Pro-lifers are taking a big gamble by backing the anti-abortion bill passed last week by the South Dakota Legislature, Cal Thomas says in a column in today’s Eagle. That bill would criminalize all abortion except to save a woman’s life. The pro-lifers think now that John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the U.S. Supreme Court, abortion rulings will go their way. But Thomas predicts that they won’t succeed, at least not now. And he recommends that instead of trying to hit a judicial home run, pro-lifers instead seek to require that women get sophisticated sonograms before they have abortions. Thomas wrote: “Since the objective of pro-lifers is to substantially reduce the number of abortions in America, a more rapid attainment of that goal may come by lobbying legislatures to pass laws to more fully inform pregnant women about the contents of their wombs.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- sursum on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
75 Comments
Well, why not do it to test the waters?
Such laws will make windfall profits for the coathanger industry!
And women will start dying in large numbers again. The Atlantic had a great piece a couple of years ago on this topic. Wish I had saved it.
This is a state’s rights issue and there will never be nationwide, blanket ban on abortion! Even if states like Kansas ban abortion it will always be availible in jew york and california or candad for that matter.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
blast,
That should read canada! Regardless of what happens there will be safe ways for women to murder their unborn children so you leftists should not get your panties in a bunch over this.
V.L.R.B!!
Wrong, Ian.
There was always safe ways for wealthy women to get abortions. Just look at the case of Bush and his pregnant girlfriend in 1970–his friends “took care of it.”
It’s the poor women who won’t have access when abortion is re-criminalized, just like before . . .
And you know what that means, Ian, more unwanted children of color.
But I’m all for it. Let the Republicans finally pay those religious-fundie tools they’ve used for twenty years.
Looks like that bill is coming due. Let American women see that Republicans stand for controlling their sexuality.
PL,
I am all for personal responsibility and there are plenty of proactive means of preventing unwanted pregnancy. Most abortions(70%) are of non-White babies so does that mean that women of color are too stupid to avoid unwanted pregancy? The time for women to exercise control over their bodies is BEFORE they spread their legs!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Ian:”so does that mean that women of color are too stupid to avoid unwanted pregancy?”
No. The more likely answer is that they are poor and inadequately funded programs that could help them with pregnancy planning are having a hard time doing so.
See this link:http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/living/health/13987381.htm
Free birth control!Walk into a McDonalds, order a #4 and get a free side of condoms.Make Ortho Tri-cyclen as easy to access as bottled water.Doctor visits cost money, prescriptions cost money; the truth is that there are some people who are so unwilling to drop a few dollars there that they would just take the chance and hope not to get pregnant. Of course, these same people are the ones that end up paying many hundreds of thousands of dollars more when the stick turns blue.
Oh, and could we PLEASE get someone on perfecting the male birth control pill? That’s a great way to level the playing field.
You know what’s scary?
The FBI probably has a file on me and they don’t on Ian.
It’s a strange universe we live in, my friends.
I think they should work on pushing back the viability point. If there was even ONE 10 week fetus that could survive outside of the womb, that would destroy RvW faster than any religion-based argument could.
The fetus isn’t considered “viable” until 24 weeks, but there have been babies born at fewer weeks and survived (the record is 21 weeks). There are abortions performed up to the 9th month for certain reasons. A human being is a human being, whether “viable” or not. The real question is this: Does a woman have the right to end her pregnancy, thus terminating the life of her child? Everything else is just spin, rhetoric, and rationalization. Not too many people are comfortable with the reality of abortion, so they utilize denial and turn it into something other than what it is.Personally, I don’t think it will be outlawed, it’s been an accepted part of our culture for over 30 years and most Americans think it should stay legal. As sad and tragic as I believe abortion is, I certainly have no desire to see desperate women risk their lives seeking out illegal abortions. Most rational people realize that outlawing abortion won’t stop it.—–
I loathe the abortion wars; I routinely manage to piss off both sides of the camp.
“Does a woman have the right to end her pregnancy, thus terminating the life of her child?”Very succinct, very well put Damoon.
I don’t think this debate will ever be solved. Prolifers won’t compromise on the premise that “an unborn fetus’s life is more important than a woman’s bodily autonomy” and prochoicers won’t compromise the premise that “a woman’s autonomy is more important than anything else, including the life of a fetus”…
Let’s just bang our heads against the wall. Same thing.
I do like the idea of requiring a woman to view a sonogram of her unborn child before she makes the decision to terminate or not. Hopefully, many women would choose to carry their pregnancies to term if they saw the heartbeat and the little baby… although, sometimes tiny.I, personally, would never terminate a pregnancy. Many years ago, I faced an “unwanted pregnancy” head-on. Many friends and acquaintances told me I should have an abortion. They told me it would be easy — no one would have to know. I chose life for my child. Today, she is a lovely young woman, and I cannot imagine my life without her in it! Although the circumstances of her birth were less than perfect, she is a well-adjusted and bright individual. She has brought much joy to everyone who knows her!
Several years ago, I counseled rape victims for WASAC. I do believe that women should be given to access to the morning after pill in cases of sexual assault — no matter which hospital ER they visit. Catholic based hospitals should not dictate whether a woman has access to such medication. The morning after pill is not necessarily an abortion pill.
I like the sonogram idea, too. I doubt anyone would oppose it. After all, we ALL want to see the number of abortions reduced.
Sigh………..
Ok I’ll do it again.
I was once “pro life” I was at the “summer of mercy”
Wanna know why? I wasn’t getting any sex. I wanted those that were to PAY!
Since then I’ve become a single parent with strangely no support from the religious right to take care of my son and totally switched sides. So I think my perspective has particular relevance here.
Trust me folks. People who are “pro life” are only so as long as that life is in the woman and totally dependent on that woman. Once that child is born, that child and the mother or father are on their own.
The REAL agenda of the pro lifers is anti sex or envied but not available sex.
Now for some of you “pro life” women, I understand where you are coming from. You want to be June Cleaver. And hell since the time of June Cleaver you got enough legislation on your side to keep hubby working and paying and taking care of you. But before you embrace the comnfort of the good ol’ 1950’s ya mght want to think about the station of women in that time.
Babies are not punishments. Any baby born assuch faces a life of only misery. Ask yourself why those who are so “pro life” are only so until that baby is born.
Just wondering how many of these “pro-lifers” are willing to adopt and bear all of the responsibility to raising a child. There seem to be enough of them, but how many have the commitment to “save” these children by taking them into their homes no matter what.
Many prolife people I know personally have adopted “hard to adopt” children or become foster parents. The idea that people who are prolife are jealous because others are having sex and they’re not is so ridicuous I can’t even respond to that. How stupid!I find that people who are caring and willing to give of themselves to others naturally gavitate toward the prolife side, it’s just the nature of some people to care about the vulnerable and innocent.I’ve been faced with 2 unplanned pregancies, one when I was young and unmarried, the other when I was married but dirt poor and no medical insurance. Has hard as it was, I never regretted my decision to give birth, because my kids and grandkids are my biggest joy, without them I can’t even imagine what my life would be like.I heard one time that if a woman chooses to abort, then someday she may regret it, but if she chooses to give birth, then she will never regret it. The longer I live, the more I find that to be true.JR, have you ever adopted a child or been a foster parent? Or does your prochoice ideology let you off the hook when it comes to helping children who don’t have it so easy?
Damoon–
I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that “human life is human life whether it’s viable or not.”
Terri Schaivo was a human being, but without brain function. Her continued maintenance was an unnecessary drain on her family and limited medical resources. Her death can be ethically justified on that grounds.
Similarly, a clump of cells with the potential for human life (but without a brain for instance) should not be equated with a living breathing human.
The debate about when human life begins (there is no debate about when life begins because every cell in our body has “life”) is essentially unreconcilable.
But one thing we can agree on is what happens when comprehensive sex-ed is not taught thoroughly in school and what happens when abortion is outlawed, for we only need to look back to the 60’s and 70’s for a object lesson of the latter.
When my honors student daughter was about 16 or so, she had completed a public high school biology class that was supposed to have covered sex ed. I asked her one time at dinner when a woman’s menstrual cycle begins, in other words, what is “day one” of a woman’s monthly cycle.
She answered incorrectly that it was the first day after the woman’s period had stopped.
That’s what I’m talking about. If couples don’t even basic concepts about fertility and menstruation, how can they understand how to avoid unwanted pregnancy?
They can’t. And that’s what the anti-abortion people want.
I want a quarter everytime someone refers to panties being in a bunch. I was the first to post that comment while referring to that rabid she-wolf Ks.
JR — I think you made quite a stretch there by saying that pro-lifers aren’t “gettin’ any.” Maybe that was your reason for being at the summer of life — but, trust me, there are plenty of pro-lifers who are sexually satisfied. Good grief!
The truth is, there are many childless couples out there who would be ready and willing to adopt ANY CHILD — not just a “perfect baby,” but special needs children, as well. Many of these couples never get the chance to adopt, because pregnancies are terminated.
But, on the other hand, let’s say that a woman gives birth. If she truly does not want to be a mother, she should give the baby up for adoption. Child abuse and child endangerment are not caused by the “religious right” or by the conservatives in this country… these are problems that often stem from poverty and stupidity.
If a woman leaves a pro-life or a pro-choice clinic, choosing to give birth after viewing a sonogram, a program should be in place to counsel and train that woman to make wise decisions on behalf of her child — before and after birth. The moment when she makes the decision not to terminate should be just one of many times when she will need the support of the community. I rarely agree with Hillary Clinton, but it really does take a village to raise a child.
TO QUOTE JR –”The REAL agenda of the pro lifers is anti sex or envied but not available sex.”
I just wanted to point out again what a terribly narrow minded comment that is.
Before making a statement like that, maybe you should have some data to back up your statement.
Gertie,
Clinton’s “viilage” consists of hideous public school functionaries, social workers and other intrusive government thugs. My wife and I are raising and home schooling our precious kinder just fine on our own, thanks!
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
I disagree Lib, just because a fetus isn’t viable doesn’t mean it’s not human. All you have to do is study prenatal developemnt to know that a 14, 16, 18, or 20 week old fetus is a lot more than “a clump of cells”.Nor do I believe that prolifers want people to be ignorant about sex and reproduction. I got a good education regarding sex and reproduction from the nun who taught “Christian Family Living” at the Catholic high school I attended. Most prolifers just care about the life of a preborn baby. To say there are all these hidden agendas about prolifers not wanting people to have sex, or to be punished for having sex, or to be ignorant about sex is just too weird for words. It’s just stupid.And I’m sure crazy Phil Kline doesn’t represent the vast majority of people who believe abortion is wrong.
You’re so right, Gertie. Like Hilary said, it does “take a village”. Thank God there are good people out there who are willing to love and nuture children, even when those children aren’t their own.
Damoon–
Terry Randall, former head of Operation Rescue, was dead set against sex ed and contraception. I heard him say it when “Donahue” came to Kansas after the first Summer of Mercy.
I believe the Catholic church has taken a strong stance against contraception, has it not?
Sex ed from a nun . . . hmmm . . . who better to learn about sex from than someone who’s never experienced it . . .
There’s still the niggling issue of the fetus having NO BRAIN.
And lastly there’s the age old problem if we re-criminalize abortion–the comfortable middle class get their “theraputic D and C’s” at the family physician while the poor get the med school dropout’s back-alley coat hanger, just like the good old days . . .
What do you mean that the fetus has no brain? It starts to produce brain waves around 6 weeks gestation.I’m not in favor of “recriminalizing abortion”, but I’m not going to deny what abortion is, and that’s the termination of a preborn human life.
Also, why does someone have to be sexually experienced to be knowledgable about it? Facts are facts.
I am a single Dad Gertie thanks.
Adoption. Nice idea. There are many couples waiting to adopt. But I don’t think you need to look any further than the recent new chief justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts for some relevant fact here. Roberts adopted WHITE KIDS. He had to go to South America to do it. Was there lack of supply of American kids…..no. They just weren’t the right color. So Roberts made a choice.
As to the questions as to why I was once “pro life” but am no longer, I note that the posters questioning my reasons were, as far as I know FEMALE.
And that really is what it is all about isn’t it? I had my male reasons for being “pro life” but in all candor, what busisniness does any MAN have in these decisions?
I’ll answer my own question. Men can work to make this society one where it does involve a village that actively supports the birth and life of every individual.
It is women, though that must address this issue and be the final justice for it.
Ian — As always, you take a comment and throw your racist slant on it. I guess, as an educator, I am thankful that you are homeschooling your children. I would hate to deal with you at parent-teacher conferences.
JR — I would like to compliment you on being a single father and taking responsibility for your children. I was a single mother for many years, and I know how difficult it can be at times.
You asked “what busisniness does any MAN have in these decisions?” The answer should be PLENTY! Unfortunately, so many “fathers” are spreading their seed across the country and expecting that their “baby’s mama” will be okay without him around. If more men were involved in the lives of the mothers, there would be fewer desparate women out there looking for a “quick fix” to an unwanted pregnancy.
Yes, women should have the ultimate say in the abortion issue — in that it more directly effects us. But if men would stand up and take responsibility for their offspring (as I am assuming that you are, JR… and Ian, for that matter…) abortion wouldn’t be seen as the answer to so many women’s problems.
Gertie said baby mama!
lol!
Gertie says: “The truth is, there are many childless couples out there who would be ready and willing to adopt ANY CHILD — not just a “perfect baby,” but special needs children, as well. Many of these couples never get the chance to adopt, because pregnancies are terminated.”
Gertie, can you tell me how many children in kansas are never adopted and instead “age out” of the system? Can you tell me how many of “these” couples you speak of were really turned down? Can you tell me WHY they were REALLY turned down?
Could this story about “couples wanting to adopt but no babies available because of abortion” be yet another conservative “meme” or urban myth?
If Gertie’s outrageous statement is true, why are there still so many children in kansas awaiting adoption? And why are those children “left behind” almost always older, or of color, or differently abled?
Can you round up enough conservatives to adopt them all? The rest of the state’s taxpayers would really like for you cons to step up and walk your talk.
OMG, and GAY ADOPTIONS? If you really want to stop gay adoptions, you know you straight, white, republican christians could adopt them all up so there wouldnt be any unwanted children for gay couples to adopt. Easy problem to solve, but I dont see that happening.
Conservatives in kansas are always willing to punish children (gay adoption, immigrant tuition, draconian abortion laws, education funding, etc) in order to further the conservative agendas. The cons’ only concerns are fetuses and taxpayers.
Provide an adequate education to special education kids? Naw, instead, we need a law to punish the court, not to fix the problem.
Gays want to adopt children in state custody? Naw, let the kids suffer in group homes so those damn gays cant provide them a real home.
Safe and legal contraception and truthful sex ed to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Naw, lets just punish those who GET CAUGHT having sex outside the christian definition of marriage.
Wanna bet if the number of children in state custody warrented a tax increase to support them, that famous kansas moral outrage would disappear instantly? Just like with gambling.
A tax break always trumps morality in kansas. Hey I know, let’s tax the hell out of married gays and use the money to fund_______(fill in the blank.
That will bring the conservatives around quicker than you can say “Jesus wept”.
One of the reasons children languish in the system is because of the system itself. Biological parents are given years to get their act together and reclaim their kids. The laws need to change so that kids aren’t in foster limbo until they’re old enough to be on their own.Ksgirl, The idea that prolifers couldn’t care less about children once they are born is just not true. I know many Christian prolife people who have adopted hard to place children. How many of your liberal, prochoice friends have done the same? Like I said before, just because you and yours think abortion is fine and dandy, does that let you all off the hook as far as being concerned about unwanted children and taking responsibility for the ones who are here?BTW, I personally know 3 gay couples who have adopted children, and another gay couple who are foster parents. I hope that gay people will continue to adopt and be foster parents, kids in the system need stable homes with loving adults to care for and nuture them.
Damoon, thank you for your post. I know that we have different religious and political viewpoints when it comes to many topics, but I feel that you have studied the abortion issue and you have worked within the “system” enough to know what you are talking about.
To KS Girl, I know you have a bone to pick with world because you are gay and you feel that everyone is out to make you and your gay friends miserable. I have read enough of your posts to understand your frustration with not being able to legally marry, etc. However, while I don’t understand your lifestyle choice and I have my own religious beliefs about homosexuality, I will tell you that I know that there are many gay couples who choose to have children or adopt. In your post, you assumed that I was speaking only about married, conservative Christian couples who wanted to adopt children. That is not so. Every child deserves to be loved. Every child deserves to have life. If a birth mother chooses to give her child over to a single person or a gay couple, that is her choice. I may upset some of my fellow Christian conservatives, but I, personally, feel that a baby in the arms of a gay couple is always better than a baby in the trash can.
So, while you judge me, Farm Girl, please understand that my heart goes out to ALL PEOPLE who want to be parents and, for whatever reason, cannot be. But even more, my heart goes out to the children — born and unborn — who need good homes. Damoon is right, the “system” is often the problem.
You said: “Safe and legal contraception and truthful sex ed to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Naw, lets just punish those who GET CAUGHT having sex outside the christian definition of marriage.”
First of all, I am not a hypochrite. I had a baby outside of the Christian definition of marrage. It happens. I, in no way, feel self-righteous enough to consider myself holier than the next person. You seem to think that I am judging people who have abortions. I am not. I have friends who made that choice, and I know that they suffer from a lot of guilt over it.
No one is talking about PUNISHING anyone.
If a woman is allowed to see her baby on a sonogram prior to having an abortion, she can make an informed decision about her baby’s life.
Gertie I’ve no doubt you are a good person. But I do not think you can adequately defend the dichotomy that exists in the “pro life” communtiy at large between the born and the unborn.
The vast majority…not necessarily you….of the “pro life” community also are opposed to welfare programs. They are also at odds with contraception and sex education. This reaffirms my earlier position. I know I have lived it.
You cannot legislate morality or whatever concept you have of it. TRUE “pro lifers” would work to see that all children are not only wanted but adequately supported by society at large.
Less than that while expounding on a “culture of life” is pure hypocrisy.
The culture of death that the pro-choicers espouse is a much bigger hipocrisy than anything the pro-lifers could come up with. The baby-killers just hide behind semantics to justify their pro-death agenda! How must innocent blood must be spilled for them to come to their senses? 50 million dead babies isn’t enough to satisfy the bloodlust of the anti-family ultra-feminist Left! The blood of 50 million dead American babies is on YOUR hands, not ours! Keep washing your hands Pontuis Pilates! You give the order, yet you say you are not guilty of shedding the blood of the Innocent! The LORD shall have his vengeance!
JR –
I realize that my views are a little different than some other pro-lifers. I am not so naive to believe than banning abortion will solve the world’s problems.
You’re right — some women will require welfare if they choose to carry their pregnancies to term. It is a sad fact of life. Welfare is not always a bad thing. However, if a baby’s mother chooses to give birth because she was allowed to see a sonogram of her baby prior to having an abortion, I think we should be prepared to fund some of the care and feeding of children born to the less fortunate. I also think that training programs should be in place to help young, single mothers learn to provide for and properly care for their new babies. If done correctly, welfare will only need to be a temporary thing.
Not all conservatives are against welfare. Most of us are just against ABUSE of the welfare system.
Good posts, Gertie. It’s been my expperience that those who oppose abortion as the cure-all solution to an unwanted pregnancy ARE the ones who reach out to the mothers and their children. Many of my friends who think the same way I do about the issue give very generously of their time and money helping young mothers and children in all sorts of ways. In my experience, many people who truly care about others and are willing to “put their money where their mouth is” tend to be prolife. As I was waking up this morning, I was thinking of all the people I know that have adopted and provided loving, nuturing homes to “hard to place” children. ALL of them (and I know quite a few) go more towards the prolife side of the issue.The idea that those who are prolife don’t care about children once they are born is a myth. In fact, to me, it seems like just the opposite.
CrusX–
Take a pill. You’re hysterical on this issue.
Pro-lifers love to throw around that figure of 50 million babies “killed.”
Question: how many babies were killed when abortion was illegal? How many unwilling mothers died from illegal abortions?
In an ideal world, no abortions would ever take place.
We don’t live in an ideal world. So given that abortions WILL HAPPEN whether they’re legal or not, what is the most rational policy?
I think what we have is about as good as it gets with three important improvements: 1. mandatory comprehensive sex ed for all students that really educates them about contraception (not just scares them about STD’s and pregnancy).
2. The latest contraception methods freely available to anyone who wants them, without guilt for using them. The guilt should be on those who irresponsibly have sex without contraception.
3. Restrictions on later-term abortions except for health concerns.
“I know you have a bone to pick with world because you are gay and you feel that everyone is out to make you and your gay friends miserable.”
Gertie, that is just dismissing what I say with yet another version of the “angry woman” label. I wondered how long it would take for someone to say that. You were right on cue.
I dont have a bone to pick with the world, just the damn christians who think they are appointed by god to govern the rest of us. I wonder what you say in church when they condem gays or try to legislate away the ability of gays to adopt.
So you agree, we are good enough to adopt but not good enough to marry?
And BTW, many governments in the world do not oppress gay people. I have noted here before that South Africa, for crying out loud, has a better track record on civil rights that the u.s.
I do have a bone to pick with the voters who elect a hypocritical govt of the u.s., mouthing all those words about “created equal” “separation of church and state” and “equal justice” under the law.
Too damn bad the u.s. cant walk its talk.
I actually hope that abortion is made unconstitutional, and I hope it is done quickly. I hope the ports deal goes through. I hope the illegal wiretaps continue. I hope there is a federal amendment to ban gay marriage and gay adoption. I hope the christians pass a law recognizing their beliefs as the only true religion and all other religions as lesser. I hope that teacher in Colorado gets fired.
That should all bring about the revolution sooner than later. Or not. Maybe the sheeple will submit…not with a bang but a whimper. That would be fitting.
The opiate of the masses?
Proud –
I will agree with you on several points. People, not just students, do need to be educated about contraception and STD’s. They also should be told about abstinence.
With that said, we all know that pregnancies occur even when prcautions are taken. In those cases, a woman should be educated about ALL her choices –not just terminating her pregnancy (aka, killing her baby).
The sonogram idea is a brilliant one. A woman who sees, with her own eyes, the beating heart of her unborn child, can make an educated choice.
I also agree with you on restricting late-term abortions. If a woman has carried a baby for 7 months with no health problems, she can carry it to term and give it up for adoption.
Damoon, thanks for your post. I agree with you that many pro-lifers walk the talk. Like I said before, I know we don’t see eye to eye on everything, but I do appreciate your stand on a number of issues.
Farm Girl, you said:
“I wonder what you say in church when they condem gays or try to legislate away the ability of gays to adopt.”
My church is not about the condemnation of anyone. My church is about the love and grace of Jesus Christ. My church does not teach hatred. We believe that all sinners (and we are ALL sinners) can be saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. We don’t talk about gay adoptions at church. We talk about the Lord and what can He can do in our lives. Honestly, I couldn’t tell you how anyone in my church voted in the last election.
I knew that you would be angry by what I said at the beginning of my last post, however, we can’t ignore the elephant in the middle of the room.
You asked — “So you agree, we are good enough to adopt but not good enough to marry?”
Honestly, my opinion isn’t that important — but since you asked…. I, personally, think that homosexuality is wrong. However, with that said, I believe and know that there are many good and sincere people who are gay. I think that a civil union between gay people will not make or break our society. I, as a heterosexual married person, am not losing any of my rights if you have a civil ceremony with a partner. However, I don’t think that your union, whether made legal or not, will not please God. That is my belief. You don’t have to agree with me, and I know you won’t.
And…right on cue again. You just cant make this stuff up. Thanks for teeing one up for me Gertie.
“Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state’s official “majority” religion.
House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.
…
The resolution would recognize “a Christian god,” and it would not protect minority religions, but “protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs.
The resolution also recognizes that, “a greater power exists,” and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, “justified recognition.”
Like I said, you just cant make this stuff up. I wonder if kansas, in its Missouri-envy, will follow suit.
FYI, I think this is the same Gertie who posted that she had traveled extensively but not seen as many toll roads elsewhere as she had seen in ks.
And immediately people wrote in and said….Oklahoma, New Jersy, Pennsylvannia, etc.
I’ll take angry over uninformed anyday. Uninformed was the least angry description I could use :) See, a smile…just to show I am not angry. In fact, I am laughing.
Good grief, Farm Girl…. bringing up my past posts to justify something completely separate and off the subject…
In my post about the toll roads, I was referring to the many miles that I have traveled in this country — primarily between here and Michigan and back. The only toll road we encounter between here and there is the Kansas Turnpike. I realized after I posted that particular comment, that I was perhaps uninformed. End of disucssion. I stood and stand corrected on that issue.
I know that you hate everything that I stand for. You hate Christians. You hate heterosexual, married, conservatives. And you, apparently, therefore, hate me. I can live with that. You are a very bitter person.
This thread is about abortion — not about your gay rights or the Missouri legislature. Stick to the topic.
Gertie–You are the one who brought up the subject of adoptions. The efforts by some of your legislators to ban gay adoptions fit into that topic. So does the Missouri legislation.
I have said before that christians will not be satisfied until they become the official state religion and their christian fairy tales govern those of us who do not believe in christianity. The Missouri legislation illustrates that point.
I am on topic here. If you use your faith to justify government actions, I am going to feel free to shoot that argument down.
And as for the toll roads…if you can be so uniformed about that issue…it makes me wonder how informed you are on this topic.
I dont hate you personally Gertie. I find “faith based” government to be repugnant. I think christianity is wrong, just like you think homosexuality is wrong. You say what you think and I say what I think. Christians are just not used to us speaking up. Get used to it.
Gertie–
The abstinence-only idea is quite amusing, really.
George W. wasn’t abstinent. Neither was Colin Powell (who claimed he didn’t want to run for President because he didn’t want people digging up stuff from his past).
Ann Coulter is in her mid-40’s and never married. Do you think she never has sex?
Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, is 36, unmarried and rumored to be gay. You think he’s abstinate?
Look at all the Republicans during “Monica-gate” who admitted that they too had gotten a little something extra on the side–Henry Hyde, Newt Gingerich. Not only were they not abstinent, they couldn’t even be faithful to their wives.
And these are the people telling our kids to forget about condoms and birth control and just “be abstinent?”
Do as we say, not as we do . . .
It is interesting to listen to those that talk about abortion as if it is no big deal. They do not even think about the fact that they are taking a human life.
It is very easy have an abortion or make the decision to give birth to the baby.
The women we should be proud of are those that chose to give birth and a precious gift by chosing adoption for their prceious one.
ProudLib — Where did you get the idea that I was promoting abstinence-only? I said that sex education, and education on STD’s, as well as abstinence information should be taught to anyone who needs it — teens, and those who don’t won’t to get pregnant a second — or third time.
FarmGirl — As I have shared before on this thread, I have been through an “oops” pregnancy. I was a single mother for a number of years. I opted to give birth to my child because it was the right thing for me to do. So whether you believe me to be informed or uninformed on any of the topics on this site, I do know what I am talking about this time.
You said, “I dont hate you personally Gertie. I find “faith based” government to be repugnant. I think christianity is wrong, just like you think homosexuality is wrong. You say what you think and I say what I think. Christians are just not used to us speaking up. Get used to it.”
The funny thing is, we Christians ARE used to folks like you speaking up. We ARE used to it. We just disagree… and we always will.
As I said before, believe it or not, I do have several gay friends. They are wonderful people. I do not condone their lifestyle, but I still love them. Please don’t try to put all Christians in a box. We are not all alike.
“The women we should be proud of are those that chose to give birth and a precious gift by chosing adoption for their prceious one.”
I agree. Pregnancy is a life-alterning event. It changes your body irreversibly and possibly subjects you to serious health problems–not to mention you have to give up partying and eating unhealthily. Women who willingly go through it when they have no intention of keeping the baby are truly altruistic, in my opinion.
Gertie–Believe it or not, I do have heterosexual married friends. They are wonderful people. I do not condone their lifestyle, but I still love them.
Gertie, you may have gay friends, but would you let your daughter marry one? lololololol
In case you dont get it, that is a joke from the days when a lot of churches opposed desegregation. Southerners frequently said they were not racist and in fact, they had black friends!!! But they also said they still wouldnt want their daughters to marry one.
I think the real issue is the misunderstanding and ignorance when it comes to sexual orientation. No one “chooses” to be gay or straight or somewhere in between, it’s in the cards we’re dealt when we born into this world. Why should anyone deny themselves the happiness and the support of having a life partner and raising a family just because they’re not heterosexual? Everyone deserves an equal chance to be happy, have a family, etc. It’s what living in America is all about.If the bible is to be taken literally, then we shouldn’t eat shellfish, cheeseburgers, and we should kill our children for being disobedient. That’s the problem I have with Christianity, many of the beliefs are based on how people perceived the world thousands of years ago. We’ve evolved and learned a lot since the days when people who had siezures were thought to be pocessed by the devil and children were born with disabilities because the parents had committed some sin and pissed off God.The earth isn’t flat and the we’re not the center of the solar system. It’s time our ideas regarding sexual orientation evolved, also.
“Where did you get the idea that I was promoting abstinence-only?”
I didn’t make that assumption, Gertie, but that’s what Bush Co wants and has been successful in ramming down the throats of public schools.
Thanks for that post damoon.
PL, did you see the discussion here a while back about Ken Willard’s son’s “abstinence only” baby? I’ll post a link again if you like. The abstinence only people like to talk the talk, but they cant seem to walk the walk.
I got the joke, Farm Girl. You didn’t need to explain it.
One way to think about the whole “abstinence” thing is this: We can tell people that not smoking will cut their chances of getting lung cancer — but some will still smoke. We can tell our children that not having sex will prevent unwanted pregnancies and keep them from getting STD’s — but some will still do it anyway. So while I think we would all agree that abstinence is a good idea in theory, we still need to educate our kids about birth control and prevention of STD’s.
As a mother, I want my kids to know all the facts about STD’s, birth control and abstinence. If I have raised them to make wise decisions based on the (in our case, Christian) principles we live by, I can send them out into the world knowing that they are equipped to make informed choices.
The problem is that the “younger” generation, armed with the best and most accurate information regarding every aspect of life one can think of, often STILL continue to screw up and make bad choices. As long as imaturity exists, all our wisdom, knowlege, and life experience often falls on deaf ears. My kids didn’t get it together until they were almost 30, but thank God, they finally get it now, after the school of hard knocks taught them a few lessons! We can only do so much, then we have to let go.You can lead a horse to water, but…
Damoon, you may have noticed I said that I can “send them out into the world knowing that they are equipped to make informed choices.” I didn’t say that they would necessarily make them. Immaturity does play a part.
for my daughter, I pointed out all of my mistakes and told her that I would hope she would make smarter choices. So far, she IS making smarter choices!
Glad to hear your daughter is doing well, my daughter got pregnant in college and followed that with a disasterous marriage to an abusive jerk.Now she’s remarried to a wonderful man that we love dearly and has another child. She’s doing great and she’s gained a lot of insight, but had a really hard road to where she is now. It hurts so much more to watch your kids go through hell, you want to take the pain on for them, but you can’t. It felt so helpless at times knowing what she was going through and not having the ablity to make things better for her. I guess we both learned from the experience, she stronger and values herself more now that she got through it, and I learned to respect her right to struggle and work out her own problems. I did pay for her divorce, though!
I’m not so sure I agree with that statement, Gertie, “So while I think we would all agree that abstinence is a good idea in theory . . .”
If you’re talking 14 year olds, yes.
But let’s say somebody has ambitious career goals–medical school, say–and they don’t want to take on family responsibilities until they get through. They might be 30 before they even think about getting married.
They’re supposed to be abstinent for decades?
It seems to me that equating abstinence with “purity” (like in medieval times) and equating sexuality with carnality, disease and shame is not a healthy way for people to live fulfilled lives.
And frankly, that’s what I think drives the abortion debate: the sex. If it didn’t revolve around sex, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s neo-Puritanism vs. the science of human sexuality.
Proudlib, do you know the right wing definition of a whore?
Anyone who is getting more than I am.
Damoon, you are an exception and are excluded from the following. It is indeed all about punishment and keeping women in their place.
Why the flap over the vaccine that stops the HPV from causing cancer?
We live in an age when birth control is cheap, effective and readily availible. As such too many women are using abortion as a crutch and as a means of retroactive contraception and that is deplorable. i think that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest and at times when the mother’s life is in jeopardy, period. Is that so unreasonable?
V.L.R.B!!
Ian, I agree with you about birth control.
I dont agree that many women use abortion as birth control. At $400 (at least) a pop for abortion, birth control is much more cost effective and far less traumatic.
And at that price, abortion goes to those who can afford it, not those who really need it.
I dont think your view of abortion is unreasonable at all, but I dont agree with it. The devil is in the details of what you suggested, and many of us worry about how the details of those restrictions play out.
If it was up to me, birth control would be in the water and people would have to get a degree in child rearing and pass a test before they could get the antidote and get pregnant.There is a program in California that pays drug-addicted women to be sterilized. The ACLU was having a hissy fit over that one. I think it’s a great idea, much cheaper than raising a crack baby in the system. I wish they’d do it here, I’d be the first to donate to the cause.
Damoon,
That sounds like eugenics talk to me! rotflmosrfao
V.L.R.B!!
ProudLib
“And frankly, that’s what I think drives the abortion debate: the sex.”
No it’s about butchering an unborn human being. Act responsibly, take responsibility for your actions.
Well, you right-wingers don’t care about the butchery when it’s from a cluster bomb or white phosphorous . . . actually, in that latter case, it’s more burning than chopping, but I digress.
Question– what are you going to DO about abortion, other than stew and fret over the murdered babies and feel all morally superior?
Make it illegal? We tried that once. Make it legal? We’re trying that now.
Obviously, the solution is what Europe does–guilt-free sex ed and contraception availability. Their sexual activity is the same as ours, and their abortion rate is a fraction of ours . . .
But then people like you don’t get to feel all morally superior, do you.
PL–This was the question asked on talk radio today.
If you were in a lab that was on fire, and there was a petrie dish with five fertilized eggs in one corner, and a two year old child in the opposite corner, and you could only save one….which would it be? Five…or one?
I cant wait for the responses.
Ian, I ALMOST agree with you. Oh,my! Is hell about to freeze over?
You said, “I think that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest and at times when the mother’s life is in jeopardy, period. Is that so unreasonable?”
It is not unreasonable to think that abortion could be limited to cases of rape, incest and the mother’s life being in jeopardy. The problem with this is in the burden of proof. Will there suddenly be a rash of women flocking to the abortion clinics crying rape? What about all the teenaged girls claiming that daddy has molested them, just to get out of an unwanted pregnancy? Before laws are changed, lawmakers will need to consider how rape and incest cases will be considered. Will there need to be police reports on file? How will they determine who is a true rape or incest victim? Something to think about….
Proud — I did say “in theory” abstinence is a good idea… and I was referring, generally, to younger people.
As for the 30 year old doctor… I can only say that, if anyone SHOULD know how birth control works, it is a doctor. AND, if anyone knows what they are doing by having an abortion (i.e., killing a human life), it would be a doctor.
Okay, don’t take my word for it that the anti-choicers are more worried about the sex than the “baby” . . . take THEIR word for it.
Here’s a recent op-ed in the Kansas City Star:
“By using contraception, you prevent God’s creative power in bringing forth new life. Sex is a complete self-giving love you pledge to your spouse within marriage, and contraception destroys the unitive and procreative qualities of sex. Pleasure is not the purpose of sex — it’s the motive or consequence.
“Our culture has now put pleasure at the center of everything, and we speak of human sexuality in such animalistic ways — as though we can’t control ourselves, waiting for marriage, waiting for stable economic circumstances, waiting to have sex until we are ready to be open to life.
“Self-control or temperance is a Christian virtue, and by practicing modern, effective methods of natural family planning by having periodic abstinence, you can postpone pregnancy if necessary in a healthy, inexpensive, fulfilling way as you embrace chastity appropriate for your stage in life.”
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/14013410.htm
From the Pope’s mouth to our ears . . . Funny how when he said the invasion of Iraq was immoral, American Catholics completely blew it off, getting all bent over KERRY’s pro-choice stand.
Figures.
And then Heckler showed up and posted. “Act responsibly, be responsiblefor your own actions”
Proves my much earlier point. Heckler is the truth of the “pro-life” movement. Let me translate with kudos to Farmgirrl who points out that “anyone getting more thanyou is a whore.
Heckler and much (not all) of the “pro life”movement are all about PUNISHMENT!
Translation? “You had naughty sex! Shame on you! That baby is your punishment! Don’t come look to me for help! I aint getting any…..uhh I mean I kept my zipper closed!”
Proud and JR — The op-ed piece you quoted from the KC Star must have been from someone with Catholic background.
If you read the book of Song of Solomon in the Bible, you will see that the entire book is written about the pleasure of sex. Sex is a gift from God. He intended it to be pleasurable, otherwise, there would really be no reason to reproduce.
Granted, there are a number of people out there who have opinions differing from mine — but I believe that God has given us MANY ways to prevent pregnancy –and natural family planning is just ONE of the ways. I also believe that God has given us the sense to use birth control if we choose not to get pregnant. I do believe, however, that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy as a form of birth control.
Children (whether planned or unplanned) are a great blessing from God — but I don’t want, nor can I afford 10 of them!
Please get off the whole “Christians hate sex” discussion. I am one Christian who does not fall into that category.