Jane - "forced childbirth" is exactly right - and we should push the phrase against those who claim they are "pro-life."
blythetdm |
02.23.06 - 4:44 pm | #
I just feel like fitzing.
ccmask |
02.23.06 - 4:47 pm | #
neurophius---
Re: E.R.A. expiration.
The 35 existing state ratifications, should stand because under Article V of the Constitution and confirmed by precedent, states that have once ratified an amendment do not have the power to rescind that ratification.
Oklahoma kiddo |
02.23.06 - 4:49 pm | #
Monty Python put the fundies position very well in "The Meaning of Life and Everything" Every sperm is sacred,
every sperm is great!
For every sperm that's wasted,
God gets quite irate!
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 4:49 pm | #
Where does Kathryn Jean Lopez get off posing as an expert in anything pertaining to the reproductive process?
Thesaurus Rex |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 4:50 pm | #
Don't all those frozen, unused embryos in fertility clinics eventually succumb to freezer burn? They do not last until "enternity". Human action, freeezing, kills each of them, eventually.
ArthurKC |
02.23.06 - 4:53 pm | #
the Preznit was pushing the Snowflake Project in which unused in-vitro eggs get used by other infertile couples and had 8 of the kids at the WH. I think there have only been 21 born so far.
Guess what? all the kids were blond -- kinda Aryan selection of the superior breed, dontcha think? Jawohl !
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 4:56 pm | #
Save the unborn, screw the born. That's how this Administration, driven by its fundie base, sees the abortion issue.
watertiger |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 4:58 pm | #
For those of you looking for comments on the South Dakota legislation, I would refer you to Prof. Jack Balkin of Yale Law School whose blog, Balkinization, today has an entry on the subject. He is not concerned unless Justice Stevens leaves the Court though he admits it has symbolic value
Jim |
02.23.06 - 4:59 pm | #
EJ Dionne may have more sympathy for the right to lifers than most liberals, but the right to lifers are still full of crap.
Ethics are discussed in terms of rights and responsibilities. There has been some slight of hand here by the right-to-lifers.
Look at the history of the movement. They had been pushing a responsibility argument. It lost out to a rights argument, and still does so with most people. So the anti-abortion crew fashioned a rights argument by saying that they were speaking for the unborn. This is hogwash. Scratch the surface of that crew, and they still look at it as a responsibility issue.
The issue here is that these right to lifers have managed to establish a rights argument, one that they would raise to the level of any civil rights issue that this country has faced, if we let them.
The key is not accept the premise that they push, e.g., rights of the unborn. That amounts to 'proof by assertion'. We need to show that this argument that they present is mere window dressing for a responsibility argument.
-
Dan Robinson |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 4:59 pm | #
.gov so worried about human life can't bring water to 100,000 stranded after a hurricane.
ccmask |
02.23.06 - 5:01 pm | #
and what about fertility drugs? As I just noted over at Eschaton, if God wants you to be "barren," then why are you going against God's will?
Their ability to rationalize is staggering.
watertiger |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:04 pm | #
That same disconnect explains why most anti-choicers can do logistical backflips to justify their support of the death penalty.
While I disagree with the Catholic church on many things, I truly respect that they are anti-death penalty AND anti-abortion. It's intellectually honest.
Until the women haters start picketing fertility clinics, they need to STFU.
TheOtherWA |
02.23.06 - 5:07 pm | #
What about banning male masturbation?
ccmask |
02.23.06 - 5:10 pm | #
Thank you for this thoughtful post. I think a related point can't be emphasized too much: that the idea that the conceptus, embryo and early stage fetus are actually human babies is a religious idea, is put forward on overtly religious grounds, and is without support in science, common sense, ordinary morality, or anywhere except in certain religions. Members of those religions support anti-abortion laws as a means to make the rest of us obey the dictates of their religion. This violates the constitution, abuses freedom, and sets a horrific precedent.
Cheryl |
02.23.06 - 5:11 pm | #
Jane, what a brilliant post. And now, I'm gonna try to find out if Michael Sandel is still on the Bioethics Council. I don't give that good odds. Bush has consistently heaved out any rational scientific voice. The stem cell research issue (Bush's godly position thereon) is particularly galling to me for many reasons- kinda OT, but I have a dear friend with Parkinson's Disease, and it's hard for me not to be totally pissed off that Bush stopped this kind of research in it's tracks, and wasted good research money and the potential for amelioration if not a cure by his stupidity. Sorry not to be citing chapter and verse here in a scientific way, but Bush really fucked over scientific research in this area, arrogant bastard that he is. And, for my dear friend, now 75 with PD, the 5 years of the Bush fuck-ups amount to a life time. Sorry for the rant. I am just so pissed about Bush, and his specific damage to scientific research seems to go largely unnoticed.
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 5:11 pm | #
I'd never heard the term "forced childbirth" before. Is it a regular part of the pro-choice lexicon? Because if it isn't, it had damn well better become one, and fast.
harvey |
02.23.06 - 5:14 pm | #
Harvey,
I agree. "Forced childbirth" is a helluva lot more to the point.
OMG! I remember that post. Esp. The orange and flat coke.Been coming here longer than I thought. It is a good post. just as salient today as it was then.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 5:15 pm | #
In Costa Rica, under the influence of the Catholic church, in vitrio fertilization has in fact been outlawed. Give them credit for consistency, but the upshot is that friends of mine living in CR, who were having trouble conceiving, had to leave the country to receive in vitrio fertilization. She's now pregnant. The church would have preferred her to remain childless. Their argument, I imagine, would be that a pregnancy which comes at the cost of "murdered" zygotes is immoral.
Then there was a case in Costa Rica of the 10 year old girl, pregnant by a rapist. The government refused her an abortion. The distraught parents finally got one in Nicaragua.
What I see: "Rape victim babies, si, wanted babies, no."
And, as an aside...
I wonder how many S. Dakotan legislators would REALLY force their 10 year old, raped daughter to carry the baby to term.
percy |
02.23.06 - 5:16 pm | #
"Because you never see them picketing outside in vitro fertilization clincs do you?"
Don't give them any ideas.
Commentator |
02.23.06 - 5:16 pm | #
On Obermann they're reporting that Team Libby is trying to get the case dismissed based on Fitz not having been legally appointed.
Sangemon |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:18 pm | #
It's actually a bit worse. Some good friends of ours went through a very heavy IVF process a few years ago. For lots of reasons, technical borne of consideration of the mother (who spends the time awaiting pregnancy juiced up on hormones) and money (keeping the cycles to a minimum to lower this uninsured expense) multiple pregnancies result. Fraternal twins or triplets or god-only-knows-how-many siblings are fighting out in the womb of a woman whose reproductive system is already suspect. Our friends were told that the triplets the mother was bearing would likely spontaneously abort at some point, and that the best hope was to abort one and go for full-on bedrest after. This actually worked, and their twins are about seven, now.
When I recount this story to anti-abortion types, some are touched at the hard work the couple went through. But, a fair number, and these are the loudest, the most doctrinaire, say they'd rather the three fetuses have been expelled prior to viability than for two to have survived through the abortion of one. Just so you know: these are the kind of people we're dealing with, here.
Brian C.B. |
02.23.06 - 5:19 pm | #
OT-The motion to dismiss in Libby's case is now on Countdown. David Shuster is doing the story.
On a similar topic...what about miscarriages? The new SD legislation proposes that life begins at fertilization, so a miscarriage at, say, week 7 clearly would be the death of a bona-fide fully recognized by the law human being. What's the reporting requirements for deaths in SD? Having gone through a couple of miscarriages with my wife, I know I'd be pissed off to the point of wanting to punch someone if I had to fill out a death certificate at that point.
vando |
02.23.06 - 5:22 pm | #
I have to admit that I have been completely enamored with your blog that past week or two. Your insights and writing are the best.
But enough ass-kissing . . .
When are the "liberal blogs" (whatever that means) going to admit that the situation in South Dakota is as much the fault of Democrats as Republicans?
The bill's main sponsor is a Democrat, a woman, and obviously no friend of you or I. In addition, around the same percentage of Democrats voted to end a woman's right to choose and Republicans.
Yet, all I read are posts about how it is the Republicans to blame. Sorry, until the Democratic Party decides to come out for a woman's right to choose, there will be no major party in this country that demands equal rights for women.
ILDem |
02.23.06 - 5:22 pm | #
It gets so complicated. What if you have a first-trimester abortion, thus violating God's plan, which was for you to have a second-trimester miscarriage? And what about the people outside the abortion clinic? Do they get to scream "Murderer!" at you, or do they have to switch to something else, like "Usurper of God's plan!" And is your usurpation as bad as someone who has been planned by God to go blind but who foils that plan by getting a pair of glasses?
Personally, I'm not going to be happy until we create little cemetaries for all the sanitary napkins carrying what's left of all those fertalized eggs Dr. Opitz talked about. We'll call the cemetaries Kotex Necroblastocropoli and they'll have teeny-tiny angel statuary which we make out of match sticks and pipecleaners and hangers. I can hardly wait!
Yes, I'm Crazy |
02.23.06 - 5:24 pm | #
fear of sex fundamentalists.
sexual repression as a means of control.
"Fascism is only the organized political expression of the structure of the average man's character. It is the basic emotional attitude of the suppressed man of our authoritarian machine civilization and its mechanistic-mystical conception of life." - Wilhelm Reich
Bob In Pacifica |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:24 pm | #
I have a very vivid memory of a dear friend who was anti abortion (devout Catholic, niece of an Archbishop) who died from breast cancer. She had hope for a future until a very mean person took it from her. She was lying in the hospital and was telling me that she wanted to harvest her eggs so that one day she could conceive a child and that she wanted her eggs protected. She knew that the chemo and radiation she was facing would endanger her ability to have a child. The awful nurse (our colleague) came out of the bathroom and stated " You're nuts-- why would you consider harvesting your eggs when you know your gonna die!?". I did not remain speechless, but the memory is as raw today as it was those many years ago. For all the people that are against stem cell research to save lives that are suffering and hopeless, I say to you-- pay for the embryos to be kept "alive" then! For all the women facing an awful choice and the people who may benefit from stem cell research, I say butt the hell out and let the real humans who face these painful issues have a chance.
angie |
02.23.06 - 5:25 pm | #
I humbly submit that a grave mistake is made by conceding the argument that "life begins at conception." It is NOT an honest or a consistently premised claim.
Biology is plainly self-evident in contradiction.
Sperm and unfertilized egg ARE LIVING HUMAN LIFE FORMS. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE DESCRIPTION.
The bogus claim that life begins at the wholly arbitrary point called "conception" on a timeline of organism development is wrong on scientific substance, and it is a cynical politically contrived proposition which is employed solely to support the resulting anti-abortion arguments.
Which - how convenient - ONLY SERVES TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON WOMEN, in the so-called debate over callous "termination of life."
The indisputable biological fact is that coitus interruptus and male masturbation identically "terminate human life" - in rather greater magnitude of lives, if one cares to count the numbers.
Any restriction on abortion premised on the "murder of human life" argument MUST ALSO include an enforcement mechanism against any MALES who identically "terminate human lives" or the restriction cannot credibly meet the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment - for such failure to equally prosecute males would constitute unacceptable discrimination against woman as a class.
The so-called "pro-life" movement - whether it really wants to or not - effectively demands a Federal Masturbation Police authority, needed to prosecute the criminal termination of "innocent human lives" perpetrated by males. Their claims to be "for protecting life" cannot be given any legal credence if the ONLY lives they wish to save are those "terminated" by women, and yet they have no problem with men slaughtering millions of "innocent human lives" in routine acts of individual personal gratification.
bz |
02.23.06 - 5:27 pm | #
I wrote about this last year too: I did a parody press release about it. Check it out
Focus on the Family Demands Global Halt to In Vitro Fertilization
Standard methods lead to death of thousands of unborn children
Colorado Springs, Colo. — EMBARGOED UNTIL June 6, 2005 Focus on the Family Founder Dr. James Dobson, today called for an immediate worldwide halt to all in vitro fertilization procedures. “This procedure almost always results in the death of unborn children, often several unborn children die for each successful attempt. I said it regarding stem cell research and it’s time to apply it to in vitro fertilization --it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being in order to benefit another.”
In addition to calling a halt to these procedures, Focus on the Family will be funding a number of lawsuits against clinics that support these procedures, doctors who perform them and couples who partake in IVF. “On behalf of the thousands of babies trapped in freezers who can’t speak for themselves, we will be their voice in court. And yes, in accordance with Exodus 21:22-25 we will be seeking the death penalty for doctors, clinic administrators and couples who allowed their unborn children to be killed in an experimental procedure. The bible compels us to take the life of anyone who is responsible for the death of these unborn children and who has been found guilty of a capital offense in a legal trial. The Scriptures are clear that the state alone is ordained by God to "bear the sword" and "execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Position statement on Violence against abortionists)
This release would be logically consistant from them, but we never get logic from then.
spocko |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:28 pm | #
I had a very serious argument with a close friend and a right to lifer. She told me she HAD to vote for Bush for that single reason. She was gloating at Kerry's loss one day on the telephone when I let her have it. I asked her about the pregnant Iraqi women who were killed in the bombing by the US and that her vote has caused the death of many unborn Iraqi children. She actually referred to the Iraqi women and their unborn babies as "them" and "those people" and told me that she did not care about "them." Thus, I questioned her about her selective pro-life and told her she seemed to be sitting in judgment of who deserved to live and who didn't and that was NOT pro-life. I ended my discussion with her telling her that she had NO MORAL AUTHORITY over me because I was pro-choice, that she had proven that not all life was sacred to her and that was why I had little respect for her position on this issue. I told her I was upset that she was willing to destroy this country over just one issue.
Also, many anti-choice people, like my friend, do nothing else for their cause. They only do one thing which is vote for whatever candidate is anti-abortion. This President and his administration are the most immoral people I have ever seen. As long as they support the torturing and killing of innocent Iraqis and others who may get in their way, they deserve no respect.
Nadine |
02.23.06 - 5:29 pm | #
I'm going to leave that one alone.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 5:30 pm | #
watertiger @ 5:04: "what about fertility drugs? . . . if God wants you to be "barren," then why are you going against God's will?"
Same applies to drugs such as Viagra. But, uh-oh, that would cut into marketing profits for Big Pharma.
Constant Reader |
02.23.06 - 5:32 pm | #
Sorry, clarification, In reference to BZ's comments.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 5:33 pm | #
We'll call the cemetaries Kotex Necroblastocropoli
that's genius. That needs to be some kind of performance art.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:35 pm | #
Yes, I'm Crazy | 02.23.06 - 5:24 pm |
Well, ya beat me to it - I've always thought that when anti-abortion types hold a funeral when they miscarry or have spontaneous abortions, I might, just maybe, believe that they mean what they say about life beginning at conception.
jlr |
02.23.06 - 5:36 pm | #
religion exists only as a tool for people to use to justify conclusions they've reached.
.
spek |
02.23.06 - 5:36 pm | #
Bob In Pacifica - I was a "preview" click away w/ same Reich quote
so here, one of my favorites, from one of my heroes -
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. ~Florynce R. Kennedy, 1973
apparently this quote has generated a winger cottage industry
google her, a great american
cbl |
02.23.06 - 5:38 pm | #
Classic Nadine.
One phrase that has long gotten under my skin, I would like to see eliminated from the abortion debate is "pro-life." If anyone has a right to use it, it is the anti capital punishment folks. But even there it is a little problematic (anti-capital punishment is not pro-murder for instance).
To be anti-abortion IS movement is the forced pregnancy crowd.
Yes, no does mean no, in sex and in reproduction (a lesson I learned the hard way).
anon17 |
02.23.06 - 5:38 pm | #
Oops-- my rant got ahead of me. I meant to convey that right wingers need to stop obstructing stem cell research and women's rights... that last sentence did not come out correctly. I also meant (you're) instead of (your). good grief. Long day, lots of emotion. sorry.
g'nite.
angie |
02.23.06 - 5:42 pm | #
Every sperm is sacred,
every sperm is great!
For every sperm that's wasted,
God gets quite irate!
Wilson46201, would you believe that I created an exam question in constitutional law once based on that? Am working on another one.
Something like this:
Assume that the President believes that life begins at puberty, because sperm and eggs are themselves “simply two halves of a life, as an arm and leg are two different parts of a single body,” that failure to offer one’s body for the purpose of procreative activity constitutes a “taking of life without due process of law under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments,” and that he feels bound by the Fifth Amendment not to allow federal government complicity in such a taking of “life.”
Assume further that the President concludes that having a growing population is essential to the War on Terror. He was overhead saying, "They can't take us over or blow us up if we keep producing more of us."
If such beliefs are sincere, could it be argued that the President has the constitutional authority (or even constitutional obligation) to issue an Executive Order, under his war powers and other authority, that overturns all state laws restricting premarital sex for minors, so that more sex and more pregnancies will occur?
Answer in 500 words or less.
Covers several constitutional law issues together.
Prof |
02.23.06 - 5:47 pm | #
If they were serious about caring about the actual "loss of life", they would not only be against in vitro fertilization, they would go even further, and require every woman to surrender all of her eggs. They could then ALL be fertilized, and we could soon be swimming in unwanted babies. Maybe the Democrats should submit some legislation to make it so!
Kurt |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:50 pm | #
OT, and no disrespect meant to the thrust of the thread, which is most important.
===The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the $6.8 billion ports deal and the UAE contribution. It disclosed details about the donation to support President Bush's description of the nations as important allies.===
===The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.===
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 5:51 pm | #
Witty, excellent post Jane!
Herman |
02.23.06 - 5:51 pm | #
in this age of medical discoveries/advancements we are fortunate to type and cross match blood, DNA studies, etc.... we can use these things to our advantage.
if women are forced to have babies, men should be forced to have thier DNA registered so that the responsibility of raising the child can be SHARED.
women always have the burden... it's about time the men step up.
(yes, i know there are awesome men out there who will always do the right thing for the women in their lives.)
sc kitty |
02.23.06 - 5:51 pm | #
What do the Bushies and the Sopranos have in common? The answer may be here.
jurassicpork |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:53 pm | #
"Snowflake babies". Seriously. People who adopt frozen embryos that wouldotherwise go unimplanted call them "snowflake babies".
Dumb question. If the Supremes decide to roll back the clock on abortion and red states start criminalizing women who go to the blue ones for abortions, then don't you have the potential for some weird extradition fights? I strongly doubt CA (once we dump our present schwarzenfuhrer) would be willing to extradite a woman who came to our state to have an abortion, to, I dunno, Wyoming or whatever, to face hard time much less a death penalty. And presumably, anyone could simply escape punishment in a red state by making their way to MA or VT. Canada would have to start granting political asylum to those who make it up there from all those red states around the Dakota/Montana area....
Blub |
02.23.06 - 5:55 pm | #
The ultimate issue is this:
I generally think abortion is NOT the best choice - probably 90% of them I disagree with. (I don’t believe life begins at conception, but that’s what most of those who are adamantly pro-life do believe. I, however, don’t know how to determine when life does begin. Perhaps at viability, I’m not sure. Though, even then, one can only say the child has equal rights or slightly less than the mother.)
But what does happen to, at a minimum, unviable embryos is frankly the responsibility and the charge of the mother - the being who is keeping them alive.
Now we can say that the state has an interest and take control of these women and make choices for them regarding these embryos but then we stumble into a whole host of questions.
Can we force the mothers to do all sorts of things to save the embryo?
How about blood transfusions for Jehova's Witnesses? (JW’s don’t believe in blood transfusions, and I know first hand of those who refuse them even though it may very well cost them their lives…) We could make JW’s who were pregnant accept blood transfusions so we can save their babies - against their religious freedom and desire.
Or, you've got HELLP - an extremely serious pregnancy complication which kills a very significant portion of the mothers who have it. (first hand knowlege of it here...) Can we force these mothers to expose themselves to even more risk to potentially have a live child? (The only “cure” for HELLP is to deliver the child. If you’re lucky they are close enough to term to live. If not they die. So, you might get a live child by delaying delivery a while. You expose the mother to more and more risk, but you might get a live child.)
How about Progestin based birth control… You did know that at least some of the time, these forms of birth control prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, right? If you’re opposed to abortion, then these things have got to be a problem.
(And you know that progestin based BC is the only acceptable form of BC while you’re nursing a baby – other wise you loose the milk supply for the baby… And nursing alone isn’t enough to keep most mothers from becoming pregnant mothers.)
Same goes for at least some of the IUD forms of BC.
Same for Depo-provera, and (now discontinued) Norplant.
And on and on and on.
And who is going to adjudicate these issues? A judge?
Will the judge or judges now tell you what forms of contraception you are allowed to use?
Will the judge tell you what medical procedures you must undergo, even though you find those procedures morally, spiritually and religiously wrong?
Will the morals and religious beliefs of those who consider life at conception trump those of others who do not believe those things? [Sarcasm] (I’m a protestant Christian and my view of life and my right to impose my religious beliefs on you is morally justified!) [/Sarcasm] I might add that it seems Protestants have forgotten the lessons learned from Luther and his compatriots.
Having a judge solve this won't have any better result. There will be injustice and unfairness. The application of justice will be terribly varied. In South Dakota you’re likely to be treated harshly. In Oregon, where I live, you’ll get off easy.
Is that a fair system?
It’s my opinion then, that the only fair system is simply your own personal choice – even if it’s disagreeable and morally repugnant to others. Fact is, if you give an embryo, especially a non-viable one, equal rights to the mother we’ve got a huge set of problems that we’ll never solve.
Injustice will always occur. If abortion is legal, some are going to take advantage of that system in a way that will make me uncomfortable and that I find appalling.
But when a judge is in charge rather than individual choice, we’ll have the same appalling injustices.
So, which is more compatible with our form of government, and for that matter, God’s?
A) Personal responsibility for our decisions, personal choice and free-will,
B) A proscriptive authoritarian system which deprives the individual of their power to decide the course of their lives as well as their ultimate responsibility and accountability for their actions.
From my spiritual background, God thought it was so important to protect and allow option B, or personal choice, that he paid the ultimate price to allow us to choose – even badly.
God prizes free will very, very highly. Personally, I think his followers ought to follow his example.
The bumper stickers I’ve seen seem quite apt. “Dear God, please protect me from your followers.” Perhaps we ought to call them “professed followers.”
Blub - you raised a point I had never even thought of - what would be the penalties for women who have abortions? for those who perform illegal abortions. (Can't believe after all these years that I even have to use the phrase ' illegal abortion')
jlr |
02.23.06 - 5:58 pm | #
Aren't the wingers (somewhere, can't remember) trying to get a law passed where women are required to report miscarriages? I think I read that, again, somewhere.
Phoebe |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:59 pm | #
It was a good post then and it still is. The "forced chilbirth" meme needs to get some legs but I am with Watertiger in it will resonate. It is just the sort of phrase that carries enough "posibilities" with it that people can invest emotion to the degree with which they feel comfortable and still carry the concept forward.
Fallenmonk |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 5:59 pm | #
The funny thing is, the bible barely makes any reference to pregnancy, much less abortion. It's all how the text is interpreted. Meanwhile, the Ten Commandments is very clear on adultery, as in thou shall not committ it. So when are states going to start throwing married couples in the can for cheating? Let's face it, the bible is and always has been used by society's most powerful to keep the status quo.
JaneKnowles |
02.23.06 - 5:59 pm | #
OK…I’ll admit it…my friends know I have this bad habit of not letting go of lost causes. I’ve continued checking in at BushvChoice hoping it might become a site for actual discussion instead of just a black hole of deleted comments.
Here’s a good one I just saw over there:
"South Dakota: Proudly protecting the reproductive rights of rapists since 2006"
Then there’s quite a lengthy comment from a self described pro-choice young woman from South Dakota that I can’t begin to summarize. You’ll just have to take a look for yourself at http://www.bushvchoice.com/
archi...s.html#comments. Please remember to use your best Washblog behavior if you choose to comment.
RBG |
02.23.06 - 6:00 pm | #
Actually, I have no dog in this fight directly. I am a very gay male (Kinsey6, thank you!) and have never even come close to conceiving. (Silence, punaise!)
As a self-avowed Sodomite, I am just as hated as an abortion Doctor. Scratch a hardcore "pro-lifer" and you will find a vicious homophobe. It is in my self-interest to weaken political power of the fundie wingers who try to control a female uterus and also control where my penis goes. Just stop meddling, Senator Coburn!
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 6:01 pm | #
My heavens - a Monty Python Con Law question? I may have a new hero.
But 500 words or less - I remember cranking out blue books and loading band-aids on my fingers. Things have changed....
jayt |
02.23.06 - 6:02 pm | #
vando, sorry to hear of you and your wife's travails, but what an excellent point to raise
cbl |
02.23.06 - 6:03 pm | #
I'd like to point out that the evangelical right of the Dobson crowd do not much more than give lip service to their anti-IVF stand. Neither do American Roman Catholic bishops. They focus on abortion because, in part I am sure, it's the low-hanging fruit. Let me be plain:
IVF is a privately-funded venture. Richer folks, usually very, very white and very desperate to have a child of their own, are the IVF market. To make these couples a target is to take the rist that Oprah is going to pack tearful white, well-to-do couples on a show versus the prudish prunes from Focus on the Family and their allies, a bunch of priests. And then the Lifetime channel is going to start making movies about these couples. This is a dead bang loser, politically.
Brian C.B. |
02.23.06 - 6:04 pm | #
Fact is that the SD law is not far away from outlawing birth control and this is the real slippery slope, not IVF. Again, the Catholics are very consistent with their pro-life dogma - abortion and birth control are equally unforgivable. Roe v Wade is a direct decendent of SC rulings that allowed birth control. Just as abortion was deemed legal based on right to birth control ("privacy"), it is intellectually consistent to wonder if birth control can ultimately be outlawed right along with abortion.
alizonia |
02.23.06 - 6:04 pm | #
I suppose that in a sense life does begin at conception - a fetus is alive, but so is a radish growing in my garden. I think the question should not be about when life begins, but when person-hood begin.
jlr |
02.23.06 - 6:05 pm | #
This is gets to the heart of the issue which I believe is ensoulment. When people say “life begins at conception” they are really only certain that “life processes” – cell activity is going on. What people instinctively think of life is the union of body and soul—and I mean soul in its popular conception not in a strictly theological sense. (Try reading Descartes Baby by Paul Bloom; he argues that psychological research shows that people have an innate sense of body-soul duality.) The issue then becomes when does ensoulment take place. The current view of the Catholic Church is at conception—though I have read that Cardinal Dulles (I think) was willing to concede that implantation was the moment, due to the problem of twinning (as a ensouled egg can’t split into two souls) and the great number of fertilized eggs that don’t make it to implantation (which would imply a great “waste” of souls). A more traditional notion , on the other hand, is that ensoulment took place at 40 days, or quickening. But once there is uncertainty as to when life, the imbuing of a body with a soul, begins then it must be weighed against the certainty of the severest judicial punishments should abortion, or IVF for that matter be outlawed. The late Pope admitted this uncertainty, but said one should give the benefit of the doubt to the side of life. (But that is ignoring the certainty of judicial punishment.)
I realize the law cannot enshrine a notion of the soul, and that many would reject using it in a philosophical debate on abortion. However, I would argue that it is a notion that people intuitively apply to the problem. Even one who is strongly anti-abortion (who, to be consistent, should desire the penalty for murder be reserved for those who procure an abortion) must consider that the possibility of late ensoulment means that no life was ended at least in the early stages of pregnancy. Likewise no life (i.e., a soul) is inherent in a stem cell.
uncle toby |
02.23.06 - 6:05 pm | #
bz,
Scientists are all over the place on where life begins -- and their opinions are, not surprisingly, very closely related to their belief systems (or lack thereof). So don't quote me "science" on this -- have been married to two of them and know more than a few, of all age ranges. Also don't put down my beliefs and opinions when I treat yours with respect. But let me tell you a story, one that has stuck with me for many, many years: back when I was rabidly, vehemently pro-choice, in a really neat bio lab at the Univ. of Chicago, my classmates and I dropped some starfish sperm onto a petri dish containing a starfish egg. The professor had warned us there would be a flash of light and I thought at the time, "Yeah, right." But there was a flash, and those two very discrete substances joined and became one, in that flash of light, of life. I have never forgotten that, and 25 years later, I realized my beliefs had changed. I'll still fight for your right to yours -- just grant me the freedom and respect to have mine. And yes, current bio-physicist spouse and I do not believe in in-vitro fertilization. But I am sure there are a great many issues on which we are both far more radical than you. I think it's our very diversity, and willingness to work together, that makes this site great.
dannyboy |
02.23.06 - 6:08 pm | #
I looked back through the early archives, Jane. You wrote A LOT back then! Were you getting paid by the word?..;-)
Stu in CA |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 6:08 pm | #
Completely OT, sorry, but there's a really good On Point on about the Middle East with Christopher Dickey.
I heard about half of it earlier today, so if anyone's interested click here for wbur
zennurse |
02.23.06 - 6:10 pm | #
Today was really a landmark day for me at FDL.
1) I twice had my heart ripped out of my chest today. First regarding GrandmaJ's family tragedy, and then upon learning ReddHedd's awful experience. It was a very emotional day here.
2) Thank you immanentize - my wife and I discussed how we plan on donating our "pro-choice" dollars. We've decided to support the PP clinics with local direct donations, and stop donating to national PP. We're also considering NOW versus direct contributions to pro-choice candidates. I'm leaning towards direct contributions.
3) Thank you FDL and commenters wrt IVF abortion issues. This is an issue very close to me for personal reasons. Someone I know would be impacted by not being able to pursue IVF, and this might influence their opinion.
I was trully touched by FDL today, in many ways.
anotherpawn |
02.23.06 - 6:10 pm | #
Good point Uncle Toby. How can any one legislate to the point where one final synapse fires and suddenly there is this a sense of self? How can anyone pinpoint self awareness with the "they have a soul" point?It's impossible.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 6:14 pm | #
"When life begins"??
Oh, please.
Jane, you're an incredibly intelligent woman. Please tell me you didn't say that.
The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the fertilized egg is alive. Life is continuous. Nobody claims otherwise.
When the sperm bonks into the egg, you have a new biological entity. It's alive and is a new creature from the get-go. Nobody's contesting that either.
Nor is anyone contesting that if the biological parents are human beings, then the new living creature is of the species homo sapiens, just like Mom and Dad.
The question you're looking for is, when does personhood begin? And the followup question, does the developing embryo/fetus/whatever deserve some protection before the onset of personhood, on account of that's where it's headed?
I can't say I've got any definitive answers. But you can't even start on the answer until you're asking the right question.
RT |
02.23.06 - 6:14 pm | #
For Tom Monaghan, the devout Catholic who founded Domino's Pizza and is now bankrolling most of the initial $400 million cost of the project, Ave Maria is the culmination of a lifetime devoted to spreading his own strict interpretation of Catholicism. Though he says nonbelievers are welcome, Monaghan clearly wants the community to embody his conservative values. He controls all the commercial real estate in town (along with his developing partner, Barron Collier Cos.) and is asking pharmacies not to carry contraceptives.
In case there's any doubt, abortion is the first target, contraceptives are next. If Roe falls, they intent to shove Griswald over the cliff too. Scary times, people.
TheOtherWA |
02.23.06 - 6:18 pm | #
You can't blame God
Dr. Sandel's estimate of 60-80% of embryos spontaneously aborting (or, technically, failing to implant, in most of these cases) may be on the high side. We really have no way of knowing. It could actually be on the low side. But it is beyond dispute that "plain old conception", getting pregnant the old-fashioned way, by having intercourse frequently until a successful pregnancy "shows", very often results in such loss of embryonic life. People who have heterosexual sex, then, without taking adequate precautions to prevent fertility even for these embryos that will fail to implant, are plainly and simply taking whatever life they believe these embryos to possess.
It simply won't do to say that it must be God's will for these "murders" (if such they be) to take place, because the human race could not continue without this genocide, and God clearly wants the human race to continue (another dubious proposition), therefore it is right and just for individuals to go right ahead and slaughter the unborn with abandon as they procreate. Take an example. Just because humanity as a whole has not learned how to live without war between nations, is hardly justification for individuals to declare their own little private wars, and murder individuals with whom they find themselves in conflict. Even if we accept the idea that the ongoing procreation of the human race is a good that outweighs the arguably necessary evil of slaughtering the unborn in the course of natural fertility, that procreation of the human race will go on without the contribution of those few individuals who feel that this slaughter of day-old embryos is morally repugnant. The lifers could resolve to themselves to have sex no more, at least not until they all have tubal ligations and vasectomies, and would not even have to give up raising their own families, much less see the world depopulated as the birth rate drops to zero. There are plenty of unwanted babies up for adoption.
Of course, the lifers, as is the usual case with Pharissees of all ages, aren't really interested in personal morality, in their own moral behavior, but in moralism, everyone else's supposed deviations from God's will. And if we are considering this issue of natural fertility involving the "murder" of the unborn from the perspective of mankind as a whole, if we are proposing laws to bind everyone, and not just ethical prinicples to bind those who believe that killing embryos is murder, then we do indeed have a conflict between the survival of the race and the lives of the unborn that must be sacrificed in the name of fertility. But even if we are back to the idea that the survival of the species demands some loss of embryo life as a necessary trade-off, surely those who believe that embryocide is murder would have to absolutely minimize that loss of embryo life. If the rate of such loss in natural fertility is anywhere near the 60-80% that Dr. Sandel posits, then we could clearly do better with IVF. Not, to be sure, IVF as currently practiced, which wastes embryos profligately in order to minimize the number of procedures a woman must have to achieve a successful pregnancy, but IVF practiced so as to minimize loss of embryo life. Only create and implant one embryo at a time, and try again only after it is clear that the prior trial has failed.
Don't let the lifers off the hook created by their own implausible beliefs that they are so willing to force on us all without having considered the entailments. If what they believe is true, that causing an embryo's death is murder, then IVF, this modified, more difficult IVF, must become the only lawful way to reproduce. Tubal ligations and vasectomies must become mandatory by early puberty, unless they think that a ban on sexual relations could achieve a higher rate of success than the surgeries. If they are not willing to do these things, then banning abortions, which kill far fewer embryos than natural fertility, is a joke.
Glen Tomkins, MD |
02.23.06 - 6:19 pm | #
That's it. I'm done for tonight. Stoopid fingers, stoopid tags, blah!
(preview is my friend, preview is my friend)
TheOtherWA |
02.23.06 - 6:21 pm | #
Wilson46201 | Homepage | 02.23.06 - 6:01 pm |
I did scratch an anti-choice person once (verbally) and found him to be as you described, a vicious homophobe. On top of that, he was also a 'racial purity' type.
Not in the least surprising, when you think about it, but it shocked me at the time.
I'd bet there are more than a few of them who want more white babies and aren't, deep down, very concerned with any other 'races.'
Margot |
02.23.06 - 6:25 pm | #
C'mon back tomorrow dude, BTW, Another ,Another WA.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 6:25 pm | #
"what would be the penalties for women who have abortions? "
My understanding is that the SD bill avoided the issue by just criminalizing abortion practitioners.. but I think it's only a matter of time before some rednut state decides to one up them and actually require that women who have abortions be prosecuted for murder. You can bet that I (and hopefully all the right-minder CAers) will at that point be lobbying Sacramento to rip up any pertinent extradition agreements. Then let the fun begin. We're talking jurisdictional fights of a type not seen since Dred Scott.
Blub |
02.23.06 - 6:29 pm | #
The so-called "pro-lifers" really seem to want to extend their tentacles into a lot of aspects of our lives. Stem cell research, sick relatives, premature infants. Some of us have genetic illness in our families like cystic fibrosis. (I wish these so-called Christian men could experience multiple miscarriages.) I was helping a family member with her premature babies & when I was looking up medical info & came across some very, very unsettling "Christian," making the baby live no matter what the cost sites. There's a cult-like sick, sick aspect to these people . . .can 't explain.
Mui |
02.23.06 - 6:29 pm | #
Dang, can't hit my ass with either hand. I meant ...Another WA.The other wa.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 6:30 pm | #
All I know is, we've got to go totally aggressive with these fucks. They are hypocrites (like, duh) and control freaks and just plain freaks.
In-your-face slogans. "Who decides, you or them?" "Forced childbirth" - not good enough, it's still got the "aww - child, birth" in it. This has nothing to do with children, or birth, or any of that nice fuzzy stuff we all like. This is about totalitarian control versus individual freedom.
Sharkbabe |
02.23.06 - 6:30 pm | #
oh
my
how i hate
religion
all of it.
poison.
if you wonder why you are having to debate issues that seem so fucking obvious (um, let the people with the wombs make the really tough call about what to do with them--let's give them some science to inform their decisions) it's because of one thing. religion.
is a virus.
from outer space (apologies to WBurrougs) sent to make us fucking stupid. and yes, that includes your lefty-friendly tolerant religion too. and your buddhist one. and your animist one. and your new age one. and your "personal spiritual relationship with god that transcends labels".
don't tell me your sky god belief system, which at best is shared by 1 in 5 other human beings, is more important than my lack thereof. it isn't. don't legislate it, don't proselytize, just shut the fuck up and keep it to your self. go sing hallelujah on sunday. and believe me, if it all comes down to consigning rape victims the hell described in reddhead's post, there will be a fucking war in this country and maybe finally some secular humanists will wake up and smell the bacon.
Robert Green |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 6:32 pm | #
Oh, BTW, as a kind of general note (and no offense to the XYs who already get this, though even good men do have a blind spot in this regard), when a woman says "no", she means "no". She doesn't mean "maybe". Some men don't seem to get that.
-
Valley Girl | 02.23.06 - 4:53 pm
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 6:32 pm | #
"totalitarian control versus individual freedom"
Which begs the question. Upon a Supreme Court reversal, how quickly do you think the wingnut rethugs will move to promote the immediate re-federalization of abortion, with a blanket federal ban? :p
Blub |
02.23.06 - 6:33 pm | #
No man worthy of the name wants to see his sisters, his lovers, his daughters enslaved.
The only tragedy is ignorance, the only evil is fear.
Along with many others, Jane, I salute you.
William Timberman |
02.23.06 - 6:34 pm | #
Wishing upon a star, The mf'rs will be licking their wounds and wondering WTF happened come November.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 6:38 pm | #
"What they care about is punishing women for having sex."
Not exactly... What they care about is that sex always has consequences, and they hate it when some women avoid the consequences.
To wingnuts, sex must always result in a baby or a venereal disease, hence thier hatred for abortion, contraceptives and condoms. If sex can be had without consequence, women will succumb to depravity, leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
Politus |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 6:40 pm | #
actually, there never was a federal anti-abortion law, right? it was left to the states and Roe knocked off the states ability to regulate uterii.
Bet your bottom dollar, if Roe should be overturned, the next day Santorum and Delay will introduce a Federal law prohibiting abortion everywhere in the USA! States rights be damned!
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 6:41 pm | #
Pro-choice?
How about personal choice? Does that not play into the present administration's memes, personal choice about social security, personal choice about medicine, etc. and so on?
Sky-Ho |
02.23.06 - 6:41 pm | #
Ditto Wm Timberman and Dru's father. Oh, if only all men were so inclined and honest.
P.S. Can't sleep..........g'nite again.
Thank you again, Jane and ReddHedd.
angie |
02.23.06 - 6:42 pm | #
IFV is a modern medical miracle. It ought to be celebrated, not politicized.
Two years ago my wife had a miscarriage. It was a sad day, and we cried and we mourned. We also then learned just how many pregnancies end in miscarriage. Most of our friends and family members who are mothers had experienced a miscarriage at some time in their lives. Some several times. It is almost routine. Don't quote me on the exact number, but something like a third of pregnancies spontaneously abort. First-time mothers-to-be are most prone.
We lost our hope that we would have a baby in a few months. But it was not like we lost a son or daughter. We did not have a funeral. We don't visit the graveyard of our lost fetus.
We did, however, still want a child, and after some time and medical tests, we were referred to IVF. We found a great clinic in L.A., and we were lucky. Last Feb. 21, one year ago this week, we had egg retrieval and fertilization. After three days, four embryos survived. We had pictures of them and gave them names. We decided to transplant three on the 24th. The fourth embryo failed to continue to growth, and was never frozen. The three that were transplanted resulted in pregnancy. One survived. He's now our son, twelve weeks old and counting.
It is really hard to put into words how much our boy means to us. If not for IVF we would likely not been able to conceive and have a child.
If anyone believes anything we did was wrong, I would like you to try to explain that to my son, when he's older, and he can understand, and he'll be laughing in your face.
JJF |
02.23.06 - 6:47 pm | #
If they are not willing to do these things, then banning abortions, which kill far fewer embryos than natural fertility, is a joke.
Glen Tomkins, MD | 02.23.06 - 6:19 pm | #
Then the embryo that is lost through spontaneous abortion that life "is only known by god" and not even by the woman who is carrying it for that brief moment - doesn't that then make god the murderer? and if you say god doesn't murder then doesn't that then say god has not problem with this at all? I also read your point somewhere else with the writer making the point that if the baby hasn't been baptized and technically is not "saved" then it's soul is in purgatory and therefore purgatory has more souls in it then heaven.
to me simply it's what Pat Robertson's worried comment that he made last month - "racial suicide" - and that is what the boyz are afraid of - white women not having enough white babies.
der |
02.23.06 - 6:47 pm | #
I'm with ya, Jane. Excellent snark, too.
Mommybrain |
02.23.06 - 6:47 pm | #
I Googled "abortion providers" in SD and only came up with PP in Sioux Falls. Should we perhaps reach out to them, locally, to see what help they need and what we, as a community might be able to do to help them?
kirby |
02.23.06 - 6:47 pm | #
So much progress today!
Male masturbation police,
mandatory sex with any non-pregnant woman or wife,
outlaw sex entirely when zero wastage IVF becomes available.
Brave New 100% Morally Spotless World, here we come. Let us all look forward to the high holy morally smug bliss that awaits us all.
Commenters forgot this:
Strict affirmative-action good samaritan laws
Any time you are responsible for engaging in an activity with some one that is not absolutely necessary for mere existence, and that some one gets hurt, and there is at least a 20% chance you can save them, you are required by law to do so. And that includes measures that endanger your own life. Otherwise you are a murderer.
For automobile accidents, boating accidents. Picnic in the meadow and allergic person gets a bee sting. Give some one a life saver and they choke on it. Whatever.
I figure, these are more definitely "persons" than an sperm, egg, blastocyte, embryo or fetus. They are much much less innocent, of course. But the special sacredness of "innocent" life is a sad heresy, so forget that.
What is legally a person? By far most people would say that a fertilized egg is not one. A very late term fetus is close enough to get consideration almost equal to mother. Where is the dividing line? I think most of the anti-abortion fanatics and sexual hysterics are in serious denial and end up being very dishonest.
____________________
Monty Python put the fundies position very well in "The Meaning of Life and Everything"
Every sperm is sacred,
every sperm is great!
For every sperm that's wasted,
God gets quite irate!
Wilson46201
anon_1 |
02.23.06 - 6:49 pm | #
Have I missed the pool on when this Greenfield Klown's BS from Northern University 1999 will be exposed as non existent ?
a rash of that lately among wingers
cbl |
02.23.06 - 6:49 pm | #
Robert Green, I think the sky-god thing is the disease. Non-sky-god stuff like Taoism, Buddhism, whatever is just looking within and trying to live deep & be happy. It is very different from the deity disease.
Sky-god religion is essentially dictatorial and totalitarian. "God" said it, that's it. I was a liberal Christian in my youth. We all thought the sky-god gave lots of leeway for human thought and growth. Eventually I thought and grew enough that the sky-god became silly and bogus and unnecessary.
Here I am, arguing religion, the worst age-old murderous trap a human can fall into. Shit.
Sharkbabe |
02.23.06 - 6:50 pm | #
Not wanting to further my impression of stupidity, O.K. Too late, Didn't I see something about the Pope wanting to re define the levels of the path to Heaven and abolish Pergatory?BTW Jane, I will be selling ice cubes by the time you get there.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 6:52 pm | #
Sorry for the OT, but I can't just sit in my quiet house with nobody to talk to about my grandson Cody. As most of you know, he was in a car accident wednesday a.m. where his mother was killed.
Initial surgery went well and a monitor was put in. The swelling continued and they tried to bring him out of his drug induced coma today to evaluate, and he did not respond as hoped. and there was some left side weakness. Tomorrow they will decide if he needs more surgery.
Our agony is not over yet. Thanks for being here in my silence.
GrandmaJ |
02.23.06 - 6:57 pm | #
Oklahoma kiddo -- maybe you're right about states not being able to rescind--but I thought I recalled that the piece of leglslation passed by Congress that would become the ERA if ratified by enough states, had a fixed date of expiration that passed quite a while ago. Does anyone else know?
neurophius |
02.23.06 - 6:57 pm | #
Jane, a brilliant post and a wonderful call to arms, so to speak. Along with all the above, and someone touched on this, is the cruel and inhumane practice of saving the not-meant-to-live-on-the-outside babies who are actually still fetuses when born. The pressure placed on women and families when babies are born too early or too damaged based on available science has little to do with the reality of what they will all go through during the many months the baby will have to be hospitalized, the usually fatal effect on the marriage, the crushing financial responsibility, the repeated painful invasive procedures required to extend that life and the lifelong effects on the child, if it lives past infancy. All we hear about in the media is the "brave" parents, if they miraculously don't divorce over thier grief, how amazing the little one is in spite of its (name your affliction-blindness, brain damage, organ dysfunction, chronic respiratory problems, cardiac problems) and what a "gift" life is. We don't see behind the scenes, the emergency room trips and repeated hospitalizations, the lost jobs and bill collectors, the loss of supportive friends, the budget cuts for appropriate services. And who cuts those funds? You guessed it, and they do it in the name of "personal responsibility".
You bet it's a moral issue. Thiers.
zennurse |
02.23.06 - 6:58 pm | #
Sharkbabe: no, Buddhism takes this stuff very seriously also. Abortion is frowned upon. But Buddhism takes seriously the issue of what should be considered a person, how the welfare of the mother and potential child should be weighed, etc. I once heard a Buddhist priest give a sermon about the time a young girl asked him for advice about whether to have an abortion. He said that after considering how intractable her situation was, he had advised her to get one. Said that in the school of Buddhism he grew up in, he should go to a very bad Buddhist hell for a very long time for giving that advice. But felt he had made the correct decision for the mother and for the fetus, and would accept whatever happened to him.
anon_1 |
02.23.06 - 6:58 pm | #
GrandmaJ: Good luck. You and folk are in my thoughts.
anon_1 |
02.23.06 - 6:59 pm | #
" actually, there never was a federal anti-abortion law, right? it"
Oh, I meant re-federalization of abortion to mean "Roe".. the wingnuts argue that Roe wrongfully federalized abortion when it should be have been left to the states.. scotus reversal of Roe would defederalize abortion. I just was just wondering how quickly Brownback and Santorum will try to re-federalize it (by banning it, instead of constitutionally protecting it). We've already seen that there is no limit to the hypocrisy of these lunatics.
Blub |
02.23.06 - 7:00 pm | #
(Update: Byron York emailed Atrios and asked him to tell me it was not him. I of course was off getting irresponsibly knocked up.)
Just happend to refresh FDL, and caught this update, above, from Jane. Seems that it was written in response to this part of Jane's original article:
I wrote this a while back (when I was getting 25 hits a day so I'm sure nobody's read it unless that's you, Mom) about a debate on the first episode of the Ron Reagan/Monica Crowley show on MSNBC (the spiffy dresser I now know was Byron York).
My goodness, I've been reading and posting for a while, but sometimes the FDL subtleties escape me. Jane? Was Byron York jealous? Please explain. ;)
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 7:00 pm | #
Have hope GrandmaJ-- children are very resilient. Miracles happen all the time, little reported, but they do. Thoughts are with you. Keep the hope alive. The weakness can be transitory.
angie |
02.23.06 - 7:01 pm | #
Aren't the wingers (somewhere, can't remember) trying to get a law passed where women are required to report miscarriages? I think I read that, again, somewhere.
Phoebe | Homepage | 02.23.06 - 5:59 pm | #
It happened in VA last year. I doubt the bill would have gone anywhere, but a winger legislator introduced a bill requiring women to report miscarriages to the police within 24 hours or face felony charges. Maura Keaney, then head of Democracy for Virginia, publicized it and triggered a firestorm that caused the winger to withdraw it (and got her on a Nightline segment about blogging.)
The winger tried to claim it was somehow related to babies being left in dumpsters, but was unable to make any logical case for that, and when his assertion that the police in his district had requested it turned out to be a lie, it was pretty clear it was just anti-abortion wingnuttia.
Redshift |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:02 pm | #
GrandmaJ | 02.23.06 - 6:57 pm
We are here, and keeping you company in your silence. Much love.
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 7:02 pm | #
Jane --
This wonderful post makes me realize that there must have been a time when you weren't counting poetry votes and chatting with Ned Lamont. The primary reason many come here is the strength, beauty, and elegance of your writing -- if this was a trip down memory lane for some, I'm envious of their longevity. And I hope for more flashbacks.
Thanks for sharing this with us newbies.
-
25 hits a day, grrl? However did you spend your day then?
-
TeddySanFran, now Poopville |
02.23.06 - 7:03 pm | #
neurophius | 02.23.06 - 6:57 pm - Please go to my 5:10 post on this thread and click on the link there.
Stephen Parrish, CPA |
02.23.06 - 7:04 pm | #
GrandmaJ | 02.23.06 - 6:57 pm
And, I echo what angie said.
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 7:05 pm | #
GrandmaJ -- I'm sorry to hear that, but my thoughts are with you and I will continue to hope for the best. I'm glad if we can in some small way provide community support.
Redshift |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:06 pm | #
GrandmaJ,
I look for your messages. Hugs and love.
Margot |
02.23.06 - 7:08 pm | #
Oklahoma kiddo--OK, I read Stephen Parrish CPA's link, and I guess we are both right--it's just that there are two competing theories. Don't know what else I might have missed above--haven't gotten through all the comments yet.
neurophius |
02.23.06 - 7:09 pm | #
Oh, Grandma, I'm sorry you're alone, I'm so glad you reached out here. I'd like to know how Cody was when he woke up a bit? Was he able to talk with your ex, Donald and Bob, or was he too sleepy? Try not to panic and remember that children are different from adults in terms of thier powers of regeneration and rehab. How is your son holding up, and Bob. I wish there were more we could do? How is the indsurance situation, is it adequate? I am so concerned, but have been visualizing all of you all day, sang a little song to Cody while I was scrubbing a rug today.
Pleas, please keep us informed, and accept at least my invitation to post anytime.
You are absolutely right they want to stop women from having sex. Really it is an attempt to stop women from being sexually equal to men. They want women to be restricted to having sex solely for the purpose of baring children. It is about men and their need for power over women.
It is not about the preservation of life, it is about their fear of the uncontrollable, of sex and promiscuity.
Anonymous |
02.23.06 - 7:11 pm | #
Politus: "What they care about is punishing women for having sex."
Not exactly... What they care about is that sex always has consequences, and they hate it when some women avoid the consequences.
To put it more clearly, what they care about is that sex always has consequences for women. Another thing you'll find quite common among anti-abortion types is that they are capable of simultaneously holding the belief that "boys will be boys" and that any woman who has sex out of wedlock is a harlot who deserves to suffer.
Redshift |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:11 pm | #
Thanks Redshift, Valley Girl, Angie, everyone -- I have a candle in the window, the hallway light on, and the glowing computer screen. It is quiet here, but my thoughts are racing. Thanks for the company.
I am reading every comment and the conversation about the subject of choice, or lack thereof.
My daughter's life was saved by having an abortion when medical complications arose from her seizure medication. She needs to have the right to make choices. I am with you too. As we wait.
GrandmaJ |
02.23.06 - 7:12 pm | #
One more for consistency. I was taught that if a woman miscarried one was supposed to gather up any clumps that came out, baptise them and deal with them in some nicer way than flushing them down the toilet.
Andrea |
02.23.06 - 7:12 pm | #
OT, I am crying my eyes out at this moment. A very dear friend of mine passed Monday. She had inoperable liver cancer for over a year.No amount or type of chemo could help her.Just talked to her husband about the service.They married a week before she left.Having a hard time typing as I am wiping the tears.She was a sweety. Please don't reply to this, as I will not be here to see it. Give your loved ones a squeeze.Be a smartass later. God speed , Linda.
Bustednuckles |
02.23.06 - 7:13 pm | #
This is a really good point and one I will use on a regular basis. Hubby's family is much more conservative than we are. Add in the fact that I am an outspoken liberal who writes naughty books, well, they envision us in hell on a daily basis I think.
Wingnuts love the fetus and hate the child. It is amazing how much they really want to save the fetus, but screw the life of the child. I have never had an abortion, but I have gone with two friends to the clinic when they had them. One was because she was young, 17, messed up and not ready for kids. The other was because she was raped and found herself 19 and pregnant, in college with a part time job and scholarship just to get by. It was just as painful emotionally for each woman, no matter how they got pregnant. I doubt very much that any woman schedules an abortion like they would a manicure. It is an emotionally draining experience, either way, but it is their decision, their body, their lives. When are these jackasses going to realize that? I know, never.
Melissa |
02.23.06 - 7:13 pm | #
Redshift | Homepage | 02.23.06 - 7:11 pm
What a great call! You are so correct.
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 7:14 pm | #
BBC,"Iraq's most gruesome day"
Shia and Sunni leaders in a war of words
resorting to extreme terrorism
going to check in with mark
zennurse |
02.23.06 - 7:14 pm | #
Another thing you'll find quite common among anti-abortion types is that they are capable of simultaneously holding the belief that "boys will be boys" and that any woman who has sex out of wedlock is a harlot who deserves to suffer.
Well, she got herself pregnant, right? I hate that attitude. I spent a huge chunk of my life in Texas and I heard that growing up. When I was substitute teaching, I taught in the county with the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Texas(per capita). Every time you would hear people say she got herself pregnant. 'Cause ya know them damn sperm just appear out of nowhere and if she can't get away, it's her own fault.
Melissa |
02.23.06 - 7:18 pm | #
Valley Girl -
Sent ya some emails.
GrandmaJ, we are all with you in this ghastly sorrowful time.
I gotta go pack shortly. Up at 4 to head out for Louisiana (LAS -> ATL -- > BTR, yuck).
_
BobbyG |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:18 pm | #
It occurred to me that I was a kinda insensitive with my snark about miscarriage - which has caused so much pain to so many. I stand by my point, but not how I said it.
jlr |
02.23.06 - 7:18 pm | #
GrandmaJ, thank you for the latest. No words necessary, you know them all, just stay strong and lean on me & us however you need
Sharkbabe |
02.23.06 - 7:19 pm | #
Bobby G- got the one with your new blog link- see you've changed it! Looking forward to a new one (email). Hope you are going to be with Ms. 32. XXXoo
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 7:23 pm | #
Oddly, or not, the South Dakota tourism site won't load, but here's the 800 number: 800-732-5682. Feel free to call them and let them know you won't be travelling to states where daughters who are raped by their fathers can't get the abortion they should have.
lambert strether |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:23 pm | #
Valley Girl -
Yeah, me and me honey will be partyin' at Mardi Gras events. Mostly in Baton Rouge, though. I'm taking my digital camera. We may get down to New Orleans, dunno. Would like to have at least a sit-down at Cafe du Monde.
_
BobbyG |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:28 pm | #
Yet, all I read are posts about how it is the Republicans to blame. Sorry, until the Democratic Party decides to come out for a woman's right to choose, there will be no major party in this country that demands equal rights for women.
ILDem | 02.23.06 - 5:22 pm | #
Reading through the past three FDL posts on abortion, out of the elected officials mentioned, I count two Republicans (Tom Coburn and Lincoln Chafee) and one Democrat (Joe Lieberman.) Furthermore, I note that you said "until the Democratic Party decides," not "until the Democratic or Republican Party decides," which I think reflects an accurate assessment of which party has some conservative members in conservative areas, and which one has sold out to radical conservatives wholesale.
We have to push hard for Democrats to do the right thing, and to replace unreliable Democrats with reliable ones where we can (like Lamont vs. Lieberman.) But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, it doesn't help to run people out of the party in the name of purity where we can't replace them with someone better.
Redshift |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:28 pm | #
Zennnurse -- The only information i received this evening is they brought him up slightly, and he did not respond "as hoped." The swelling is increasing as we were told this morning, but seems to go up and down. Another doctor was called in and the decision whether to operate further was delayed until tomorrow.
At whatever level of awakeness he was at, there was noticeable weakness on his left side, but to my knowledge they did not bring him all the way back awake. Or else they could not bring him all the way awake. this information I am getting now is fourth hand through my son-in-law. The fact they haven't called me this evening means, to me, they are sitting tight for tonight and waiting for tomorrow. And are worried.
As we all are. I did talk to my counsin who is an RN, and she said time is essential is waiting these injuries out. And at each step taking action to reduce the swelling. It is the only thing to do. She thought they might put a 'flap' in the skull to allow for the swelling. This has had great success in reducing long term damage done by the swelling.
Hope that others don't mind my putting so much information here. All one can do is hope, pray, and send good thoughts.
GrandmaJ |
02.23.06 - 7:29 pm | #
Bobby- At work today, we were wondering if Felix's Oyster Bar is still up and running.......let me know!
ccmask |
02.23.06 - 7:31 pm | #
Did the Bush administration “authorize” the leak of classified information to Bob Woodward? And did those leaks damage national security?
The vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) made exactly that charge tonight in a letter to John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence. What prompted Rockefeller to write Negroponte was a recent op-ed in the New York Times by CIA director Porter Goss complaining that leaks of classified information were the fault of “misguided whistleblowers.”
Rockefeller charged in his letter that the most “damaging revelations of intelligence sources and methods are generated primarily by Executive Branch officials pushing a particular policy, and not by the rank-and-file employees of intelligence agencies.”
Later in the same letter, Rockefeller said: “Given the Administration’s continuing abuse of intelligence information for political purposes, its criticism of leaks is extraordinarily hypocritical. Preventing damage to intelligence sources and methods from media leaks will not be possible until the highest level of the Administration cease to disclose classified information on a classified basis for political purposes.”
d'accord!
"be consistent" is my comeback.
and then, too, why don't they stand with the Christian Scientists on all things medical?
stagemom |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:33 pm | #
GrandmaJ,
I've been thinking of you and your family all day. I'm sorry to hear that your grandson is still struggling.
My thoughts and prayers are with you and focused on a successful recovery.
dab |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 7:34 pm | #
GrandmaJ | 02.23.06 - 7:29 pm
Don't mind the info at all. As one small part of the FDL community, I'm glad to say that "we" are here to keep you company, and send prayers and good thoughts. xxoo
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 7:34 pm | #
Sorry for your pain grandma. I just lit a candle to join you.
ccmask |
02.23.06 - 7:36 pm | #
Off Topic. Lieberman had a pep rally today. Did anyone from CT watch the Fox 61 news? He officially kicked off his compaign, 64th b-day, kisses from Dodd, etc. It looked kind of formal and stiff. I think Joe could be getting *nervous*. Hartford Courant is going to have the Dodd/Lieberman debate transcript on Sunday, I guess (?) Joe's not having a good homecoming.
Mui |
02.23.06 - 7:37 pm | #
"government-forced pregnancy" might be a phrase that gives a libertarian, O'Connor-admiring, Western woman a way to be pro-choice.
O/T. I think I must be slap happy because I almost feel sorry for Lieberman after watching the news. I think the Lamont campaign can work.
Mui |
02.23.06 - 7:42 pm | #
TeddySanFran, now Poopville | 02.23.06 - 7:42 pm
What's with this new moniker? I mean the addition of ---,now Poopville?
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 7:45 pm | #
I saw this DailyKos diary very informative, sad too, but necessary. About the so-called "partial birth abortion"
And GrandmaJ, my thoughts are with you and your grandson.
Sharon |
02.23.06 - 7:47 pm | #
Grandma J, if you want more company, time to read the new thread.
-
Valley Girl |
02.23.06 - 7:54 pm | #
How is it that Mr. and Mrs. Bush have had only one pregnancy? Are you saying that they stopped having sex after the twins were conceived? How is it that these pro-lifers don't have a ton of kids? How are all these people having only two point five kids without birth control? Amazing! Don't tell me these pro-lifer's wives and daughters don't have access to private 'family doctors.'
Tell me how an abortion is any different than a war. Both sacrifice a life for some self-interested reason. Oh, I forgot wars are a guy thing.
I believe life begins with the first breath - that's just my own personal belief. I don't expect everybody else to agree.
frustrated |
02.23.06 - 7:59 pm | #
This is gets to the heart of the issue which I believe is ensoulment.
I recall reading in one discussion of this that Aquiinas reasoned that ensoulment is at quickening - and that's his critical point for humanness. Ask those who are arguing for 'conception' how to tell when conception occurs, because even the specialists aren't sure when that is - there are several steps involved, all of which are necessary and critical, ending with, maybe, implantation.
P J Evans |
02.23.06 - 7:59 pm | #
Bustedknuckles, Grandma J -- our thoughts are with you both.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
02.23.06 - 8:00 pm | #
Have been thinking of you, praying for you, all day. Please take extra special care of yourself, and let yourself feel supported by all the people here who care: isn't the Internet amazing?
dannyboy |
02.23.06 - 8:11 pm | #
And speaking of Senator Coburn, I watched him give a speech today on the problem of genocide in Darfur. The man had no idea of what he was talking about (he kept insisting that things would get better in the Sudan once Bolton got the UN all straightened out), and there was no sense of passion or outrage about the slaughter of innocent Africans... just the usual GOP talking points about what's wrong with (a) NATO, (b) the UN, and (c) the federal government.
And this is the kind of elected official who thinks he should be making decisions for the women of this country about their bodies and their reproductive rights?
We deserve a lot better than this.
sooner |
02.23.06 - 8:26 pm | #
Anybody here? If there is a new thread, it is not loading for me. Have tried many times.
GrandmaJ |
02.23.06 - 9:13 pm | #
Does anyone know of a Congressional member with enough spine to introduce legislation banning in vitro fertilization as a 'test' case to put the Forced Childbirth Forces on the defensive?
Such legislation would really put the 'Pro-Life' crowd in a hopelessly hypocritical position.
All's fair in Love and War.
Gentleman Jim |
02.23.06 - 9:30 pm | #
Unless those embryo were all baptized they will not be going to heaven when they die, they go straight to limbo, the antechamber of hell according to Catholic dogma.
I have three little children from in-vitro and I suppose about eight embryo swimming around Limbo hanging out with all the great philosophers of antiquity, who are stuck there for the crime of being born before Christ.
Kevin de Bruxelles |
02.23.06 - 9:34 pm | #
Kevin de Bruxelles,
A very poetic way to spend eternity: with Virgil&Co. & it's much better than the new circle of Inferno that they will have to invent for Bush&Co.
Mui |
02.23.06 - 10:31 pm | #
It's too flippant to dismiss anyone who is pro-life (to use their own term) as really caring about "punishing women for having sex." Of course that's what some of them care about, but there also some who'd risk their lives to go head-first into that burning fertility clinic and save the five blastula in the Petri dish (and the two-year old child too). A lot of pro-lifers truly do care about saving lives and dismissing them all as insincere strikes me as a way of not confronting their sincerity.
Professors Opitz and Sandel are right, of course, about the natural course of human child bearing and the failure of most fertilized eggs to implant on the uterine wall. Nature really doesn't give a shit about the success of any particular embryo. But that's beside the point from the pro-life perspective.
What matters isn't whether nature gives a shit, but whether we as human beings give a shit. We can acknowledge that most fertilized embryos don't naturally proceed as full-term pregnancies and still believe that those embryos have value as human life - or at least as potential human life. God and nature are two different things. From a religious standpoint it's this ability to care -- something which is beyond nature's ability -- that ties human beings to the supernatural God.
As a matter of public policy, I'm pretty much a fence straddler on the issue of abortion. Even if the Supreme Court were to extend the 14th Amendment's reach to cover every embryo and legally ban all abortions, it wouldn't actually stop abortions -- merely make them illegal. That might make some pro-lifers happy, but it wouldn't do much to stop abortions. And it surely wouldn't stop the pro-choice side from pursuing re-legalization. And the idea of women dying in great numbers from botched amateur abortions is horrifying in every way.
But I'd like to see as few abortions as possible and zero abortions is my ideal. If that means spending money to ensure every prospective mother can be confident that her children will have lives of opportunity and worth, then the only logical and consistently moral pro-life position is to spend that money. Even if it means expanding the welfare state and raising everyone's taxes.
The pro-life movement may get its way some day and make abortions illegal. But actually stopping abortions can really only be done through humane persuasion and generous provision.
It's probably best that abortions remain legal and that the pro-life movement direct more of its assets and efforts to making it more likely that women choose to carry their children to term. There's no realistic way to end abortions through legal prohibition.
No matter what happens politically or technologically (we may soon reach a point where a child could be brought from fertilization to term ex-utero), I figure abortion will be a scalding debate in America for at least the rest of my life and my childrens' lives.
But I hope it never becomes an easy debate.
John Pearley Huffman |
02.23.06 - 10:41 pm | #
It turns out Limbo was just a literary device Dante used to help protect Christianity's Achilles Heal -- that unbaptized children go to Hell. Since this is so obvious -- and surely no God-fearing Christian wants thie offspring burning in eternal damnation -- why isn't there a baptism ceremony for embryo? Surely, just to be safe, all god church going women should hav any potential embryo baptized every time their husbands (or others) bust a load inside of them. Why do the Christian right spend so much time worrying about embryo who are slated to sit at the right hand of Satan in any case?
Kevin de Bruxelles |
02.24.06 - 12:07 am | #
And the Ozzies just grew a fully functioning breast from a stem cell.
Wintermute |
Homepage |
02.24.06 - 12:12 am | #
Don't underestimate how much the "market" for healthy white newborns means to many so-called pro-lifers. A friend at a pro-choice rally had a middle-aged white woman shove an Asian infant in her face and scream, "Because of people like YOU, I had to settle for THIS!" (Imagine how wonderful it must be to be that child, growing up with such a "loving" mother!) Most of the noisy public clinic protestors and legislative shouters are fixated on pregnant white teenagers -- the "heifers" who should be producing spare infants for adoption by their middle-aged betters. That's why they're so callous about the victims of rape or incest; they don't care about the human incubators, they just want more "product" available for the consumer. That's also how they can claim that they "care about all human life" and yet advocate cutting welfare funds, criminalizing out-of-wedlock births, etc. -- it's not about babies or mothers, it's all about the PRODUCT.
But I think part of their desperation is the knowledge that they're swimming against the tide of history. Leaving aside all questions of medical improvement -- and finding the perfect low-risk "abortion pill" will only become more attractive to researchers as obtaining a safe surgical abortion becomes more expensive. There are a LOT of nice, middle-class couples who undergo IVF procedures every year. And, yes, the dirty secret of "successful" IVF procedures is that many of them involve selective fetal reduction. In other words, a woman who desperately WANTS to have babies is told that she can have twins, or triplets -- but only if she ABORTS an extra fetus or three. Given what I've heard from other women, this has made a permanent impact on quite a few couples who formerly assumed that only lazy, stupid, or "bad" people would "take the easy way out" by aborting babies they couldn't possibly care about. (On the other hand, I've always assumed that Jenna and Not-Jenna were IVF babies, and having to go through that doesn't seem to have made Laura or George any more empathetic.)
Anne Laurie |
02.24.06 - 2:36 am | #
I can never argue the eggs. I always argue the girls. Middle-aged men passing laws that force young girls to leave home, family, safety, and journey to strange places where they are prey.
Anti-abortion laws are Prostitution Promotion laws. They ensure a steady supply of desperate young women, non-virgins so who needs to respect them or worry about them, to fulfill the needs of aging men (like the legislators) who need to buy flesh they cannot attract.
Never argue on their terms. Never play by their rules.
aquart |
02.24.06 - 3:08 am | #
Seems to me that Sandel is making exactly your point in yet another context, and said context should also be stuffed down the throats of the power fetish "forced birth" crowd. Why are we having all this endless fear mongering about the coming avian flu disaster, when, at this very moment, all those potential soldiers and breeders for generations yet unborn are being aborted "naturally" due to our lack of interest in curing this flaw in the female reproductive system. Where's the funding? Where's the love?? Who knows, but the logic and reality are definitely on the side of FDL!
Beel |
02.24.06 - 3:44 am | #
"Don't let the lifers off the hook created by their own implausible beliefs that they are so willing to force on us all without having considered the entailments."
The only caveat to this very sensible principle is the handy fascist solution to all such problems of logic--"when we're in power we will kill you." This is proof 77 of 238 that we are living in a crypto-fascist state.
Beel |
02.24.06 - 4:18 am | #
would be one place to write South Dakota. Their tourism site is back up and that's the email addy they post.
Beel |
02.24.06 - 5:07 am | #
dang-- sdinfo at state dot sd dot us
Beel |
02.24.06 - 5:08 am | #
It's not just IVF.
Fertility drugs also result, frequently, in culling unwanted embryos. Rightly so, of course. Quints are high risk and twins are not. But you don't see these people firebombing fertility clinics.
This is not about "life". This is about the state controlling womens reproductive decisions.
JayAckroyd |
02.24.06 - 5:15 am | #
On the question of 'when does life begin?', I always thought George Carlin got it right when he said "life began millions of years ago!"
chuckdps |
02.24.06 - 6:48 am | #
What I have never figured out is that if in opposing choice you are listening to God who doesn't want life to be destroyed why should be ignoring God who doesn't want you to have children. Isn't in vitro fertilization ignoring God's will?
susan |
02.24.06 - 6:49 am | #
Another favorite question I like to torment the forced-childbirthers with is their position on breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding releases hormones into the mother's blood which PREVENT IMPLANTATION of a fertilized egg. By their definition, that's abortion. So when do they outlaw breastfeeding?
Sadie B. |
Homepage |
02.24.06 - 7:15 am | #
On a similar topic...what about miscarriages? The new SD legislation proposes that life begins at fertilization, so a miscarriage at, say, week 7 clearly would be the death of a bona-fide fully recognized by the law human being. What's the reporting requirements for deaths in SD? Having gone through a couple of miscarriages with my wife, I know I'd be pissed off to the point of wanting to punch someone if I had to fill out a death certificate at that point. - vando
This is something about which I've always wondered as well.
As humans, we have a certain "brother's keeper" responsibility to our fellow humans - to the point that if someone dies and you could have done something to stop it or prevent it, but did not, you can be held civily or even criminally liable for homocide, even in the case of an "accidental" death.
If fetuses are considered signatures of our social contract, so to speak, does that mean miscarriages need to be investigated. What about women who multiply miscarry? Do they have an obligation not to become pregnant? After all, they could prevent the "death" by not becoming pregnant in the first place. Can the father of a fetus sue the mother for wrongful death if he believes that his partner could have done something to prevent the miscarriage?
Whenever I ask these sorts of questions of a pro-life type, I am told I am being silly. But I am sure that those same people would. if their kid were killed, even in an accidental death, sue whomever seemed "responsible" for the death. We have, and we ought to have, a certain standard of protecting the born. But considering the frequency of miscarriage (sometimes it is not even known whether a miscarriage has occurred -- e.g. my mom may have miscarried, or simly have had irregular periods, before she became pregnant with me ... and nobody really wanted to know for sure what happened), how will society treat them if they are considered to be the deaths of humans? And how will our necessarily treating these "deaths" in a less stringent manner than we treat deaths right now affect our treatment of death in general.
It could very well be that opening up "humanhood" to fetuses will devalue life, not increase its value.
What is the pro-life response to that?
DAS |
Homepage |
02.24.06 - 7:22 am | #
The so-called "pro-life" movement - whether it really wants to or not - effectively demands a Federal Masturbation Police authority [...]
bz | 02.23.06 - 5:27 pm | #
To be called "FeMa" for short.
snoozer |
02.24.06 - 7:46 am | #
Wouldn't saving the life of a pregnant mother also be usurping "God's will"?
thatguyflint |
02.24.06 - 8:05 am | #
Wouldn't saving the life of a pregnant mother also be usurping "God's will"?
thatguyflint |
02.24.06 - 8:57 am | #
I would like to propose a rider to the South Dakota bill banning abortion that would require all parents of children (mother and father, custodial and non-custodial) to donate a kidney or bone marrow to their child if it should need a transplant. To withhold this life saving treatment is violating the child's right to life. If a non-custodial parent does not reside nearby, a warrant will be issued to transport that parent to site where the child is being treated, and, if the tissues match, the parent will be required to donate the organ or bone marrow, regardless of his or her health, financial or other obligations, or wishes.
Millions of Americans are denied their right to life every year due to lack of suitable organs for donation. I therefore also propose a bill requiring mandatory organ donations after death. One's religious or personal convictions cannot be considered because to do so would withold life-saving organs from people who need them, thus denying their right to life.
I think you see where this is going. A dead man has more bodily autonomy than a pregnant woman.
persephone |
02.24.06 - 11:08 am | #
I would like to propose a rider to the South Dakota bill banning abortion that would require all parents of children (mother and father, custodial and non-custodial) to donate a kidney or bone marrow to their child if it should need a transplant. To withhold this life saving treatment is violating the child's right to life. If a non-custodial parent does not reside nearby, a warrant will be issued to transport that parent to site where the child is being treated, and, if the tissues match, the parent will be required to donate the organ or bone marrow, regardless of his or her health, financial or other obligations, or wishes.
Millions of Americans are denied their right to life every year due to lack of suitable organs for donation. I therefore also propose a bill requiring mandatory organ donations after death. One's religious or personal convictions cannot be considered because to do so would withold life-saving organs from people who need them, thus denying their right to life.
I think you see where this is going. A dead man has more bodily autonomy than a pregnant woman.
persephone |
02.24.06 - 11:26 am | #
GrandmaJ: I detoured over to silentunity.org and put in a prayer request for your grandson. They have people praying day and night, and honor requests for 30 days.
Phoebe: that iniative about reporting miscarriages was in either Maryland or Virginia (memory lapse). It didn't get very far, though; it was defeated by a swarm of bloggers.
JJF raises a good point about IVF... Although I'm not a big fan of such things and the ethical complications they create, I would be more interested in knowing where the prospective parents are in the "debate" about Evolution. Imagine if informed consent were to require that parents acknowledge the validity of evolution, in order to benefit from medical science and technology...
Karen M |
Homepage |
02.24.06 - 12:24 pm | #
The part about "they cant be concerned about aborting late term kids if the aren't picketing in vitro fertilization clinics" is completely bogus.
That makes NO sense.
You should be more honest than that.
I personally am concerned that our party positions itself as supporting late term abortions even when it is obviously a mistake.
We call it choice and even if it happens only once a year, it still causes us to look like damn fools.
Look to Europe for what is reasonable and cut the radical unthinking part of your post.
please. You don't have to be a blasocyst worshiper to worry that a few unthinking fools abort perfectly normal kids way too late.
I think that is way more immoral than a lot of other things we dont allow as a society.
But regardless of what your think it shouldn't be an albatross around the neck of our party.
chuck |
02.24.06 - 5:37 pm | #
I have always been pro-choice. I'm 42 and was a young teenager when Roe was decided, living in a pre-dominantly Catholic place, so to me, this whole abortion argument is so old and so stale. When I was 25 and had my second child, my then-husband and I decided we were done with kids and he had a vasectomy at Planned Parenthood in Cincinnati. We had to drive through protesters to get in and out of there, and we had little kids IN THE CAR (new to the area and no babysitting available). Idiots. And now, it's become very personal. I have two kids already, 20 and 16, and last year I remarried and am trying to conceive. I had a miscarriage in January; I was only six weeks pregnant. It reinforces for me how emotional it is to be pregnant--and not only in the good, Pampers-commercial way. Despite wanting another child, my husband and I were terrified, thrilled, worried, concerned about the financial ramifications, etc. This from 40-somethings who are mature, ready for a baby and planned to have one. The winger fantasy that babies are little angels and everything is made sweet and wondrous when you "make a family" is bullshit.
To listen to all this crap they're throwing around about life begins at conception makes miscarrying more horrid, really. The truth of it is that my embryo probably never had a heartbeat. Jane's 60-80% of embryos are lost during periods squares with the commonality of miscarriage early on. These facts of pregnancy throw the winger ideology into disarray, if you ask me, though I'm sure they'll argue that it is God's will.
The chance that, should I successfully conceive again, I might need to abort, or that I might miscarry again, is higher than for a younger woman, and that makes me wonder if there might not be some rumblings from the TTC crowd. They are without a doubt desperate for babies and tend to be anti-abortion, but they also have such high risk for serious birth defects or situations where the health of the mother can be compromised. I wonder if they might rebel against their compatriots. And I agree 100% that the whole IVF thing really, really puts abortion into a different light. There's a substantial amount of violating the "natural order" and "God's will" in all of that. There's such an odd hypocrisy about it.
I think it is probably very useful to keep coming up with scenarios that make the anti-abortion folks think.
Blue UU |
03.07.06 - 5:06 am | #
