States Fund Anti-Abortion Advice

[PenforPrez]

The war on contraception has opened a new front.

Eight states, including my own Missouri, are using public money to steer pregnant women away towards abortion alternatives, usually on the condition that they cannot discuss contraception.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-abortion11feb11,1,1224677.story


In a related campaign, conservatives in several states are pushing to restrict or eliminate public funding for groups that support abortion rights, especially Planned Parenthood. They've had some success, notably in Missouri; six other legislatures will take up the issue this year.

. . .

Tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood do not pay for abortions; they cover birth control, gynecological exams, cancer screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. When clients come in with unwanted pregnancies, they hear about all of their options, including keeping the baby and giving it up for adoption. But critics say there can be a presumption that abortion is the easier solution.

Paul

[EmberMae]

Sickening. Just sickening. I don't know what else to say. Why are we paying taxes to fund organizations that do not serve the public good and instead deliberately lie and mislead?

[beeblebrox]

There was a documentary about these pregnancy crisis centers and the one abortion clinic in Mississippi. I was shccked by the information that the pregnancy crisis centers were offering. They buttered up the pregnant women with a few supplies but not the reality of a raising a child.

[PenforPrez]

This is related, so I'll post it in this thread.

The Republicans here in Missouri now want to change Missouri's sex education curriculum to the current Federal standard, which is abstinance-only, with contraception not required to be taught. In addition, no abortion providers could give services or materials for sex education.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/D0236F66A261546A86257283001200F7?OpenDocument

And of course, some bright guy had to challenge the whole idea of sex education:

During Wednesday's hearing, at least one lawmaker questioned why schools teach sex education.

"I don't understand why our school systems are assuming this parental responsibility and diluting their instructional time," said Rep. Wayne Cooper, R-Camdenton.

Paul

[capella]

Well, of course Florida is on that list. :rolleyes:

The part I liked best: "Amy Chestnut coordinates the Gabriel Project now, but she was once a client, pregnant at 16. The lessons she got on abstinence — she was told to commit to a "secondary virginity" — didn't stick; she got pregnant again at 19. "

Soooo, obviously what they were preachin' to you didn't work and now you think it's a great idea to continue on with that idea to other pregnant teens instead of educating them on the use of birth control. Idiots. Yes, let's all close our eyes and PRAY that teens will stop getting pregnant because we tell them sex is bad. :rolleyes: Gah! Stuff like this gets me so mad. Don't have an abortion, but golly don't do anything that will prevent pregnancy in the first place. Let's take tax dollars away from programs that help prevent pregnancy and take funds from welfare programs so we can.... end up with more people on welfare. That'll solve EVERYTHING!! :eek: Disgusting.

[meatwad]

We were basically taught, "These are the various forms of birth control. This is how they work. None of them are 100% effective and even if you use them, accidents can happen. Abstinance is the only 100% way to avoid an accident. An accident can change your life forever. Use your head."

[capella]

We were basically taught, "These are the various forms of birth control. This is how they work. None of them are 100% effective and even if you use them, accidents can happen. Abstinance is the only 100% way to avoid an accident. An accident can change your life forever. Use your head."
Exactly. That's what I was taught in school too. But now it's taboo to mention any form of BC and they are telling kids, Oh, just don't have sex. Riiiight. It's really quite irresponsible to NOT tell them about BC (how to use it and how effective it is). The abstinence only program is not effective.

[BadKitty]

Exactly. That's what I was taught in school too. But now it's taboo to mention any form of BC and they are telling kids, Oh, just don't have sex. Riiiight. It's really quite irresponsible to NOT tell them about BC (how to use it and how effective it is). The abstinence only program is not effective.

Yeah, I am in a State where they preach abstinence as the only valid contraception tool. It’s scary and annoying. I didn’t realize that Sex Ed was evil, before I came to the States (I realize no one made me come here).

[PenforPrez]

I didn’t realize that Sex Ed was evil, before I came to the States (I realize no one made me come here).

This may be the only nation you'll hear that in too. :rolleyes:

[BadKitty]

This may be the only nation you'll hear that in too. :rolleyes:

i know. I am so baffled with that mass hysteria surrounding sex and everything that is natural and human (remember the Super Bowl fiasco - it's just boobies, right).

[PenforPrez]

i know. I am so baffled with that mass hysteria surrounding sex and everything that is natural and human (remember the Super Bowl fiasco - it's just boobies, right).

It's the puritanical nature of how this nation was founded. Religion and morality has always been taken more seriously in this country, despite religion being more formally ingrained in most European societies. This was a country founded on the idea of letting whatever freaky religious people come in and practice freely. I wish we would believe that now, truly.

Some have argued that the more religious nature of the United States is why we have so much trouble with sexually-related crimes. I sometimes wonder if they're not right.

Paul

[BadKitty]

It's the puritanical nature of how this nation was founded. Religion and morality has always been taken more seriously in this country, despite religion being more formally ingrained in most European societies. This was a country founded on the idea of letting whatever freaky religious people come in and practice freely. I wish we would believe that now, truly.

Some have argued that the more religious nature of the United States is why we have so much trouble with sexually-related crimes. I sometimes wonder if they're not right.

Paul


I know and I agree with you. Isn't there an argument whether the foundation of the country was religious freedom or freedom of a particular religion/denomination/faith? I have some serious reading to do, obviously.

Speaking of religion and morality, do they necessarily have to go hand in hand? Can one be moral (whatever that means, the word scares me a bit) without being religious? and that’s more of a rhetorical question. If I am an atheist that doesn't mean I eat babies and have sex with goats (sometimes I get the feeling that's how atheists are being viewed since I live in the Bible Belt).

As far as the sexually-related crimes go, I have wondered about that myself.

[wordsmith]

I'm not NONreligious, and I don't think I have puritanical views.

[PeakDream]

Just be thankful that we don't chop off your head for having or not having religion. Also, I don't think we should be cavalier about sex-related crimes.

[wordsmith]

(sometimes I get the feeling that's how atheists are being viewed since I live in the Bible Belt).


Sometimes I feel as if all people of faith are being viewed as Bible Belt zealots.

[BadKitty]

Sometimes I feel as if all people of faith are being viewed as Bible Belt zealots.


That's not fair either. But I think you can imagine the sort of people I am refering to (definite Bible Belt zealots, nothing against Christians in general). I am not an athiest anyway, but not a Chrisian either.

[BadKitty]

Just be thankful that we don't chop off your head for having or not having religion. Also, I don't think we should be cavalier about sex-related crimes.

"Just be thankful that we don't chop off your head for having or not having religion" - You are right; not chopping one's head for having/not having religion is the epitome of a democratic society. I am thankful indeed. It’s not like this nation prides itself on acceptance or diversity (concepts I truly respect and appreciate, by the way). Or being receptive of legal immigrants regardless of creed, race, or ethicity. :rolleyes:

I don’t think anyone was trying to be cavalier about sex crimes and the people who commit them. I have no stats to prove or disprove what I’ve said about these crimes, and I never claimed I did. It’s just a thought, and it doesn’t imply lesser punishment (in my mind).

[meatwad]

How is it that nobody, including the President, realizes that the United States is not a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic. And there's a big difference.

[redav]

You know, even with the 'failure' of abstinence-only curriculum, the rate of teen pregnancy, STDs, teens having sex, etc have consistently been going down, just like before the policy. Whichever side you want to be on, there are stats to back it up.

I don't think it should be abstinence-only, but neither should it be void of any reference to abstinence like when I went through school (seriously, it showed up once in my textbook and was never mentioned in class). The pendulum swings both ways.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing how 'religious' people think/teach that sex is 'dirty' or 'bad.' I don't know who teaches that, because frankly, I haven't met them.

[asm198]

Sometimes I feel as if all people of faith are being viewed as Bible Belt zealots.

It's weird, but in my hometown area, being anti-sex and being a bible belt zealot don't go hand in hand. They are more concerned with making sure you are the 'correct' religion than if you have sex or not.

As far as sex ed, I honestly can't remember if we were ever taught sex ed in school. We were taught the anatomy of everything and about zygotes and stuff, but as far as birth control or abstinence and stuff, I don't think either was ever mentioned. Which I now find odd and I'm wracking my brain to try and remember if we were taught anything at all about this.

[capella]

You know, even with the 'failure' of abstinence-only curriculum, the rate of teen pregnancy, STDs, teens having sex, etc have consistently been going down, just like before the policy. Whichever side you want to be on, there are stats to back it up.

I don't think it should be abstinence-only, but neither should it be void of any reference to abstinence like when I went through school (seriously, it showed up once in my textbook and was never mentioned in class). The pendulum swings both ways.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing how 'religious' people think/teach that sex is 'dirty' or 'bad.' I don't know who teaches that, because frankly, I haven't met them.
I don't think anyone here said abstinence shouldn't be mentioned. I know it was definitely underscored in my school growing up. But it IS irresponsible to not mention what contraception is, how it is used and how effective it is. I work with teens and OF COURSE I would prefer they just wait. I am not so naive, however, to think that all of them will. Not when we have pregnant middle schoolers. :eek:

I've met several people who were religious and were VERY keen on teaching children sex is dirty and bad and only meant for married couples (if then... in some of their eyes). I have worked with some pretty bible thumping educators where I am. And it's not just one religion doing that... several baptists, a catholic or two, and a few who were just straight fundamentalists (they even started their own church in the boondocks since none of the other churches were quite out there enough or something). But I don't believe that ALL religious people feel this way. I'm just speaking of a particular brand of religious thinking.

[PenforPrez]

Sometimes I feel as if all people of faith are being viewed as Bible Belt zealots.

I personally have no issue with people of faith in general. It's these right-wing hypocrites I take issue with, and I have had it with them. The ones who argue the science of evolution and want to bar women from getting birth control. That's where I'm bothered.

Missouri is run by these people now, and they're turning Missouri into a Third World state. They've cut Medicaid almost out of existence, all the funding for mental health is gone, they cut every dime of birth control funding out of the state budget, all the welfare programs are cut to almost nothing. They closed an entire mental health hospital and forced the residents in the street. While claiming to be good, solid Christians who want to help their neighbors.

They're trying to fuck up public schools right now; the University of Missouri system got a $10 million budget cut. They're trying to force abstinance on high schoolers, and I don't know what else. So, to me, it's personal. The right-wing Christian zealots are ruining the state my father's family has called home for six generations. I want to yell at Governor Matt Blunt until I can't, and that would take a long time. But the better thing to do would be to work for Jay Nixon's campaign (Missouri's attorney general who is running for governor as a Democrat in '08), which I plan to do.

I read about a month ago that the officials at the Grand Canyon cannot say how old the Grand Canyon is. Now, we all know that the Grand Canyon was formed by millions of years of water erosion. But a good number of these Christian right-wingers seriously believe that the Grand Canyon was formed in the Great Deluge of Noah's Ark no more than 5000 years ago! When I read that, that just was the last straw for me with that bunch.

The Christian zealots have been provoking a political war with left-wing America for 35 years. These people want to subvert and destroy the Democratic Party. They want no opposition. They want everything their own way. And they will stop at absolutely nothing.

I agree with General Sherman: "We must fight them, cut into them, not talk to them, and pursue till they cry 'Enough!' War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say: 'Let us give them all they want!'"

I do make a distinction between people with faith and good sense and those who do not posess the latter. I personally am not an atheist or an agnostic. I just have a very quiet relationship with God. And I think God understands that. I just ask that people understand I do make such a distinction. I have full respect for people who practice what they preach when it comes to faith. But I can have none for those who use faith to justify a desire for Christian theocracy. I simply feel like I am at war with the latter.

Paul

[redav]

Paul, you know, your views are pretty much shared by people against the wackos ("evangelical" atheists, ACLU, etc) on the left, too. If you wage war on them, others can wage war of their own. And guess what? None of it is going to solve anything.

I would also stop throwing around the term "third world." You've used it to describe Texas as well as MO. Lack of public benefits ≠ third world status. I understand that you consider reducing programs is a step backwards, but such derogatory comments do not win over support. You only loose credibility with such rants.

[arrow]

Paul, you know, your views are pretty much shared by people against the wackos ("evangelical" atheists, ACLU, etc) on the left, too. If you wage war on them, others can wage war of their own. And guess what? None of it is going to solve anything.

I would also stop throwing around the term "third world." You've used it to describe Texas as well as MO. Lack of public benefits ≠ third world status. I understand that you consider reducing programs is a step backwards, but such derogatory comments do not win over support. You only loose credibility with such rants.


I think he's just venting his opinion (and expressing a good deal of frustration), not trying to persuade anyone.

And speaking of wars, the right wing pundit machine (Limbaugh, Malkin, Savage, etc.) is using increasingly eliminationist rhetoric (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/02/eliminationism-in-america-x.html)towards various groups and anyone on the left these days, regardless of how extreme or benign their position. If anyone is trying to wage a "war," it's these wackos.

[wordsmith]

It's weird, but in my hometown area, being anti-sex and being a bible belt zealot don't go hand in hand. They are more concerned with making sure you are the 'correct' religion than if you have sex or not.

As far as sex ed, I honestly can't remember if we were ever taught sex ed in school. We were taught the anatomy of everything and about zygotes and stuff, but as far as birth control or abstinence and stuff, I don't think either was ever mentioned. Which I now find odd and I'm wracking my brain to try and remember if we were taught anything at all about this.

Interestingly, I grew up in a rural area and was a churchgoer (mainline protestant, nonfundamentalist) my entire childhood, teenage/young adult years...and I learned about all forms of birth control in public school health class, learned that abstinence was the only 100% way to protect yourself from STDs and unwanted pregnancy in addition to learning about the methods of protecting yourself should you choose to have sex, and never had anything about sex OR abstinence preached to me from the pulpit. My church mostly stuck to Jesus' teachings about love and forgiveness. I consider myself to be pretty average among people who participate in a traditional mainline Christian religion, and I've never in my life had anybody seriously tell me "sex is dirty for people who believe in God." I get really sick of the whole "Christians think sex is dirty" thing. Ill-adjusted people think sex is dirty. No matter their belief system or lack thereof.

[redav]

I don't think anyone here said abstinence shouldn't be mentioned. I know it was definitely underscored in my school growing up. But it IS irresponsible to not mention what contraception is, how it is used and how effective it is. I work with teens and OF COURSE I would prefer they just wait. I am not so naive, however, to think that all of them will. Not when we have pregnant middle schoolers. :eek:
You're right that no one has said that. But I'm thinking about the effects the arguments will have on policy. Here's my experience (as far as my memory is accurate): When I was in school, there was no abstinence taught at all. I think it had to do with the schools not wanting/being able to teach religious values/morals, despite the majority of parents wanted it included. The biggest argument supporting this approach was that teens are going to do it anyway, so why waste the effort telling them not to. At one point, the state proposed a new sex ed curriculum that was much more explicit (I heard one person refer to it as porn), and the grass-roots backlash began. For the most part it was "We can't tolerate this junk. We need to teach abstinence." I do not believe that most people pushed for abstinence-only or even wanted it that much, but there was a vocal minority that did. When the new program went into place, people were happy because they got abstinence as the priority--the loss of mat'l about birth control, etc was not given much thought.

Notice, they (the majority) did not call for an end to non-abstinence education, but it happened anyway. It was an example of the political pendulum swinging way too far, like it typically does. Now, I see many of the same driving forces in play to push it back, and it seems likely to happen again. The argument that they are going to do it anyway is back. There are more comments that abstinence-only programs don't work (I would argue that when this is said, people don't hear the "-only"). I don't hear calls to supplement the curriculum--I hear calls to change it. It's the difference between tweaking it and scrapping it.

My preference is for an abstinence-first, but not diminishing the value of the other info. I see it like financial advice: Rule #1--spend less than you earn (if you don't have the money, don't buy it). There are other tips that are very useful, but are secondary: negotiate lower interest rates, pay more than the minimum amount, always pay on time to avoid late fees, etc. We want everyone to do #1, and if they do, it solves a world of problems, but sometimes it's not an option, so you still need to know the other rules.

[redav]

I think he's just venting his opinion (and expressing a good deal of frustration), not trying to persuade anyone.

And speaking of wars, the right wing pundit machine (Limbaugh, Malkin, Savage, etc.) is using increasingly eliminationist rhetoric (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/02/eliminationism-in-america-x.html)towards various groups and anyone on the left these days, regardless of how extreme or benign their position. If anyone is trying to wage a "war," it's these wackos.
The war is being waged on the extremes of both sides--neither 'side' has any ethical superiority in this matter--and its effect is increased polarization (Rush's comments makes conservatives more conservative and repels liberals making them more liberal). "Wars" do not change opinions.

Your point about venting v. persuasion is valid. However, credibility is easily lost, regardless of intentions. Everything can turn on one unintended slip of the tung. If it is lost, your opinions will not be taken seriously, no matter how valid they are. Therefore, constraint is wise if at any point in the future you wish to be taken seriously.

[capella]

Thankfully, young women are no longer being forced to have abortions that they will regret for the rest of their lives. Isn't that good news?

Oh , let me guess. The women on this board all think their careers are more important than the life of a child. Its funny, because most of what I read on this forum is just how unhappy people are with their chosen careers.
No one is being forced to have an abortion. And not all women will "regret it for the rest of their lives." In fact, most women report a feeling of relief NOT regret. :rolleyes: Not having choice and proper information is not "good" news. Steamrolling and propaganda is not "good" news. Letting women choose what's best for their own lives is important. I work with children for a living... so yes, I do think my career is important. But that doesn't mean that I don't want any children.

Why is it your business what someone else does with their own body anyhow? Oh, let me guess. You're more concerned with spouting blanket statements about how people should feel and being a judgemental busybody in someone else's life than you are in minding your own life and taking care of your own business.

[wordsmith]

Oh , let me guess. The women on this board all think their careers are more important than the life of a child. Its funny, because most of what I read on this forum is just how unhappy people are with their chosen careers.

Let ME guess...you'd like to have a short-lived time posting on these boards by making offensive statements that presume to know how members of these boards will and won't respond in terms of personal feelings on parenthood and their careers. Am I right?

[PeakDream]

It's sad that the father has no say in this matter, if a woman wants abortion, the father can't do anything about it, even if he might be a good father. That being said, I don't want to pay for welfare, I busted my ass making a living, why the fuck should I pay for someone else's irresponsible act for the next 18 years.
As far as the debate goes, last time I heard, pro-choice hasn't blown up anything while pro-lifers blown up clinics and killed doctors. I wondered why the most ardent religious states and countries also happened to be the poorest, highest teenage pregnancy rate, and unwed mother :question: ?
BTW, just to pour oil on the flame, I've been to the South a few times, they are worst than some third-world countries.

[cheshrcarol]

Thankfully, young women are no longer being forced to have abortions that they will regret for the rest of their lives. Isn't that good news?

Oh , let me guess. The women on this board all think their careers are more important than the life of a child. Its funny, because most of what I read on this forum is just how unhappy people are with their chosen careers.
Ok, I don't personally agree with abortion in a lot of cases, but I do strongly believe in a woman's right to choose. How does giving someone choice = FORCING them to have an abortion? You think these same parents who are voting the republicans in office are bringing their daughters to abortion clinics and making them go through with the procedure?

And for someone with post count of 12, you seem to think you know a lot about these boards :rolleyes: .

[redav]

Let ME guess...you'd like to have a short-lived time posting on these boards by making offensive statements that presume to know how members of these boards will and won't respond in terms of personal feelings on parenthood and their careers. Am I right?
So, this is different than Any's response? Granted, I found Ishmael's post to be distasteful and rude, but just because someone says something that 90% of posters would agree with doesn't mean it is not incredibly offensive to the 10% who don't.

[HollyM]

"A fetus is not part of a woman's body"....mmm how does it survive for 9 months then, is it being fed by God?!

I just don't get this 'let's preach abstinence as the only solution' argument. We are all human and having sex is a human behaviour. Coming from England I really hope that the Democrats or a moderate Republican wins the next election and I sympathise with all those Americans who don't want to go back to the dark ages where a woman's role is to stay at home, have lots of kids (whether she wants them or not) and obey her bible bashing husband!

[capella]

So, this is different than Any's response? Granted, I found Ishmael's post to be distasteful and rude, but just because someone says something that 90% of posters would agree with doesn't mean it is not incredibly offensive to the 10% who don't.
I didn't post anything about how other people should feel or should be running their lives. Being pro-choice is not synonymous with being pro-abortion. How is it "offensive" that I stated I would rather let people make the best decision for their own lives? I did not come on here and claim to know and understand how every woman on here should feel (or continue to feel in the future for that matter) NOR did I say anything that was rude. It's one thing to disagree, but it's another thing to pass judgement and make beyond rude, attacking statements. Nor did I call that poster unintelligent for his/her/whatever position (though I do think his/her/whatever's intelligence speaks for itself). The post was not offensive because I don't happen to agree. It was offensive because it was hostile (without warrant), rude, judgemental, attacking and otherwise vituperative in nature.

[redav]

This is a personal insult and is telling him what he should and should not do. It certainly could be considered offensive. Despite his comments being inappropriate, it doesn't justify responding with personal attacks.

Why is it your business what someone else does with their own body anyhow? Oh, let me guess. You're more concerned with spouting blanket statements about how people should feel and being a judgemental busybody in someone else's life than you are in minding your own life and taking care of your own business.

My comments about the 90/10 stuff is not much reflected in your post as much as the general state of these boards. Abortion is one such lightning rod--if someone were to post that they do not support it, then far more leeway is granted to personal barbs than the other way around. It is often as if any post that agrees with the majority cannot be deemed to be offensive.

[capella]

This is a personal insult and is telling him what he should and should not do. It certainly could be considered offensive. Despite his comments being inappropriate, it doesn't justify responding with personal attacks.

Telling someone to mind their own business is not a personal insult. I suppose if you don't mind people making blanket judgement calls about other people's personal business then I suppose you would think it offensive when they are called on it. I happen to take issue with people who think it's their business to tell others how to run their own lives rather than minding their own. I take issue with people who post attacking statements without warrant. A personal attack would have been telling him/her/whoever what a moronic jackass they are for presuming to know how all women on this board feel.... but I guess that would be offensive then, wouldn't it?

[redav]

As far as the debate goes, last time I heard, pro-choice hasn't blown up anything while pro-lifers blown up clinics and killed doctors.
If you subscribe to the thought that a fetus is a live human being, what would be an appropriate word for ending that life? Do you not suppose that it is viewed as "killing" or "murder?" Obviously it does not justify the actions of extremists--they are terrorists and should be prosecuted as such. But do not judge others by the behavior of terrorists.

BTW, just to pour oil on the flame, I've been to the South a few times, they are worst than some third-world countries.
SOME parts are, just like in every other state. SOME parts of third-world countries are actually quite nice. To say that, collectively, the south is worse than, collectively, some third-world countries is completely overstepping reason.


Ok, I don't personally agree with abortion in a lot of cases, but I do strongly believe in a woman's right to choose. How does giving someone choice = FORCING them to have an abortion?
While I was in school, a girl wrote in to the paper with her experience with Planned Parenthood. She said that she went to them to get counseling and information on what she could do. What she got was info on how abortions are performed, that they are okay/acceptable, how to deal with having an abortion, etc. There was no info given to her on adoption, how to have a healthy pregnancy, giving birth, raising a child, etc. In short, by denying information and options, she was being "forced" into the route of having an abortion. I believe this was a fairly isolated case and is not representative of the industry in general. But, if one has had such an experience, then it would make sense how they could have such a viewpoint.

And for someone with post count of 12, you seem to think you know a lot about these boards.
Come on, you know better than that. Post count does not indicate the extent that one reads these boards, which is where understanding of posters' behavior come in. Also, it's not like what goes on here is any different than anywhere else.


"A fetus is not part of a woman's body"....mmm how does it survive for 9 months then, is it being fed by God?!
So is a baby part of a woman's body while she is breastfeeding? If a baby is in an ICU that keeps it warm, provides nourishment (through an IV) and oxygen, is it part of the ICU? Supporting an organism is not the same as the organism being part of you. I have heard people call a fetus a parasite, and that is more accurate than saying it is part of the mother's body.

I sympathise with all those Americans who don't want to go back to the dark ages where a woman's role is to stay at home, have lots of kids (whether she wants them or not) and obey her bible bashing husband!
So, if someone doesn't support abortion, they are in the dark ages, want lots of kids, doesn't respect women, and bashes the bible? That sounds awfully closed-minded. But then again, stereotypes can be really helpful--they save lots of time and effort figuring out what people are like and what they think.

[redav]

Telling someone to mind their own business is not a personal insult. I suppose if you don't mind people making blanket judgement calls about other people's personal business then I suppose you would think it offensive when they are called on it. I happen to take issue with people who think it's their business to tell others how to run their own lives rather than minding their own. I take issue with people who post attacking statements without warrant. A personal attack would have been telling him/her/whoever what a moronic jackass they are for presuming to know how all women on this board feel.... but I guess that would be offensive then, wouldn't it?
Yes, his post was offensive--I don't deny that. But you didn't just say "mind your own business," did you?

[meatwad]

BTW, just to pour oil on the flame, I've been to the South a few times, they are worst than some third-world countries.

Don't have that high quality Brooklyn educational system down South, hugh? :rolleyes:

[meatwad]

"A fetus is not part of a woman's body"....mmm how does it survive for 9 months then, is it being fed by God?!

How does it survive for it's first 9 months after it's born? Magic? You want to be able to throw it away then too?

[cheshrcarol]

While I was in school, a girl wrote in to the paper with her experience with Planned Parenthood. She said that she went to them to get counseling and information on what she could do. What she got was info on how abortions are performed, that they are okay/acceptable, how to deal with having an abortion, etc. There was no info given to her on adoption, how to have a healthy pregnancy, giving birth, raising a child, etc. In short, by denying information and options, she was being "forced" into the route of having an abortion. I believe this was a fairly isolated case and is not representative of the industry in general. But, if one has had such an experience, then it would make sense how they could have such a viewpoint.
While I don't condone that behavior, I think it's also a HUGE leap to go from only providing information about one option to forcing someone to use that option. Unless that girl was living under a rock, she would have known that keeping the baby and adoption were possibilities. Did she ASK about advice on either of those? Did she go to other sources for help, like parents, counselor, minister/priest/rabbi? People have to take responsibility for their actions, not blame others for choices they may regret.

Come on, you know better than that. Post count does not indicate the extent that one reads these boards, which is where understanding of posters' behavior come in. Also, it's not like what goes on here is any different than anywhere else.Yeah, and I've been around long enough to be extremely suspicious of members with very low post counts that seem to know a lot about the boards and refer to people by first name instead of screen name. This usually indicates someone who was banned that has returned, especially when their post stirs up trouble.

[capella]

How does it survive for it's first 9 months after it's born? Magic? You want to be able to throw it away then too?
C'mon Meat. You know better than that. You know darn well that being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-infanticide. I know where you stand on this topic, but that was unnecessary.

[meatwad]

C'mon Meat. You know better than that. You know darn well that being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-infanticide. I know where you stand on this topic, but that was unnecessary.

That's why you can be pro-choice and I can't. Because the way I see it, the two are the same thing. So I don't see it as unnecessary when showing my point of view.

[capella]

That's why you can be pro-choice and I can't. Because the way I see it, the two are the same thing. So I don't see it as unnecessary when showing my point of view.
Regardless of whether you agree or not... you know darn well that people who are pro-choice are NOT all about going around and killing all the babies they can find. There are no pro-choicers running around Mommy Play Group and offing the toddlers. :rolleyes:

[meatwad]

Regardless of whether you agree or not... you know darn well that people who are pro-choice are NOT all about going around and killing all the babies they can find. There are no pro-choicers running around Mommy Play Group and offing the toddlers. :rolleyes:

Of course I know that. I was trying to make a point. She said that a fetus can't survive on it's own, and I was making the point that an infant can't survive on it's own either.

[capella]

Of course I know that. I was trying to make a point. She said that a fetus can't survive on it's own, and I was making the point that an infant can't survive on it's own either.
I know that. But she was making the point that the infant can in fact breathe and perform other bodily functions independently. It will not die out of the womb like a fetus would (the whole being born part is significant afterall). That was the point she was making. The analogy is illogical.

[HollyM]

What I was saying is that a foetus is part of the mother's body for the 9 months it spends in the womb. They are not separate because they are connected by the umbilical cord. Many foetus's cannot survive on their own - that is why so many premature babies die. If a baby is born and is not taken care of it's not certain that it will die, e.g some babies are left in public places and then rescued, some are taken in by social services. I don't see that there's anything to be ashamed of by being pro-choice and I guess I'm lucky that in Britain it's not a big deal. Also I don't get some (not all) pro lifers, e.g George Bush - he doesn't support stem cell research because it's killing but has no such feeling of guilt as far as launching a war that's killed thousands of innocent Iraqis plus when he was Govenor of Texas he had one of the largest killing on death row in the US.

[cheshrcarol]

The difference is that a fetus separated from its mother will die. An infant separated from all caregivers will die, but it's not physically dependent on only one person. An infant's mother could die and if there were any other people to care for the baby, it would live (assuming no other extenuating circumstances). If the mother of a fetus died, then the fetus would die along with her.

And again, I wouldn't exactly classify myself as pro-abortion. I am pro choice and there's a difference.

[meatwad]

So you're saying that until the baby can live outside it's mother, it's not really a person so the mother can do whatever she wants to it. A fetus is like an appendix or tonsils at that point, so you're not really ending it's life. It's kind of like a loophole.

I guess I'm glad I don't see it that way.

[meatwad]

Also I don't get some (not all) pro lifers, e.g George Bush - he doesn't support stem cell research because it's killing but has no such feeling of guilt as far as launching a war that's killed thousands of innocent Iraqis plus when he was Govenor of Texas he had one of the largest killing on death row in the US.

Executing a murderer and ending a pregnancy aren't even close to the same thing. But I guess we both agree on that for different reasons don't we.

[cheshrcarol]

So you're saying that until the baby can live outside it's mother, it's not really a person so the mother can do whatever she wants to it. A fetus is like an appendix or tonsils at that point, so you're not really ending it's life. It's kind of like a loophole.

I guess I'm glad I don't see it that way.
I'm not sure if this is to me, but no I didn't say that. You were equating a fetus to an infant, and no matter how you look at it, they are not the same thing. A fetus is attached to the mother and lives only by her existence. An infant can live autonomously (assuming feeding, etc. needs are met). But that doesn't mean I don't think eliminating a fetus is ending a life.

I just think that it is really important for women to have the option of legally having an abortion. Even if I might not agree with what they're doing.

[redav]

While I don't condone that behavior, I think it's also a HUGE leap to go from only providing information about one option to forcing someone to use that option. Unless that girl was living under a rock, she would have known that keeping the baby and adoption were possibilities. Did she ASK about advice on either of those? Did she go to other sources for help, like parents, counselor, minister/priest/rabbi? People have to take responsibility for their actions, not blame others for choices they may regret.
Yes, she knew about adoption, and as I remember (and I am fuzzy on these details) she was looking for help/resources to make a decision of whether to keep it or put it up for adoption. Such info could be: whom to contact, what involvement would she have in her child's life, will her information be kept private (and for how long), how much does it cost, how to tell her parents, etc. When she asked for this information, it was denied (most PP facilities DO have this info & assist in these matters, I believe) and instead, she was pressed to pursue an abortion. She was in a lost, confused, and scared condition, and the experience was very traumatic for her (hence her letter to the paper). I believe this is why she did not go to her family first. I do not remember anything about attempts to go to a religious adviser.

I agree it is a leap to go from this situation to saying it is "forced," but I also know that people often hear only bits and pieces of facts and thus draw incorrect conclusions. I have found that attempts to refute them without understanding why they have such a "broken" view is ineffectual. They will not dismiss their opinions until they see how/where they fit in with the bigger picture.

[capella]

So you're saying that until the baby can live outside it's mother, it's not really a person so the mother can do whatever she wants to it. A fetus is like an appendix or tonsils at that point, so you're not really ending it's life. It's kind of like a loophole.

I guess I'm glad I don't see it that way.
I'm saying that until the baby can live outside of the mother... it's the mother's choice what to do. I don't happen to believe life begins at conception. I believe it begins at birth (we don't celebrate our conception days afterall). I am glad I have no problem seeing it that way. It's ending potential life and I do see a clear difference. Besides I wouldn't want to make that decision and I can't imagine how hard it must be to do so. I would still want someone to have a choice to do what's best for their own life without me passing judgement on them. I don't think I am so much holier than thou that I would presume to know what the best decision is for every woman in our country. It's not my place and I don't think it's anyone else's either.

[meatwad]

If I was holier than thou, than I wouldn't have a problem with abortion because I wouldn't care what happened to the unborn fetus. I'm not looking to take away women's rights, I'm looking to protect the unborn fetus. Two people made a concious decision to commit to an act that had possible consequences. THAT is when I feel the choice was made. And since I believe (and very strongly) that life begins at conception, I think that it's too late for the mother to change her mind. I think it sucks that the woman is the one who has to go through the process, but I think the baby's chance trumps the mother's unless her life is directly in danger because of it.

I can understand why you feel the way you do, I just don't agree with you. And we've proven time and time again that arguing about this issue on here isn't going to change anyone's mind on the subject.

[capella]

I can understand why you feel the way you do, I just don't agree with you. And we've proven time and time again that arguing about this issue on here isn't going to change anyone's mind on the subject.
Agreed. And I do understand your point of view. I just don't agree with it at all. I think the living are more important than those who will live. You were not the one coming on here and posting with such nasty judgements and I do thank you for that.

[redav]

You were equating a fetus to an infant, and no matter how you look at it, they are not the same thing. A fetus is attached to the mother and lives only by her existence. An infant can live autonomously (assuming feeding, etc. needs are met). But that doesn't mean I don't think eliminating a fetus is ending a life.
Actually, there was a case not too long ago that a pregnant woman was killed, but the fetus was saved--a situation not unlike rescuing an abandoned newborn.

I find this whole "attached to the mother" argument to be logically unsound. When a baby is first born, it is still connected to the mother and its lungs are filled with fluid (even more so for the trendy underwater birthing). It is not legal to abort it then. So, the distinction is solely inside/outside the mother's body. This is part of the story behind partial birth abortions--if it were to come completely out, they couldn't kill it then, but if they do it while still partially inside, it is still just a terminated pregnancy.

I also don't buy the whole choice/life stance. Supporting it or not is not about a woman's choice nor is it about protecting life. It is: Do you support women having abortions? It doesn't have to be a cut & dried yes/no--it can be conditional. The words "choice" & "life" are both ways to change the topic and spin it in a positive light. (The same thing is happening with the illegal immigrant problem--they are being called "undocumented workers.") Also, the answer to that question boils down to at what point does a fetus become a human, and thus becomes protected. Under current law it is at birth (when it exits the mother's body). That is a well defined, albeit arbitrary, point. I see one's support for/against abortion as hinging on whether one agrees with that point. Of course, there are also some whose views are completely beyond logic & reason--there is no point analyzing them because they follow no fundamental rules.

[capella]

Actually, there was a case not too long ago that a pregnant woman was killed, but the fetus was saved--a situation not unlike rescuing an abandoned newborn.

I find this whole "attached to the mother" argument to be logically unsound. When a baby is first born, it is still connected to the mother and its lungs are filled with fluid (even more so for the trendy underwater birthing). It is not legal to abort it then. So, the distinction is solely inside/outside the mother's body. This is part of the story behind partial birth abortions--if it were to come completely out, they couldn't kill it then, but if they do it while still partially inside, it is still just a terminated pregnancy.

I also don't buy the whole choice/life stance. Supporting it or not is not about a woman's choice nor is it about protecting life. It is: Do you support women having abortions? It doesn't have to be a cut & dried yes/no--it can be conditional. The words "choice" & "life" are both ways to change the topic and spin it in a positive light. (The same thing is happening with the illegal immigrant problem--they are being called "undocumented workers.") Also, the answer to that question boils down to at what point does a fetus become a human, and thus becomes protected. Under current law it is at birth (when it exits the mother's body). That is a well defined, albeit arbitrary, point. I see one's support for/against abortion as hinging on whether one agrees with that point. Of course, there are also some whose views are completely beyond logic & reason--there is no point analyzing them because they follow no fundamental rules.
For me, it's when the fetus can live on its own outside the woman's body... so yes, I suppose it is an inside/outside thing. I don't agree with abortions past the first trimester unless the woman is going to die otherwise (which is very rare). I think you ought to have made up your mind by the end of the first 12 weeks. That still doesn't mean that I think they should be restricted. I think it's pretty uncommon to have an abortion past the first trimester anyhow.

[capella]

Do you really think there are no men who are pro-choice? It's not a guys against gals argument for goodness sake. :rolleyes: I think it funny you think you can come on the thread and say, oops, my bad and have everything be peachy keen. But whatever, it's just a forum, right? Your post was completely offensive and without any prompting whatsoever.

[EmberMae]

I really don't wish to offend any further. But if you must know entirely what I meant by saying 'feminine', I will elaborate. I meant it as a euphimism for 'illogical'. It was nice to see the logical, (i.e. masculine) side of an argument put forth against the illogical (i.e. feminine).

You see the guys would know what was meant by that.

Please don't over-react.
...

...

I really don't know what to say to this. How is the 19th century treating you? I've heard great things, really.

[cheshrcarol]

I really don't wish to offend any further. But if you must know entirely what I meant by saying 'feminine', I will elaborate. I meant it as a euphimism for 'illogical'. It was nice to see the logical, (i.e. masculine) side of an argument put forth against the illogical (i.e. feminine).

You see the guys would know what was meant by that.

Please don't over-react.
I find this incredibly offensive, and one of the most sexist remarks I've ever seen anyone have the gall to say. And no that's not an over-reaction.

[asm198]

I really don't wish to offend any further. But if you must know entirely what I meant by saying 'feminine', I will elaborate. I meant it as a euphimism for 'illogical'. It was nice to see the logical, (i.e. masculine) side of an argument put forth against the illogical (i.e. feminine).

You see the guys would know what was meant by that.

Please don't over-react.

So, I've kept out of this discussion, basically because I believe this:

So you're saying that until the baby can live outside it's mother, it's not really a person so the mother can do whatever she wants to it. A fetus is like an appendix or tonsils at that point, so you're not really ending it's life.

However, I had to respond to Ishmael's completely condescending remark that I quoted above. But, rather than posting my opinion, I mentioned this thread to my fiance, to get his opinion. So, Ishmael, here's a guy's opinion on what you wrote:

Now that you have put in your two cents, it's time for you to realize that it's not your body and that the decision is not yours to make. Being logical or illogical aren't gender specific traits, and I've seen males be illogical and females be logical. Your argument doesn't have any logic.



As for me personally, it is my decision what I do with my body. If I choose to follow through with an unplanned pregnancy, that's my choice. However, at this point in my life, I would have a discussion with my fiance about it. We have already discussed what our course of action would be if we got pregnant in the next couple of years, so that's not much of an issue for us. If I was single, in a casual or new relationship, I may or may not have any imput from the father.

And making assumptions about people who get pregnant and assuming that they weren't using any sort of birth control? I know personally 3 kids who are here even though the mothers were adamant about taking their birth control properly and insisted that their partners used condoms. They chose to continue with the pregnancies and that was their choice. If they had decided to abort, I would have supported them in that as well, because it is their decision about what happens to them and in their bodies. It's a private decision and none of anyone else's business.

I honestly can't understand why people would be pro-life. It makes no sense to me, but I'm firmly pro-choice. I'm not "pro-abortion"; I just simply want all options possible available to me. If I happened to get pregnant and I was undecided about what to do, I'd probably go to Planned Parenthood to discuss my options. If the only thing I was presented with was abortion and I wasn't comfortable with that, I would insist on exploring all my options. If they refused to provide me with my other options, I would go elsewhere. Because I also believe that if you are mature enough to have sex, you are mature enough to deal with what comes with that.

[capella]

Amy, you are right, its not a guys vs gals debate. But I didn't exactly express it that way. I said it was nice to see a thread not dominated by the 'feminine' point of view. Perhaps I should have said 'feminist' point of view. But I thought that would open another can of worms.

On this issue, many men do side with the feminist position. But that doesn't make the argument, 'its my body and i have a right to do with it as i please' any less of a feminist point of view.

Actually, the above is not entirely honest either.

I really don't wish to offend any further. But if you must know entirely what I meant by saying 'feminine', I will elaborate. I meant it as a euphimism for 'illogical'. It was nice to see the logical, (i.e. masculine) side of an argument put forth against the illogical (i.e. feminine).

You see the guys would know what was meant by that.

Please don't over-react.

And just wow. You must have an inkling of how stupid you sound if you end this drivel by saying "Please don't overreact." And I really don't think there is anything to be said to respond further to the above comment because it's beyond any sense of decency, sense, and logic.

Actually that line, 'whatever, its just a forum' that you quoted from my post was meant to excuse YOU, not me. Your post was far more ridiculously rude than mine. You basically said that men didn't have a right to an opinion on this subject. You are ridiculous. I was merely forgiving your rudeness with that 'whatever'. Be grateful.

Just wanted to be clear on that.
I'm not sure exactly why you feel I need your permission or should be "grateful" you "excused" me. And I did not say men had no say on this topic, however, ignorant fools that go posting such assinine nonsense such as yourself should probably not have a say about what happens to other people's lives.

I suppose you felt the need to futher illustrate and elaborate on what a pompass ass you are. Thanks for doing the leg work for me. And yes, genius, I realize I was quoting you. I am a snarky, sarcastic smartass. You are a buffoon. I guess I needed to spell that out for you since you seem unaware of my position here. I think rational people who live in this century can see quite easily who is ridiculous here. Just wanted to be clear on that. :rolleyes:

[meatwad]

Stop feeding the troll people.

And it's not men vs. women. I know for a fact that there are women on the board who are pro-life, but the don't like to post about it becaues they feel ganged up on when they talk about certain things on this board, so they just keep it to themselves instead.

[meatwad]

Troll people? Where are the troll people? (And is it more PC to call them "troll persons?")

They're like mole men, but it's a more PC term and they're green.

[wordsmith]

Okay, Ishmael got the chance to retract a previous inappropriate statement, and not only didn't, but chose also to continue with the offensiveness. I have to concur with the "don't feed the trolls" statement.

I don't want to see anybody ganged up on in terms of this issue, and if there are women who are pro-life who feel they've been ganged up on, please show me where, and show me that if you were taken to task, it was over your stance and not over insulting comments you made to those who don't share your view. I don't condone ripping into people who personally would not choose abortion over his or her choice. But I will personally rip into any person who makes a practice of calling those in opposition stupid, immoral, bad people, murderers, etc. Being pro-life does not give anybody a free pass to make horribly offensive blanket statements.

[capella]

Okay, Okay. I just hadn't had my coffee yet. :p I'm done. :D I be good, prwomise.