|
Grex > Agora47 > #52: House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 142 responses total. |
beeswing
|
|
response 11 of 142:
| 
Oct 3 02:52 UTC 2003 |
We'll discuss it when YOU have a uterus, bru...
|
dah
|
|
response 12 of 142:
|
Oct 3 03:17 UTC 2003 |
Actually, men do have uteruses. They just don't use them.
|
tsty
|
|
response 13 of 142:
|
Oct 3 04:06 UTC 2003 |
how do we get 'extremely rare, but legal' into teh law?
'to save teh life of teh mother, only' would *seem* to satisfy.
|
richard
|
|
response 14 of 142:
|
Oct 3 04:17 UTC 2003 |
klg it passed with such a majority because there's an election next year
and a lot of congressmen, particularly in conservative southern states,
don't want it being an issue in their re-election. Do not look at the
vote totals as some indication of true and deep support.
|
michaela
|
|
response 15 of 142:
|
Oct 3 05:10 UTC 2003 |
Bruce - if my baby is going to KILL ME, then I would get a D&C (fuck that
religious reich term for it) and claim "self-defense" if they tried to say
I murdered my kid.
It's not like I'd be happy about it. Too many right-to-lifers assume that us
pro-choice people LOVE the idea of abortion. It's not true. We just realize
that there are times when it is necessary.
If 99% of the D&C procedures are done to save the life of the mother, and
that stupid Congress and even more stupid President voted AGAINST them, then
this country is NOT getting better.
If Bush gets re-elected, I'm moving to Canada. That is not a joke. I'm not
going to let someone else's pompous, self-righteous, religious viewpoints rule
my life any longer. I'm sick of seeing religion forced down kids' throats in
school, and now it's going to affect womens' health.
Do you people ever THINK when you aren't beating your Bibles and
misinterpreting the words to fit your agenda?
I cannot begin to describe how much this pisses me off.
By the way... my biological mother was raped, but she chose not to abort me.
I'm thankful she went the adoption route, but I'm even more thankful she had
that choice. I can't imagine how she would have felt if she'd been forced to
carry me to term and deliver me because some assholes in the government used
their religion as reasoning for forcing that torture on her.
This country is going backwards, not forward, Bruce, and all of you sheep are
too blind to see it.
|
other
|
|
response 16 of 142:
|
Oct 3 06:00 UTC 2003 |
You're not moving to Canada. If you were pissed off enough to do that,
you'd do something useful instead and mount a campaign to educate and
motivate people who value their rights to go to the polls and boot the
fascists out of office.
|
scott
|
|
response 17 of 142:
|
Oct 3 12:39 UTC 2003 |
Amen, Eric. With Bush starting to look like Nixon Jr. there's a lot of work
to do in making the US a free country again.
|
gull
|
|
response 18 of 142:
|
Oct 3 12:47 UTC 2003 |
Re #16: I know at least one person I actually do expect to move to
Canada. He feels that it's essentially a lost cause, and that he's
spent enough of his life trying to push back against the country's drift
to the right. He sees little hope for substantial improvement in his
lifetime. Time to cut his losses and leave.
I have to admit I can understand that reasoning.
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 142:
|
Oct 3 16:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
murph
|
|
response 20 of 142:
|
Oct 3 16:38 UTC 2003 |
I think it's going to be a long time before the Zapatistas have enough control
over Mexico to forge into Texas.
Personally, I'm looking to the Free State Project as a model. While I object
to several of the points of their philosophy, their goal is realistic and
their reasoning sound. Basically, they say, "This country is too obsessed
with big government, both on the left and on the right, and getting even 1%
of the vote in a national election for a Libertarian (or even libertarian)
candidate is obviously ludicrous. Therefore, let's get
together--literally--and concentrate our influence in one state, where we have
a realistic chance of effecting some of the changes we want." They've got
5400 people signed up and committed to moving to New Hampshire within 5 years,
where those people are going to fight tooth and nail for change at the state
and local level.
I love their methods, but I still think they're aiming big. I think a city
is a good level to start at--it's an easy level to effect change at, even if
you're still bound by state and national laws, and getting some change to
happen is necessary for keeping morale up and for showing people what you're
really about. So, michaela, get yerself some likeminded people and figure
out what you can do about it other than throwing up your hands and moving to
Canada.
Meanwhile, watch for my name on the ballot for A2 City Council sometime in
the next few years. :)
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 142:
|
Oct 3 16:42 UTC 2003 |
re: "#14 (richard): . . . it passed with such a majority because
there's an election next year and a lot of congressmen, particularly in
conservative southern states, don't want it being an issue in their re-
election. Do not look at the vote totals as some indication of true
and deep support."
In other words, it passed because a lot of congressmen realize a
majority of their consitituents support it? Ain't democracy wonderful,
Mr. richard? Get on board!
To all of you gmoving to Canada next year: Bye, and don't forget to
write!
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 142:
|
Oct 3 17:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
murph
|
|
response 23 of 142:
|
Oct 3 17:11 UTC 2003 |
I hadn't thought of that option. Along those lines, learning Basque and
hanging out in Mondragon territory for a while would be a nice change...
|
albaugh
|
|
response 24 of 142:
|
Oct 3 17:18 UTC 2003 |
"dark old days" - what histrionics.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 25 of 142:
|
Oct 3 18:50 UTC 2003 |
Backing up a ways: As I understand it, this bill (and Michigan's bill)
is almost identical to a Nebraska bill that was tossed by the USSupreme
Court a couple of years ago in that it doesn't include a "health of the
mother" exception. The bill tries to skate this constitutional
roadblock by declaring that "partial-birth" abortions are never
medically necessary and that, in fact, "A ban on the partial -birth
abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests
of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy."
I find this strategy of simply declaring it so to be of rather dubious
value (much like GWB's attempt to end the war in Iraq by simply
declaring it over). I'm guessing that abortion opponents are hoping
that the Supreme Court will add another anti-Roe judge by the time this
case works its way up the line, and that this law can be the vehicle to
end the whole deal.
And, as an aside, while this bill specifies that a woman who has a PBA
will not be prosecuted under this law, it does allow the woman's husband
to sue her in civil court (or her parents, if she was not 18 years old
at the time of the abortion) if he did not consent to the abortion.
|
other
|
|
response 26 of 142:
|
Oct 3 20:50 UTC 2003 |
Husband? Or sperm donor regardless of other legal status (assuming
donation performed the old-fashioned way)?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 27 of 142:
|
Oct 3 21:16 UTC 2003 |
(Hmm... I kinda like New Hampshire. I may have to move there to oppose the
FSP. Why can't they pick on someone I don't particularly care about? Utah
would be nice. Or maybe Puerto Rico. Or Guam. Either of them would make
a good 51st state.)
|
johnnie
|
|
response 28 of 142:
|
Oct 4 00:29 UTC 2003 |
re #26: The bill specifies husband. I reckon that's 'cuz, you know, a
woman doesn't actually become a man's property until he makes it all
legal and stuff.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 29 of 142:
|
Oct 4 00:58 UTC 2003 |
resp:10 I get so tired of that endless dogmatic crap: "this great
nation of ours" or "let's make America great again" paraphrased any
number of ways and the moralism implied in it, i.e., only a certain
way will accomplish it. Gaaahh.
Couple of comparisons: I'm religious, but I don't support shoving it
down other people's throats... about the same way I support
environmentalism but deplore eco-terrorism. (The ends don't justify
the means, baby.)
|
bru
|
|
response 30 of 142:
|
Oct 4 02:09 UTC 2003 |
Once again everybody misses the big picture.
I say Go right!
You say Go Left!
and we end up basically driving down the middle of the road with a swerve to
the right and to the left now and again.
But yes, I am against abortion, and your attitude that anything other than
the right to murder another human being because of your mistake is forcing
me to take a sterner position thn I would normally like to take just to keep
us from ending up with gass chambers to remove the parasites on our society
that you don't want to deal with.
(parasites being infants, handicapped, elderly, mentally deranged, and the
ugly.)
|
russ
|
|
response 31 of 142:
|
Oct 4 03:17 UTC 2003 |
I find it terribly amusing that the proponents of this act
think they can avoid having to take anyone's health under
consideration in the law by saying that said procedure is
never necessary to protect health.
This is tantamount to Congress awarding itself a collective MD,
without bothering to go to school or even study. It would be
hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
It would be nice if all laws had to state their rationale and
could be challenged and thrown out if the rationale could be
proven wrong. We've got so many misconceived laws on the books
that it would be great to have a mechanism to discard them
without having to move the legislature to reverse itself.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 32 of 142:
|
Oct 4 03:36 UTC 2003 |
resp:30 ummm... no. I am generally against abortion. As far as my
personal views, the decision, should it be made, should be very
carefully thought out, even by prayer, if you will. Not taken lightly.
Let's put it this way, bru. My religious leaders spoke that way on
the topic, so I feel safe taking that position.. and generally, their
view is otherwise conservative on the matter. Therefore, any other
moralism is prone to fall on deaf ears.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 142:
|
Oct 4 04:55 UTC 2003 |
Re #30: bru wants the big picture: the big picture is that not he nor
anyone else has an absolute right to control the lives of women.
|
bru
|
|
response 34 of 142:
|
Oct 4 07:14 UTC 2003 |
If we don't have the right to pass legislation regarding the rights of people
to act under specific conditions in specific ways, then I gues we can't pass
any laws whatsoever.
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 142:
|
Oct 4 07:44 UTC 2003 |
The notion that abortion is muder is predicated on a BELIEF that is not
universal. Making any laws which proscribe any abortion practices is
tantamount to the state dictating morality based on one belief system in
direct opposition to another. That is exactly what the founders were
trying to prevent with the establishment clause.
By the way, the same is true of laws which prevent Native Americans from
using peyote in traditional rituals.
|