Get ready ladies...our wonderful governor that the republicans voted our governor is now perched to take away more of your rights....
Those rascals!
This must come as a shock for all the women who voted for Rick Scott.
Or, you know, not. People knew what they were buying in November. They bought it anyway.
Again? What now? Do I need to register my uterus as a corporation? Seems like that's the only way to make Republicans not want to regulate something...
That's what I'm Talkin' ' bout!
More DeadGirlsDontDance!
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 28, 2011, 05:36:15 PM
Again? What now? Do I need to register my uterus as a corporation? Seems like that's the only way to make Republicans not want to regulate something...
I thought they deregulated stuff... wtf??
So they sold the voters that they were for more freedom, less regulation and lowering taxes. What's the first thing they do when getting into office? More regulations on providers of women's health services. Putting "In God We Trust" on everything and imposing new burdensome, expensive requirements on our broke school systems.
Real libertarian agenda, that! NOT!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 05:44:22 PM
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 28, 2011, 05:36:15 PM
Again? What now? Do I need to register my uterus as a corporation? Seems like that's the only way to make Republicans not want to regulate something...
I thought they deregulated stuff... wtf??
Yes BT Corporations are the stuff they deregulate.
I love a good Rick Scott bashing is there a specific story here my screen has the comment but no story or link.
That was my point, BT, they seem to want to deregulate everything except people's personal lives; reproductive choice, who you can marry, etc. Therefore it stands to reason that if my uterus is a corporation they'll leave it alone.
Is there some particular horrific misogynistic crap in the works, Garden Guy? I prefer to have a specific target for my outraged venom.
How about you have to wait three days, see a sonogram of your fetus and talk to a religious counselor before you can get an abortion? That's one of the Tea Party bills that is circulating around statehouses all over the country. At least they won't require that it would have to be a MALE counselor, but that was probably an oversight.
Don't give them any ideas, DW!!
QuoteHow about you have to wait three days
Managed care overseas, you are lucky to get in and see a doctor within 3 weeks.
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 28, 2011, 06:12:09 PM
How about you have to wait three days, see a sonogram of your fetus and talk to a religious counselor before you can get an abortion? That's one of the Tea Party bills that is circulating around statehouses all over the country. At least they won't require that it would have to be a MALE counselor, but that was probably an oversight.
Sooner or later, they will also require women to have a baby shower before making an appointment for an abortion. Just sayin'...
UK ? Not sure where you get your stuff, I see specialists take up to 10 weeks.
France? Seriously, you are joking right? http://www.worldcrunch.com/road-and-brink-french-country-doctors (http://www.worldcrunch.com/road-and-brink-french-country-doctors)
U.S. Ain't perfect, but Sweden ranks low in this study, lower than the U.S.
http://www.chrisjohnsonmd.com/2010/12/24/us-health-care-stacks-up-poorly-with-other-countries-again/ (http://www.chrisjohnsonmd.com/2010/12/24/us-health-care-stacks-up-poorly-with-other-countries-again/)
Keep the studies coming, I have a study to beat your study!
What exactly is he doing?
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 28, 2011, 05:36:15 PM
Again? What now? Do I need to register my uterus as a corporation? Seems like that's the only way to make Republicans not want to regulate something...
I wouldn't do that if I were you.....the Democrats might try to tax it. ;D
Quote from: spuwho on March 28, 2011, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on March 28, 2011, 05:36:15 PM
Again? What now? Do I need to register my uterus as a corporation? Seems like that's the only way to make Republicans not want to regulate something...
I wouldn't do that if I were you.....the Democrats might try to tax it. ;D
And then hand it over to a union!! ;D
mtraininjax, I sure am glad you have great health care. Just hope you never lose it. The big thing now is to hire people part time and give them NO BENEFITS. And at the "unliving wage," many people are offered, they can't afford health care either. So off to Shands, or another emergency room and let everyone else absorb the cost. Or as I am sure would make you happy just die in their bed and leave the poor tax payers alone. OH, and give more tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations because god knows they shouldn't be punished for making obscene profits while they ship all the jobs overseas. I have friends with relatives in Europe who would move here but they can't afford to lose their healthcare. And EVERYONE I know who has had healthcare in Europe never complained. Sure some people complain about everything, but unlike here being ill doesn't destroy your life and put you in financial ruin. And if your argument is how horrible the wait is for many of them, just think about the people in this country who can't even afford basic medical needs. Many can't even afford to go to a doctor, or they have to decide which necessary drug they can afford to pay for any given month. With all the opportunity that this county offers, the personal health of the citizens is one place that we fail miserably. You may not want to admit it, but our failure in this regard kills people.
Just so everyone will know, the examples I mentioned above are not stories I have heard, but actual people I know, or relatives of mine.
He's forcing women to have sonagram before all abortions....it's a shame this man is taking our species 110 years backward....can we not recall him?
What? OMG say it is not so!!!! Please say he is not making these poor women see a picture of what they are going to abort, no, no, no!!!! The horror! The unfairness! What a freaking Monster!
WTH- so what? How is that taking my rights away? I mean, it is a waste of money if you ask me- unless you are THREE months along, and then you SHOULD have to see what you are killing, if you can't decide before then,well I think your womb loses it's rights over the rights of the child living there. Understand how a LATE term abortion works? Talk about the stone age.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 07:46:05 AM
What? OMG say it is not so!!!! Please say he is not making these poor women see a picture of what they are going to abort, no, no, no!!!! The horror! The unfairness! What a freaking Monster!
WTH- so what? How is that taking my rights away? I mean, it is a waste of money if you ask me- unless you are THREE months along, and then you SHOULD have to see what you are killing, if you can't decide before then,well I think your womb loses it's rights over the rights of the child living there. Understand how a LATE term abortion works? Talk about the stone age.
It's none of your business or mine or the state government what a woman does with her body..period....reguardless what you call it it is still the womans business and we should keep our big noses out of her life. It sure it's the damn churchs business
QuoteHe's forcing women to have sonagram before all abortions....it's a shame this man is taking our species 110 years backward....can we not recall him?
OMG!!!! And Medicare is making all home healthcare beneficiaries see a doctor to prove that their care is not fraudulent. What is the world coming to???? :-X
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/March/24/face-to-face-home-health-rule.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/March/24/face-to-face-home-health-rule.aspx)
QuoteUnder the requirement, which takes effect April 1, Medicare beneficiaries will have to see a doctor 90 days before or 30 days after starting home health services in order for the home health agency to get reimbursed. That face-to-face visit may be a burden for some home-bound frail seniors as well as those living in rural areas, the industry says.
But some Medicare experts have little sympathy for industry complaints. "Home health is a benefit that is out of control," said Dr. Robert Berenson, a health policy expert at the Urban Institute.
Quotemtraininjax, I sure am glad you have great health care. Just hope you never lose it. The big thing now is to hire people part time and give them NO BENEFITS.
Who ever said BENEFITS were part of a job? They are a reward, and the state says I can exclude them for 90 days here in Florida while I have you or the new hire on a trial basis. Seriously, imagine if every job had benefits? The costs for everything would rise. your coffee, your danish, your food, everything will rise if we give BENEFITS to everyone, and pretty soon, we'll be just like Europe.
Quote from: Garden guy on March 29, 2011, 07:49:11 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 07:46:05 AM
What? OMG say it is not so!!!! Please say he is not making these poor women see a picture of what they are going to abort, no, no, no!!!! The horror! The unfairness! What a freaking Monster!
WTH- so what? How is that taking my rights away? I mean, it is a waste of money if you ask me- unless you are THREE months along, and then you SHOULD have to see what you are killing, if you can't decide before then,well I think your womb loses it's rights over the rights of the child living there. Understand how a LATE term abortion works? Talk about the stone age.
It's none of your business or mine or the state government what a woman does with her body..period....reguardless what you call it it is still the womans business and we should keep our big noses out of her life. It sure it's the damn churchs business
You are correct, to a certain extent. Specifically LATE TERM abortions. At that time it becomes TWO peoples rights at odds with eachother. Hell renters have more right than a baby at three months- you can't just decide to show up and throw your renter out one day- you have to go to court and prove the renter needs to go (and you certainly cannot kill them and take them out one piece at a time unless it is in self defense!) Women do have a right to determine their own destiny, their first choice is to use birth control, their second choice is a little pill called the day after, their third choice is an early term abortion, If they are too lazy or too unsure about their decisions, after that they should not have any more choice in the matter.
As to having to get a sonogram, again so what? If a woman feels she is making the right decision for herself then a sonogram is not going to make a difference. Why should anyone be upset about this?
They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Less government interference in our everyday lives....unless you are a pregnant woman.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 07:46:05 AM
I mean, it is a waste of money if you ask me- unless you are THREE months along, and then you SHOULD have to see what you are killing
Why?
Quote from: copperfiend on March 29, 2011, 08:29:15 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 07:46:05 AM
I mean, it is a waste of money if you ask me- unless you are THREE months along, and then you SHOULD have to see what you are killing
Why?
Exactly why?
GG, some people should be given an award for having the foresight to throw that sperm away!
And I am surprised you do not understand the process to actually create a human life, but it takes a little more than a tissue full of sperm.
But back to your original topic, why is it so horrendous (other than the waste of money) to have a sonogram prior to an abortion?
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 08:34:43 AM
GG, some people should be given an award for having the foresight to throw that sperm away!
And I am surprised you do not understand the process to actually create a human life, but it takes a little more than a tissue full of sperm.
But back to your original topic, why is it so horrendous (other than the waste of money) to have a sonogram prior to an abortion?
Why should the government require one? And what happened to government interference and government waste?
here we go into another fruitless abortion debate, buuuut...
A fetus in it's third trimester is no longer a "blob of cells" but a human (At least IMO). If our newly formed fellow citizen likes Bach, we should demand her right to live. If she likes Jimmy Buffet.... not so much.
Is she a human that deserves the protections of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness provided by the constitution?
Some say no.
Many say yes, and it is not an invalid argument, although I am expecting some (as Madeline would say to the lion at the zoo) poo poo.
Madeline, in case you didn't know, is a little female human in a book series for young female humans who made it past the knife.
Clever girl.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 08:34:43 AM
GG, some people should be given an award for having the foresight to throw that sperm away!
And I am surprised you do not understand the process to actually create a human life, but it takes a little more than a tissue full of sperm.
But back to your original topic, why is it so horrendous (other than the waste of money) to have a sonogram prior to an abortion?
I find it just as rediculous to ask a woman about her "private" issues as it is rediculous to tell a man that he "must" use his sperm to make a baby and can't waist it!....it's all private and none of anyones business...period.
Let's take the libertarian tact. Why should the government mandate that anyone be allowed to invade my body with a medical device absent my consent? Worse, be forced to undergo a sub dermal scanning procedure. Search and seizure ends at my skin in plain sight, absent probable cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion
Intact D&X surgeryUnder the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.
Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[5]
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 08:39:42 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion
Intact D&X surgeryUnder the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.
Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[5]
If you are trying to make us feel bad with your description it's not working....i've read the process of aboritons for years....you've changed nothing.
Quote from: Garden guy on March 29, 2011, 08:38:26 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 08:34:43 AM
GG, some people should be given an award for having the foresight to throw that sperm away!
And I am surprised you do not understand the process to actually create a human life, but it takes a little more than a tissue full of sperm.
But back to your original topic, why is it so horrendous (other than the waste of money) to have a sonogram prior to an abortion?
I find it just as rediculous to ask a woman about her "private" issues as it is rediculous to tell a man that he "must" use his sperm to make a baby and can't waist it!....it's all private and none of anyones business...period.
Clearly, it is everyone's business.
I agree abortion should be legal and safe. I'm not even wanting any forced fetus viewing in the third trimester.
My take is simply this: Abortion rights are the law of the land. Fair enough.
Those laws, IMO fail to account for the possibility (reality) that a fully formed human exists (not as a parasite, mind you) within the womb.
The cut off point (no morbid pun intended) for when we allow abortions is somewhere around childbirth.
It's not the correct cutoff point. [/thread] :o
Quote from: Jimmy on March 29, 2011, 08:38:54 AM
Let's take the libertarian tact. Why should the government mandate that anyone be allowed to invade my body with a medical device absent my consent? Worse, be forced to undergo a sub dermal scanning procedure. Search and seizure ends at my skin in plain sight, absent probable cause.
*We suspect you are harboring a human, and that you might do it harm.*
Quote from: mtraininjax on March 29, 2011, 07:55:04 AM
Quotemtraininjax, I sure am glad you have great health care. Just hope you never lose it. The big thing now is to hire people part time and give them NO BENEFITS.
Who ever said BENEFITS were part of a job? They are a reward, and the state says I can exclude them for 90 days here in Florida while I have you or the new hire on a trial basis. Seriously, imagine if every job had benefits? The costs for everything would rise. your coffee, your danish, your food, everything will rise if we give BENEFITS to everyone, and pretty soon, we'll be just like Europe.
So if I'm too poor to afford any kind of care I can just die? Oh I see where you are coming from. Thanks for you human kindness.
I think a case can be made that women make this decision, sometimes without proper thought and later it does impact them physically and mentally. It floors me that someone thinks it is completely acceptable to make an incision and suck the brain out of fetus in order to remove it from the "mothers" body just proving to me there are some pretty sick people out there.
Quote from: avonjax on March 29, 2011, 12:30:39 AM
mtraininjax, I sure am glad you have great health care. Just hope you never lose it. The big thing now is to hire people part time and give them NO BENEFITS. And at the "unliving wage," many people are offered, they can't afford health care either. So off to Shands, or another emergency room and let everyone else absorb the cost. Or as I am sure would make you happy just die in their bed and leave the poor tax payers alone. OH, and give more tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations because god knows they shouldn't be punished for making obscene profits while they ship all the jobs overseas.
Well said, except you forgot one thing: Republicans are also trying to shut down all public hospitals, so there's nowhere left to go.
Quote from: avonjax on March 29, 2011, 12:30:39 AM
I have friends with relatives in Europe who would move here but they can't afford to lose their healthcare. And EVERYONE I know who has had healthcare in Europe never complained. Sure some people complain about everything, but unlike here being ill doesn't destroy your life and put you in financial ruin. And if your argument is how horrible the wait is for many of them, just think about the people in this country who can't even afford basic medical needs. Many can't even afford to go to a doctor, or they have to decide which necessary drug they can afford to pay for any given month. With all the opportunity that this county offers, the personal health of the citizens is one place that we fail miserably. You may not want to admit it, but our failure in this regard kills people.
THAT is exactly the reason, it took me 16 years living in the US before I took the leap to become a US citizen in 1996. The European healthcare safety net is a hard one to "just give up." Too bad 4 years later the Netherlands started to allow dual citizenship...........if only I had waited four years longer!
As long as women have been getting pregnant, they have been trying to get un-pregnant. We have a range of medical procedures now that ensure a safe outcome for the woman. Late-term abortion is very rarely used, and then almost exclusively because of a severe negative outcome, e.g., severe fetal abnormality that would result in death if the pregnancy were carried to full term or life-threatening medical condition of the woman. If people really, truly want to minimize abortions, then they should support comprehensive sex education and life skills education to better empower people who may not have a family that can (or will) provide these things. At any rate, abortion is a medical procedure that is most appropriately left between a woman and her health care provider. And to echo previously expressed sentiments, if folks truly want to minimize government intrusion into our personal lives, then staying the hell away from my uterus is a good place to start!
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 08:59:37 AM
I think a case can be made that women make this decision, sometimes without proper thought and later it does impact them physically and mentally. It floors me that someone thinks it is completely acceptable to make an incision and suck the brain out of fetus in order to remove it from the "mothers" body just proving to me there are some pretty sick people out there.
Proper thought?...who say what is proper thought..you?...i don't think so...how dare you think that a woman does this without great thought and contemplation...it's none of your business...if you don't want an abortion..then don't have one...other than that....you have no say.
I have a beautiful 6 month old daughter that was nearly aborted. Her mother was a single 15 year old girl who was living with her boyfriends family. We met the birth mother by an amazing act of God and were able to convince her that adoption was best option. There are thousands of couples out there like us that are unable to have children that are an alternative to MURDERING and innocent child.
She has been a blessing in our lives and have been a blessing to many people. I tear up when I think what might have happend if we hadn't crossed each others paths and stopped what would have been what she was going through with.
She is sitting on my lap as I type this. She destined for greatness.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 08:59:37 AM
I think a case can be made that women make this decision, sometimes without proper thought and later it does impact them physically and mentally.
So that is what you think gives the goverment the right to force a woman to have an ultrasound? Paid for with my tax dollars?
Quote from: Garden guy on March 29, 2011, 08:42:24 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 08:39:42 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion
Intact D&X surgeryUnder the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.
Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[5]
If you are trying to make us feel bad with your description it's not working....i've read the process of aboritons for years....you've changed nothing.
So you're cool with partial birth abortions? What if the child (no longer a fetus) has developed sexual organs? What if those organs are of the female variety... shouldn't these women have the right not to have their necks snapped and brains evacuated?
Quote from: danno on March 29, 2011, 09:18:15 AM
I have a beautiful 6 month old daughter that was nearly aborted. Her mother was a single 15 year old girl who was living with her boyfriends family. We met the birth mother by an amazing act of God and were able to convince her that adoption was best option. There are thousands of couples out there like us that are unable to have children that are an alternative to MURDERING and innocent child.
She has been a blessing in our lives and have been a blessing to many people. I tear up when I think what might have happend if we hadn't crossed each others paths and stopped what would have been what she was going through with.
She is sitting on my lap as I type this. She destined for greatness.
And thousand more of the amazing gay couples who want to raise beautiful families. The current legislation makes it HARDER for the gay couples to adopt and raise a family than getting an abortion.
-Josh
Here an idea:
I would give the pro-life TWO choices: Accept the abortion laws to protect the women's rights or ALLOW the gay couples to adopt.
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 29, 2011, 09:28:50 AM
Here an idea:
I would give the pro-life TWO choices: Accept the abortion laws to protect the women's rights or ALLOW the gay couples to adopt.
-Josh
Thats like saying if I can't play I am taking my ball and going home.
Gay adoptions are allowed in many states.
Quote from: danno on March 29, 2011, 09:33:46 AM
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 29, 2011, 09:28:50 AM
Here an idea:
I would give the pro-life TWO choices: Accept the abortion laws to protect the women's rights or ALLOW the gay couples to adopt.
-Josh
Thats like saying if I can't play I am taking my ball and going home.
Gay adoptions are allowed in many states.
Wasn't legislation passed recently here in FL allowing gay couples to adopt?
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQqSLw3BVJaaRe4Oiewj2-CljYHd2UeKf6Y1BLLh1QcjAMUmpr)
It seems the adoption process is extremely strict for everyone. Why do you think Madonna shops for babies in Malawi?
Gays and lesbians are now permitted to adopt in Florida thanks to a Court decision.
Quote from: danno on March 29, 2011, 09:33:46 AM
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 29, 2011, 09:28:50 AM
Here an idea:
I would give the pro-life TWO choices: Accept the abortion laws to protect the women's rights or ALLOW the gay couples to adopt.
-Josh
Thats like saying if I can't play I am taking my ball and going home.
Gay adoptions are allowed in many states.
The real issue here is that the majority of the states doesn't allow gay couples to joint-adopt a child. Majority of the states do allow a single-gay parent adoption, but that is not new. I can adopt a child if I want to right now.
I thought the idea was fair to everyone since there are so much things interwined into each other, gay couples and parenting and the issue of adoptions itself from all sides. I was trying to suggest that the idea of gay couples can joint-adopt would alone can solve the abortion issue by allowing more people to adopt while at same time saving "lives" so called by the pro-lifers.
Source: http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt_2.htm (http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt_2.htm)
Source #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption)
Source #3: http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/2397.htm (http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/2397.htm)
-Josh
Our governor is playing this abortion attack to pander to the rightwing republicans who have infested this state and have brought us to the brink of rediculousness...but...we must keep up our voices against the conservative attack on america... i'll bet he'd even put in a clause that the state would pay for an abortion only if they get one at his new abortion clinics..lol..
:D Now they are a rediculous... infestation?
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 29, 2011, 09:59:23 AM
Quote from: danno on March 29, 2011, 09:33:46 AM
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 29, 2011, 09:28:50 AM
Here an idea:
I would give the pro-life TWO choices: Accept the abortion laws to protect the women's rights or ALLOW the gay couples to adopt.
-Josh
Thats like saying if I can't play I am taking my ball and going home.
Gay adoptions are allowed in many states.
The real issue here is that the majority of the states doesn't allow gay couples to joint-adopt a child. Majority of the states do allow a single-gay parent adoption, but that is not new. I can adopt a child if I want to right now.
I thought the idea was fair to everyone since there are so much things interwined into each other, gay couples and parenting and the issue of adoptions itself from all sides. I was trying to suggest that the idea of gay couples can joint-adopt would alone can solve the abortion issue by allowing more people to adopt while at same time saving "lives" so called by the pro-lifers.
Source: http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt_2.htm (http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt_2.htm)
Source #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption)
Source #3: http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/2397.htm (http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/2397.htm)
-Josh
Can you? Have you actually started the process; find an agency - filed an application -home study performed - court appearances - background checks - had your friends, family, co-workers & neighbors interviewed extensively - another home study performed -paid thousands of dollars in fees - yet another home study performed?
Very few have the money or qualifications for the process in place... it is especially difficult for singles regardless of sexual orientation.
So now we're getting into the cost. Maybe it should be financially cheaper for couples (or singles in states that don't yet allow gay couples) to adopt than for a women to choose an abortion. Perhaps to the extent that the state refuses to subsidize abortion, the state should strive to subsidize adoption. Either through outright payment or through tax credits or other avenues.
To do otherwise seems to favor abortion as an outcome. We do all sorts of things to incentivize behavior we as a society want to see.
This is the issue with our political system, far left and far right. for us moderates in between there are little options and not a lot of representation.
For instance, I have no issue with gay adoption or gay marriage, I am a proponent of both. I also do not have an issue with a woman's choice to give life or take it away (it is a personal choice with personal repercussions no matter the decision) until that life because a woman cannot or will not make a decision, goes on for too long. I also believe that although a man is not actually carrying the child, and in many cases is not taking care of it, they also have some say in the decision. I also believe there should be a safety net for healthcare, but I do not believe the government should manage healthcare as is done in Europe. My moderate beliefs do not fit within either party, and are attacked by both. I know there are many out there that feel the same and are just sick and tired of having to "choose" the lesser evil on topics that are important too us. Common sense would seem to dictate that unless your life and/or the child's life is at risk the incision and sucking out of a baby's brain is inappropriate. Yet you have extremist screaming it is none of your business. I believe most states have a good Samaritan law that states I have to provide minimal safe assistance if I see a person being attacked? Underage children that want plastic surge have to get parental permission, and normally in most state have a waiting period prior to having surgery but can get an abortion at will, with no recovery support. After all we are speaking about elective procedures here. On the right you have extremist that think gays are third class citizens, and cannot marry or adopt and yet most of us are related to, friends with, and depend on gays to protect their rights and safety or preach to them from the pulpit every Sunday, hell these people even vote for gays.
WTH is wrong with people? Where has common sense gone? what are moderates to do when the only choices today are extremist?
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 10:21:10 AM
WTH is wrong with people? Where has common sense gone? what are moderates to do when the only choices today are extremist?
+++1000
Quote from: Jimmy on March 29, 2011, 10:16:19 AM
So now we're getting into the cost. Maybe it should be financially cheaper for couples (or singles in states that don't yet allow gay couples) to adopt than for a women to choose an abortion. Perhaps to the extent that the state refuses to subsidize abortion, the state should strive to subsidize adoption. Either through outright payment or through tax credits or other avenues.
To do otherwise seems to favor abortion as an outcome. We do all sorts of things to incentivize behavior we as a society want to see.
You're missing the point... and for the record I'm all in favor allowing anyone single, married, gay or straight to adopt as long as they are approved through this extensive strenuous process.
What I'm trying to explain to wsanews is that the process is difficult for everyone. You can't put children out on the street like a sidewalk shoe sale in South Beach and have run on babies.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 08:34:43 AM
GG, some people should be given an award for having the foresight to throw that sperm away!
And I am surprised you do not understand the process to actually create a human life, but it takes a little more than a tissue full of sperm.
But back to your original topic, why is it so horrendous (other than the waste of money) to have a sonogram prior to an abortion?
Because forcing somebody to have any unnecessary medical procedure as a condition of getting treatment they DO need or want is just wrong. By your logic, we should also force people to have an enema and examine the contents of their colon before allowing them to have hemorrhoid surgery.
Actually your colon has nothing to do with hemorrhoids.
Quote from: Shwaz on March 29, 2011, 10:29:12 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on March 29, 2011, 10:16:19 AM
So now we're getting into the cost. Maybe it should be financially cheaper for couples (or singles in states that don't yet allow gay couples) to adopt than for a women to choose an abortion. Perhaps to the extent that the state refuses to subsidize abortion, the state should strive to subsidize adoption. Either through outright payment or through tax credits or other avenues.
To do otherwise seems to favor abortion as an outcome. We do all sorts of things to incentivize behavior we as a society want to see.
You're missing the point... and for the record I'm all in favor allowing anyone single, married, gay or straight to adopt as long as they are approved through this extensive strenuous process.
What I'm trying to explain to wsanews is that the process is difficult for everyone. You can't put children out on the street like a sidewalk shoe sale in South Beach and have run on babies.
Of course the adoption process is long and tedious! My point I am trying to make is that the pro-lifers doesn't want any abortions, so more 'accidental' and 'life-threatening' pregnancies would occur and many children will born (unfortunately and few would die due to complications) as result of that.
When that happens, there may not be enough heterosexual couples willing to adopt to meet up the demand, therefore I was suggesting that eliminating any social taboos with the gay couples and allow them the
full equal rights to adopt children such as their heterosexual counterparts to meet the high number of children needed for adoption.
Basically tell the those anti-gay to KNOCK off the beef they have with the gay couples stereotypical views. The idea was to solve both issues on both sides, and everyone can have a nice glass of lemonade at the end of the day.
-Josh
I'd be interested to know the numbers on conservatives to non conservatives on adoptions across the board...i think adoptions are off the topic of our governor signing a law forcing women to watch a sonogram before an abortion...it's a chip at the delicate womans rights in this state.
There aren't enough heterosexual couples interested or qualified for adoption now and your offer to pro-lifers has nothing to do with how states regulate those that are legally allowed to adopt.
It's also a fundamental paradox of an offer. A majority of pro-lifers are inherently against same sex couples. You're asking them to forgo one set of spiritual beliefs for another.
Quote from: Shwaz on March 29, 2011, 11:11:20 AM
There aren't enough heterosexual couples interested or qualified for adoption now and your offer to pro-lifers has nothing to do with how states regulate those that are legally allowed to adopt.
It's also a fundamental paradox of an offer. A majority of pro-lifers are inherently against same sex couples. You're asking them to forgo one set of spiritual beliefs for another.
Shwaz,
It is a wishful idea.<3
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 29, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 29, 2011, 11:11:20 AM
There aren't enough heterosexual couples interested or qualified for adoption now and your offer to pro-lifers has nothing to do with how states regulate those that are legally allowed to adopt.
It's also a fundamental paradox of an offer. A majority of pro-lifers are inherently against same sex couples. You're asking them to forgo one set of spiritual beliefs for another.
Shwaz,
It is a wishful idea.
<3
-Josh
I'm afraid it's a simple answer to a complex situation... it doesn't tread water in a serious discussion.
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:10:22 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 10:53:44 AM
Actually your colon has nothing to do with hemorrhoids.
I think thats Deadgirls' point.
I a disagree. What is the harm in viewing the life you are choosing to end? If you are making the right decision it should not matter.
I do not agree with his decision, but I also do not understand why it is such a big deal (outside of cost and the fact that Scott is a creepy creep).
I just feel like everyone is upset because it is not fair to the woman to actually see the fetus before she aborts, but if there is nothing wrong with abortion it should not matter.
Now if we want to talk costs and who is paying and who is being paid, or we want to talk risk of the actual procedure (which there are none I am aware of, but there are some benefits outside of choice alone) then we should. But what I have really heard so far is some far left extremism filled with fear that a woman may actually have to view that ittybitty little tiny heart beating a million times per second right before she snuffs it out, and why that just is not fair.
Quote from: Shwaz on March 29, 2011, 11:17:23 AM
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 29, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 29, 2011, 11:11:20 AM
There aren't enough heterosexual couples interested or qualified for adoption now and your offer to pro-lifers has nothing to do with how states regulate those that are legally allowed to adopt.
It's also a fundamental paradox of an offer. A majority of pro-lifers are inherently against same sex couples. You're asking them to forgo one set of spiritual beliefs for another.
Shwaz,
It is a wishful idea.
<3
-Josh
I'm afraid it's a simple answer to a complex situation... it doesn't tread water in a serious discussion.
Complicated answers to a complex situation doesn't tread water in a serious discussion either.
-Josh
Now we're just talking circles :)
The problem with it is the state is making it manditory...republican right wingers scream about big brother being "obtrusive"...what the hell is this shit?....an abortion is a private matter and none of us should have any say so...
Quote from: Shwaz on March 29, 2011, 11:28:41 AM
Now we're just talking circles :)
Hahaha I agree! -high fives- :D
-Josh
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:29:07 AM
And why should you be for a mandatory expense without a mandatory insurance coverage?
BIG nail head you hit there, Stephen.
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:33:40 AM
Quote from: Garden guy on March 29, 2011, 11:30:25 AM
The problem with it is the state is making it manditory...republican right wingers scream about big brother being "obtrusive"...what the hell is this shit?....an abortion is a private matter and none of us should have any say so...
garden guy. Please elevate your postings.
This is not jacksonville.com. It is metrojacksonville, and if you are going to be taken seriously, you are going to have to make your points without having to result to hysterical statements vulgarly expressed at every single juncture. You have a brain, its clear. Please start employing it to make your points.
Its a shame to see someone who has great ideas to express make them seem completely inedible as a result of inept delivery. ;)
Sorry steve...i'm just pissed off over this...i see this man ruining our state and i'm just pissed...and having 4 sister..i'm very sensitive to womens rights...
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 10:21:10 AM
This is the issue with our political system, far left and far right. for us moderates in between there are little options and not a lot of representation.
For instance, I have no issue with gay adoption or gay marriage, I am a proponent of both. I also do not have an issue with a woman's choice to give life or take it away (it is a personal choice with personal repercussions no matter the decision) until that life because a woman cannot or will not make a decision, goes on for too long. I also believe that although a man is not actually carrying the child, and in many cases is not taking care of it, they also have some say in the decision. I also believe there should be a safety net for healthcare, but I do not believe the government should manage healthcare as is done in Europe. My moderate beliefs do not fit within either party, and are attacked by both. I know there are many out there that feel the same and are just sick and tired of having to "choose" the lesser evil on topics that are important too us. Common sense would seem to dictate that unless your life and/or the child's life is at risk the incision and sucking out of a baby's brain is inappropriate. Yet you have extremist screaming it is none of your business. I believe most states have a good Samaritan law that states I have to provide minimal safe assistance if I see a person being attacked? Underage children that want plastic surge have to get parental permission, and normally in most state have a waiting period prior to having surgery but can get an abortion at will, with no recovery support. After all we are speaking about elective procedures here. On the right you have extremist that think gays are third class citizens, and cannot marry or adopt and yet most of us are related to, friends with, and depend on gays to protect their rights and safety or preach to them from the pulpit every Sunday, hell these people even vote for gays.
WTH is wrong with people? Where has common sense gone? what are moderates to do when the only choices today are extremist?
I think you and I are of the same minds on this topic. Sometimes it really sinks, being in the middle!
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:29:07 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:10:22 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 10:53:44 AM
Actually your colon has nothing to do with hemorrhoids.
I think thats Deadgirls' point.
I a disagree. What is the harm in viewing the life you are choosing to end? If you are making the right decision it should not matter.
I do not agree with his decision, but I also do not understand why it is such a big deal (outside of cost and the fact that Scott is a creepy creep).
I just feel like everyone is upset because it is not fair to the woman to actually see the fetus before she aborts, but if there is nothing wrong with abortion it should not matter.
Now if we want to talk costs and who is paying and who is being paid, or we want to talk risk of the actual procedure (which there are none I am aware of, but there are some benefits outside of choice alone) then we should. But what I have really heard so far is some far left extremism filled with fear that a woman may actually have to view that ittybitty little tiny heart beating a million times per second right before she snuffs it out, and why that just is not fair.
Well isnt it possible that no one is more aware of what is inside the uterus than the woman whose uterus is being discussed?
And why should you be for a mandatory expense without a mandatory insurance coverage?
Good questions Stephen- I think at a certain level women and girls are very aware, but there is a difference between knowing and seeing. This of course verges on the moral discussion that turns to extremism fairly quickly.
I see no issue with having a woman actually see the little beating heart before making that final decision, I mean it is irreversible afterall and it does make the decision more real, and even more personal.
For payment, a general sonogram does not cost much, and while an argument can be made that most women can have an abortion with no physical side effects, there are cases where a sonogram can certainly point out circumstances previously unknown, a lot of women and girls going to get a subsidized abortion do not see a doctor regularly. I also think for the weaker of heart and mind seeing a fetus makes it real and may in fact influence their decision saving some from psychological issue later down the road-which of course could end up costing the tax payer alot more than the cost of a sonogram. Perhaps I am just looking at both sides of the coin to intently, but I do know some women that have had abortions and regret it dearly. I also know some women who have had abortion and seem to have no issues at all.
My personal beliefs tell me at a certain point it should no longer be an option unless it is a life or death situation.
Quote from: Garden guy on March 29, 2011, 11:10:54 AM
I'd be interested to know the numbers on conservatives to non conservatives on adoptions across the board...i think adoptions are off the topic of our governor signing a law forcing women to watch a sonogram before an abortion...it's a chip at the delicate womans rights in this state.
Well since no one has said this yet, but has been abundantly clear for decades now is that the Republican idea of Pro-Life extends from conception to birth only. After that You are on Your Own in the YOYO society that they love.
So making adoption easier? Just isn't in the Pro-Life agenda.
Just like none of the 50+ year old Pro-Life women made their uteri available for any of the snow-flake babies ( over 600,000 frozen embryos that cannot be donated to federally funded stem cell research and are just left to perish in our nation's freezers)
It's shaming women and control of women, that is what the abortion issue is really about:
QuoteI Was a "Prolife" Republican... Until I Fell in Love
673
ShareBy Andrea Grimes
February 8, 2011 - 7:34pm
Published under: Access to Abortion | Women’s Rights | access to abortion | anti-choice | Contraception | HR3 2011 | pro-choice | sexually transmitted infections
Andrea Grimes's blog | Printer-friendly version | ShareThis
This is cross-posted with permission from Hay Ladies.
I had a favorite line, in high school, when debating people on the subject of abortion. It was “Hey, that thing in your stomach’s not gonna come out a toaster, right? It’s a baby!â€
Oh, I thought I was really, super clever with that one. Because I loved talking about the babies. I talked about the babies at the high school Young Republicans Clubâ€"not only was I the president, but also the founder. I talked about the babies at Club 412, the evangelical punk teen hang-out in Fort Worth I frequented with my friends. I talked about the babies in class. I cried about the babies while I strummed my guitar. I wrote songs about the babies, imagining myself as a broken, murderous whore who regretted her abortions.
I didn’t have an opinion one way or the other on abortion until I started hanging out with right-wing punk rock kids in high school. Then, somebodyâ€"probably one of the older teenage punk rock boys I would later fend off in the back of a car or behind the chapel at church campâ€"handed me a pamphlet with an aborted fetus on the front. The pamphlet told me all about how abortion causes breast cancer and about how women who abort can never be redeemed in the eyes of God and will live with heartache and depression for the rest of their lives, a shell of the beautiful thing they could have been if they’d only carried to term. I was outraged. I couldn’t believe women were killing members of my own generationâ€"my sisters and brothers!â€"just because they couldn’t keep their legs together.
Because while I said it was about the babies, it wasn’t. It was about slut-shaming. I absolutely loved slut-shaming. Because I was saving myself for marriageâ€"well, oral sex doesn’t really count anyway, does it?â€"-I knew that I would always be right and virtuous and I would never be a murderer like those sluts. The issue couldn’t possibly be up for real debate, to my mind: either you were a baby-killer slut, or you behaved like a proper Christian woman and only let him get to third base. Babies were simultaneously women’s punishment for having premarital sex and beautiful gifts from Jesus Himself. That didn’t seem like a contradiction in my mind. It was just another one of God’s perfect mysteries.
After all, I was 16, 17, 18. I knew everything. And what I knew more than anything else was that anyone who got herself into the position of having an unwanted pregnancy was filthy in body and soul. And again, since I would absolutely never have premarital sex, I would absolutely never make the decision to murder my child. Because I was pure, and so were babies, and together, me and the babies and my perfect hymen, we were all going to be fine if we could just fight the ignorant sluts. So that’s what I did. I talked and argued and cajoled and pontificated. I ministered to the heathen nerdgirl sluts in Telnet chats and online bulletin boards. I stood up for what I believed in, which was: If you do not believe like me, you deserve whatever brand of God’s wrath comes your way.
But, you know, to hear me talk, it was all about the babies. The innocent children. The mass genocide! Perpetuated, of course, by millions of American women who I imagined happily scooping out their wombs with ladles before heading back out for another gang-bang. In private, my anti-choice friends and I would laugh and laugh (or, in some cases, LOL and LOL, if we were chatting online) about how stupid women were for having premarital sex. How evil they were for not being able to control themselves. How great I was for not having sex with my boyfriend. How loved and special I was in the eyes of God because I didn’t let my boyfriend, you know, do it with me.
If I’d thought about it any, I might have realized that it takes two to create an unwanted pregnancy. But the conversation was never, ever about men or their behavior. It was only about women.
So, what happened? How did I come to be editing a lefty, pinko-assed feminist blog?
Well, I got off my religious high horse and on to a sex life I enjoyed and found fulfilling.
At college, I met a wonderful, sweet Jewish boy who fell in love with me and who I fell in love with right back. And he didn’t have any hang-ups about sex, though he was also a virgin. And we did all of the things except for The Big Sex, and the more I grew to love him, the more I thought back on those people I knew back home who told me sex was awful and would break me. How could sex with this guy, this absolute sweetheart, break me? And so we had The Big Sex. And it was great and fun and loving, and we kept having all of The Big Sex, for about three weeks, until I realized it was about time for my period.
Suddenly: I was the dirty, filthy slut. I was the horny bitch. I was the callous murderer-in-training. What, did I think my womb was going to grow a toaster if we had a condom mishap?
Of course not. I didn’t think babies were toasters and I didn’t believe I was going to birth a toaster if I got pregnant, so how had I managed to belittle women for years with this condescending, patronizing line about a small kitchen appliance? I was frozen in a kind of moral limboâ€"I couldn’t believe I found myself simultaneously relieved that I could access an abortion if I wanted to, and saddened and stressed out by the possibility of having to make that decision.
So I went right the fuck out and got myself some hormonal birth control, is what I did.
I marched into my college women’s health centerâ€"oh, thank God they had oneâ€"and I got my first pap smear and the Ortho-Evra patch and talked to the nurses about STD’s and pregnancy and how to take care of my body. I had never had any of those conversations with my family or church or friends or teachers back home in Texas. I learned more in a two-hour visit to that college women’s health center than I had in the 19 years leading up to it. And yet as a passionate anti-choicer, I had considered myself an expert on sex and reproductive healthâ€"my own and everyone else’sâ€"because of a few pamphlets and preachers.
Today, I see that nothing about my religious anti-choice views did anything to prevent abortion. They did a lot to shame myself and my friends, but nothing to prevent abortion. Today, I hear anti-choicers talk about the babies and the unborn and the American genocide, but what I really hear beneath all that is slut-shaming and fear of female sexuality. I hear that language clearly because I spoke it once, myself. It is a familiar language to me.
And I even have a little bemused sympathy for old men who try to pass anti-choice legislation. Because they really will not ever have to worry about abortion. And once, I thought I wouldn’t, either. So I see where they’re coming from. I see how blind to the experiences of others they are. Privilege does that to people. If they weren’t so damned full of themselves, and so damned politically powerful, I might even find them funny.
What saddens me more than anything else are women who want to make abortion either so inaccessible as to render it impracticable, or who want to outlaw it altogether. Because I truly believe that most women, anti-choice or otherwise, who’ve experienced even a flicker of uncertainty about a pregnancy in this country since 1973 have been glad, in their hearts, to have a choice. I believe wanting to take that choice away from others is deeply about shame and punishment and judgment, and not about righteousness and love. I believe that because I rarely see those who want to outlaw abortion doing anything to combat its cause: unintended pregnancy, and I see them doing a lot to punish and shame women.
There is nothing “pro-life†about sonogram bills and denying Medicaid funding to (some!) rape victims or allowing doctors to opt out of giving pregnant women life-saving abortions. I know that what has kept me from having to make a decision about an unintended pregnancy is not the prospect of hearing a fetal heartbeat or having to go through a 24-hour wait period, but safe, easy and affordable access to contraception and good, honest medical information disseminated by doctors and medical professionals without religious agendas.
I was a girl growing up in Texas who was failed by abstinence-only education and soured by extreme religious dogma. I don’t want other girls to go through that, too. And so if you’ve gotten through this whole essay, consider donating to Planned Parenthood. Get on a NARAL mailing list. Fight HR3. Stand up against empty religious and political pandering and stand up for real solutions like affordable health care, comprehensive sex education and contraceptive access.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/02/08/i-prolife-republicanuntilfell-love
Faye please provide statistics for your statements. Unless of course it is your own guess (ie; opinon).
Here is one poll showing about even:
http://forums.adoption.com/guatemala-adoption/326978-cashcrew-poll-adoptive-parents-political-party-6.html
Democrat 165 44.12%
Green 1 0.27%
Independent 26 6.95%
Republican 155 41.44%
Other 13 3.48%
in any case, political affiliation is not a question on adoption forms so data woudl be close to impossible to gain. So these little polls are about it.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 12:44:21 PM
Faye please provide statistics for your statements. Unless of course it is your own guess (ie; opinon).
Here is one poll showing about even:
http://forums.adoption.com/guatemala-adoption/326978-cashcrew-poll-adoptive-parents-political-party-6.html
Democrat 165 44.12%
Green 1 0.27%
Independent 26 6.95%
Republican 155 41.44%
Other 13 3.48%
in any case, political affiliation is not a question on adoption forms so data woudl be close to impossible to gain. So these little polls are about it.
Sorry uptowngirl, I never said anything about adoption rates........I did say a lot of other things though, that are far more in line with being moderate than you claim to be.
::) Yeah Faye... you certainly are a model of moderation... ::) :D
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 29, 2011, 12:21:38 PM
Quote from: Garden guy on March 29, 2011, 11:10:54 AM
I'd be interested to know the numbers on conservatives to non conservatives on adoptions across the board...i think adoptions are off the topic of our governor signing a law forcing women to watch a sonogram before an abortion...it's a chip at the delicate womans rights in this state.
Well since no one has said this yet, but has been abundantly clear for decades now is that the Republican idea of Pro-Life extends from conception to birth only. After that You are on Your Own in the YOYO society that they love.
So making adoption easier? Just isn't in the Pro-Life agenda.
Hmmm you did quote GG's comments and followed with your own. Adoption laws are not created and implemented by Republicans alone. I will give you that the far right does damage to the adoption process by completely trying to exclude a whole group of eligible loving parent based soley on their sexual orientation-but again that is mostly the far right view. So here we are again at the extremist view of one or the other parties.
And Faye there is very little if anything of moderate in your postings '-)
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 12:58:48 PM
Hmmm you did quote GG's comments and followed with your own. Adoption laws are not created and implemented by Republicans alone. I will give you that the far right does damage to the adoption process by completely trying to exclude a whole group of eligible loving parent based soley on their sexual orientation-but again that is mostly the far right view. So here we are again at the extremist view of one or the other parties.
And Faye there is very little if anything of moderate in your postings '-)
I don't claim to be a moderate, though on many issues I do consider myself moderate.
QuoteIn recent years, political moderates has gained traction as a buzzword.
Aristotle favoured conciliatory politics dominated by the centre rather than the extremes of great wealth and poverty or the special interests of oligarchs and tyrants.[2]
George Lakoff, author of The Political Mind (2008), argues that moderates do not exist, because there is no definitive political ideology of the moderate.[3] Due to this fact, he believes it is impossible for a group of people to gather as 'moderates' as each would have different views. This means moderate political views to become mainstream would require a big tent form of party.
In recent years, many blogs and other postings have become available discussing moderate political views. Moderate America has attempted to define moderate political ideology in the United States of America.[1] Some bloggers have associated moderate politics with the concept of rationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate
There is nothing moderate about making one of the hardest decisions in the life of a woman even harder than it already is, or more expensive than it already is.
There is also nothing moderate about making a 13 year old pregnant girl have a baby. In my book that is child abuse.
The easiest solution to all of this is to provide contraception to prevent pregnancies BEFORE THEY START free of charge like they do in other "civilized nations"
where have you been Faye? Contraception is available all over the place for free. No one is "forcing 13yrs olds to have babies", and why should having an abortion not be a tough decision? This is an irreversible decision and impacts not only the woman/girl making the decision, the baby, but also potentially family members, friends, and lovers. It should be a very difficult decision to make, and not just a snap one.
If looking at that sonogram is going to make a woman/girl change her mind-then their mind was not really made up before was it?
Is the extreme left really afraid that women and girls may just decide that perhaps it really is a life once they see that beating heart on the sonogram? Will that stop them from getting the abortion? Or will it just make them feel terrible about getting it? If you feel strongly enough in your convictions that this is not a human life then a little ol sonogram should not matter.
Now if you want to talk about costs- OK. I propose that this could potentially help identify health concerns that would not otherwise be diagnosed or looked at, I also proposed that it may help with mental issue down the road, which would be much more costly than a sonogram. I also propose that most adoptions will cover all your medical costs, and in some cases living expenses.
What are your concerns about the cost of sonograms?
I want to post this that showed up on my Tumblr.
QuoteThis just may be the best pro-life message yet.
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:
Woman: Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.
Doctor: Ok and what do you want me to do?
Woman: I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady:
I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
The Doctor continued: You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill your present one-year-old. This way, you could rest a little before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose to kill the one in your arms.
The lady was horrified and said:
Woman: No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!
Doctor: I agree.. But you seemed to be OK on killing your unborn child, so I thought maybe that you'd agree to kill the other one. I believe that what I propose, given your situation, is the best solution.
The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb.
The crime is the same!
Love says:
"I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person."
Abortion says:
"I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself."
How do you guys feel about that?
-Josh
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 29, 2011, 09:15:04 AM
Quote from: avonjax on March 29, 2011, 12:30:39 AM
mtraininjax, I sure am glad you have great health care. Just hope you never lose it. The big thing now is to hire people part time and give them NO BENEFITS. And at the "unliving wage," many people are offered, they can't afford health care either. So off to Shands, or another emergency room and let everyone else absorb the cost. Or as I am sure would make you happy just die in their bed and leave the poor tax payers alone. OH, and give more tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations because god knows they shouldn't be punished for making obscene profits while they ship all the jobs overseas.
Well said, except you forgot one thing: Republicans are also trying to shut down all public hospitals, so there's nowhere left to go.
Faye I believe you are onto something here.
Especially with our dear governor.
Solantic provides both drug testing and sonograms, incidentally.
Methinks we are getting to the heart of the legislative proposition.
Pro life for profit and market share.
Fine, fine. Make women look at a sonogram. Then, immediately afterward, tell them every potential health risk that an abortion may cause... and then tell them every potential health risk of pregnancy and childbirth, too. If the sonogram truly changed their mind about the abortion, then the drastically increased possibility of a gruesome, painful death won't faze them in the least.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1361154/Abortions-safer-having-baby-new-advice-claims.html
well at least we know once the child's chord is detached from it's mother they are safe, it gives them something to work towards right?
Discussing the legality or illegality of abortion is as fruitless as discussing the legality or illegality of drugs, alcohol, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, or homosexuality. All of them will occur whether or not they are legal. The best we can do in all of those cases is reduce the harm. This is a pragmatic issue at a gov't level.
In any case, I don't have a uterus and am not sure that I or any other male is qualified to have an opinion on the issue.
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 30, 2011, 07:56:22 AM
Discussing the legality or illegality of abortion is as fruitless as discussing the legality or illegality of drugs, alcohol, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, or homosexuality. All of them will occur whether or not they are legal. The best we can do in all of those cases is reduce the harm. This is a pragmatic issue at a gov't level.
In any case, I don't have a uterus and am not sure that I or any other male is qualified to have an opinion on the issue.
Dog Walker: A sexist? Perish the thought!
I agree with your entire post, except the last sentence. The abortion issue is more about whether (at what point) a human (US citizen protected by the constitution to the right to life) is formed within the uterus. I don't believe being of a certain sex qualifies one over the other.
BTW: A mans right to choose ends at ejaculation within a vagina. Let us suppose the two willing participants differ on what is the proper course of action. The man wishes to refrain from becoming a parent but the woman wants the child. The man has no recourse. He is on the hook, legally.
So much for equal protection under the law.
For many... the entire abortion issue would go away if the government got out of the business of providing them... 8)
But all those babies. Who wants 'em? ;)
Government provided abortions are cost effective. How much will each of the unwanted children potentially cost the taxpayer annually? *oh dear*
You can't separate abortion from health care, and health care and government are not breaking up any time soon.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 08:09:27 AM
For many... the entire abortion issue would go away if the government got out of the business of providing them... 8)
And if the governments at the state level got out of the business of trying to regulate them out of existence?
Hey! That takes us back to the subject of the thread!
Ah... the circle of life... :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 08:09:27 AM
For many... the entire abortion issue would go away if the government got out of the business of providing them... 8)
+1000
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 29, 2011, 05:13:29 PM
I want to post this that showed up on my Tumblr.
QuoteThis just may be the best pro-life message yet.
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:
Woman: Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.
Doctor: Ok and what do you want me to do?
Woman: I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady:
I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
The Doctor continued: You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill your present one-year-old. This way, you could rest a little before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose to kill the one in your arms.
The lady was horrified and said:
Woman: No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!
Doctor: I agree.. But you seemed to be OK on killing your unborn child, so I thought maybe that you'd agree to kill the other one. I believe that what I propose, given your situation, is the best solution.
The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb.
The crime is the same!
Love says:
"I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person."
Abortion says:
"I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself."
How do you guys feel about that?
-Josh
I think that is theocratic gobblygook. The whole premise against any abortion is founded in lines of the bible:
QuoteSurely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalms 51:5
As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Luke 1:44
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah 1:5
These are among the scriptures used to present the notion that a first trimester fetus is more that a lump of cells.
Not a basis for sound legislation.
why should anyone have their tax dollars being used to fund abortions? Unless it is a required medical need? Abortion is an ELECTIVE procedure. If we tax payers pay for this why do we not also pay for breast implants? Nose jobs?
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 08:47:26 AM
why should anyone have their tax dollars being used to fund abortions? Unless it is a required medical need? Abortion is an ELECTIVE procedure. If we tax payers pay for this why do we not also pay for breast implants? Nose jobs?
You must have missed it.
But all those babies. Who wants 'em? Wink
Government provided abortions are cost effective. How much will each of the unwanted children potentially cost the taxpayer annually? *oh dear*
You can't separate abortion from health care, and health care and government are not breaking up any time soon.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 08:09:27 AM
For many... the entire abortion issue would go away if the government got out of the business of providing them... 8)
I really hope you are kidding with this comment. The Hyde Amendment has been used to prohibit use of federal funds for abortion since 1976 and I know of no state programs anywhere that fund abortion. And before anyone mentions any (minimal) government funding of Planned Parenthood, the overwhelming majority of their services are for basic health care, i.e., Pap smears and birth control, and reproductive health education.
As far as biblical justifications for outlawing abortion, we have this little thing known as the separation of church and state. Let's stick with science folks.
For the record, I am a staunchly pro-choice woman and I believe that abortion should be rare as it is a decision that no one wants to make. However, its rarity should be a function of a reduction in unplanned and uncomplicated pregnancies resulting from better decision making and health care, not lack of access.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 08:47:26 AM
why should anyone have their tax dollars being used to fund abortions? Unless it is a required medical need? Abortion is an ELECTIVE procedure. If we tax payers pay for this why do we not also pay for breast implants? Nose jobs?
Why should anyone have their tax dollars used to wage unwanted wars?
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 29, 2011, 01:53:23 PM
where have you been Faye? Contraception is available all over the place for free. No one is "forcing 13yrs olds to have babies", and why should having an abortion not be a tough decision? This is an irreversible decision and impacts not only the woman/girl making the decision, the baby, but also potentially family members, friends, and lovers. It should be a very difficult decision to make, and not just a snap one.
Just out of curiosity...........where the heck are YOU getting free contraception?
Also out of curiosity...........have you or anyone else in your immediate family ever been faced with an unwanted pregnancy and gone through the agonizing decision process of what to do?
Faye, when I was in high school they offerred free contraception in the nurses office, they also offerred this at university free. Planned Parenthood also offerred free contraceptives. Also contraception is subsidized if you are low income. Faye there is also the most free of all contraceptives- it is called abstinence until you are old enough and mature enough to make these type of decisions and understand and accept the repercussions/responsibility of your decisions. abortion is not birth control, nor should it be used as such, but more and more it is. It is by far much cheaper and easier to supply free birth control than to subsidize abortion.Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
Abortion coverage:
48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.
WORLDWIDE
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000
Where abortions occur:
83% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 17% occur in developed countries.
© Copyright 1996-2008, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
Lastly who does not know at least one person who has been faced with an unwanted pregnancy? I have friends and family both, who have made very different decisions some with support some without, some who regret their decision and some who do not. 93% of all abortions in the US are due to unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, not incest, rape, or health reasons.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 10:17:30 AM
Faye, when I was in high school they offerred free contraception in the nurses office, they also offerred this at university free. Planned Parenthood also offerred free contraceptives. Also contraception is subsidized if you are low income. Faye there is also the most free of all contraceptives- it is called abstinence until you are old enough and mature enough to make these type of decisions and understand and accept the repercussions/responsibility of your decisions. abortion is not birth control, nor should it be used as such, but more and more it is.
It is by far much cheaper and easier to supply free birth control than to subsidize abortion.
uptowngirl, you really need to get off your high horse. Have you been to a Planned Parenthood recently? Or to a nurse's office in high school?
Apparently not. Neither place offers free birth control today. This is because of rabid women like yourself who want to take away women's choice. In fact you would force a 13 year old pregnant girl to go through pregnancy and have a baby which in my book is pure child abuse.
I have 5 daughters and I am appalled that women like you do NOTHING to make sure they can get FREE contraceptives!! But yet you would preach at them if they did become pregnant.
Please give them a REAL choice before they get pregnant, and don't give me that abstinence crap.
Because the US does not give out free birth control, it has more than double the abortion rate that other "civilized" nations have:
QuoteAccording to the Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund, the abortion rate in developing countries is largely attributable to lack of access to modern contraceptives; assuming no change in abortion laws, providing that access to contraceptives would result in about 25 million fewer abortions annually, including almost 15 million fewer unsafe abortions.[65]
The incidence of induced abortion varies regionally. Some countries, such as Belgium (11.2 out of 100 known pregnancies) and the Netherlands (10.6 per 100), had a comparatively low ratio of induced abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Compare that to Pro-Life controled USA:
QuoteTwenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion in the US (22.0 per 100 known pregnancies)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
I give you guys a failing grade BECAUSE you do not provide FREE CONTRACEPTIVES!!!!
My daughters who are in a committed relationship would like to get an IUD. At Planned Parenthood they charge $550, which is unaffordable at their minimum wage jobs they work while going to college. When I had my IUD inserted in 1977 in the Netherlands, it was free of charge. And it is still free of charge now..........hence their lower abortion rates.
Birth control like the pill costs about $300 per year in the US. I would kindly request that you work to have my daughters' generation have the same opportunity to free birth control as you had yourself!!!
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Pay your taxes Shwaz and be silent.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Pay your taxes Shwaz and be silent.
:D What was that she said about "high horses"?
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 02:31:12 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Pay your taxes Shwaz and be silent.
What are either one of you talking about?
Bridge Troll, Schwaz doesnt have to stay silent and pay taxes if he doesnt want to. Metrojacksonville is about dialogue, and he can express himself if he wants to.
This playful banter must've gone over your head Esteban.
Faye, Let me help you with some of your misconceptions about me and apparently the US.
First of all it wasn't all that long ago I was in university and yes they gave out (and still do) free and/or low cost birth control. NO they do not (and did not) give out free IUD's. There are multiple types of birth control at varying expenses (pills, patch, caps, diaphragm, IUD, condoms), many which are pretty cheap and/or FREE. A diaphragm can be had for $60/yr which is more than affordable for a single person making minimum wage. Most children if in school and 23 yrs or younger can still be on their parent's insurance, or if qualified under government sponsored insurance, and if no insurance at all can get various types of birthcontrol including condoms to pills for free or low cost, most universities offer Birth Control pills for around $14-$15/mo.(much cheaper than an abortion!) Do I think we should allow a wider variety of options for free or low cost? ABSOLUTELY! But stating I want an IUD or nothing is ridiculous. Free Condoms offer not only protection from pregnancy, but also disease Faye. Perhaps these boyfriends ( I am assuming boyfriends based on your fear of an unwanted pregnancy occurring) should pony some money up or provide the condoms since these are "committed relationships"?
You are now arguing about what should be offerred for free, but not about not having any free options.
You are basically stating we (tax payers) in the US suck because we should pay for your children to have free semi-safe sex.
You are also incorrect in that I am some rabid pro-lifer. I never said abortion should be outlawed (even though I would not choose this option for myself or my family). I did say late term abortion should be outlawed, and I do not think that makes me rabid, it makes me human. I have never once stated a 13 yr old should be forced to give birth, and actually Faye in case you did not know, the fact that a 13yr old had sex to get pregnant in the first place is the actual child abuse.
Who the hell is watching your hypothetical 13 yr old child? I know, I know there is also the rape and incest cases, all of these (under 15, rape, incest) make up less than 10% of total abortions in the US. So basically your imaginary 13yr old is just more drama created in an attempt to support your extreme views.
Abstinence is a real choice, I get really sick of people saying it is crap. Like someone who chooses abstinence is some kind of freak. Part of the issue with the world today is no self control or accountability. This is not a religious decision, it is a life style decision and guess what Faye? It costs ZERO dollars and will ensure no unwanted pregnancies.
Your daughters and mine have the same options (and more!) that were available to me, they and you just need to select your options based on what you can or cannot afford. There are multiple choices out there, with many very affordable even on minimum wage.
I am so sorry that the US is not living up to your expectations of a free ride. But aren't you lucky to live in a country where you have the right to shout out how much you hate it?
Somehow I do not believe free IUDs and sex for all was what was meant by "pursuit of happiness".
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 02:45:32 PM
Playful banter?
What do you mean?
Whats playful about telling people to stay silent?
This can be achieved in a number of ways. Like yesterday I told the future Mrs. Shwaz that I had accomplished the task of washing & drying the mountain of laundry I had accumulated and put off over the last week or 2... the very same task she has been after me to get done. Right after I told her she said... verbatim... and I quote "STFU". :)
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Schwaz, just goes to show how little you know: an IUD is inserted by a doctor similar to the way a woman inserts a tampon...........nothing surgical about it.
It is the "cheapest" birthcontrol method around, because it'll be good for 10 years plus as it was in my own case.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Schwaz, just goes to show how little you know: an IUD is inserted by a doctor similar to the way a woman inserts a tampon...........nothing surgical about it.
It is the "cheapest" birthcontrol method around, because it'll be good for 10 years plus as it was in my own case.
Ok so... your daughter(s) need 10 years worth of birth control subsidized by taxpayers because their in college now?
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Schwaz, just goes to show how little you know: an IUD is inserted by a doctor similar to the way a woman inserts a tampon...........nothing surgical about it.
It is the "cheapest" birthcontrol method around, because it'll be good for 10 years plus as it was in my own case.
It must be because you posted it! Actually Faye it is not the cheapest around, many studies have been done based on cost and effectiveness and the IUD does not win.
The Winner: The diaphragm. With an annual cost of just $60 and an efficacy rate of 85 percent, this method gives users the most cost-effective method of preventing pregnancy. While the method fell in popularity after the introduction of the Pill, various forms of it have been used for centuries.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/08/27/the-real-cost-of-birth-control-
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 02:43:52 PM
You are now arguing about what should be offerred for free, but not about not having any free options.
I have never once stated a 13 yr old should be forced to give birth, and actually Faye in case you did not know, the fact that a 13yr old had sex to get pregnant in the first place is the actual child abuse.
Who the hell is watching your hypothetical 13 yr old child? I know, I know there is also the rape and incest cases, all of these (under 15, rape, incest) make up less than 10% of total abortions in the US. So basically your imaginary 13yr old is just more drama created in an attempt to support your extreme views.
Your daughters and mine have the same options (and more!) that were available to me, they and you just need to select your options based on what you can or cannot afford. There are multiple choices out there, with many very affordable even on minimum wage.
Nobody wants that free ride that you are talking about, my daughters just want the same FREE access to birth control that YOU enjoyed.........at the nurse's office in YOUR high school and at Planned Parenthood.
It's million times cheaper to provide free access to birth control than have to treat
complications from botched back alley abortions on the government Medicaid program.
Oh btw, if you are a single or married parent who is gainfully employed I doubt that you have eyes on your 13 year old 24/7 unless you have a gps on her and/or cameras installed throughout your house. She could be making out with another 13 year old boy and you wouldn't know it. So do not judge parents of that hypothetical 13 year old.
And YOU would compound the tragedy of the 13 year old's behaviour by forcing her to continue with the unwanted pregnancy and traumatic childbirth.................thus inflicting child abuse on her.
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Schwaz, just goes to show how little you know: an IUD is inserted by a doctor similar to the way a woman inserts a tampon...........nothing surgical about it.
It is the "cheapest" birthcontrol method around, because it'll be good for 10 years plus as it was in my own case.
Ok so... your daughter(s) need 10 years worth of birth control subsidized by taxpayers because their in college now?
Do you think that they stopped being fertile once they made it to college?
Is this more of that majical thinking that Pro Choice people love to point out about the Pro Life crowd? If you are really trying to stop abortion, isnt birth control a good way to do that?
Or are you really just trying to keep women from having sex on an even ground with men, not having to worry about getting pregnant?
Looks I'm 2 for 2 on zooming opinions over that sea of ginger.
Where did I say I was Pro-Life? Where did I say I was against all birth control?
Somehow... we have spun from lack of access to birth control to lack of the options I think you should provide for my family.
The issue here is there IS birth control available that works, but Faye thinks we ( tax payers) should be buying everyone a MBZ not an escort because, well just because.
And of course since Faye thinks we should purchase these MBZs for her daughter, we have a right to be concerned no?
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 04:56:05 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Schwaz, just goes to show how little you know: an IUD is inserted by a doctor similar to the way a woman inserts a tampon...........nothing surgical about it.
It is the "cheapest" birthcontrol method around, because it'll be good for 10 years plus as it was in my own case.
Ok so... your daughter(s) need 10 years worth of birth control subsidized by taxpayers because their in college now?
Do you think that they stopped being fertile once they made it to college?
Is this more of that majical thinking that Pro Choice people love to point out about the Pro Life crowd? If you are really trying to stop abortion, isnt birth control a good way to do that?
Or are you really just trying to keep women from having sex on an even ground with men, not having to worry about getting pregnant?
Looks I'm 2 for 2 on zooming opinions over that sea of ginger.
Where did I say I was Pro-Life? Where did I say I was against all birth control?
Why are you so vitally interested in the wombs of Faye's daughter or how long they might need an IUD then?
Is that your way of asking me to keep silent? ;)
From the libertarian viewpoint a woman has the absolute right to control what goes on with her body; put drugs in it, sell it for money, donate a kidney, abort a fetus, color her hair, sleep with other women.
To make a fetus into a "person" dehumanizes a woman and makes her into a breeding animal with fewer rights of control of her own body than the growing thing inside her.
I REMEMBER the era before Roe v Wade and it was UGLY! The same people who now oppose abortion then opposed contraception. They aren't anti-abortion or anti-contraception. They are anti-sex.
I REMEMBER reading about the back-alley abortions that killed and sterilized women. I remember the daughters of middle class and wealth families quietly sending their daughters to "certain" doctors to have D&C's for their "heavy periods." I remember families quietly sending their daughters off to other states and other countries for a "vacation" in the middle of the school year.
The daughters of poor families had no such options.
It was ugly and it was shameful. We are such hypocrites about sex in this country.
Start comprehensive sex education at age 10 and keep it going. Make it boring. Mothers and fathers and teachers and drug stores should start providing their children with contraception at any age at their child's request.
A good friend of mine started telling his daughter about how powerful a feeling sexual attraction was how natural it was when she started puberty. He told her that if she ever decided that she was going to have sex with someone she was attracted too, she was to come to him about it and he would not make any judgement or comment, but would get her contraception. He also told her about the three problems with sex; disease, pregnancy and reputation; repeatedly!
At age sixteen, she came to him and reminded him of his promise. Without comment he took her to a gynecologist, and stayed in the waiting room. He never commented or asked about her activity. She never had any problems other than the typical ones of growing up.
Now in her middle thirties, she has two beautiful twin girls who are just entering puberty themselves. She and her husband are treating them exactly the same way.
Now that is sound, practical, reality based parenting.
Your children ARE going to experiment with sex before they are married. You did...and I did. A good parent will make sure they aren't hurt by that growing and learning.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 05:00:26 PM
Somehow... we have spun from lack of access to birth control to lack of the options I think you should provide for my family.
The issue here is there IS birth control available that works, but Faye thinks we ( tax payers) should be buying everyone a MBZ not an escort because, well just because.
And of course since Faye thinks we should purchase these MBZs for her daughter, we have a right to be concerned no?
Lets keep things straight: you claimed you had free access to birth control through your high school nurse's office and through Planned Parenthood.
I then told you that my daughters would like the same, because today there is no such FREE access to birth control.
PLAIN and SIMPLE.
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 05:02:03 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 05:00:26 PM
Somehow... we have spun from lack of access to birth control to lack of the options I think you should provide for my family.
The issue here is there IS birth control available that works, but Faye thinks we ( tax payers) should be buying everyone a MBZ not an escort because, well just because.
Where do you see that Uptown Girl?
By the way, are you prolife or prochoice?
I am prochoice, with the caveat around late term abortions- to me that is not prochoice it is poor choice.
I appreciate DogWalkers comments. My parents did the same for me and I did (and will do for the baby) the same for my children. I will never, ever let my children believe abortion is cheaper than birth control, nor will I ever deny them birth control, I can skip a few meals out! I will try to instill some self worth and pride in my children so they choose thoughtfully before diving in. This is why I trust them to make the right decision for them, and in the event all of the above fails, I trust them and myself to make the right decisions without judgement.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 05:17:02 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 05:00:26 PM
Somehow... we have spun from lack of access to birth control to lack of the options I think you should provide for my family.
The issue here is there IS birth control available that works, but Faye thinks we ( tax payers) should be buying everyone a MBZ not an escort because, well just because.
And of course since Faye thinks we should purchase these MBZs for her daughter, we have a right to be concerned no?
Lets keep things straight: you claimed you had free access to birth control through your high school nurse's office and through Planned Parenthood.
I then told you that my daughters would like the same, because today there is no such FREE access to birth control.
PLAIN and SIMPLE.
and I responded with facts around how you are wrong. You stated you want IUDs for your girls and they cost $550 a piece, that is hefty sum for five girls....I then pointed out free options and cheap options for you.
Here are some more:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4875071_cheap-birth-control-pills.html
There is even an app for free condoms, planned parenthood gives them away, and I have no idea where your daughters are located, but Planned Parenthood in NY even gives away free birth control pills.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 05:17:02 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 05:00:26 PM
Somehow... we have spun from lack of access to birth control to lack of the options I think you should provide for my family.
The issue here is there IS birth control available that works, but Faye thinks we ( tax payers) should be buying everyone a MBZ not an escort because, well just because.
And of course since Faye thinks we should purchase these MBZs for her daughter, we have a right to be concerned no?
Lets keep things straight: you claimed you had free access to birth control through your high school nurse's office and through Planned Parenthood.
I then told you that my daughters would like the same, because today there is no such FREE access to birth control.
PLAIN and SIMPLE.
And it must be of the highest quality... and it must last at least 10 years... and it must be provided 'free' even if they are adults with jobs.
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Schwaz, just goes to show how little you know: an IUD is inserted by a doctor similar to the way a woman inserts a tampon...........nothing surgical about it.
It is the "cheapest" birthcontrol method around, because it'll be good for 10 years plus as it was in my own case.
Ok so... your daughter(s) need 10 years worth of birth control subsidized by taxpayers because their in college now?
Do you think that they stopped being fertile once they made it to college?
Is this more of that majical thinking that Pro Choice people love to point out about the Pro Life crowd? If you are really trying to stop abortion, isnt birth control a good way to do that?
Or are you really just trying to keep women from having sex on an even ground with men, not having to worry about getting pregnant?
Thanks Stephen, as a career-minded young woman, I certainly did not want to take any chances. I knew I would be one of those women who would wait to have children until my late twenties or early thirties, even though I married the man I started dating at age 19.
It's funny how Schwaz first doesn't know what IUDs are (even thinking they are srgically inserted), and then questions why my daughters might want a similar 10+ years of "no worry" protection.
Oh and after another quick search of the internet, here are some more options for you Faye, since you and your daughters refuse to take responsibility for your own reproductive options. Amaxing how highschoolers can manage to find free birth control, but college students and graduates cannot?
http://www.life123.com/parenting/tweens-teens/teens-sex/birth-control-for-teens.shtml
Sources of Free Birth Control for Teens
The topic of birth control for teens remains controversial. Most parents would prefer abstinence until marriage, for a host of health and moral reasons. The reality for teens, however, is far different. In 2008 the National Institutes for Health reported the first increase in the rate of teen births since 1991. Sexually transmitted diseases remain a very real threat. When teens have access to birth control, they're more likely to use it, which reduces both the risk of pregnancy and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, though it's important to remember that birth control is never 100% effective.
Teens may be too embarassed to seek out birth control in stores or too fearful to ask parents for advice. For these reasons, locating reliable sources of free birth control and advice for teens is a good step.
Planned Parenthood
A teen who has never been counseled about reproductive health by a trained health care professional should seek this advice prior to engaging in sexual intercourse. There is nothing romantic about an unplanned pregnancy that forces a teen to make difficult choices about his future, or a sexually transmitted disease that may have lasting physical and psychological consequences.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has been around for decades and continues to lead the country in providing education and services that help teens make responsible choices about their sexuality. Planned Parenthood is also a source of free birth control for teens. Information about Planned Parenthood, including the location of nearby health centers offering Planning Parenthood services, can be accessed by visiting www.plannedparenthood.org.
Web Sites
Searching online will reveal a number of Web sites that offer free condoms to teens. Condoms are a wise choice for teens because they have been shown to also help prevent a number of sexually transmitted diseases when used properly, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Before taking advantage of free birth control offers online, it is important to read them carefully. Some sites may require a membership, have age restrictions or require a minimum purchase before a specified number of free condoms will be shipped. Most, however, do protect consumers' privacy by shipping condoms discretely in plain packages.
School Health Centers
While some teens may not consider their school as a free source of birth control, some public schools do provide these services, as do most colleges and universities. If information is not widely shared at a particular school about free birth control, a student can take it upon herself to visit the school nurse or health center. If a teen is worried about parents being notified, she should inquire about the school's policy before obtaining birth control.
Title X Family Planning Clinics
There is at least one Title X Family Planning clinic in 75% of counties throughout America, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. Title X Family Planning is a federally funded program that makes it possible for teens to receive free birth control and family planning services without their parents' permission. Teens can locate a Title X Family Planning clinic in their area by visiting the Office of Population Affairs Clearinghouse.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 05:32:35 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Schwaz, just goes to show how little you know: an IUD is inserted by a doctor similar to the way a woman inserts a tampon...........nothing surgical about it.
It is the "cheapest" birthcontrol method around, because it'll be good for 10 years plus as it was in my own case.
Ok so... your daughter(s) need 10 years worth of birth control subsidized by taxpayers because their in college now?
Do you think that they stopped being fertile once they made it to college?
Is this more of that majical thinking that Pro Choice people love to point out about the Pro Life crowd? If you are really trying to stop abortion, isnt birth control a good way to do that?
Or are you really just trying to keep women from having sex on an even ground with men, not having to worry about getting pregnant?
Thanks Stephen, as a career-minded young woman, I certainly did not want to take any chances. I knew I would be one of those women who would wait to have children until my late twenties or early thirties, even though I married the man I started dating at age 19.
It's funny how Schwaz first doesn't know what IUDs are (even thinking they are srgically inserted), and then questions why my daughters might want a similar 10+ years of "no worry" protection.
You're right Faye, I didn't. Back in late 1990's we had to run up to the corner store for a pack of rubbers and pay for it with our hard earned minimum wages.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 02:15:23 PM
Whoa whoa whoa Your college age, gainfully employed daughters need free contraceptives... and not just the over the counter variety... instead you're demanding surgically implanted contraceptives of their choosing?!??!?!
Schwaz, just goes to show how little you know: an IUD is inserted by a doctor similar to the way a woman inserts a tampon...........nothing surgical about it.
It is the "cheapest" birthcontrol method around, because it'll be good for 10 years plus as it was in my own case.
Abstinence doesnt cost a dime.... just sayin.
Neither does 10 years worth of high end birth control... according to Faye it's supposed to be free.
Faye continues to demonstrate that the 2nd biggest help to the pro-life movement (right behind, you know, the truth) is the sheer rabid extremism of the pro-abortion crowd.
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 05:24:01 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 05:17:02 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 05:00:26 PM
Somehow... we have spun from lack of access to birth control to lack of the options I think you should provide for my family.
The issue here is there IS birth control available that works, but Faye thinks we ( tax payers) should be buying everyone a MBZ not an escort because, well just because.
And of course since Faye thinks we should purchase these MBZs for her daughter, we have a right to be concerned no?
Lets keep things straight: you claimed you had free access to birth control through your high school nurse's office and through Planned Parenthood.
I then told you that my daughters would like the same, because today there is no such FREE access to birth control.
PLAIN and SIMPLE.
And it must be of the highest quality... and it must last at least 10 years... and it must be provided 'free' even if they are adults with jobs.
Hey, my daughters would have been fine with the same free birth control pills that uptowngirl used. However they looked all over, but couldn't find ANY free options out there..........working part-time at minimum wage.
Even uptowngirl agreed that no free options exist besides what dogwalker agrees to is irrational abstinence.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 06:07:16 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on March 30, 2011, 05:24:01 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 05:17:02 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 05:00:26 PM
Somehow... we have spun from lack of access to birth control to lack of the options I think you should provide for my family.
The issue here is there IS birth control available that works, but Faye thinks we ( tax payers) should be buying everyone a MBZ not an escort because, well just because.
And of course since Faye thinks we should purchase these MBZs for her daughter, we have a right to be concerned no?
Lets keep things straight: you claimed you had free access to birth control through your high school nurse's office and through Planned Parenthood.
I then told you that my daughters would like the same, because today there is no such FREE access to birth control.
PLAIN and SIMPLE.
And it must be of the highest quality... and it must last at least 10 years... and it must be provided 'free' even if they are adults with jobs.
Hey, my daughters would have been fine with the same free birth control pills that uptowngirl used. However they looked all over, but couldn't find ANY free options out there..........working part-time at minimum wage.
Even uptowngirl agreed that no free options exist besides what dogwalker agrees to is irrational abstinence.
Faye are you all there? And I mean that in the nicest sense it can be asked. I have posted free birth control opetions over and over for you, I have never admitted birth control is not available for free, so now I must seriously question your stability? I do not do so out of meanness, but out of true concern. I just do not feel it is fair to debate with someone not sound of mind and in the here and now.
Stephen your stories are as touching as they are heartbreaking thank you for sharing.
I have not heard the term "sitting that chicken" for a loooong time. It was a horrible southern practice and I hope to never hear it again as long as I live. We are still very poor at protecting women and children from abusive situations, very poor indeed.
Wow, uptowngirl continues to insist there is free birth control (pills) to be found at Planned Parenthood!
My 17 year old daughter who is in a committed relationship, just like dogwalker's friend's daughter, went to Planned Parenthood on Beach Blvd. and was told there is no such thing as free birth control pills.
So YOU are the one who is WRONG uptowngirl.
Why don't you give them a call yourself.
Why would I lie?
You anti-choice folks ( even though you call yourself pro-choice) have made sure getting contrception is pretty much out of reach for teens, just like the morning after pill can ONLY be sold over the counter to 18 year old and up.
It's disgusting, how difficult it is for teens!
And you wonder why the abortion rate is twice as high in the US than it is in the Netherlands or Belgium or for that matter pretty much ANY other European country.
Schwaz, thank you for having been a responsible teen/young man. But I'm sure that most have taken chances when they didn't happen to have a rubber on them and had a wee bit too much to drink.
Faye I have determined you are not all in the here and now. I posted links and sites for you. Your daughter can't get free birth control pills at PP because she has a JOB and based on her earnings does not qualify for free birth control pills. I also posted sites where your daughter can get free condoms. You either are ignoring this, too lazy to follow through, or are just pushing your extremist agenda. Here is a novel idea- since you are so career minded and concerned, go buy the pills for them instead of hoisting it off on us the tax payers.
In future though please do not misquote me, oh wait you did not even bother to quote me you just made it up and walla walla it is fact because you typed it.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 30, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
Schwaz, thank you for having been a responsible teen/young man. But I'm sure that most have taken chances when they didn't happen to have a rubber on them and had a wee bit too much to drink.
Considering I am one of those who take every precaution and protect my position and my companion's, when you make that kind of statement, it kinda sting. I think it is a bad usage of 'but' in that sentence.
That's like accusing so many men of being a criminal by "taking advantage of the opportunity" when you have no proof or support. I am sure there are women out there are like that too, so don't please point out to male only.
I know where you are coming from, and I do share & agree with your concern about those things.
-Josh
I just went to the NE FL PP site and they have title X available, you do need to qualify for it, so if working you will be charged on a sliding scale for what you should be able to afford.
It would be a real tragedy for a young girl to read that post and think they could not go and get free birth control there.
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 06:48:57 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Stephen your stories are as touching as they are heartbreaking thank you for sharing.
I have not heard the term "sitting that chicken" for a loooong time. It was a horrible southern practice and I hope to never hear it again as long as I live. We are still very poor at protecting women and children from abusive situations, very poor indeed.
thanks UptownGirl.
I just think that many of these issues are more complex than they seem, they are about real people and real lives. They cannot be easily reduced to political jingles, and its disrespectful to do so.
Stephen, thank you for sharing your personal experience. I've had some close personal experiences that I am not prepared to share except to say that they DID all end in a live birth..............but it was a very agonizing and scary experience for all those involved.
Suffice it to say that I was instrumental in "talking a young woman out of abortion," even though I am pro-choice.
For uptowngirl..........you are the one that needs to inform herself better........Planned Parenthood is different in every state. This is what the Jax Planned Parenthood has on their site:
QuoteAll information presented, including pricing and/or insurance information, is subject to change at any time.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/centerDetails.asp?f=3406
and as you are pro-choice please sign the petition from Florida Planned Parrenthood posted below:
Quote
Tell Florida Legislators: enough is enough!
In Florida, 18 anti-choice bills were filed that would severely restrict or outright ban women's access to reproductive health care. Urge your State Legislators to stop the attack on women's health care!
QuoteThis session the Florida Legislature has launched an assault on women's reproductive health care, introducing 18 anti-choice bills while proposing cuts to vital family planning funding. Planned Parenthood will be in the halls of the legislature to defend against these attacks, but we need your help.
Please sign the letter to the legislature here:
https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=12780&__utma=1.743452141.1301525344.1301525344.1301525344.1&__utmb=1.24.10.1301525344&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1301525344.1.1.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=planned%20parenthood%20jacksonville%20fl&__utmv=-&__utmk=177107109
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 06:55:21 PM
I just went to the NE FL PP site and they have title X available, you do need to qualify for it, so if working you will be charged on a sliding scale for what you should be able to afford.
It would be a real tragedy for a young girl to read that post and think they could not go and get free birth control there.
Umm, yeah title X is sooooo available!
QuoteFebruary 9, 2011, 4:51 PM ET.
GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds.
By Naftali Bendavid
Among the programs that would be eliminated entirely under the new Republican spending plan announced today is Title X, a which provides family planning for low-income Americans.
The GOP plan would cut all $327 million from Title X.
That prompted an angry response from pro-choice groups, who said the program provides contraception and cancer screening, among other services.
“While these politicians attack abortion coverage from every angle, they now want to deny funding for birth control, even though that’s the best way to prevent unintended pregnancy,†said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Title X recipients cannot use the money to provide abortions. But some conservatives have sought to tie together the two issues.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/gop-spending-plan-x-ing-out-title-x-family-planning-funds/
And since my daughter's experience at Planned Parenthood in Jax was mocked..........here is another young woman expressing her heartfelt frustration at the high cost of contraception at a time when she can little afford it:
QuoteFree birth control for all
By Signal Contributor
Posted on 23 February 2011
Tell Congress to support the health care reform laws that would ensure free birth control for all women. (AP Photo)
By Casey Olesko
As a young woman who would like to finish college and establish myself in a career before choosing to have children, birth control really matters to me. Unfortunately, it is really, really expensive. I pay $50 a month for it, and that’s with my parents’ insurance â€" otherwise, I’d be $90 in the hole every month.
I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who has to go through this. Luckily, thanks to the new health care reform laws, we have a chance to eliminate this cost and make birth control free. Yes, free. No copays or out-of-pocket costs at all. Congress is currently debating what should and should not be covered under the new health care reform laws. Birth control could be covered under the “prevention†provision under the new law, since contraception is considered a preventative medicine (that is, it prevents pregnancy).
By making birth control free, the number of unintended pregnancies would plummet. Right now, many women struggle to pay for their birth control, and as a result, might not be able to use it consistently, potentially leading to an unintended pregnancy. If birth control were covered under the new health care laws, this would be much less likely. Covering birth control will lead to healthier women and children, as women will have the ability to plan out their pregnancies and provide for their children.
Considering what happened in Congress last week, birth control matters more than ever. On Saturday, the House of Representatives voted to defund the Title X program, which funds reproductive health care services like contraception, annual exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, STI testing and treatment and patient education and counseling. By defunding this program, women’s access to these services will be slashed. Women will be left without access to affordable birth control, which will lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Women will be left without affordable breast and cervical cancer screenings or annual exams, which can and do save lives. Women will be left uneducated about their health and their bodies. Women will be left without a health care provider entirely, since six out of 10 women who use Planned Parenthood’s service say the organization is their main source of health care.
So, while we fight that battle, take a moment and consider the importance of covering birth control under the new health care reform laws. Text BCMATTERS to 69866 to sign a petition and make your voice heard. Whether it’s for you or a partner, birth control matters.
http://www.tcnjsignal.net/2011/02/23/12005/
PLEASE, PLEASE lets fight for our DAUGHTERS and all the other women in our lives!!
Maybe an eye opener fo uptowngirl?
QuotePlanned Parenthood's Pricey Pills
For young women, access to low-cost birth control is more important than ever. So why's it so hard -- and expensive -- to get it from Planned Parenthood?
February 27, 2006
Conservatives paint Planned Parenthood as an abortion mill and birth-control factory, an institution that doles out emergency contraception to teenage girls like Halloween candy.
But a few years ago, I realized birth control wasn't quite as easy to get as I (or the religious right) thought. The first clue: a few teenagers I regularly interviewed for stories told me that they had stopped taking the Pill. Even if they had a doctor they trusted, they didn't want to use their parents' insurance -- too easy for mom and dad to find out -- and they didn't have the cash to pay out-of-pocket.
What about Planned Parenthood, I asked? "It's not an option," one of them -- we'll call her Hannah -- told me last year, when she was 17 and a senior in high school. "They charge $100 a session and $40 per pack of birth control. Teenagers can't afford it unless they're under 15."
Hannah tried to find less expensive services elsewhere, but without much luck. She's resorted to using condoms, less effective than the gynecologist-recommended two forms of birth control (particularly important for those abstinence-only students who aren't allowed to get the roll-a-rubber-on-a-banana demo in school) and, of course, requiring the cooperation of not-always-willing teenage boys.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America serves one in four American women during their lifetime. It's widely considered the most convenient and reliable provider of low-cost birth control. It's been that way since 1970, when Title X, the family-planning program of the Public Service Health Act, was passed. (George Bush Sr. was one of its primary sponsors.)
Whereas PPFA had once been small and funded entirely through private donations, Title X "was seed money to start family planning services all over the country," says Gloria Feldt, who stepped down as the organization's president last year. The result, she adds, "cannot be underestimated."
For the first time, women could decide when they wanted to have children and orchestrate the rest of their lives accordingly. So when did it become "not an option" for vulnerable young women?
According to Planned Parenthood representatives, Hannah should have gotten her pills for free. But that's something she didn't understand (and I can vouch that she's pretty sophisticated). It's unlikely the clinic meant to refuse her services because she couldn't afford them: Title X requires that a health center not turn away anyone under the federal poverty line. And it's Planned Parenthood's mission, according to Jodie Curtis, assistant director for government relations for PPFA, not to turn away anyone at all. When it comes to those not covered by Title X, she says, "it is up to Planned Parenthood to figure out how to help those people subsidize the cost if they can't pay. Some states have programs to help with this, and many Planned Parenthoods fundraise to help patients cover the cost of services." Plus, PPFA is allowed to assess teens on their own income level, not their parents'.
Yet Hannah's story is symptomatic of a growing trend. Jennifer, 24, also tried to get the Pill through PPFA in New York. "They were very unhelpful," she recalls. "I didn't have insurance, and they just couldn't comprehend why I didn't. They kept making hints about how they assumed I could afford it and thus it was my negligence. But I really couldn't afford it."
For some girls, the cost of the Pill has become so prohibitive that they're tempted to switch to more affordable methods. At PPNYC, a pill pack is free for insured patients; for those without insurance, it can cost up to $20 on a sliding scale. On the other hand, Depo-Provera is included in Planned Parenthood's visit fee; there's no additional cost. "That's alarming to me, as I think it offers an inappropriate incentive," says Judy Norsigian, the executive director of Our Bodies Ourselves, the women's-health advocacy organization. "Just because a method is free doesn't mean it's necessarily the right one."
More here:
http://www.alternet.org/story/32759/
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
But seriously, this issue over birth control is one thing, but I'm having a really hard time believing that there are so many people in commited relationships that they're only problem is not being able to afford the pill or a iud or a patch or some other form of BC that doesn't protect from any disease at all.
Reality check - we should be teaching our kids that getting accidentally pregnant is the #2 reason for protection during sex. #1 on the list should be protection against disease. You can have an abortion if that's the route you want to take, but the HIV is forever, and last I checked, the pill doesn't really help on that front.
So you girls can keep bickering over what is free, what is not, whether the gov't should pay for it or whether it's up to ourselves, but I'm looking out for mine. That will be plastic, please.
I remember in high school my best friend's DAD sitting us down after watching some HBO special and discussing HIV with us. He drew a picture with stick figures "you sleep with this one boy who has slept with these two girls who has slept with these two boys...." it scared the hell out of both of us- Condoms were, and still are the ONLY answer, besides abstinance.
Stephen,
Sitting the chicken, or hen as it is said in LA is a southern term. I have never heard it the same term used elsewhere. I know this was rampant practice in your grandmothers age and it breaks my heart.
In the here and now, we have support groups, outlets, and options for women in these situations. In fact there is one exactly half a block from one of my houses. Even with the existing support, it is not enough. The real issue is getting women to take that step. That is the hardest part, and we still fail miserably at this. Even if birth control in the form of pills, IUD, patch were available in your Grandmother's time, it would not have resolved the issue of the physical and mental abuse and in fact could have contributed to even further abuse since she was not getting pregnant. I think your grandmother's case is less about birth control and abortion, and more about being stuck in an abusive relationship, with no support or help getting out.
I will say, this thread has covered a multitude of women's issues and has had some very intelligent and interesting postings. I am happy to see so many (men and women) taking an interest in women's issues!
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 31, 2011, 03:50:19 PM
Stephen,
Sitting the chicken, or hen as it is said in LA is a southern term. I have never heard it the same term used elsewhere. I know this was rampant practice in your grandmothers age and it breaks my heart.
In the here and now, we have support groups, outlets, and options for women in these situations. In fact there is one exactly half a block from one of my houses. Even with the existing support, it is not enough. The real issue is getting women to take that step. That is the hardest part, and we still fail miserably at this. Even if birth control in the form of pills, IUD, patch were available in your Grandmother's time, it would not have resolved the issue of the physical and mental abuse and in fact could have contributed to even further abuse since she was not getting pregnant. I think your grandmother's case is less about birth control and abortion, and more about being stuck in an abusive relationship, with no support or help getting out.
I will say, this thread has covered a multitude of women's issues and has had some very intelligent and interesting postings. I am happy to see so many (men and women) taking an interest in women's issues!
The term is southern, but the practice has been universal for many centuries.
Don't you think it took all of the programs, support, contraception, women's support groups and funding that we have expended over the past 40 years to get to the point that we are at now?
Don't you think it took astronomical divorce rates to correct the relationship between the sexes and make the male domination and abusive bullshit a thing of the past?
Didn't the possibility of ending a pregnancy without her husband being able to stop her cure the practice of 'sitting that chicken'?
without doubt, and we need more support for women in abusive relationships.
But no, I do not believe in free or subsidized abortions, while I do believe in pro-choice and I do not want abortions to be illegal (within the first trimester) I draw the line there, I think you should pay for your own abortion, as pro-choice includes who you sleep with, marry, whether you use birth control, etc. Also I posted some pretty sad statistic regarding the number of women having MORE than one abortion. I do believe in free birth control for those that cannot afford it, or have reason to be frightened to ask their loved ones (parents or husband) and as I have shown it is available.
I get the feeling this is going back to my point earlier, moderates are attacked by both sides of the coin. The far left will say I am not supportive enough and weak, the far right will say I am too supportive and weak....
OR, maybe I am not sure what you are trying to get me to acknowledge Stephen? Abortions are legal, there is free and subsidized birth control available, and as far as abusive relationships like your Grandmother's, birth control and/or abortion may have saved her body from the multiple births but I think it most likely would of caused even more physical abuse from her husband. To me that is a totally different issue. I would be happy to discuss support for women in abusive relationships, but it is a tricky topic as most women in these relationships know it is wrong, know they deserve better, know they should leave but they also believe they love their tormentor and rarely press charges or leave.
Since most of the opponents of abortion are of religious nature and they don't like the state paying for abortions...well..then if the state government doesn't have to pay for abortions then maybe the same rule should go for churches and the complete tax break that they receive...isn't that break the same? I"m just saying that if you want to use your religion and it's doctrine to stop the payment then maybe we should stop letting churches start paying their share to. Isn't that subsidizing churches?
Quote from: Garden guy on March 31, 2011, 07:49:39 PM
Since most of the opponents of abortion are of religious nature and they don't like the state paying for abortions...well..then if the state government doesn't have to pay for abortions then maybe the same rule should go for churches and the complete tax break that they receive...isn't that break the same? I"m just saying that if you want to use your religion and it's doctrine to stop the payment then maybe we should stop letting churches start paying their share to. Isn't that subsidizing churches?
Uhhh. Taxing or not taxing churches is certainly reasonable fodder for debate, but irrelevant here.
"Is she is or is she aint" a human within the womb? That is the question.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 31, 2011, 03:50:19 PM
Stephen,
Sitting the chicken, or hen as it is said in LA is a southern term. I have never heard it the same term used elsewhere. I know this was rampant practice in your grandmothers age and it breaks my heart.
In the here and now, we have support groups, outlets, and options for women in these situations. In fact there is one exactly half a block from one of my houses. Even with the existing support, it is not enough. The real issue is getting women to take that step. That is the hardest part, and we still fail miserably at this. Even if birth control in the form of pills, IUD, patch were available in your Grandmother's time, it would not have resolved the issue of the physical and mental abuse and in fact could have contributed to even further abuse since she was not getting pregnant. I think your grandmother's case is less about birth control and abortion, and more about being stuck in an abusive relationship, with no support or help getting out.
I will say, this thread has covered a multitude of women's issues and has had some very intelligent and interesting postings. I am happy to see so many (men and women) taking an interest in women's issues!
The term is southern, but the practice has been universal for many centuries.
Don't you think it took all of the programs, support, contraception, womens support groups and funding that we have expended over the past 40 years to get to the point that we are at now?
Don't you think it took astronomical divorce rates to correct the relationship between the sexes and make the male domination and abusive bullshit a thing of the past?
Didnt the possibility of ending a pregnancy without her husband being able to stop her cure the practice of 'sitting that chicken'?
Well it was and still is common practice for men to control their women with sex and pregnancy: the other term that comes to mind is to keep your woman "barefoot and pregnant"
It is such a sad spectacle to see women who proclaim themselves to be pro-choice, blame the women themselves, making out the the women of today have so many option available to them, if they just weren't so stupid not to be "aware" of them. That primary option of course being abstinence. ???
Yeah, it's the stupid women all-right, but not the ones these so-called pro-choice women are talking about.
It's the ignorant self-righteous, unsupportive women who blame everything on the women. Just like your grandmother should have just submitted to the abuse, because it probably would have gotten worse if she would have been able to prevent pregnancy by getting the pill.
???
It's the ignorant self-righteous so-called pro-choice women who are doing NOTHING to prevent the GOP attack on women. They are doing NOTHING about the GOP elimination of Title X. They are doing NOTHING about making it easier for teens to get birth control to empower them to prevent pregnancy.
All they do is preach at other women and criticise them, and then have the gall to call themselves pro-choice.
What are they doing to back that up? How are they being supportive to the women who are wanting to exercise their choice?!
Ah, here I come with one of those real life examples that are just so inconvenient, like Stephen's courageously shared personal and well-written chronicle:
QuoteMy mother had 5 children, in 6 years. Her body was ravaged, just like Stephen's grandmother. My dad wasn't an abuser, he was simply Catholic, and they were trying to use the rythm method to space out the births of their children lol. Fortunately for her 1965 rolled around.............it was the last year she had a baby, because she had a supportive husband who "allowed" her to get the pill
But the Fake pro-choice women, would prefer that it gets harder and harder to get any form of birth control because the REAL choice should be abstinence ???
It's that whole I'm better than thou attitude among women. All the other women are sluts. Please look back in this thread at the young Republican woman who wrote about her own attitude towards other women driving her anti-choice bullying.
And we wonder why this country was able to elect a black man ( blacks make up 12% of the population) before we were able to elect a woman ( women make up 51% of the population) for President.
We are 85th in the world for women in state and federal government. AND what's more.............we've lost ground in the past three decades after Geraldine Ferrarro was the Democratic nominee for Vice President!!
Stephen, your sister is absolutely gorgeous!!!
I am so glad the cycle of abuse that your grandmother Mary experienced was broken.
Let us continue the fight to make lives better for all the women in America, by fighting the renewed GOP war against Women.
Quote from: stephendare on April 02, 2011, 11:41:55 AM
dont demean the struggles of women over the centuries by reducing it to a partisan war cry.
Sorry Stephen, it is not I who has made the struggles of women a partisan war cry!
It clearly is one of the main Republican planks of today's Republican Party. With 18 anti-women bills making it through our state's legislature and the whole-sale attack on women and children nationwide it is not difficult to see WHO is waging their war on women and children:
Quote
Miscarriage-as-Murder Bill Center of GOP War on Women
Instead of focusing on the health and lives and current well-being of Americans - especially the millions of Americans who seem to be living in an increasingly separate state, those who are uninsured or underinsured in terms of health coverage, those who are unemployed or underemployed, those who are living near, at or below the poverty line, women, people of color and children - Republicans are intent upon ripping away any shred of assistance owed to these citizens, as much as governmental safety net programs, paid for by our taxes, are owed to us all.
Franklin's horrifying bill ( to call all miscarriages prenatal murder) is not out of left field in the least, if you've been following the constant legislative pummeling on the "other" Americans. House GOP leaders proposed a budget which places the health and lives of the rest of us in danger. From cutting billions in aid to programs like Women, Infant, Children (WIC) which helps pay for milk, formula, food and diapers to defunding our nation's only federal program, Title X, which provides for critical preventative care like Pap tests, breast exams, STI checks, HIV tests and more, to cutting millions in foreign aid to PEPFAR, our global AIDS prevention program, which helps prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission among other things, we're watching a crisis of principles play out in front of our eyes.
Women's health advocates may be the warriors out in front of this battle but if we allow the GOP to do what they're doing, it may end up being a victory for all of us "other" Americans. Are they not digging their own graves at this point? Rep. Michele Bachmann is "taking a stance" against families being able to use their own pre-tax dollars to cover breastfeeding pumps, making quite the couragous stand against First Lady Michelle Obama's work to combat the obesity epidemic and the CDC's goals to increase breastfeeding rates for the health and lives of our mothers and babies.
Rep. Bobby Franklin may not be taken seriously by his colleagues but his proposal to criminalize miscarriage must be seen as relevant to the broader assault - not just on women and women's bodies. This is an assault on freedom and justice. It's an assault on all Americans who understand that there is a difference between making a personal decision not to do something with which you disagree and legislating inhumanity and injustice. The introduction of this bill must be viewed as the center of the current storm. When the GOP creates a climate of absolute antipathy for humankind, displayed in their assault particularly on women's health and lives, bills like this are born.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/02/23/prenatal-murder-bill-center-women
Today's Republican woman like Susan Collins is the exception, not the rule.
Quote from: stephendare on April 03, 2011, 08:21:03 PM
Its larger than political affiliation Faye, and you know that.
We agree that the Republicans have some despicable radicals in office at the moment, and that many of them are being fed from evangelical cults who hate the entire modern world, but the struggle is larger than just Republican vs. Democrat.
I think now that there is some legal infrastructure underneath the feet of women's equality, its time to rethink the paradigm a bit----which has been happening anyways.
No doubt women have come a long way. And I agree with you that misogeny is larger than political affiliation.
However the issue of regulating of women's uteri is the exclusive focus of Republicans..........hence the title of this thread: "Republicans, Abortion, Women's Rights, and the challenges facing them."
I assume you were the one consolidating some of the various anti-abortion threads.
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 04, 2011, 09:47:04 AM
No doubt women have come a long way. And I agree with you that misogeny is larger than political affiliation.
However the issue of regulating of women's uteri is the exclusive focus of Republicans..........hence the title of this thread: "Republicans, Abortion, Women's Rights, and the challenges facing them."
I assume you were the one consolidating some of the various anti-abortion threads.
And here is what's happening in the Florida legislature today............only 39 Dems defending women against 81 Republicans ( in the Florida House..........similar undemocratic imbalance exists in the 40 member Senate)!!
QuoteThe fast and furious attack on women’s health care continues. Today three bills hurting women and teens’ health will be heard in the Florida Senate Health Regulation Committee.
SB 1748, the Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) legislation is a backdoor attempt to deny women access to a legal health procedure. If passed, this bill will hurt women and drive abortion providers out of practice. Also on agenda, SB 1744 would force a woman to undergo an ultrasound prior to an abortion even when it is not medically appropriate or is against the professional judgment of her physician. Finally, SB 1770 attempts to make it harder for a teen to obtain a judicial bypass by lengthening the time a judge has to determine whether a minor is sufficiently mature by close to three weeks.
Take action and tell your legislators to vote no on these bills.
If that weren’t enough, the recent flap over the ban of the word “uterus†in the Florida House comes at a time when our legislators seem to be preoccupied with attacking women’s reproductive rights and health. With 18 anti-choice bills pending, it’s ironic that legislators can’t say the word “uterusâ€, but they feel very comfortable legislating it!
Watch the video below to learn more.
The whole uterus saga would be funny, were it not for that fact that women’s health and rights are at stake. All of the anti-choice bills seek to make it harder and harder for women to get abortions â€" with little or no regard for the circumstances, even when terminating a pregnancy might protect a woman’s health.
Planned Parenthood continues to urge the legislature to focus on jobs and the economy and to stop playing politics with women’s lives.
Oh yeah.......government should come between a woman and her doctor, after all women cannot be trusted with their own healthcare decisions. ::)
Isn't this unconstitutional?!?
A very personal subject that I hope everyone realizes touches more than just women. It takes two people to make a child. And many more are affected. I would just like to ask everyone to also remember the very young lives that are being ended. I hope that StephenDare!'s idea of a substitute for abortion comes to pass.
Quote from: NotNow on April 04, 2011, 12:35:30 PM
A very personal subject that I hope everyone realizes touches more than just women. It takes two people to make a child. And many more are affected. I would just like to ask everyone to also remember the very young lives that are being ended. I hope that StephenDare!'s idea of a substitute for abortion comes to pass.
NotNow, I agree that this is a heartwrenching subject.
I so wish we could at least agree on step #1: to help reduce the number of "unwanted" pregnancies..........and no, preaching abstinence clearly isn't working.
What is KNOWN to work is the availability of free birth control, but apparently providing that at tax payer expense ( or as charity donation by contraceptive manufacturers) is too high a price to pay to reduce the number of abortions in th US.
We'd rather use tax payer monies after the fact, to force the continuation of unwanted pregnancies. We'll use our taxpayer monies to punish the doctors, require ultra-sounds and pretend they are medically necessary (hence should be covered by Medicaid) etc.
We don't object to spending taxpayer money AFTER the fact, but remember: An Ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure
Legislating our morality at tax payers' expense is just not the way to go.
Fa
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 04, 2011, 07:06:21 PM
Quote from: NotNow on April 04, 2011, 12:35:30 PM
A very personal subject that I hope everyone realizes touches more than just women. It takes two people to make a child. And many more are affected. I would just like to ask everyone to also remember the very young lives that are being ended. I hope that StephenDare!'s idea of a substitute for abortion comes to pass.
NotNow, I agree that this is a heartwrenching subject.
I so wish we could at least agree on step #1: to help reduce the number of "unwanted" pregnancies..........and no, preaching abstinence clearly isn't working.
What is KNOWN to work is the availability of free birth control,
Two false statements for the price of one.
Abstinence is the ONLY method that works. Unfortunately, that takes changing the culture, which is too much work for people like you Faye. You'd rather take the easy way out.
Second, not only is birth control not the only option, the abortion rate has blatantly INCREASED since the introduction of widespread birth control. And it makes sense if you think about it - promoting birth control as the "best" solution pushes a worldview that promotes careless promiscuity, and if a baby happens, well, at least abortion is the plan b. The birth control mindset is a huge part of the problem, not the solution.
Seriously...just go read "Humanae Vitae." Hopefully you're heart will be softened to understand we're living through every single cultural prediction that was made 50 years ago.
Oh Clem, you are so wrong. Remember my home country is among the most promiscuous countries around ;D.............and voila, it has the lowest abortion rates.
Why?
Free contraception!!!
So if you want to stop what you call the "killing of babies" do what the Dutch do, prevent those unwanted pregnancies!
QuoteThe Guttmacher report also found that total abortions occurred at "roughly equal rates" in countries where they are legal and where they are highly restricted, which means that laws outlawing abortion are serving only to drive women to have the procedure in riskier places and with riskier methods.
But at a news conference in London, Guttmacher president Sharon Camp cited the Netherlands as an example for all other countries to follow. It has the lowest abortion rate in the world: about 1 percent of women have had an abortion in the past year compared with a worldwide average of about 3 percent.
The Dutch? With their legalized prostitution and ultraliberal abortion laws? How can that be? I did a little research and found out that the Netherlands has not only the lowest abortion rate but the lowest rate of teen pregnancy. In fact, the country has held this distinction for decades. Researchers credit strategies like sex education in schools, discussion of sexuality in the mass media, and easy access to contraception. One study pointed out that "acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion" and that Dutch citizens accept "abortion only as a last resort."
Also a biggie: inclusion of family planning services as part of the Dutch medical system. Hmm. Full coverage for birth control pills, IUDs, and vasectomies? Sounds like a must in our healthcare reform bill.
In fact, I'm wondering if all of the raging arguments concerning abortion coverage in health reform aren't a little misguided. Perhaps pro-choice and antiabortion activists should unite to wage a push for comprehensive family planning services. After all, both groups say they want to lower the rate of abortions, and research suggests those programs, rather than restrictive laws, are the way to achieve that goal.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2009/10/14/abortion-down-contraception-up-recipe-for-health-reform
And yes, I did use the morning after pill as a teenager in the 70s. It is still not available over the counter to teenagers in the US. and what's more it costs $40, too steep a price for a teenager.
And you wonder why the US has the HIGHEST abortion rate of any western nation!!!!
BTW, I have never had an abortion.
Is that what it means to "go Dutch"?
:-*
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 04, 2011, 08:47:29 PM
Oh Clem, you are so wrong. Remember my home country is among the most promiscuous countries around ;D.............and voila, it has the lowest abortion rates.
Why?
Free contraception!!!
So if you want to stop what you call the "killing of babies" do what the Dutch do, prevent those unwanted pregnancies!
I am trying to prevent those "unwanted" pregnancies. Only difference is I'm using the only method that really works. Like I said...you want the lazy way out instead of actively trying to change and improve the culture.
Besides, if the Netherlands is the best example you can come up with, count me out of wanting anything to do with a culture that's actively contracepting itself out of existence (let me know how that seriously sub-replacement fertility rate works out for them in 50 years). If nothing else, the Netherlands (and really the vast majority of Western Europe) continues to prove Humanae Vitae correct.
Quote from: buckethead on April 04, 2011, 08:48:30 PM
Is that what it means to "go Dutch"?
:-*
So true, "going Dutch" just means being pragmatic.
Ask any American teenager how that abstinence only is working out for them ;D
I am not aware of the studies that you are quoting StephenDare!. I am surprised by your quote that the majority of abortions is performed on conservative christian women (or evangelicals) and conservative catholics. I am also a bit confused. Are you claiming that most abortions are performed due to rape or sexual control?
I think what Clem is decrying is the use of abortion as a form of birth control casually. While I don't claim to have all of the answers (or even a few) in the abortion debate, I do believe that the loss of these young lives is a tragedy of our times. I certainly agree that this is a very complicated issue that affects the lives of many women (and men). I also agree with your hope that technology can provide some answer to this problem.
^^
In response to the above arguments:
1. Rape and incest are very tragic circumstances, and my heart goes out to the victims of these terrible crimes. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Someone violating your rights to your body does not justify denying another person the right to life. That's like saying that if someone were to give you AIDS that you have the right to kill them. It's a great cross for these women to bear in that situation, but we have to remember that unborn child is innocent.
2. I can't speak for Evangelical Protestants, but I know that among Catholics contraceptive use is comparable to the general public. Here is a link to a recent study that shows that data if you want the details:
http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=nursing_fac&sei-redir=1#search="catholics+contractive+use+rates" (http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=nursing_fac&sei-redir=1#search="catholics+contractive+use+rates")
Here's an article showing how church attendance and overall religiosity have dropped in American.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/04/09/the-fall-of-mass-attendance-but-not-us-religiosity/ (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/04/09/the-fall-of-mass-attendance-but-not-us-religiosity/)
So really I would suggest that you are looking at your data quite out of context. It's not necessarily that teaching Chastity is not effective way to counter unwanted pregnancies and abortion. It's just that people people place less value on religion in modern culture as opposed to other elements such as TV, movies, video games, etc. The data clearly shows that the average Catholic is no different than the average American in mindset.
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."-G.K. Chesterton
3. And you are absolutely right that women are more than baby making machines. Sex is procreative AND unitive. Neither aspect of it should be overemphasized. Both are important. And remember sex is only one part of a loving marriage between man and wife. If a man has respect for his wife, then they need to consider TOGETHER how they will plan their family. It is possible to plan when children using a woman's natural fertile signs in a way that is open to new life and respectful of women that does not use artificial birth control.
And how much happier are we as a society now that sex is exalted the way it has been? A 2002 study showed that 64% of all TV shows included some sexual content.
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=14278 (http://www.kff.org/entmedia/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=14278)
Yet I read that over 18% of adults have depression. Divorce rates are high. People are dissatisfied.
So sex is great, but in the proper context of a healthy loving relationship. In fact, the way you speak of sex devalues it in my eyes. The way you speak of sex makes the focus on your own needs when the focus and what makes sex truly satisfying in my view is when it is a gift of yourself to your spouse. In fact, I would say this view of sex as something I need contributes to the rape and incest problem you mentioned. Sex becomes a way to gain power over another instead of a way to give yourself when you take this 'enlightened' view of sex.
Now I don't mean to suggest that your intentions are bad or that you do not care at all about life because I see you as someone who does care about people, but I hope you will consider the other side of the coin as well.
Um...OK. This is where I just point out that you have not proven your statements and that they are your unsubstantiated opinion.
I did do a simple Google search and found this:
The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on abortifacients. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives.
Click here for the Guttmacher Institute's latest fact sheet on abortion.
WORLDWIDE
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000
Where abortions occur:
83% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 17% occur in developed countries.
© Copyright 1996-2008, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.
Who's having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.
Who's having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.
Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.
Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
At what gestational ages are abortions performed:
52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
Abortion coverage:
48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.
© Copyright 1998, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
© Copyright 1997, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
© Copyright 1995, Family Planning Perspectives
© Copyright 1988, Family Planning Perspectives
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
And these:
http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp
National abortion statistics in the U.S. are available from two sources, privately from The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and federally from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Since California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire do not provide abortion data to the federal government, and since California accounts for more abortions than any other state in the U.S, the CDC numbers are incomplete. AGI, on the other hand, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider. While their data is helpful, they certainly have a position and agenda in regard to abortion. The following information has been gleaned from both sources to provide an overview of the frequency and demography of abortion.
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ABORTION, VISIT THESE LINKS:
PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT, ABORTION TECHNIQUES, ABORTION PICTURES
IF YOU ARE PREGNANT, FREE LOCAL ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE. FIND HELP IN:
New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, OR SEARCH BY ZIP
ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS
In 2005 (the most recent year for which there is reliable data), approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).
In 2004, the highest number of reported legal induced abortions occurred in Florida (91,710), NYC (91,673), and Texas (74,801); the fewest occurred in Wyoming (12), South Dakota (814), and Idaho (963) (CDC).
The abortion ratios by state ranged from a low of 43 abortions per 1,000 live births in Idaho to a high of 770 abortions per 1,000 live births in NYC (CDC).
Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 until it peaked in 1990, and it generally declined thereafter (CDC).
In 1998, the last year for which estimates were made, more than 23% of legal induced abortions were performed in California (CDC).
The abortion rate in the United States was higher than recent rates reported for Canada and Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, the majority of Eastern European countries, and certain Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (CDC).
The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1973 to 358 abortions per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981. The ratio peaked at 364 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2001, the abortion ratio was 246 abortions per 1,000 live births (for the states that reported, a 0.4% increase from 2000 (CDC).
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI).
WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
At least 80% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women (CDC).
The abortion ratio for unmarried women is 510 abortions for every 1,000 live births. For married women it is 61 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).
Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions (CDC).
50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions and teenagers obtain 17% (AGI).
Adolescents under 15 years obtained less than 1% of all abortions, but have the highest abortion ratio, 773 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).
47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).
Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI).
43% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% identify themselves as Catholic (AGI).
WHY ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?
On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?
88% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week (AGI/CDC).
HOW ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?
87% of abortions were known to have been performed by curettage (which includes dilatation and evacuation [D&E]). Most curetage abortions are suction procedures (CDC).
Hysterectomy and hysterotomy were used in less than .01% of all abortions (CDC).
Medical abortions make up approximately 10% of all abortions reported (CDC).
WHO IS PERFORMING ABORTIONS?
The number of abortion providers declined by 11% between 1996 and 2000 (from 2,042 to 1,819). It declined another 2% between 2000 and 2005 (from 1,819 to 1,787) (AGI).
Forty percent of providers offer very early abortions (during the first four weeks’ gestation) and 96% offer abortion at eight weeks. Sixty-seven percent of providers offer at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later), and 20% offer abortion after 20 weeks. Only 8% of all abortion providers offer abortions at 24 weeks (AGI).
ABORTION FATALITY
In 2003 (the most recent year for which data are available), 10 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion (CDC).
The number of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion was highest before the 1980s (CDC).
In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC).
THE COST OF ABORTION
In 2005, the cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation ranged from $90 to $1,800, and the average amount paid was $413 (AGI).
MEDICAL ABORTION
In 2005, 57% of abortion providers, or 1,026 facilities, provided one or more types of medical abortions, a 70% increase from the first half of 2001. At least 10% of nonhospital abortion providers offer only medication abortion services (AGI).
In 2005, an estimated 161,100 early medication abortions were performed in nonhospital facilities (AGI).
Medication abortion accounted for 13% of all abortions, and 22% of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation, in 2005 (AGI).
ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION
Induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception (CDC).
54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use (AGI).
8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control (AGI).
9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method (AGI).
ABORTION AND MINORS
40% of minors having an abortion report that neither of their parents knew about the abortion (AGI).
35 states currently enforce parental consent or notification laws for minors seeking an abortion: AL, AR, AZ, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA,WI, WV, and WY. The Supreme Court ruled that minors must have the alternative of seeking a court order authorizing the procedure (AGI).
ABORTION AND PUBLIC FUNDS
The U.S. Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman's life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest (AGI).
17 states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MA, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) do use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds (virtually all from the state) (AGI).
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the facts indicate that it is true that a majority of women obtaining abortions give the answer "protestant" or "catholic" when questioned about their religion, there is no mention of "conservative" in any study that I saw. The study also indicates that rape is a cause of one percent of abortions and that "social reasons" is given as the cause for 96% of abortions. This would seem to back up Clem's position.
Again, I don't claim to have the answers to this very personal question. I can say that I am not OK with what is happening now. I am not opposed to help with education and contraception. I will never pretend that young men and young women will not couple up when given the opportunity. I won't argue about what semen does for young women (other than to point out the danger of disease). I DO pray that there is another answer than ending the lives of more than a million (at least potential) human children per year. I understand that the lives of these young mothers is involved as well, but I am unsure of the meaning of "social reasons".
StephenDare!, from the last line of your quote:
"The groups that were the most likely to have an abortion were those affiliated with "other" religions or no religion at all, with abortion rates of 31 and 30 per 1,000 women, respectively."
Really, I don't think religion plays as large a role as we are giving it. As Fallen Buckeye as pointed out, this country has become less religious. It is obvious, however, that any claim about "conservative christians" or "conservative catholics" regarding abortions is unsubstatiated and incorrect. Again, I hope this issue can be addressed without political polarization.
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 04, 2011, 12:26:09 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 04, 2011, 09:47:04 AM
No doubt women have come a long way. And I agree with you that misogeny is larger than political affiliation.
However the issue of regulating of women's uteri is the exclusive focus of Republicans..........hence the title of this thread: "Republicans, Abortion, Women's Rights, and the challenges facing them."
I assume you were the one consolidating some of the various anti-abortion threads.
And here is what's happening in the Florida legislature today............only 39 Dems defending women against 81 Republicans ( in the Florida House..........similar undemocratic imbalance exists in the 40 member Senate)!!
QuoteThe fast and furious attack on women’s health care continues. Today three bills hurting women and teens’ health will be heard in the Florida Senate Health Regulation Committee.
SB 1748, the Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) legislation is a backdoor attempt to deny women access to a legal health procedure. If passed, this bill will hurt women and drive abortion providers out of practice. Also on agenda, SB 1744 would force a woman to undergo an ultrasound prior to an abortion even when it is not medically appropriate or is against the professional judgment of her physician. Finally, SB 1770 attempts to make it harder for a teen to obtain a judicial bypass by lengthening the time a judge has to determine whether a minor is sufficiently mature by close to three weeks.
Take action and tell your legislators to vote no on these bills.
If that weren’t enough, the recent flap over the ban of the word “uterus” in the Florida House comes at a time when our legislators seem to be preoccupied with attacking women’s reproductive rights and health. With 18 anti-choice bills pending, it’s ironic that legislators can’t say the word “uterus”, but they feel very comfortable legislating it!
Watch the video below to learn more.
The whole uterus saga would be funny, were it not for that fact that women’s health and rights are at stake. All of the anti-choice bills seek to make it harder and harder for women to get abortions – with little or no regard for the circumstances, even when terminating a pregnancy might protect a woman’s health.
Planned Parenthood continues to urge the legislature to focus on jobs and the economy and to stop playing politics with women’s lives.
Oh yeah.......government should come between a woman and her doctor, after all women cannot be trusted with their own healthcare decisions. ::)
Isn't this unconstitutional?!?
Your irrational finger pointing is as eye opening as it is hilarious. Faye... what should be unconstitutional... um... err... unconscionable... is the fact that Democrats hold a majority of voters in this state but unerringly and repeatedly fail to show up at the polls thereby allowing RS and a overwhelming republican majority to do as it wishes. Progressives are clearly to blame for most of the woes you complain about.
In Florida at least... democrats seem to... register to vote, fail to vote, and complain about the results of the vote. Faye your hysterical diatribes are incredibly misdirected... and incredibly funny. Just a suggestion Faye... Start 5 or 10 threads blasting your lazy progressive brethren. More than a few of us might actually read those...
Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 05, 2011, 07:42:39 AM
Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
uptowngirl, obviously I think that's as appaling as you think. So I propose looking for solutions that have worked. That way we can work together to reduce the # of abortions that are due to lack of preventative contraception.
Clearly telling your girls and women to keep their legs crossed isn't working..............I guess you could keep trying harder to "change the culture," but even church groups haven't had much luck with that:
QuoteWho’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/ Evangelical
Likelihood of abortion:
Contraception is the ONLY thing that is guaranteed to work to reduce the number of abortions!!
As Stephen said, it's in our nature to be sexual beings.
And the sooner we have the courage to admit that, the sooner we will be able to find effective anti-abortion solutions on common ground.
The fact is that the republicans as a party seem to be completly against womens rights or anyones rights that they don't deem worthy. The party is doing nothing but dragging us all back into the 19th century. HOw can this continue with so many smart evolved people around? What's happening to our reasoning and reality?
Quote from: Garden guy on April 05, 2011, 09:01:03 AM
The fact is that the republicans as a party seem to be completly against womens rights or anyones rights that they don't deem worthy. The party is doing nothing but dragging us all back into the 19th century. HOw can this continue with so many smart evolved people around? What's happening to our reasoning and reality?
Yeah, and conventional wisdom is that as a candidate, you should avoid talking about the abotion issue at all cost, simply because it is so emotionally charged.
That's why you had triangulating Clinton saying:
"Abortions should be safe, legal and rare"
But we never have a REAL discussion on how to make abortions rare.
In all honesty, at least Dems don't claim to have the "moral highground" at every turn in their campaign. They are far too realistic for that.
The sooner we look for pragmatic solutions that actually are KNOWN to work, the sooner we can bring DOWN the the number of abortions.
Heck, wouldn't you just give anything to bring down the US abortion rate from an abysmal high of 22.3% of all confirmed pregnancies, to less than 10% as is the case in other western nations?
Or are we enabling our depressingly high abortion rate bcause we are unwilling to see REALITY for what it is..........without judgement of others?
A question to ponder for all Anti-abortion folks, of which I am one.
Lets ditch the symbolism once and for all and work for REAL solutions.
"How to make abortions rare?"....Hmm...how about we teach our children by our actions and stop treating eachother like sexual tools. It's in every song,every commercial, every movie, magazines..everything. our children see sexual content from the time they are born. Of course we are going to have a larger population of people who are fucking and fucking earlier and earlier. We are all to blame for the abortion rates when we have "top rated" by "us"..shows that sexualize women and depict girls and boys acting way too old.....look at Glee...that's an abortion waiting to happen...and i do love that show...but the fact is that we condition our population to accept sex and the product of sex is the baby.
One thing you fail to mention in your comparative analysis between the US and the Netherlands is the disparity in levels of education.
You just might bring the free contraceptives, but American yooths might be too stupid to actually see any benefit or too lazy/apathetic to take action.
Forgive me if I don't quote all the prior posts Stephen...this might get too long as it is. ;)
Starting with the "rape" and "baby-making factory" argument - there's a major problem with this formulation. Namely, it fails to address what exists from the moment of conception. That question has to be answered for a common ground to exist to further the discussion at all. If it's just a clump of cells, then your explanations are pretty much pointless - it doesn't matter what justification is given, because it can just be treated like a tumor or something. On the other hand, only when we accept that at the moment of conception "human life" is actually present do your arguments even begin to apply. So instead of shifting the discussion away from what I posted previously, the fundamental starting point must begin with the philosophical discussion of when a "person" exists (since the "human life" exists at the moment of conception).
The reason I'm emphasizing this (beyond it being the foundation of everything that comes after) is that it requires us to address uncomfortable questions. The biggest one being in your rape argument (that Buckeye alluded to in an earlier post) - why is it the fault of that life that it was created in such a violent manner? How do the physical rights of the new life balance against the psychological rights of the woman that was attacked? Does the new life only become a person based on the way it was conceived? How does that even work out metaphysically?
These are all major questions that smarter people than either of us wrestle with constantly. If you want we could go there, but I tend to find men discussing rape on the internet tends to end badly, no matter how even-handed and honest one tries to approach it.
So with that said, perhaps some practical thoughts on the rape/abortion link. Depending on what statistics you read, in our country, the percentage of abortions from rape are either about 1% or lower. So, let's be overly conservative here and, for the sake of argument, that 5% of abortions are from rape (I'm going with 5 times the maximum statistic for emphasis rather than any meaningful reason). So I'll make you a policy deal - abortions permitted when the DA gets and indictment for the rapist, allowing for "John Doe" rape indictments, with some sort of legal remedy if it is determined that the woman wasn't raped. In one shot, we've eliminated 95-99% of all other abortions, allowed an out for the rape discussion, creates an incentive for women to report rape early (which is one of the biggest problems in all rape cases), but allows for a punishment if an abortion happened without rape. Oh, sure, I could find a few holes in the policy proposal, but I offer that as a thinking out loud starting point - the important point is that it should be possible to create a legal framework to handle the microscopic minority of cases while still preventing casual widespread abortion.
Also, your "baby-making factory" goes back to my point of changing the culture. Abortion doesn't change the culture to prevent marital (or any type of) rape. On the contrary, it takes an already dehumanizing act (the rape) and further dehumanizes it. All abortion does is remove one of the potential physical aspects of rape (marital or otherwise). In fact, in the marital example, it allows the husband to basically commit sexual abuse without any consequence to himself. Abortion does not and cannot solve this cultural and behavioral issue. The only thing that can solve it is a sexual ethic that promotes the actual meaning integrated into the whole of a human person. Our culture must change - we should not change to accommodate negative aspects of our culture.
With that, moving onto the "religious statistics" argument. There are two flaws in this argument. First, the stats you post are pretty much in line with the religious affiliation of the country - simply put, we're a majority Christian country, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the majority of any given crime/sin/problem are committed by Christians. Your stats simply indicate that abortion is a culture-wide problem and occurs within all demographic groups at a rate corresponding to their distribution in society. This is no real surprise. Also, the stats posted don't indicate religious belief at time of the abortion - at least, they don't indicate when the question was asked (and I'd be very curious about the methodology). There is a huge difference in the questions "What is your religious affiliation? Have you ever had an abortion?" and "What was your religious affiliation when you had your abortion?" The second question would more accurately lead to the point you're trying to make, while the first would result in flawed stats, if for no other reason than the fact that many women come to religious belief because they are seeking forgiveness/comfort/solace after having an abortion.
Second, and probably more telling, your argument confuses professing a standard with always being able to live up to that standard, which is a common attack on any faith-based moral system. The idea that someone would never commit a given sin because they believe it to be a sin is an awesome ideal that all people of faith strive for, but given our lived human nature, it is difficult to achieve - as evidenced by your statistics. The failure for people to live an ideal doesn't make the ideal wrong. The ideal is there as something to aim for - lowering the bar helps nobody.
More importantly, we know that, physically, the only sure fire way not to get pregnant is to not have sex. Period. So given that, instead of saying "abstinence doesn't work," the question we should be discussing is "what are the issues preventing people from living that ideal?" This is whole other discussion for another time, but one of the biggest issues, again, is the culture. We exist in a sexually over-saturated culture where if you're not having sex, something is wrong with you. More than half the medication advertisements on TV are about sexual performance. Let's not even mention most of the entertainment options out there. Abstinence is openly laughed at and mocked (see this thread). Again, I keep riding this because it's critical to the discussion - this should be about changing our culture, not changing the standard so we don't have to work to change it. Saying "abstinence doesn't work" is lazy - asking "how can we change our culture to promote the value of chastity?" is a difficult question and requires hard work.
Finally, on your implication that I have an "anti-sex ideology," not only is this this complete opposite of the truth, in reality, it is your position that actually reduces, and really, dehumanizes sex. My argument recognizes that our sexuality is fully what's part of makes us human and is actually stamped onto our bodies in their design. As such, sex has a physical, emotional, mental, (spiritual if you want to go there), and unative aspect, both in it's joys and pleasures as well as it's consequences. When you remove one of those aspects, sex is reduced to something it's not designed to be. This is obviously evident in the rape and abuse examples you use - those aspects aren't there, which dehumanizes the act. My position is not as you describe, that sex must only be for procreation. If that were the case, you'd be right, I'd be reducing sex to something it's not designed to be. My position in this discussion is that intentionally removing ANY aspect (in this case, the procreative aspect) itself reduces sex to something it's not designed to be. Your argument isn't simply a "pro-sex" argument. Your argument is "pro-sex without consequences," and that is something I intensely disagree with. If you remove the consequences of an action, you remove its meaning, what it is designed to be. In reality, if you remove the consequences, you remove the capacity to fully love, which reduces a human person to a shell of what they're designed to be. A culture that functions with this attitude towards sex couldn't help to be a massive improvement over the morass that we live in now.
Our culture doesn't need any more cop-outs or lowered standards as it is. it
Faye, you bring up an interesting question. Religious and personal opinions aside, if almost half the women getting abortions have already had one previously is birth control realy working? Is not abortion being used as a secondary birth control? Or is it an educational issue? I previously posted factuals around reasons women are getting abortions and over half stated failure of birth control. Now this may just be because they are too embarrassed to state they are not using anything- but that seems high no? Combined with repeat abortion seekers we obviously have an issue with the proper use of birth control, not just access.
As a guy, this is my standard in practicing cautious sexual intercourse and what are the consequences afterward. This is goes in order by priority from most effective to the least.
Full control in handling ->
Condom (ALWAYS except making babies LOL) ->
Birth Control (If she can take them) ->
Plan B or Morning After Pill (If accidental spillage has occurred; I would even pay for the pills) ->
Abortion (Only if you give your most damnest and all, sometime all the methods you done to prevent any pregnancy, then abort early as possible) ->
Abortion Late (Don't even abort. SUCK IT UP and take care of the kid).
-Josh
Quote from: buckethead on April 05, 2011, 09:36:33 AM
One thing you fail to mention in your comparative analysis between the US and the Netherlands is the disparity in levels of education.
You just might bring the free contraceptives, but American youths might be too stupid to actually see any benefit or too lazy/apathetic to take action.
buckethead, we have intentionally conditioned American youth to be too stupid. After all, the crazy SOS program where St Johns county public schools has been paying a private company to provide abstinence only eduction for almost a decade, doesn't allow our youth to become educated contraceptive users.
QuoteJacksonville Sheriff's Office Endorses "Unacceptable" Abstinence-Only Program
by Michael Jones · March 24, 2011
Topics: HIV/AIDS · International Gay Rights
Imagine an education program that has been denounced for spreading misinformation about HIV/AIDS, and one that has ties to leaders pushing the death penalty or life imprisonment for LGBT people in Uganda. That program would be condemned and not held up as a shining example of how to teach our kids about human sexuality, right?
Wrong. Look no further than Project SOS in Jacksonville, Florida, a controversial abstinence-only program that has been active throughout the Sunshine State. What's the reason that Project SOS is so controversial? Well, for starters, research by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) shows that when it comes to the subject of HIV/AIDS, Project SOS has been spreading false and misleading information to children. To make matters worse, a study by the American School Health Association found that the curriculum that Project SOS uses -- which is taught inside a number of private and public schools in the state of Florida -- is so shoddy, it's been labeled "unacceptable" by the group for use in classrooms.
As if that all weren't bad enough, the Florida Independent noted a few weeks ago that the founder of Project SOS, Pam Mullarkey (who is still a current board member of the group), has direct ties to Pastor Martin Ssempa, the infamous Ugandan religious leader who has lobbied hard for legislation that would sentence LGBT Ugandans to either life imprisonment, or allow for LGBT people to be executed by the state.
Mullarkey's own words when talking about Pastor Ssempa were shocking; she called him a "change agent," whose "passion, charisma and character make his vital message irresistible."
Yet despite the controversial and heavy baggage surrounding Project SOS, the Sheriff of Jacksonville, Florida, John Rutherford, has given the organization a full-throated endorsement on behalf of the Sheriff's Office. Apparently in Jacksonville, the Sheriff's Office is just fine lending credence to groups that spread false information about HIV/AIDS, and have ties to some of the most vocal anti-gay activists in the world.
Project SOS touts Sheriff Rutherford's endorsement on their website.
"The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is greatly appreciative of Project SOS in strengthening our youth and educating our parents. We applaud their statistics and success as well as their dedicated service to our community. Project SOS helps raise young boys and girls to become non-violent young men and women," Sheriff Rutherford is quoted as saying.
But if Project SOS's curriculum is so defective that it's been labeled "unacceptable" for school children, is that really something worth praising?
Ironically, also listed on the Project SOS website as an endorser is Clay Yarborough, a Jacksonville City Councilman. If his name rings familiar, it might be because Councilman Yarborough made national news a while back when he suggested that if the United States endorsed policies tolerant of LGBT people, the country would collapse like the Roman Empire. Then Yarborough added that he didn't want LGBT people holding public office.
Perhaps what's most shocking is that Project SOS has been given a boatload of money by U.S. taxpayers and Florida taxpayers to teach their "unacceptable" curriculum. According to reports, Project SOS has received more than $6.5 million in U.S. taxpayer money since 2002, and at least $1.5 million from Florida's Department of Health. And what have they done with that money? Built an abstinence-only curriculum that has been branded as dangerous, and fostered connections with anti-gay religious leaders who want to murder LGBT people. Talk about a scary use of taxpayer money.
Sheriff John Rutherford shouldn't be lending his voice, or the reputation of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, to legitimize the work of Project SOS. Students need accurate and factual information about human sexuality, so that they can be fully-informed and make responsible decisions as they grow into adults. What they don't need is lies and misinformation about HIV/AIDS. Send Sheriff Rutherford a message now by adding your name to this petition.
http://news.change.org/stories/jacksonville-sheriffs-office-endorses-unacceptable-abstinence-only-program
I have been a victim of Project SOS. It is one of the worst programs ever. It doesn't EVEN TEACH worth a shit about sex and its consequences. They drive FEAR into every students by seeing these horrible photos and keep lot of the information restricted. They even "PREACH"(or teach) AS EARLY AS 7th grade.
I would love to call for a reform to bring the Planned Parenthood ALONG with the SOS to make sure they both stay on their toes.
-Josh
Very well written and well thought out response Clem. Thanks.
Basically,
I am a child with some f***ed up DNA that caused my progressive blindness and deafness. That makes me a murderer! Hooray!!!
(sarcasm)
That's why it is pointless to argue anything beyond abortion. We can argue how we would use abortion or not, but being rational about things to push or support your argument using things that cannot be proven beyond comprehension.
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 05, 2011, 10:56:16 AM
I have been a victim of Project SOS. It is one of the worst programs ever. It doesn't EVEN TEACH worth a shit about sex and its consequences. They drive FEAR into every students by seeing these horrible photos and keep lot of the information restricted. They even "PREACH"(or teach) AS EARLY AS 7th grade.
I would love to call for a reform to bring the Planned Parenthood ALONG with the SOS to make sure they both stay on their toes.
-Josh
Josh, talk about major waste!! This organization has WASTED: $8.0 Million dollars since 2001!
Without education on contraception, we simply CANNOT reduce teenage pregnancies.
QuoteProject SOS â€" the Jacksonville abstinence education program whose founder has endorsed the work of Ugandan Pastor Martin Ssempa, a vocal proponent of legislation (.pdf) in that country that prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality â€" has received $1.5 million in funding through the Florida Department of Health since 2001, according to a department representative. That money is in addition to the $6.5 million awarded Project SOS from the federal government since 2002. #
The Department of Health provides information about its Abstinence Education Program through It’s Great to Wait, the website for the department’s “statewide media campaign … designed to generate awareness and motivate the community to reduce teen pregnancy.â€
http://floridaindependent.com/24754/additional-1-5-million-in-taxpayer-dollars-has-gone-to-controversial-abstinence-program-project-sos
Project SOS founder Pam Mullarkey should STOP the malarkey at taxpayer expense!!
Our kids deserve better!
QuoteClearly, abstinence-only programs are ineffective and not about public health or preparing students for responsible sexual relations. Instead, they exist so ambitious politicians can funnel public money to ideologues who want to craftily inculcate students with religious propaganda.
Project SOS in Jacksonville, Florida is one example of this slippery attempt to evangelize on the public's dime. Despite the group's curriculum being called "unacceptable" and inaccurate by health experts, SOS has received $6.5 million in federal funding through the Department of Health and Human services since 2002 - including $454,000 in September 2010, according to The Florida Independent.
In a special report for Truth Wins Out, researcher Bruce Wilson discovered that Pam Mullarkey, the founder and director of SOS, says God inspired her program. Her church, Beaches Chapel Church, (Not the one with Bette Midler) identifies SOS as one of its "ministries" and calls Mullarkey a "missionary".
SOS is cunning in the way it disseminates sectarian messages to captive student audiences. For example, in one video, an actor has a tattoo on his forearm with large letters, "God is my judge."
"In functional terms, they amount to government-backed covert religious indoctrination programs," says Bruce Wilson in his report.
The program preaches no sex until marriage, which by design excludes LGBT teenagers who can't legally marry. Of course, this is no surprise, considering Mullarkey's church has an "ex-gay" ministry, "Laughter from Purity," which teaches inmates at a faith-based prison to resist homosexuality through Jesus Christ. According to the ministry's web-site, God loves homosexuals, but the homosexual must be set free from a "bondage of lies and deception that come from being wounded and sexually broken."
Most disturbing is SOS's endorsement of Martin Ssempa who presides over condom burning bonfires at a university in Kampala and is a leading backer of the "kill the gays" bill that may soon come up for a vote in Uganda's parliament.
Referring to the fact that several of Ssempa's family members have died of AIDS, Mullarkey told the Florida Independent that homosexuals in Africa "have destroyed people's lives."
Sadly, this useless program has reached more than 300,000 Florida students. SOS has at least 40 full-time and part time government-funded employees who are surreptitiously evangelizing.
At a time when Republican blowhards are obsessed with trimming government spending, why is such foolishness still being funded? According to an ACLU Florida study, "Sex Education in The Sunshine State", Mullarkey's SOS programs, "Employ fear and shame- based tactics" and some "Teach misinformation on HIV/AIDS." Such ridiculous and futile programs should be the first on the chopping block if Republicans are serious about reducing wasteful spending.
But, I doubt that will happen given the Religious Right's stranglehold on the GOP - particularly in Florida, which is quickly becoming the new Mississippi. Republicans will pretend they are funding such programs to uphold virtue, when they are really just fishing for votes.
The disastrous Faith-based Initiative has intertwined church and state, with indoctrination slowly replacing education. Religious programs like SOS are ensuring that students don't stand a prayer when faced with key decisions affecting their health.
It is time to quit the nonsense and abstain from funding programs that are wasteful, unconstitutional and a transparent attempt to illegally raid public coffers to evangelize in public schools.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-besen/forbidden-sex-and-chicken_b_830029.html
QuoteSecondly, science in the form of genomics and genetics has proven to us that the stuff of life exists in every cell of the body. Including tumors. If we are to accept your argument that every clump of cells that could result in a complete human being is sacred, then every drop of blood, every tumor, every hair, every abandoned toenail is the equivelant of murder.
Obviously this is an absurd argument. So we are left to further qualify the idea. Which we already know leads down another blind alley logically, because then we are squarely faced with the natural processes that do not lead to a human life.
Sorry if I have rehashed some points people have already discussed, but I think they are important nonetheless. You know time is limited after all. I just thought that there were some points that were too important to risk leaving them out if no one else had mentioned them. That being said I would have to argue the exact opposite of most of what you're saying. It does not make sense to argue that life does not start at conception.
First of all, there is clearly a difference between the types of situations you are talking about. A tumor, a toe nail, or a pint of blood lack the same potential as a zygote. Unless acted on artificially a pint of blood will always be that same pint of blood. A zygote however has the potential and the natural tendency to develop into livers and blood vessels and bones and so much more.That zygote will develop into an adult human being naturally. The "clumps of cells" you cited as similar do not have that same potential without artificial stimulation even though it contains a complete set of DNA.
Also, what you're claiming just intrinsically does not make sense. People generally do value even parts of their own body. After all we don't routinely hack off body parts (Toe nails and hair don't count as those cells are already dead). If they are working properly we generally let them be. If people as a whole don't instrinsically value parts of the body why do so many shudder at the mere sight of blood? The only reason we remove gall bladders and tumors and so on is when they are diseased and threaten the health of our bodies overall because we as humans intrinsically value life. A zygote or an embryo or fetus is not the result of disease; a new life only occurs when our bodies are working correctly.
QuoteThis argument is based on the idea of deterministic biology. Since it contains the stuff of life that will develop into a human being, goes the idea, it is a human life from the moment that the necessary building blocks are present.
First, there is the inherent inaccuracy in this statement. There is no guarantee that the fertilized egg will become a human being under the best of circumstances. Sometimes the egg simply does not attach itself to the wall of the uterus and is simply flushed out by the womans body. Sometimes the egg fails to develop properly and simply results in lifeless tissue that will never develop further, even after the egg has attached itself properly. Sometimes, the chromosomes misfire during development and produce stillborn infants, half formed mutations, or tumor like formations that are spontaneously aborted. So even in nature, without the interference of either the woman or medical procedures, the clump of tissues does not turn into a human being every time. Indeed, sometimes it turns out to be something else altogether.
And finally the fact that miscarriages, mutations, and so on happen does not disprove that life starts at the moment of conception at all. I have a cousin with Down Syndrome. He was born with a hole in his heart and will likely not have a long life. He is mutated in some senses, but he is undeniably a living human being. Chromosomes misfire in adults resulting in death, too. People may carry aneurysms all their lives and then suddenly drop dead of purely natural causes. Or what about baby Joseph who was born with a condition that probably won't allow him to see his second birthday. This is happening naturally, yet he is a fully alive human being. Miscarriages and stillbirths are just a natural death that occurs before the child leaves the womb, and if anything affirm that life begins at conception because the fact that these "clumps of cells" can die means that they must have once been living by definition.
Well if we prevent unwanted pregnancies (through contraception) and thus abortions, it really doesn't matter when life begins.
But, OK, I don't usually like to quote the Reason foundation since I mostly do not agree with their positions, however I have quoted this piece extensively because it is just brilliant:
QuotePrint|Email
Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?
Harvesting stem cells without tears
Ronald Bailey | December 22, 2004
What are we to think about the fact that Nature (and for believers, Nature's God) profligately creates and destroys human embryos? John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies.
So millions of viable human embryos each year produced via normal conception fail to implant and never develop further. Does this mean America is suffering a veritable holocaust of innocent human life annihilated? Consider the claim made by right-to-life apologists like Robert George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, that every embryo is "already a human being." Does that mean that if we could detect such unimplanted embryos as they leave the womb, we would have a duty to rescue them and try to implant them anyway?
"If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined," declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.
As far as I know, bioconservatives like Robert George do not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos. But why not? In right-to-life terms, normal unimplanted embryos are the moral equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children.
Of course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a childâ€"and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people. Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?
Stepping onto dangerous theological ground, it seems that if human embryos consisting of one hundred cells or less are the moral equivalents of a normal adult, then religious believers must accept that such embryos share all of the attributes of a human being, including the possession of an immortal soul. So even if we generously exclude all of the naturally conceived abnormal embryosâ€"presuming, for the sake of theological argument, that imperfections in their gene expression have somehow blocked the installation of a soulâ€"that would still mean that perhaps 40 percent of all the residents of Heaven were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires.
Yet millions of intelligent people of good will maintain that seven-day-old embryos have the exact same moral standing as do readers of this column. Acting on this sincere belief, they are trying to block biomedical research on human embryonic stem cells that is desired by millions of their fellow citizens.
But there may be a way out of this politico-theological impasse. The President's Council on Bioethics held an extraordinarily interesting session earlier this month in which two different avenues for obtaining human embryonic stem cells were proposed, in ways that would skirt right-to-life moral objections.
First, Howard Zucker and Donald Landry, two medical professors at Columbia University, proposed "a new definition of death for the human organism, an organism in development, and that is the irreversible arrest of cell division." They pointed out that a good percentage of in-vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos consist of a mixture of cells, some containing the wrong number of chromosomes (aneuploidy), some with the normal number. Embryos with such cell mixtures often cease development by cell division and thus cannot develop into fetuses, much less babies. Zucker and Landry argue that such embryos can be considered dead, and the normal embryonic cells they contain can be harvested just as organs can be ethically harvested from brain-dead adults. (Animal experiments have already shown that cells harvested from defective embryos will produce normal tissues.) Thus, we get stem cells from an entity that could not, under any circumstances, have become a human being.
William Hurlbut, a consulting professor in the Program of Human Biology at Stanford University and another member of the President's Council on Bioethics, proposed another way to produce cloned human embryonic stem cells that right-to-lifers should not find morally objectionable. Hurlbut cited work by researcher Janet Rossant at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto in which she inactivated the cdx2 gene in mice. Once the cdx2 gene is inactivated, the mouse embryo cannot form a trophoblastâ€"the tissues that grow into the placenta. However, embryonic stem cells do develop, although they cannot form an embryo. Hurlbut proposed an attempt to find similar genes that could be inactivated in the nuclei of adult human cells before they are installed in enucleated human eggs to produce cloned embryonic stem cells that are a genetic match for the person who donates the adult nucleus. (Transplanted cells and tissues produced by such therapeutic cloning would not be rejected by the donor's immune system.) Once the stem cells have been derived, the inactivated genes could be reactivated so that the stem cells could be used to produce normal transplantable cells and tissues.
"This process does not involve the creation of an embryo that is then altered to transform it into a non-embryonic entity," explained Hurlbut. "Rather the proposed genetic alteration is accomplished ab initio, the entity is brought into existence with a genetic structure insufficient to generate a human embryo."
Will this research reduce the number of embryos populating heaven? Who knows? But these options offer a possible way around the moral blockades that impede promising biomedical research on human embryonic stem cells. Should we halt current human embryonic stem-cell research while these possible new avenues of research are being explored? Absolutely not. That would be surrendering to the moral bullying of a minority that wants to halt promising medical research that could cure millions on theological grounds that many of their fellow citizens do not share.
http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 05, 2011, 07:46:46 PM
Well if we prevent unwanted pregnancies (through contraception abstinence and a cultural shift) and thus abortions, it really doesn't matter when life begins.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 05, 2011, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 05, 2011, 07:46:46 PM
Well if we prevent unwanted pregnancies (through contraception abstinence and a cultural shift) and thus abortions, it really doesn't matter when life begins.
Fixed that for you.
What is wrong with effective contraception, except for your moral judgement?
This is all just a way to justify the deliberate decision to end a pregnancy- potential life or not. Naturally flushing an embryo is completely different than making a conscious decision to do so. So if you choose to have an abortion, that is fine. But you certainly should not hide behind the fact that this "just happens normally" in some pregnancies so it is perfectly natural for you. Some people to have an abortion. Some people have diabetes and end up with amputated limbs, but that does not justify me amputating my perfectly good leg now does it? In fact that would qualify me to be hospitalized for 72hrs. If you truly believe this, that these are not viable children, then why would the fact that 47% of women seeking an abortion have already had at least one previously? After all they aren't viable human lives? They are just a mass of cells, like getting a cancerous tumor cut out of your body. No difference really, correct?
You are twisting the man's words. All he is saying is that sex has consequences. There is more to it than bumping uglies and moving on. I am with you on encouraging contraception and I can accept it as a public health initiative. STD's can be fatal and abortion is an ugly and brutal process for all involved. But sex is mental, as well as physical. It is personal on the most basic level (for most people). Clem obviously wants to discourage the disparagement and cheapening of sex in our current culture. I agree with him. This is where public sex education fails. This is where Fathers should teach their sons to be men and Mothers should teach their daughters to be women.
I know this is not a perfect world, but we should strive to be a better society, not just accept our failings. I don't have an answer to the abortion debate, I don't believe that any of us do. But I think (and I believe that Clem thinks) we can do better.
Actually Stephen it was directed at Faye, who posted the article in defense of abortion. I think the real question is are we comfortable with researches monkeying around with human DNA?
I think trying to justify a conscious decision to have an abortion with the fact that many women naturally miscarriage early on and do not even realize it is an insane argument. The difference between the two is the woman getting an abortion KNOWS she is pregnant. I think it is a very tough decision to make, or at least it should be, and if excuses such as "it happens all the time to women naturally" are used, well that 47% is going to increase. Science can't tell us for 100% when life actually starts, one way or the other. as you know I am not a christian, but I am spiritual and do believe in a higher power so until I can know for sure I am sticking with at conception.
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 05, 2011, 08:42:33 PM
Actually Stephen it was directed at Faye, who posted the article in defense of abortion. I think the real question is are we comfortable with researches monkeying around with human DNA?
No, it was not in defense of abortion as Stephen rightly points out. As a matter of fact I am anti-abortion myself, just like you. But where we differ is how to make abortion rare. I know we need to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies through effective and free contraception.
The only reason I posted that article was to refute the idea that life starts at conception.
If you were like Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch who are Republicans who are anti-abortion too, you'd say life starts at successful implantation: which means that the 600,000 frozen embryos at our fertility clinics are just clumps of cells.
I never mentioned or called for "sexual ownership" or "sexual deprivation". My personal beliefs or preferences don't make my arguments any less valid. I don't know of a "polyamorous" society that is happy with anonymous sex, do you? When have the animal instincts that you described resulted in real happiness on a broad scale? Every "happy" human relationship that I am aware of is based on intimacy, whether it is a man and a woman, or any other combination. I don't claim to know it all about human relationships and sexuality (or even a fraction), but I honestly think that we have a responsibility to each other. I feel it. It is one reason that I am uncomfortable in the abortion debate.
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 05, 2011, 08:49:55 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 05, 2011, 08:42:33 PM
Actually Stephen it was directed at Faye, who posted the article in defense of abortion. I think the real question is are we comfortable with researches monkeying around with human DNA?
No, it was not in defense of abortion as Stephen rightly points out. As a matter of fact I am anti-abortion myself, just like you. But where we differ is how to make abortion rare. I know we need to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies through effective and free contraception.
The only reason I posted that article was to refute the idea that life starts at conception.
If you were like Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch who are Republicans who are anti-abortion too, you'd say life starts at successful implantation: which means that the 600,000 frozen embryos at our fertility clinics are just clumps of cells.
Faye, we do not disagree on how to prevent abortion.
I think everyone can agree abstinence is the only 100% sure way not to get pregnant (you don;t get sperm you aren't going to get pregnant.
Now, second best is birth control, and there are way to many options here to discuss each one (but please, if you are not in a very serious, very committed relationship and maybe even then- use a condom please!)
The only part we disagree on is who should pay for that birth control. I think within reason birth control should be made affordable for everyone (free even if qualified). By within reason, I mean it may not be the MBZ of birth control, but some safe, reliable, affordable version.
Lastly, While I am anti abortion- I am pro-choice I just think if a woman chooses to have an abortion, she should own up to the decision, within herself and not make excuses.
As I stated before I am not 100% sure it is just a lump of cells so until such time it can be confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt, I have to err on the side of caution.
My point was that polyamorous, just as more traditional societies, are only really happy on a broad scale when intimacy is involved and not with anonymous sex. I am not and have never called for "pair bonding" for life. I really don't care who people choose to couple (or triple, or quadruple, or whatever) with. My point is that happiness is based on much more than just physical sex. That said, I certainly agree that we are sexual animals and sex is an important part of our lives.
I will read the book.
And yes, we do all have a responsibility to try to limit the horrors of abortion and the sadness of unwanted pregnancies. As we discussed in another thread, it will take more than free contraceptives and sex ed in high school.
Sigh...I could tell everyone just to go check "Humanae Vita"e and follow up with "Theology of the Body" for good measure...
...but, as is normally the case around here, it's just pearls before swine.
Some hearts are simply too hardened.
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 05, 2011, 09:24:11 PM
Sigh...I could tell everyone just to go check "Humanae Vita"e and follow up with "Theology of the Body" for good measure...
...but, as is normally the case around here, it's just pearls before swine.
Some hearts are simply too hardened.
To each his or her own as far as religion is concerned.
It is unfortunate that some religions are against contraception to reduce the number of abortions.
I truly admire people of faith.
Except when they wish to use the coercive force of government to force others to live by their creed.
+1
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 05, 2011, 09:24:11 PM
Sigh...I could tell everyone just to go check "Humanae Vita"e and follow up with "Theology of the Body" for good measure...
...but, as is normally the case around here, it's just pearls before swine.
Some hearts are simply too hardened.
Humanae Vitae is just beautiful. Here is a link for anyone who is interested. It does such a good job telling how parents can be responsible and still open to life.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)
Quote from: buckethead on April 05, 2011, 09:40:28 PM
I truly admire people of faith.
Except when they wish to use the coercive force of government to force others to live by their creed.
Some things we can live and let live. However, sometimes we have to draw a line in the sand. If Dr. King thought like you where would we be? Someone has to stand up for the rights of those whose cannot speak for themselves.
QuoteOr... if there were less social programs, perhaps there would be less societal dereliction?
Off topic! My bad.
Not necessarily what I would advocate for, but the argument is out there.
I also agree with Not Now insomuch as the fact that "people are going to do it" whether it is criminal or not should not be justification for allowing/legalizing "it" whatever it might be.
A better justification would be like this: Does this action/behavior unduly deprive a person (people) of his/her life, physical well being, property, liberty?
Any behavioral legislation should be based on these precepts.
In the case of abortion, we have collectively decided that it does not, but I'm hoping we can refine our collective decision through thoughtful and serious debate as well as scientific/medical advancements.
From another thread on abortion. I think it applies here as well.
Your view of marriage sounds pretty depressing. I hope your wife doesn't feel the same way. :)
Well then, you shouldn't get mad, that's too many people to whup! :)
Stephen you're actually right in part because Humanae Vitae actually is more of a teaching document on family planning than on abortion. However, it is a part of a larger teaching on marriage and the family which is clearly related to abortion. Let me do some research because I believe that there are encyclical letters written that address the sanctity of life, too. Pope John Paul II also has a set of teachings related to the meaning of marriage, sex, etc. called Theology of the Body. When you take time to study these types of things you develop a different sort of appreciation for human life which makes a tragedy like abortion heartwrenching. I'm not suggesting that you do not value human life at all, but we clearly have different understandings about human life. I have to say I appreciate that you actually read the document and are making some attempt to understand it from the other perspective. Who knows? Maybe one day we'll agree on some of these issues. lol.