good news

[Danzig]

and i hope the other states trying to do the same get the message. they should quit wasting their time, and the taxpayers' money trying to pass crap that can't pass.

http://news.msn.com/us/supreme-court...a-abortion-ban

[randallscott35]

Men should have zero say in anything regarding abortion. None.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Men should have zero say in anything regarding abortion. None.

Are all of women's interests sacrosanct, or just this one?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Are all of women's interests sacrosanct, or just this one?

Happy wife, happy life. But obviously this is kind of a special interest.

[OldDog]

[randallscott35]

Well done.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Are all of women's interests sacrosanct, or just this one?

altho revolutionary, i think women should be able to make decisions. we're big girls.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by OldDog

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Are all of women's interests sacrosanct, or just this one?

Well, I confess I am not that interested in the opinions of men who object to women's access to birth control, either.

[dellinger63]

Imagine if women seeking an abortion were forced to undergo a background check along with paying a non-refundable $10 fee to the State they live in and wait up to 30 days for approval? Then once obtaining approval from the State they were forced to leave the city they live in even though it's the 3rd largest in the U.S., pay for the abortion and then come back 3 days later to finally get the abortion?

Think there would be an uproar?

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Well, I confess I am not that interested in the opinions of men who object to women's access to birth control, either.

No need for a confession as you're not saying anything wrong, by my reckoning. Can we agree that lack of interest in someone's opinion does not negate someone's right to an opinion?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

No need for a confession as you're not saying anything wrong, by my reckoning. Can we agree that lack of interest in someone's opinion does not negate someone's right to an opinion?

there's no right to an opinion in the constitution!


lol
couldn't resist. i see that line so often from whomever is in opposition to whatever rights are being discussed.

seriously, anyone can have opinions. it's when those opinions start trampling other peoples' rights that i get a little ornery.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

No need for a confession as you're not saying anything wrong, by my reckoning. Can we agree that lack of interest in someone's opinion does not negate someone's right to an opinion?

The problem is a large number of men feel that their right to an opinion entitles them to take away women's bodily rights.

[OldDog]

Opinions of people, both male and female, are how laws are born. Government is far from perfect. (Naw, say it ain't so!) Some laws bolster rights, while many take rights away. I'm not quite certain that a woman's "bodily rights" supercede the rights of a little person growing inside her. When does life begin? That's a very complex issue. When life or death is in question, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

However, I do not feel that opinions must absolutely be more or less relevant based on the presence of or lack of certain body parts.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Opinions of people, both male and female, are how laws are born. Government is far from perfect. (Naw, say it ain't so!) Some laws bolster rights, while many take rights away. I'm not quite certain that a woman's "bodily rights" supercede the rights of a little person growing inside her. When does life begin? That's a very complex issue. When life or death is in question, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

However, I do not feel that opinions must absolutely be more or less relevant based on the presence of or lack of certain body parts.

A fetus isn't a person. I don't have a strong issue with restrictions coming in during the third trimester as abortions in that period of time are so rare, and usually due to a serious medical issue, as I don't think it imposes an undue burden on women (as opposed to men terrorizing and assassinating doctors who are capable of performing these rare, late-pregnancy abortions, thereby limiting women's access to a safe, legal one). But prior to that, it's not about a baby; it's about women's bodily autonomy.

Men seem to think that pregnancy and childbirth are a walk in the park. As many of them have seen women go through it, I'm not sure why so many legislators cling on to this idea. Pregnancy is very stressful on the body and childbirth sucks. I went into my own pregnancy very healthy (I was still running at the beginning of my third trimester) and by the end I had gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. Had my labor not been induced early I could have died. An acquaintance of mine did die two years ago, delivering twins via C-section. Another friend had a stroke four days after giving birth. We all wanted the pregnancies, but in the wake of pregnancy was left rehab for my friend, and a grieving widower in the case of my acquaintance. I was lucky in that I recovered quickly, but I'm now at a higher risk for Type 2 Diabetes and heart disease in the future. Yay, pregnancy!

People should be honest and call the anti-abortion movement what it is: forced birth. It's a willful choice to force women into a life-threatening circumstance. And yeah, I think the opinion of a gender that will never have to face any of those life-threatening circumstances is less relevant. Unfortunately, it's the gender that has all the law-making power in the nation, so it calls the shots.

[OldDog]

"A fetus isn't a person." See, if it was simply about the woman there would be no debate. There is, and should be, in our society a strong presumption against taking life. If not, why the distinction between early versus late term? I believe it's because there is underlying doubt/uncertainty.

Now, if we apply the standard that the only people who should be entitled to make judgements about this issue are the people who are now, or in the future might be, personally involved in this issue, does that standard apply only to this issue? Can someone who is not a soldier or law enforcement officer make moral judgements, as well as legal judgements, as to whether it is proper to kill another person to achieve a military objective, or to kill an armed, deranged person to save nearby innocents, as opposed to killing a fleeing robber after he has robbed you? People consider themselves entitled to make moral and legal judgements about such acts. In this country all are entitled to contribute to these debates. To me no one ought to be dismissed from any debate based solely on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

My niece announced at Christmas that she is pregnant. She and my nephew recently married and decided to start a family. She is an RN, smart as a whip, and knows the risks. She is also ardently pro-life. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

A fetus isn't a person. I don't have a strong issue with restrictions coming in during the third trimester as abortions in that period of time are so rare, and usually due to a serious medical issue, as I don't think it imposes an undue burden on women (as opposed to men terrorizing and assassinating doctors who are capable of performing these rare, late-pregnancy abortions, thereby limiting women's access to a safe, legal one). But prior to that, it's not about a baby; it's about women's bodily autonomy.

Men seem to think that pregnancy and childbirth are a walk in the park. As many of them have seen women go through it, I'm not sure why so many legislators cling on to this idea. Pregnancy is very stressful on the body and childbirth sucks. I went into my own pregnancy very healthy (I was still running at the beginning of my third trimester) and by the end I had gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. Had my labor not been induced early I could have died. An acquaintance of mine did die two years ago, delivering twins via C-section. Another friend had a stroke four days after giving birth. We all wanted the pregnancies, but in the wake of pregnancy was left rehab for my friend, and a grieving widower in the case of my acquaintance. I was lucky in that I recovered quickly, but I'm now at a higher risk for Type 2 Diabetes and heart disease in the future. Yay, pregnancy!

People should be honest and call the anti-abortion movement what it is: forced birth. It's a willful choice to force women into a life-threatening circumstance. And yeah, I think the opinion of a gender that will never have to face any of those life-threatening circumstances is less relevant. Unfortunately, it's the gender that has all the law-making power in the nation, so it calls the shots.

Yep, 2 bad deliveries for us as well. Not fun at all. Both times had problems.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Opinions of people, both male and female, are how laws are born. Government is far from perfect. (Naw, say it ain't so!) Some laws bolster rights, while many take rights away. I'm not quite certain that a woman's "bodily rights" supercede the rights of a little person growing inside her. When does life begin? That's a very complex issue. When life or death is in question, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

However, I do not feel that opinions must absolutely be more or less relevant based on the presence of or lack of certain body parts.

laws are based on opinions? and yes, a woman's rights supercede whatever 'rights' a fetus has.
i'll err on the side of letting each woman decide for herself. no one has to choose to end a pregnancy, just like ssm marriage doesn't force people to get gay married.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

"A fetus isn't a person." See, if it was simply about the woman there would be no debate. There is, and should be, in our society a strong presumption against taking life. If not, why the distinction between early versus late term? I believe it's because there is underlying doubt/uncertainty.

Now, if we apply the standard that the only people who should be entitled to make judgements about this issue are the people who are now, or in the future might be, personally involved in this issue, does that standard apply only to this issue? Can someone who is not a soldier or law enforcement officer make moral judgements, as well as legal judgements, as to whether it is proper to kill another person to achieve a military objective, or to kill an armed, deranged person to save nearby innocents, as opposed to killing a fleeing robber after he has robbed you? People consider themselves entitled to make moral and legal judgements about such acts. In this country all are entitled to contribute to these debates. To me no one ought to be dismissed from any debate based solely on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

My niece announced at Christmas that she is pregnant. She and my nephew recently married and decided to start a family. She is an RN, smart as a whip, and knows the risks. She is also ardently pro-life. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

the distinction between early and late term is not some arbitrary number. instead, after the fetus has reached viability, states can, and many do put rules in place after that point in time.
yes, people can make 'moral judgements', and everyone is entitled to their opinion. however, just like you have a right to swing your fist, your right to that ends where my nose begins.
good for your niece.
bad if you think that because you and her believe something, that everyone must not only believe it, but we should legislate laws based on that.