too valuable for that sacrifice. Women should be on a pedestal. One thing I have learned. If mama ain’t happy, nobody’s happy. Jack #1, you want a woman like Whiley, she desperately wants to be put on a pedastal because she feels she deserves it. #2 If mama thinks because she feels p** that she can make everybody feel p**, mama can find the door. If more wimps would stop being wimps and start being MEN, the feminists movement would slow way down because for some unfortunate feminists it would become a reality that they would have to take care of themselves instead of standing on the backs of men.

By Jack

August 5, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

I used to live outside of Rochchester. I wore boots in the winter. I miss the snow.

By Jack

August 5, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

And how many times have you been married Augustine? Your smarta$$ comments aren’t going to make me angry. I know I’m a man and would love for you to call me a wimp in person but I know that would never happen. What a shame.

By Whiley

August 5, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

” I find this to be the most interesting comment of all. Whiley will spread her legs and sleep with whomever she wants because it makes her interesting. Whiley will have a developing child torn from her womb because it makes her interesting. I suspect Whiley would pass out condoms to grade schoolers because it makes her interesting. The question is, interesting to whom? The only people this behavior makes you interesting to is other feminists. Being interesting, or “doing what I want when I wantâ€? does not give you character. “

Thank you for the yet another example of your backward caveman type Taliban thinking. Fortunately, I don’t listen to idiotic controlling Neanderthals. Never have, never will. I DO listen to real men that have absolutely no problem treating women as equals. Real men really don’t want weak, uneducated, needy, non-indepentant women.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Sandy,

You’re not thinking. Our goverment and most other governments, have long had the ability to “sneak and peak” with you knowing about it.

As most of us know, there are folks that could make you and I both disappear from the face of the earth - without a trace. Why, all of a sudden, because of the Patriot Act, do you suddenly fear for your privacy? Especially since the Patriot Act is really nothing new - it’s a compilation of pre-existing laws for expediency in the War on Terror.

And the “bloke” wasn’t shot in London because he looked Middle-Eastern. He was shot because he ran from the police towards a subway - just a couple days after an attempted bombing there. See the difference?

Rochester NY, Used to see this weekly time at Planned Parenthood and outside Genesee Hospital, not to mention at a private doctor’s office in my hometown, (name witheld for his safety) where the doctor received death threats.

Name withheld for safety?

By JoanFromAtl

August 5, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

So you all got me confused.

There is a story out regarding a woman kept on life suport for the sole reason of carrying her baby to term (mother had a stoke I believe). Well they C-sect the baby two months early bc the mother was not going to make it even with the best medical techs. The baby is fine and after delivery, they removed the life support from the mother, and she passed on.

Given your choicers stance, I do not know if I should:

Be happy for the child Be mad that people forced the mother to give birth be proud of Med Technology Etc…

Seems that in a sane world this would be a good thing that occured; but your pro-choicer views would have prevented it, seeing as noone can prove it was the mothers wishes. It would have been in court too long and the baby would have suffered bc of your ignorance.

Anyone can argue anything; so the fact that you have an opinion does not mean there is ANY validity to it.

By TT

August 5, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Taboga—there you go again disputing reality. Feminists and strong, assertive women go hand in hand if you rely on the original definition of feminism, which means a movement to ensure equality. But I know that definitions trip you up (I haven’t forgotten your incorrect usage of the words communism and liberals).

But there are plenty of feminists in the world today, and we’re coming for you. In my graduate program, there were at least 80 people who proclaimed themselves feminists (some straight men included…gasp). Now, if we can only find out which trailer park you live in.

And blabla, the fact of the matter is, discrimination isn’t based on logic. It’s based on stereotypes like the ones you and Tabooger hold. Economically, men should hire more women, but in your fat guts, you have an instinct to work with people like you, and thus you hire men. Even when a woman is more qualified for a post, a man in charge of hiring would hire a man…that’s why women lose out on promotions too.

It’s evident by the men who hate NOW and feminism on this blog that chauvinism breeds in the lower classes. But that’s alright, that’s OK, you’ll be working for me someday.

You see, I don’t need men like you to protect me, I might need you to do the things I don’t want to do like … clean my toilet, take my order at the drive thru, and trim my hedges. I’m too busy climbing the corporate ladder to take time out for such mundane stuff. But I’m only going to pay you 70% of what I would pay a woman to do it, mkay?

What a laugh riot…you guys should go on that Blue Collar Comedy Tour with your “see no evil, ‘aint gonna change me” act. Besides making us laugh at your ball-scratching ignorance, it makes women like me more determined to succeed. We practice perseverance in the face of challenges. And despite all of the barriers you men have erected, women are starting to come out on top.

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 5, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Jack- Did you live in Rush? Just a hunch. I moved back here from Atlanta in October. Good to be home.

By Crystal

August 5, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Well, I stopped by to see how things were going and what do you know? This week has been “show & tell” time for free talking females. Just blab everything about your personal reproductive organs, your sex life, etc., etc., etc. Is there anything left in this world that is private? Must EVERYTHING be discussed with any Tom, Dick and Harriet that can read? Women’s rights? What about women’s privacy? Modesty? Morality? None of the given information concerns the merits of a Supreme Court Justice.

Maybe next week’s blog will be an interesting icon of integrity. In the meantime, STAY SWEET and mind your manners,please.

By Heather

August 5, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

I have to say that the conversation has been a little different today. All the women so fierce and the men beating their chests. LOL

As a woman, let me say what I think makes a man exceptional. He is strong, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Also, he is mature. He wants to protect his wife, he feels very protective of her. He doesn’t expect her to do everything so he can sit and watch TV. He wants her to be happy. He would rather she not work but if she wants to and it doesn’t affect any children in a negative way he is glad for her to do so. However, he does not need her income to fund unneeded material possessions his family would be better off without. He wants to hear what she has to say about family decisions but he is quite capable of making a decision himself. His main priority is providing a safe, secure environment for his family.

What makes a woman exceptional? I think a wife’s main priority should be ensuring her children are living in the best possible homelife. She must guarantee they are safe and receiving the love they need to grow into healthy adults. She should show her husband she loves him by validating and respecting everything he is doing for her. She should not nag at him or pick fights with him over unimportant issues and she should never disrespect him in front of his children.

If both adults respect each other and want the other to be happy, then there is no need to worry about your needs not being met. The man will be meeting his wife’s needs and she will be meeting his.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

TT,

why are you always insulting and poking fun at people of low income?

It’s bad enough that all your “trailer park” and “do you want fries with that…” childish remarks hasn’t the slightest bit of originality; let alone wit, but I am curious to know why you think it necessary to always insult low-income folks?

What did those folks ever do to you?

By Kali

August 5, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Toe booger, you are such a little snot. And your ignorance is appalling. If you knew anything about history you’d know about a time when all the able bodied men did leave and women picked up the jobs and make airplanes and did construction. It was called WWII Toe-snot. Remember Rosie the Riveter? No, how could a snot-nosed kid remember that?

By TT

August 5, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Go on home, Crystal. Softly and calmly, Jesus is calling. If you are going to tell women to keep their mouths closed, then follow your own advice. How many times have we heard your personal accounts of “I luv me some men” on this blog? Do you, per chance, have blue eyes? I’ve been looking for a doormat to match my front door—you might come in handy yet.

By Questions

August 5, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Know any Pro-Choicers who advocate aborting nearly full-term? is that a common fallacy belief of the Pro-Lifers?

By MarkMyWords

August 5, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

men have erected, women are starting to come out on top.

Erect with a woman on top, begining to come. I agree completely with you TT.

(Had to partake in TTs 7th grade mentality for spite;)

Take care all. I am off to marshall islands for the next two weeks that my two girlfriends are treating me to (not kidding).

Will send pics to those who wish!

By Quesrions

August 5, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

“Anyone can argue anything; so the fact that you have an opinion does not mean there is ANY validity to it.”

ain’t dat da truth

“Beam me up, Scotty”

By Kali

August 5, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

And here’s sneering Crystal with her Friday drive-by look down her nose at everyone on the blog! Doesn’t everyone see now how superior Crystal is? I don’t think so.

By TT

August 5, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

T-bag, I have nothing against the poor, just the ignorant. You would not be insulted by my remarks if they weren’t true. Just curious, what do you do for a living? Now remember, being on parole doesn’t count as a career.

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 5, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Heather, the people you are describing don’t sound particularly exceptional, but their circumstances certainly do. Living on one income, no health or mental health problems, no relatives to care for, no unemployment, affordable health care and housing? Nary a complication for them. All they need is love and their needs are all taken care of? To quote Taboga, “I guess that I need to find out where some of you people live!”

By Jack

August 5, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Sandy/Sanhan I lived in Canandaigua. A little further than just outside Rochester, but I still miss the snow. No one that has never been up there in the winter knows what snow is.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

T-bag, I have nothing against the poor, just the ignorant. You would not be insulted by my remarks if they weren’t true. Just curious, what do you do for a living? Now remember, being on parole doesn’t count as a career.

TT,

I psych self-haters like you. And unless I missed my guess (rarely do):

You feel slighted, no? To put it kindly - nature wasn’t as good to you as you would’ve liked?

You’re now going to “get back” at the world for what it has done to you? You don’t need men - because they have never needed you?

The girls in school made fun of you and the boys ignored you?

You’re pretty much alone?

…But it’s all going to be ok, right? You’ve created an imaginary world where you are going to be on top? And making fun of low-income people, people without college degrees, religious people and stay at home women - makes you feel superior?

And sadly, the road ahead of you is going to get alot uglier.

By Bruce

August 5, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Heather if I wasn’t married……..

By lozen

August 5, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

TT, you got it going on, girlfriend! Whiley, you be yourself and tell it like it is. SB, intelligent comments. Sandy, you know how I feel about you! It’s been wonderful reading your comments this week. Oh, and Kali - you are a brave, strong woman. I hope you and your husband enjoy gots a luvin’ over the weekend! You are all wise and wonderful women.

By Sandy/Sanhan

August 5, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

As most of us know, there are folks that could make you and I both disappear from the face of the earth - without a trace…

So, T, you’ve known this as a fact for how long, and you’re okay with it? Where’s the outrage? This happens in your democratic/republic country and you’ve done nothing to stop it? Who’s the the communist and conspiracy theorist now?

Special awards to anyone who can name a citizen who has disappeared at the hands of our government prior to the PATRIOT act.

By Crystal

August 5, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

I must be saying the right things. Both TT and Kali are angry. But TT is right when she claims that “I luv me some men” (one husband, four sons). And Kali says that I am “superior”. Looks like I am scoring more points than Francoeur.

By Rapper

August 5, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Toe-booger and Zack, Put em in a sack, Shake em up boys, And then stand back. When they come out, you don’t wanta get hit, Don’t wanta get covered with that stinky s**!

And then there’s Chuck, Fanatical little f***, Some woman might have fun! If he got near he’d have to run, Cause he knows he couldn’t do a thing for her, Old dried up dick just can’t stand the thought, He missed it all for Jesus!

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

August 5, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

The one thing I have noticed about this type of “blog� is that as long as the law does not directly affect your life, it’s okay to remain a law. Change the abortion argument to the Right to Prayer in school and the same people against the right to choose, want to have the right to pray in school. At no time have I ever felt that I could NOT pray while at school, but while I prayed silently too myself, I did not try to encourage the other children to pray with me. It’s my choice to pray silently and no one has ever said that I could not do it. I would be over stepping my bounds by asking others to pray allowed with me.

I do agree that if the law changed today, it would not detour some women from seeking an abortion. It would become an underground movement, done outside of clinics. So, the Anti-abortion crowd do not seem to care about this aspect, because they seek to send these women and doctors to prison by creating laws making an abortion illegal. We would be wasting even more tax payer money trying to locate, prosecute and house(prison) women/doctors who utilize the underground clinics.

Those women not able to find a clinic in their area will just leave the kids in a trash bin, toilet, road-side, etc….. the others (unless “whiteâ€?) will be placed into foster care to grow up. There was an article about foster care in the AJC recently that discuss the life of a child upon leaving foster care: death, jail, drugs, low-income jobs were usually the outcome. I suggest that DFACS start a program especially for Pro-Lifers, so that they can help the kids they saved. I would support it 100%.

By Kyle

August 5, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

This is kinda of the point, but I thought I would share. As I was walking back from lunch I saw a car with a bumper sticker that read: “Don’t pray in my schools, and I won’t think in your church.”

Damn! Even for a person that is not particularly religious, such as myself, I thought that was pretty harsh.

By Kali

August 5, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Oh heather that is so very, very sweet! It’s so sweet it could be called sappy. If, if and if heather. Dream on, Heather. I bet you’ve tried meeting your husband at the door while wrapped in saran wrap too! At least Tony cuts and pastes his sappy stuff. I bet you think yours is original!

By Heather

August 5, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Lol, Bruce.

Sandy, well my post was rather long so I decided not to write a novel to bore you guys. I think it is possible to live on one income, I support my son and myself on one income and I don’t make a lot of money. We don’t buy things we don’t need. Its amazing what a little self-restraint can accomplish. Of course the people I described get sick and irritable, but when the usual pattern is one of respect then people tend to make allowances for each other a lot easier.

By Heather

August 5, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Kali, I have found you to be very confrontational and rude to anyone who disagrees with you so I don’t feel its necessary to respond to you, thanks for the comment however.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

So, T, you’ve known this as a fact for how long, and you’re okay with it? Where’s the outrage? This happens in your democratic/republic country and you’ve done nothing to stop it? Who’s the the communist and conspiracy theorist now?

Sandy,

The alarming thing is not how long I have known it, but that you apparently haven’t.

“Outrage” about what? It is a capability rather than an act. Should I be outraged because someone knows how make fire? They could burn my house down with it, so I guess I should be “outraged”, right?

Special awards to anyone who can name a citizen who has disappeared at the hands of our government prior to the PATRIOT act.

Proves my point, in that nothing has changed.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

This is kinda of the point, but I thought I would share. As I was walking back from lunch I saw a car with a bumper sticker that read: “Don’t pray in my schools, and I won’t think in your church.�

Not religious either - but I find that statement ironic.

Wasn’t it churches that started the schools in our country? And who is it that starts caterwauling hysterically at the mere mention of vouchers…?

I don’t see them “thinking” in the schools - why would they start in the church?

By Bobb

August 5, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Hey! Why don’t we replace Sandra with Sinead O’Connor. That oughta make things interesting.

By taboga

August 5, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Have a good weekend my fellow Americans.

And to you Comrades as well. Just to show you that I’m a good sport!

By Kali

August 5, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Heather, I really feel bad now. I feel sorry for you. You’re in for such a rude awakening in the future. Your whole life seems to be based on “ifs” and romantic and spiritual illusions. I think you probably have a high school education (maybe less), read Harlequin romances and True Romance, think You’ve Got Mail is the greatest movie and that your religious conversion 6 months ago is going to last. You’re a simple person with simple ideas and dreams and if you hadn’t pushed the abortion is murder and blah blah blah I would never have picked on someone like you. I’m sorry.

By blablabla

August 5, 2005 05:26 PM | Link to this

TT: What are you talking about? My stereotypes… When did I ever say I wouldn’t hire a woman? NOWHERE. If I could realistically get away with paying one person less than another for the same amount of work, I would do it. As an example, would you pay one wireless phone company 25% more than another for the exact same service? Of course not.

All I did was ask you for facts to back up your statement about the dichotomy between men and women’s wages for comparable or equal work, which by the way, you have yet to provide. Notice that I didn’t even offer an opinion about where the data would shake out. Then in the meantime asked why there would be such a large split because it doesn’t make economic sense that there would be. Of course, you can’t respond to that, so instead try to stereotype me:

you assumed i am fat: WRONG you assumed i am lower class: WRONG you assumed i hold some stereotype over women: WRONG, I just don’t happen to like NOW because I think it is tied more to the democratic party than it truly is to women. I’ll note that you didn’t respond to that point either.

you don’t know me at all - the only thing you’ve successfully demonstrated is YOUR OWN STEREOTYPES. nice work. why don’t you go back to your graduate programs (HA!) and get an education.

so naive - i’m TT. i’m studying graduate programs so i can climb the corporate ladder and be a big boss someday. if you only knew how naive that statement is and how little people need to ride the corporate ladder to get where they want…