The Republican agenda against Roe v Wade.
Now that we have a Republican majority, things look pretty bleak for human rights in the US.
Last week Congress introduced a bill purporting to be punitive against certain violent crimes, but which in actuality is a specific, calculated attempt at undermining Roe v Wade in order to impose the anti-choice lobby's individual "moral values" on otherwise free citizens of the United States of America. If the lobby to reversion of the RvW decision is ever successful, horrible consequences will ensue, such as botched alleyway coat-hanger abortions, girls beaten by their families and a further undermining of women's rights in general.
Let me put it straight. You have every right to explain to your sister or your friend why they should follow through with an unwanted pregnancy. You have every right to preach your views to a willing audience. You have every right to write books about it; to post about it on the internet; to explain why you think the way you do.
By by no means do you have the right to impose your beliefs upon others against their will, by legislation or otherwise. Especially when the numbers show that it's not at all a minority who disagree with you.
Why is it that the Right opposes free choice on this matter? Because "it's just not right".
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>
Last week Congress introduced a bill purporting to be punitive against certain violent crimes, but which in actuality is a specific, calculated attempt at undermining Roe v Wade in order to impose the anti-choice lobby's individual "moral values" on otherwise free citizens of the United States of America. If the lobby to reversion of the RvW decision is ever successful, horrible consequences will ensue, such as botched alleyway coat-hanger abortions, girls beaten by their families and a further undermining of women's rights in general.
Let me put it straight. You have every right to explain to your sister or your friend why they should follow through with an unwanted pregnancy. You have every right to preach your views to a willing audience. You have every right to write books about it; to post about it on the internet; to explain why you think the way you do.
By by no means do you have the right to impose your beliefs upon others against their will, by legislation or otherwise. Especially when the numbers show that it's not at all a minority who disagree with you.
Why is it that the Right opposes free choice on this matter? Because "it's just not right".
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>
Comments
It is easy to say that the unborn child has no rights.
They can not speak so they can not be protected?
I differ with that notion.
Fellowship
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
Take a look at how some view life.
Life if it is not worth protecting asks the question "why should we care about 401 k retirement funds?".
This all stems from moral and ethical precepts.
Fellowship
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>Sources? Links? Facts? Actual legislation? Anything?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I expect that in the interests of fairness you'll give Fellowship an offtopic warning...and one for you and me as well for this little exchange.
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
because i love and respect my wife
because i love and respect my daughters
i am pro choice
i respect them enough to know they will make
decisions in their life and about their bodies
based on their beliefs and based on their
mental, physical and emotional state
and i love them enough to stand by them no matter
what decision they make.....
till men can get pregnant, only women should get a say in this....g
If we make it ok to escape our responsibilities we will indeed live in a society of declining respect for what is "right"
Fellowship
<strong>Just as a CEO of a large corporation is entrusted with the well-being of the company a pregnant female is entrusted with the well-being of her child.
If we make it ok to escape our responsibilities we will indeed live in a society of declining respect for what is "right"
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Define "right." I'm sure that "right" to you means that all of us bow our heads to the man who got nailed. "Right" to me means respecting the freedom of others to do things that I find to be utterly repugnant (i.e. your belief in the guy who got nailed). Does your "right" take precedence over mine?
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
FShip's post had everything to do with the topic (albeit from a viewpoint that you find very irritating), and yes your most recent attempt at playing moderator is duly noted. I'll keep a special text file just for you, how's that?
before we end abortion, how about we first get universal health care for all children...that would be a nice first step and would show a nice compassionate side of our politicians..g
<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/019/oped/A_warning_bell_on_Roe_v_Wade+.shtml"; target="_blank">link...though it is just an op ed article...</a>
<strong>FShip's post had everything to do with the topic (albeit from a viewpoint that you find very irritating), and yes your most recent attempt at playing moderator is duly noted. I'll keep a special text file just for you, how's that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So drawing very skewed parallels between corporate america and abortion is on topic but talking about supporting an oppressive dictatorship via arms support in a thread about arms support is somehow offtopic? What you lack in consistency you make up for in sheer illogic.
It is a shame that people get so worked up over op-ed pieces based on conjecture and inflammatory language.
I really would like to see an actual process, though, because I think it is a very important issue (if it is, in fact, a real issue).
BR:
Please keep your tantrums in their appropriate threads. Or feel free to e-mail/private message me or any other moderator/administrator.
<strong>
Define "right." I'm sure that "right" to you means that all of us bow our heads to the man who got nailed. "Right" to me means respecting the freedom of others to do things that I find to be utterly repugnant (i.e. your belief in the guy who got nailed). Does your "right" take precedence over mine?
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
BR what does trust mean? You will notice my wording of "entrust" in my wording. What does it mean to trust?
"Trust" : Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
Custody; care.
Something committed into the care of another; charge.
The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one.
One in which confidence is placed.
Reliance on something in the future; hope.
In other words.... You expect that one you trust will do the "right" thing.
Fellowship
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>gelding:
BR
Please keep your tantrums in their appropriate threads. Or feel free to e-mail/private message me or any other moderator/administrator.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that couldn't be PM'd to me? Sorry. It's not a tantrum. I am pointing out to everyone how freaking hypocritical you are being. If what fellowship said in this thread is ontopic, how the hell is what I said in the other thread offtopic?
(she even had her life threatened a few times by the "pro-lifers")
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>i trust my mom to do the right thing...she is the most moral person i know...strong, kind, giving....worked as a teacher to learning disabled and mental handicapped children for over 20 years...work overnight on weekends at a homeless shelter at a catholic church...oh, and yes, she was a escort for planned parenthood for many many years helping women get inside the clinics when people would attack and insult them....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
g, you know I respect you very much. I would only submit that of all the things you list about your mother nothing compares to the responsibility of a mother as entrusted with the well-being of her unborn child. The care and trust given to a mother is more important that all the money in the world being lost due to a failed CEO. Life is worth more than gold.
Fellowship
<strong>we just disagree...no problem........g</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is why I respect you as I do.
We may not agree but you are very mature and I still get along with you very well.
We are not all to agree on everything
Fellows
and here's my biggest problem with this argument.
if it's not a baby at 8 weeks, what about at 10?
not 10, how about 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36?
oh crap, baby just popped out.
please explain to me, where on the number line it is no longer a fetus and becomes a baby. for the life of me i can't nail down a date, and so i have no way of saying when it's first a baby.
-alcimedes
<strong>
and here's my biggest problem with this argument.
if it's not a baby at 8 weeks, what about at 10?
not 10, how about 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36?
oh crap, baby just popped out.
please explain to me, where on the number line it is no longer a fetus and becomes a baby. for the life of me i can't nail down a date, and so i have no way of saying when it's first a baby.
-alcimedes</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perform a statistical analysis determining the mean age where a fetus can survive outside the womb without any additional help aside from the normal breastfeeding. Find the standard deviation and hell...just to be safe...move 5 standard deviations to the left. That's the cutoff.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
that just might work. the only problem with this is that as technology gets better, that survival date keeps shifting earlier and earlier. so what would have been just a fetus 3 years ago would now be a child.
should your status as a living being be based on the ability of medical science? the fetus of 3 years ago is just as human as the now viable baby of today. why kill of the one from 3 years ago then?
i have a problem using the limitations of medical technology to measure the "humanity" of a life in question.