Ahunt-I'm sorry, but the fact that your sister went through anancephaly does NOT give you the moral right to wish it on someone else. That is profoundly misanthropic and immature. I deal with a lot with my learning disorder and depression, but I don't go around wishing it on someone else- or someone else's CHILD, for God's sake-just so they will change their mind about how to respond to those issues. And no, I'm not comparing LD to anancephaly, I'm saying that it is wrong to wish one's own misfortune upon someone else, and that going through a misfortune does not entitle someone to wish it on someone else with impunity.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
I kept arguing that we could increase blastocyst survival without putting unreasonable burdens on women.
But then you've also argued that women who go to a hospital after they're raped should not be allowed mifepristone. (as just one example) and never answered the obvious argument that 'pro-life' people (including yourself) do and say things constantly that seem unreasonable to someone who does not share your belief systems. Indeed I've had one of your ilk tell me that "manslaughter charges should be on the table" when a pregnant woman 'causes' her miscarriage through strenuous exercise or too many saunas. The fact that you might not endorse such an idea does not mean that such an idea isn't an obvious extension of your beliefs or that you wouldn't celebrate if it became legally possible to "increase blastocyst survival" by severely limiting the roles and activities of all fertile women. Indeed I would bet good money that you would be as smug and obnoxious about such a precedent as you were about the Stupak amendment.
Now you're blaming me for her paranoid fantasies.
I think you have failed to realise that you lost that argument with AHunt several times. You're wrong, she made excellents points which you (characteristically) mock and denigrate. deal with it.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Personally, not necessarily. But not sure why its even relevant given that many believe in the womans bodily autonomy and would never want to coerce her into an abortion (or sterilization) regardless of where they draw the line in their own beliefs on personhood or what they believe she *should* do. There is room to respect others deeply held beliefs. I would not coerce a woman (or man) to be sterlized given the same arguments about unwanted children. Same with contraception - we don't need to elevate the unconceived to some sort of
people status in order for women to have the right to not be sterlized or not be forced to use contraception. Evidence based sex education is not only fine in my book - it should be more prevalent and I'm opposed to abstinence only education.
By now, you should know me too well to toss that sort of slander around.
I think it's because we know you so well that that seems accurate and honest.
You know, for example, that all the steps I've ever recommended for the protection of the unborn place the burden on the society or on fathers -- not on mothers
Here is what you say:
I’m opposed to abortion in cases of rape; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of incest; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of fetal abnormality; I’m opposed to abortion when the mother is seriously disabled; I’m opposed to abortion when the mother already has more children than she can handle; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of extreme poverty; I’m opposed to abortion in regions where there is overpopulation; I’m opposed to abortion when the father is abusive.
Now tell us again where you place the brunt of the burden.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
I consider it very gratifying that so many thoughtful and earnest people are willing to converse with me about these important topics. At this point, though, there are more posts that I want to respond to than there is time to come up with a response.
There are people that fit that view who still respect the womans choice, respect the pregnant womans differing views on personhood where the pregnant woman answers that question herself with it beginning earlier, and consider themselves pro-choice.
Janine,
I don't know if you're someone who "believes that personhood starts at birth and that women should not bring pregnancies to term if they are unable to care for them". I sure hope so, because I'd like to know how you can hold those views and be tolerant of a woman's choice while you consider the fact that unintended pregnancies are the cause of hundreds of thousands of children being born into disadvantaged situations every year.
Wouldn't you at least want to promote an educational campaign to wise women up to the fact that some choices are better than others? You certainly realize, I hope, that a child born into poverty isn't simply a headache for the mother -- s/he's a headache for all of us.
Excuse me, Paul...but you have left an easily followed trail. YOU were the one insisting that women should voluntarily conduct their lives as if they were perpetually pregnant...because, as you yourself finally acknowledged...conception can and does happen at anytime in the "cycle."
And how is carrying your bizarre obsession with zygote welfare through to the entirely rational conclusions... paranoia?
Hey Colleen...try selling WAIT to three sons who knew damn good and well that Mom and Dad were into the hot monkey love waaaay before the nuptuals. (We married early, admittedly)
In fact...folks ought not to be surprised if kids take offense at the perceived slight towards their parents, and dismiss the teachings out of hand.
If you are upset with WAIT Training about talking about safe and stable family formation and marriage, also direct your rage to former President Bill Clinton
Oh, believe me, I do. Not as much as I blame the Republican party and the 'family values' crowd in it's entirety (led at that time by such remarkable examples of marital fidelity and Christian values as Newt Gingrich, of course, Rush Limbaugh)
One wonders why y'all don't educate, equip and empower your elected officials and religious right leadership to live well, love well and marry well. Or are they not inclined to take instruction from women?
p>
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Too attached to Edward Cullen for your feminist sensibilities? Just in time for Thanksgiving, here's an unorthodox guide to kicking the Twilight habit.
The best way to be an ally and a support to anyone often starts with questions like "How can I support you?" or "What do you want and need from me in this?" Then you listen to the answers and respond accordingly.
As Thanksgiving Day quickly approaches, we want to take a moment to reflect on how grateful we are for the people who help make RH Reality Check what it is today.
The Stupak furor has obscured the shocking fertility and family control provisions in current health care legislation. The House bill actually authorizes a plan to monitor the childbearing decisions and family lives of low-income women.
Revisions in Peru's Penal Code may lead to decriminalizing abortion in cases of rape or severe disability of the fetus. But conservative political and religious forces are, predictably, opposing these changes.
Rights advocates can forget that there is an entire world of potential allies out there we may be missing because we are not effectively communicating with them.
Muslim women in India are caught between the strictures of family and personal law and persistent discrimination against them as women from both the Indian government and society writ large.
Opponents and supporters of women's choices in childbearing agreed early on, in theory, to maintain the “status quo” with "abortion neutral" health care legislation. The Senate bill achieves this goal; the House bill does not.
An epidemic of sexually transmitted infections in the U.S. disproportionately affects blacks, youth, gays and the poor. Talking openly about sex is the first step in prevention.
Bethany Cajúne, pregnant and in a substance abuse recovery program, was jailed for 19 days for traffic violations. But officials repeatedly denied her a drug necessary to her recovery, putting her health and the life of her fetus at risk.
No one reading this has forgotten that the House passed a healthcare “reform” bill that includes the Stupak Amendment. Here's a speech Congressman Stupak needs to hear.
In a strange twist, Nevada anti-choice groups, complaining that the wording of a "personhood" amendment to establish civil rights for fertilized eggs is too vague, are on the same side as Planned Parenthood and ACLU.
I'm a transgendered sex worker, and I want to not get killed for who I am or what I do. As our death count rises, I beg that you consider your prejudices around gender, and let us live in peace. I'm literally begging for my life.
In examining rooms, we see women in terrible pain, but their suffering doesn’t count in Stupak/Pitts world. By banishing abortion from the reform bill, the amendment punishes women who need to end unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies.
With the Stupak amendment literally and symbolically stripping women of equal status, the movie "Precious" presents, in grim detail, the way race, class and bias render a woman's body simultaneously invisible and subject to abuse.
The CDC releases its annual "Abortion Surveillance" report on abortion in the United States, for 2006. The report says the surveillance provides critical information needed to evaluate programs aimed at preventing unintended pregnancy.
"Crisis pregnancy" centers in Baltimore must now display signs stating they do not provide abortions or birth-control referrals under a measure approved by the City Council Monday night and thought to be the first of its kind in the nation."
In the Weekly Pulse, Lindsay Beyerstein reports on this week's developments on health care reform, the public option, and new recommendations on mammogram screening for breast cancer detection.
Ahunt-I'm sorry, but the fact that your sister went through anancephaly does NOT give you the moral right to wish it on someone else. That is profoundly misanthropic and immature. I deal with a lot with my learning disorder and depression, but I don't go around wishing it on someone else- or someone else's CHILD, for God's sake-just so they will change their mind about how to respond to those issues. And no, I'm not comparing LD to anancephaly, I'm saying that it is wrong to wish one's own misfortune upon someone else, and that going through a misfortune does not entitle someone to wish it on someone else with impunity.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
But then you've also argued that women who go to a hospital after they're raped should not be allowed mifepristone. (as just one example) and never answered the obvious argument that 'pro-life' people (including yourself) do and say things constantly that seem unreasonable to someone who does not share your belief systems. Indeed I've had one of your ilk tell me that "manslaughter charges should be on the table" when a pregnant woman 'causes' her miscarriage through strenuous exercise or too many saunas. The fact that you might not endorse such an idea does not mean that such an idea isn't an obvious extension of your beliefs or that you wouldn't celebrate if it became legally possible to "increase blastocyst survival" by severely limiting the roles and activities of all fertile women. Indeed I would bet good money that you would be as smug and obnoxious about such a precedent as you were about the Stupak amendment.
I think you have failed to realise that you lost that argument with AHunt several times. You're wrong, she made excellents points which you (characteristically) mock and denigrate. deal with it.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
But, Crowepps-the federal government makes no distinction between pro choice and pro llife tax dollars. They all go to the same place.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Personally, not necessarily. But not sure why its even relevant given that many believe in the womans bodily autonomy and would never want to coerce her into an abortion (or sterilization) regardless of where they draw the line in their own beliefs on personhood or what they believe she *should* do. There is room to respect others deeply held beliefs. I would not coerce a woman (or man) to be sterlized given the same arguments about unwanted children. Same with contraception - we don't need to elevate the unconceived to some sort of
people status in order for women to have the right to not be sterlized or not be forced to use contraception. Evidence based sex education is not only fine in my book - it should be more prevalent and I'm opposed to abstinence only education.
I think it's because we know you so well that that seems accurate and honest.
Here is what you say:
Now tell us again where you place the brunt of the burden.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
I consider it very gratifying that so many thoughtful and earnest people are willing to converse with me about these important topics. At this point, though, there are more posts that I want to respond to than there is time to come up with a response.
Please don't think I'm deliberately ignoring anyone.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
There are people that fit that view who still respect the womans choice, respect the pregnant womans differing views on personhood where the pregnant woman answers that question herself with it beginning earlier, and consider themselves pro-choice.
Janine,
I don't know if you're someone who "believes that personhood starts at birth and that women should not bring pregnancies to term if they are unable to care for them". I sure hope so, because I'd like to know how you can hold those views and be tolerant of a woman's choice while you consider the fact that unintended pregnancies are the cause of hundreds of thousands of children being born into disadvantaged situations every year.
Wouldn't you at least want to promote an educational campaign to wise women up to the fact that some choices are better than others? You certainly realize, I hope, that a child born into poverty isn't simply a headache for the mother -- s/he's a headache for all of us.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Excuse me, Paul...but you have left an easily followed trail. YOU were the one insisting that women should voluntarily conduct their lives as if they were perpetually pregnant...because, as you yourself finally acknowledged...conception can and does happen at anytime in the "cycle."
And how is carrying your bizarre obsession with zygote welfare through to the entirely rational conclusions... paranoia?
Snerk...
Hey Colleen...try selling WAIT to three sons who knew damn good and well that Mom and Dad were into the hot monkey love waaaay before the nuptuals. (We married early, admittedly)
In fact...folks ought not to be surprised if kids take offense at the perceived slight towards their parents, and dismiss the teachings out of hand.
Oh, believe me, I do. Not as much as I blame the Republican party and the 'family values' crowd in it's entirety (led at that time by such remarkable examples of marital fidelity and Christian values as Newt Gingrich, of course, Rush Limbaugh)
One wonders why y'all don't educate, equip and empower your elected officials and religious right leadership to live well, love well and marry well. Or are they not inclined to take instruction from women?
p>
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD