The Abortion Myth

[jillian]

Well, there's a sure-fire way to remove the wedge! Great job....

I agree. I do. And opening salvos like that don't really add anything. By the same token, I didn't exactly see better behavior from the "representative" of the *other side*... you know,the one who tells posters to "move along" because she rants and raves at anyone who disagrees with her. So the OP certainly got us there sooner... but ultimately discussions about reproductive choice end up trashed anyway.

Agreed, but Bfg and I "know" each other and are generally on opposite sides of the fence. Throwing the racist card in this discussion was quite unnecessary as its difficult enough to get both sides to talk to each other and come to any sort of compromise. Reactionary responses, as you've described, are expected when one side begins with such an inflammatory argument.

Ah.. .fair enough. Didn't realize that you had a history. And no, I don't believe there's anything racist about the abortion debate on either side. Although I'm sure you'll be amused by the person on this site who thinks aborton is eugenics and that anyone who supports choice is a eugenicist.

 

[DamnYankee]

I agree. I do. And opening salvos like that don't really add anything. By the same token, I didn't exactly see better behavior from the "representative" of the *other side*... you know,the one who tells posters to "move along" because she rants and raves at anyone who disagrees with her. So the OP certainly got us there sooner... but ultimately discussions about reproductive choice end up trashed anyway.

Agreed, but Bfg and I "know" each other and are generally on opposite sides of the fence. Throwing the racist card in this discussion was quite unnecessary as its difficult enough to get both sides to talk to each other and come to any sort of compromise. Reactionary responses, as you've described, are expected when one side begins with such an inflammatory argument.

Ah.. .fair enough. Didn't realize that you had a history. And no, I don't believe there's anything racist about the abortion debate on either side. Although I'm sure you'll be amused by the person on this site who thinks aborton is eugenics and that anyone who supports choice is a eugenicist.

Nothing surprises me. Choice isn't open-ended as far as I'm concerned and doesn't preclude what should be first and foremost -- education and prevention. I have very clear, medically and ethically based, ideas on where that choice should end and very clear ideas on how and why education and prevention of unintended pregnancies should be promoted. It's not as simple as saying "zip it".

 

[jillian]

Agreed, but Bfg and I "know" each other and are generally on opposite sides of the fence. Throwing the racist card in this discussion was quite unnecessary as its difficult enough to get both sides to talk to each other and come to any sort of compromise. Reactionary responses, as you've described, are expected when one side begins with such an inflammatory argument.

Ah.. .fair enough. Didn't realize that you had a history. And no, I don't believe there's anything racist about the abortion debate on either side. Although I'm sure you'll be amused by the person on this site who thinks aborton is eugenics and that anyone who supports choice is a eugenicist.

Nothing surprises me. Choice isn't open-ended as far as I'm concerned and doesn't preclude what should be first and foremost -- education and prevention. I have very clear, medically and ethically based, ideas on where that choice should end and very clear ideas on how and why education and prevention of unintended pregnancies should be promoted. It's not as simple as saying "zip it".

Most moral issues are pretty complex. My feeling is that abortion should be readily available but that education should be so extensive that it become rare. I do think, though, that issues of choice are best left to a woman and her doctor and not politicians.

 

[DamnYankee]

Ah.. .fair enough. Didn't realize that you had a history. And no, I don't believe there's anything racist about the abortion debate on either side. Although I'm sure you'll be amused by the person on this site who thinks aborton is eugenics and that anyone who supports choice is a eugenicist.

Nothing surprises me. Choice isn't open-ended as far as I'm concerned and doesn't preclude what should be first and foremost -- education and prevention. I have very clear, medically and ethically based, ideas on where that choice should end and very clear ideas on how and why education and prevention of unintended pregnancies should be promoted. It's not as simple as saying "zip it".

Most moral issues are pretty complex. My feeling is that abortion should be readily available but that education should be so extensive that it become rare. I do think, though, that issues of choice are best left to a woman and her doctor and not politicians.

We kinda left it to them when the SC got involved in the first place. Then there's the problem with the politicians holding the purse-strings on the necessary education. So, while they're advocating for it on one hand, they're holding out on the other. Maybe we should just abort politicians....

 

[jillian]

Nothing surprises me. Choice isn't open-ended as far as I'm concerned and doesn't preclude what should be first and foremost -- education and prevention. I have very clear, medically and ethically based, ideas on where that choice should end and very clear ideas on how and why education and prevention of unintended pregnancies should be promoted. It's not as simple as saying "zip it".

Most moral issues are pretty complex. My feeling is that abortion should be readily available but that education should be so extensive that it become rare. I do think, though, that issues of choice are best left to a woman and her doctor and not politicians.

We kinda left it to them when the SC got involved in the first place. Then there's the problem with the politicians holding the purse-strings on the necessary education. So, while they're advocating for it on one hand, they're holding out on the other. Maybe we should just abort politicians....

I disagree. Government becomes involved when they start passing legislation prohibiting or limiting abortion. Can't get rid of those types of unconsitutional actions without the supreme court being involved, same as when the feds were needed to integrate schools.

I think both those types of laws and the tightened purse strings on education can be left directly on the doorstep of the religious right. So, it's not politicians that bother me so much (i see them as a necessary evil...and in some cases, they mean well.) it's the mixing of religion and government.... which only comes from big bucks and a lot of noise.

 

[Gurdari]

Just remember, everyone in favor of abortion has already been born.

Has a nice ring to it, but sadly is meaningless.

Those yet to be born, those already born, and those who've been born and since died have their own power of logic, no? The time when one is conceived and/or born is irrelevant to critical thinking, and the idea of social control... government control, hmm... which seems hard to reconcile with the right-wing and their anti-'government in our lives' credo. People who don't believe in abortion won't abort any fetuses, so there should be a large turn of offspring coming from one side of the debate to the other... unless those damned kids grow up to be pro-choice... seems like if you believe your body is YOUR body, then nobody else has a right to tell you what you can do with it, until the kid has left the body - it is part of the body, and under your control.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Religious Right...how can people that have no regard for the crawling [and] the walking have such a passion for the unborn?

Easy...they DON'T...they're a bunch of racists that USED Roe v. Wade as a political wedge issue...

Well, there's a sure-fire way to remove the wedge! Great job....

I agree. I do. And opening salvos like that don't really add anything. By the same token, I didn't exactly see better behavior from the "representative" of the *other side*... you know,the one who tells posters to "move along" because she rants and raves at anyone who disagrees with her. So the OP certainly got us there sooner... but ultimately discussions about reproductive choice end up trashed anyway.

If you mean me, I have no desire to remove any "wedge". Why in God's name would I EVER want to try to find common ground with people who think killing innocent babies is a reasonable course of action?

 

[Ocean56]

The Religious Right...how can people that have no regard for the crawling the walking have such a passion for the unborn?

Easy...they DON'T...they're a bunch of racists that USED Roe v. Wade as a political wedge issue...

Book Excerpt: 'Thy Kingdom Come'

by Randall Balmer

In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
---
In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.

Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith : NPR

Woo hoo! Another thread based on someone's bigotry stated as though it were fact, and a frigging straw man set up by a left-wing propaganda machine. Thank God. It's been too long since the last one.

Strange; the most bigotry I commonly see is usually coming from so-called "christians." Against different religions, gays, abortion/contraception, women who aren't interested in the submissive "biblical marriage" garbage, etc. Got any explanation for that one?

Oh, and the pro-choice position regarding abortion (and contraception too) boils down to just four easy-to-understand words: let EACH woman decide. Why religionist super kooks have such a hard time understanding that is beyond comprehension.

 

[Ocean56]

Well, there's a sure-fire way to remove the wedge! Great job....

I agree. I do. And opening salvos like that don't really add anything. By the same token, I didn't exactly see better behavior from the "representative" of the *other side*... you know,the one who tells posters to "move along" because she rants and raves at anyone who disagrees with her. So the OP certainly got us there sooner... but ultimately discussions about reproductive choice end up trashed anyway.

If you mean me, I have no desire to remove any "wedge". Why in God's name would I EVER want to try to find common ground with people who think killing innocent babies is a reasonable course of action?

Oh good grief, here's THAT ridiculous argument again, which is nothing more than religionist BELIEF, not fact. Killing babies is against the law. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy, long before there's any "baby" involved, is LEGAL, and strictly a medical procedure, which is between a woman and her doctor.

If the religionist super kooks really want to significantly reduce the number of abortions, or even eliminate the necessity for abortion to begin with, they would be encouraging the use and practice of ALL reliable forms of contraception available, rather than severely restricting or even forbidding its use for those of their faith. They would support sex education programs in public schools beginning with middle school that explain exactly what happens when teens have intercourse or risk engaging in ANY kind of sexual activity, instead of just those idiotic abstinence-ONLY programs that simply don't work. (Just ask Bristol Palin how well THAT approach worked for her.)

The fact is, many of them are opposed not only to abortion but to reliable contraception as well, which anyone with a brain knows PREVENTS unwanted pregnancy to a large degree, and by extension, abortion. So for them it comes down to punishment for women who commit the "sin" of being sexually active. Luckily, women like me, who want to enjoy sex and NOT have to worry about the burden of unwanted pregnancy, are free to reject such ridiculous false arguments.

 

[Againsheila]

The Religious Right...how can people that have no regard for the crawling the walking have such a passion for the unborn?

Easy...they DON'T...they're a bunch of racists that USED Roe v. Wade as a political wedge issue...

Book Excerpt: 'Thy Kingdom Come'

by Randall Balmer

In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
---
In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.

Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith : NPR

Woo hoo! Another thread based on someone's bigotry stated as though it were fact, and a frigging straw man set up by a left-wing propaganda machine. Thank God. It's been too long since the last one.

Strange; the most bigotry I commonly see is usually coming from so-called "christians." Against different religions, gays, abortion/contraception, women who aren't interested in the submissive "biblical marriage" garbage, etc. Got any explanation for that one?

Oh, and the pro-choice position regarding abortion (and contraception too) boils down to just four easy-to-understand words: let EACH woman decide. Why religionist super kooks have such a hard time understanding that is beyond comprehension.

I do not believe the decision as to whether it's a baby or a fetus should be based solely on the mother's say so. If we are going to allow women an out after conception, I think we should allow men the same thing. IE, they should be able to walk away within the first 6 months and not have to pay for child support. They can't force a woman to have a baby even if they want the child, why should they have to pay for a child if the woman wants the child and they don't.

I just think things should be fair and it's not fair for the mother to be the only person to decide the difference between a baby and a fetus. Currently if the mother wants the child and a man runs into her car, causing her to have a miscarriage, he can be charged with manslaughter for the unborn child, but the woman could opt to abort the child and she's charged with nothing. How is that fair?

 

[Ocean56]

Woo hoo! Another thread based on someone's bigotry stated as though it were fact, and a frigging straw man set up by a left-wing propaganda machine. Thank God. It's been too long since the last one.

Strange; the most bigotry I commonly see is usually coming from so-called "christians." Against different religions, gays, abortion/contraception, women who aren't interested in the submissive "biblical marriage" garbage, etc. Got any explanation for that one?

Oh, and the pro-choice position regarding abortion (and contraception too) boils down to just four easy-to-understand words: let EACH woman decide. Why religionist super kooks have such a hard time understanding that is beyond comprehension.

I do not believe the decision as to whether it's a baby or a fetus should be based solely on the mother's say so. If we are going to allow women an out after conception, I think we should allow men the same thing. IE, they should be able to walk away within the first 6 months and not have to pay for child support. They can't force a woman to have a baby even if they want the child, why should they have to pay for a child if the woman wants the child and they don't.

I just think things should be fair and it's not fair for the mother to be the only person to decide the difference between a baby and a fetus. Currently if the mother wants the child and a man runs into her car, causing her to have a miscarriage, he can be charged with manslaughter for the unborn child, but the woman could opt to abort the child and she's charged with nothing. How is that fair?

What some think is "fair" or not is irrelevant, since it is the WOMAN who bears all the health risks of carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth, NOT the man. Therefore, the choice by logic and reason must remain with the woman, not the man.

When men can get pregnant and carry the burdens and health risks of pregnancy and birth, then they can make the final decision. Until that time comes, they only get an opinion, NOT the final vote.