|
Post by Rachael on Nov 13, 2008 14:41:28 GMT -5
Sue asked, in the main thread, about Boston Legal this week. Some Open Topic thoughts: I'm not okay with abortion-on-demand, morally. Denny was dead-on in his "liberals aren't really sure they're right" spiel. I know that a developing fetus is human, and alive. I can't decide at what point that life starts to have real value to me. Abortion for sex selection is disgusting. But I will not concede any part of my abortion rights, largely because the opposition won't compromise. They can't, if they really believe every abortion is murder. But if there can be no compromise on their side, there can't be any on mine, either. That said, in my ideal world, a woman would have 30 days after finding out she was pregnant to have an abortion. I think a month is enough time to decide what you want to do. The exceptions would be in cases where there's a serious fetal defect discovered later, or a threat to the mother's life or health. How you'd enforce it, since home pregnancy tests mean no one would know when she really found out, I have no idea. Some times social reasons are just as threatening as medical ones, though, and thirty days barely puts one into the end of the first trimester, if that. I had a friend who got pregnant, intentionally, with a man who susequently decided he couldn't deal, and abandoned her when she was at 16 weeks. She was living on a goat farm, with her two year old, a wood stove, a complicated and hinky series of pastures, two of her does just bred, and a crazy mother who often needed intervention and institutionalization... having to deal with her physical and social reality and a pregnancy was more than she felt able to cope with. As soon as "small, reasonable" restrictions are imposed, there's a possibility that a woman will be required to continue a pregnancy which, in her particular situation, will push her past her particular survival point: where the lack of access to safe and legal abortion will force her to choose pennyroyal, or a coathanger, or any of the deadly means which were common in my early memory. Unless you are living that woman's individal life, you can't judge how, say, continuing a pregnancy with no support from a partner, or caring for a Down syndrome child over its lifetime, is going to impact her ability to cope. Julia, my other big reason for being a pro-chpice extremist- knowing a woman who was beaten to death when she told her husband she was pregnant for the fourth time in three years- is OK with the thirty day thing. And from a practical standpoint, we agree on all points. That's why it's "in my perfect world". Unfortunately, the world is nowhere close to perfect, and this is one area of politics/morality where I'm not able to give any ground, despite my personal feelings about abortion. I sort of believe in the slippery slope here. As much as I don't want to...well, the most stridently anti-abortion people aren't just against abortion, they're against birth control as well. And that position fills me with cold dread about what else they'd like to do to women's rights.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 13, 2008 15:02:19 GMT -5
Some times social reasons are just as threatening as medical ones, though, and thirty days barely puts one into the end of the first trimester, if that. I had a friend who got pregnant, intentionally, with a man who susequently decided he couldn't deal, and abandoned her when she was at 16 weeks. She was living on a goat farm, with her two year old, a wood stove, a complicated and hinky series of pastures, two of her does just bred, and a crazy mother who often needed intervention and institutionalization... having to deal with her physical and social reality and a pregnancy was more than she felt able to cope with. As soon as "small, reasonable" restrictions are imposed, there's a possibility that a woman will be required to continue a pregnancy which, in her particular situation, will push her past her particular survival point: where the lack of access to safe and legal abortion will force her to choose pennyroyal, or a coathanger, or any of the deadly means which were common in my early memory. Unless you are living that woman's individal life, you can't judge how, say, continuing a pregnancy with no support from a partner, or caring for a Down syndrome child over its lifetime, is going to impact her ability to cope. Julia, my other big reason for being a pro-chpice extremist- knowing a woman who was beaten to death when she told her husband she was pregnant for the fourth time in three years- is OK with the thirty day thing. And from a practical standpoint, we agree on all points. That's why it's "in my perfect world". Unfortunately, the world is nowhere close to perfect, and this is one area of politics/morality where I'm not able to give any ground, despite my personal feelings about abortion. I sort of believe in the slippery slope here. As much as I don't want to...well, the most stridently anti-abortion people aren't just against abortion, they're against birth control as well. And that position fills me with cold dread about what else they'd like to do to women's rights. Listening to "prolife" rhetoric leads me to agree with those who assert that the real point of that side is that women should have their sexuality and legal rights under the control of a man, at all times. Julia, knowing how close we are to the days when some male organizations believed it was a sin for women to be taught to read, I'm easy to convince.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 13, 2008 15:03:01 GMT -5
While we're on the subject, does anybody know of statistics about shoddy abortions rates before Roe vs Wade? From what I understand, abortion rates have remained rather stable since (if I'm wrong on this, please correct me), but I'd be interested if there was information about how the rate has changed since it was legalized.
I rambled on at length on my thoughts on abortion in the last thread (I can repost if anyone is interested), and I'm very interested to hear everyone else's thoughts on it.
My basic position is that abortion is an issue that is best dealt with socially rather than legislatively because of desperation leading to shoddy abortions (which is why I'm interested in illegal abortion rates).
I've given a lot of thought recently to what it would be like to actually perform an abortion for some one, and I think I could do it. I'm good at compartmentalizing, though I would have to be careful not to compartmentalize too much. Also, I plan to practice in a rural area and not being willing would place an undue burden on my patients to find a doctor who would be willing. But I'll have to see how I feel after observing one and actually performing one.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 13, 2008 16:10:44 GMT -5
While we're on the subject, does anybody know of statistics about shoddy abortions rates before Roe vs Wade? From what I understand, abortion rates have remained rather stable since (if I'm wrong on this, please correct me), but I'd be interested if there was information about how legalizing the rate has changed since it was legalized. I rambled on at length on my thoughts on abortion in the last thread (I can repost if anyone is interested), and I'm very interested to hear everyone else's thoughts on it. My basic position is that abortion is an issue that is best dealt with socially rather than legislatively because of desperation leading to shoddy abortions (which is why I'm interested in illegal abortion rates). I've given a lot of thought recently to what it would be like to actually perform an abortion for some one, and I think I could do it. I'm good at compartmentalizing, though I would have to be careful not to compartmentalize too much. Also, I plan to practice in a rural area and not being willing would place an undue burden on my patients to find a doctor who would be willing. But I'll have to see how I feel after observing one and actually performing one. I knew all that stuff back when I was campaigning for the WA pro choice initiative. When I was, what, twenty? It was a long time ago. Julia, I knew five or six young women who had medical abortions before then, usually by travelling to other countries, and at least one who nearly died from a bad amateur one.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 13, 2008 16:48:25 GMT -5
And from a practical standpoint, we agree on all points. That's why it's "in my perfect world". Unfortunately, the world is nowhere close to perfect, and this is one area of politics/morality where I'm not able to give any ground, despite my personal feelings about abortion. I sort of believe in the slippery slope here. As much as I don't want to...well, the most stridently anti-abortion people aren't just against abortion, they're against birth control as well. And that position fills me with cold dread about what else they'd like to do to women's rights. Listening to "prolife" rhetoric leads me to agree with those who assert that the real point of that side is that women should have their sexuality and legal rights under the control of a man, at all times. Julia, knowing how close we are to the days when some male organizations believed it was a sin for women to be taught to read, I'm easy to convince. Given the news about Afghani schoolgirls who were blinded by men with acid-containing squirtguns just this week...yeah, I don't find it all that hard to fathom.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Nov 13, 2008 20:51:11 GMT -5
Listening to "prolife" rhetoric leads me to agree with those who assert that the real point of that side is that women should have their sexuality and legal rights under the control of a man, at all times. Julia, knowing how close we are to the days when some male organizations believed it was a sin for women to be taught to read, I'm easy to convince. Given the news about Afghani schoolgirls who were blinded by men with acid-containing squirtguns just this week...yeah, I don't find it all that hard to fathom. Don't have to work to convince me there's a whole lot of lingering misogyny in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 15, 2008 16:35:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 15, 2008 17:03:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 18, 2008 18:42:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 18, 2008 23:24:02 GMT -5
Ted Stevens out; Begich in.
No wonder they decided to "forgive" Joe Lieberman.
Will CT re-elect him? I assume he (again) won't get the Democratic primary vote, but can he continue to win as an Independent. I mean, surely all the Republicans will vote for him, no?
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 19, 2008 10:03:11 GMT -5
Buena Park pastor files suit to keep Obama from taking office"A Buena Park pastor and vice-presidential candidate noted for his politics from the pulpit is a party to a lawsuit seeking to keep President-elect Barack Obama from taking office. The lawsuit claims Obama has not provided sufficient proof he is a U.S. citizen, and asks that Secretary of State Debra Bowen not certify California's election results until he provides more concrete evidence." Whatever you do, DO NOT read the comments, they will make your brain explode.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 19, 2008 10:19:28 GMT -5
Buena Park pastor files suit to keep Obama from taking office"A Buena Park pastor and vice-presidential candidate noted for his politics from the pulpit is a party to a lawsuit seeking to keep President-elect Barack Obama from taking office. The lawsuit claims Obama has not provided sufficient proof he is a U.S. citizen, and asks that Secretary of State Debra Bowen not certify California's election results until he provides more concrete evidence." Whatever you do, DO NOT read the comments, they will make your brain explode. Heh. I'm pretty sure this exact lawsuit (filed by other people) has already been thrown out three times. I say we strip the man's church of it's tax-exempt status, though, given that he preaches politics (and has run for Vice President himself).
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Nov 19, 2008 13:06:53 GMT -5
Buena Park pastor files suit to keep Obama from taking office"A Buena Park pastor and vice-presidential candidate noted for his politics from the pulpit is a party to a lawsuit seeking to keep President-elect Barack Obama from taking office. The lawsuit claims Obama has not provided sufficient proof he is a U.S. citizen, and asks that Secretary of State Debra Bowen not certify California's election results until he provides more concrete evidence." Whatever you do, DO NOT read the comments, they will make your brain explode. Heh. I'm pretty sure this exact lawsuit (filed by other people) has already been thrown out three times. I say we strip the man's church of it's tax-exempt status, though, given that he preaches politics (and has run for Vice President himself). I see that the news that the Hawaii Secretary of Health finally gave up and released an official statement about the birth certificate has not yet reached Buena Park. Word travels so slowly through dense accumulation of delusion. Julia, ugh
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 19, 2008 15:27:36 GMT -5
Heh. I'm pretty sure this exact lawsuit (filed by other people) has already been thrown out three times. I say we strip the man's church of it's tax-exempt status, though, given that he preaches politics (and has run for Vice President himself). I see that the news that the Hawaii Secretary of Health finally gave up and released an official statement about the birth certificate has not yet reached Buena Park. Word travels so slowly through dense accumulation of delusion. Julia, ugh hee hee Okay, I tried to write a witty reply and couldn't do it without totally trashing the anti-bashing rule. So:
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 19, 2008 15:38:05 GMT -5
For your inspirational viewing pleasure:
|
|