Nicely put. Blunt, right to the point and about time somebody said it that way. I'm emailing this to about a gazillion people that need to hear this. He may be a lame duck, but he is still a barnyard terror.

by Ivan Hentschel (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 302 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:56:43 PM

  (0+)

This needed to be said bluntly. 

I'm tired of playing nice and I'm tired of being politically correct and I'm tired of having to bend over and make room for or try to respect other people's fantastical beliefs, at least when it comes to this issue.

We're talking about health care rights for women, my gawd - we're in danger of reverting to the damn dark ages based on what? Someone's interpretation of a religious text?

No way! Never again!

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:05:41 PM

  (0+)

Good article.

Call me a dirty mind, but I have wondered sometimes about George's and Laura's sex life--or lack thereof. The distance, the coldness between them is palpable, you get the feeling they make an effort to look married in public, holding hands etc, but once they are out of sight, they won't even get close;  and the twins are their only offspring .

Difficult to believe that, without contraception, they  conceived only two kids in like thirty years of wedded bliss. And I have read that in his wild youth, GWB got some girlfriend pregnant and had to pay for her abortion ;

These absurd heights of hypocrisy have become GOP's trademark. I am pretty sure that McCain, who was cute and hot when he was young, got  a few girls pregnant too and got rid of the problem the same way. 

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:20:09 PM

  (0+)

I aint gonna go there.

Unless you ask me to.  

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:11:28 PM

  (0+)

Hmmmmm, Cheryl, do you really think that there ARE “deep, dark recesses of Bush’s brain”? I think you are being very generous.

I’m flummoxed. It seems to me that the Religious Right should be just as much in opposition to government control of women’s bodies as anyone else – after all, it is a short step for any government that has that kind of control, to REQUIRE abortions (or use of contraception) of women who DON'T want them!

Go figure, maybe they don’t have any deep, dark recesses, either.

by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:22:44 PM

  (0+)

It was a vaginal metaphor - meaning that the dark recesses of Bushes brain are as dark and empty as.....

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:34:00 PM

  (0+)

What brain?   I haven't seen any evidence of one.

I have nothing else to say about bu$h that can be printed here.  I absolutely hate what this corrupt, faux christian, neocon administration has done to the American people on so many levels.

Insanity - the inmates are currently in charge of the asylum. 

by AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:02:26 PM

  (0+)

;-)  

though I think there is alot of invisible deep magic in the yoni, whereas the Bushbrain seems more like a vacuum.  And we all know that nature abhors that, LOL.

by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:43:09 PM

  (0+)

What about the rights of the unborn?

If one vehemently abhors the killing of innocents in Iraq, what makes the killing

of innocents inside the womb any different?

That being said, I don't think you can legislate morality.

People have free will and they will do what they want to do.

I wonder what percentage of abortions are done because of rape or health concerns? Compare that to the percentage that are done to get rid

of a "problem", or done as a form of birth control.

What is the real motivation for abortion?

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:21:44 PM

  (0+)

1) A woman should have the right to control her own body, no exceptions, no apologies, no explanations, period.

2) Why did you miss one of the main points of this article and that is that even oral contraceptives could become unavailable to women under this plan?

3) Why should any one else's religious beliefs or beliefs not based on science have any power over what all women decide to do with their own bodies along with the advice of their doctor?

4) Abortion being used as a contraceptive method by women is a urban myth, and if there really were any cases of it then it would be extremely rare.

5) What kind of world would we have if there were no unwanted children?

6) Why do you believe embryos are "innocents"?

7) If men were the ones with wombs there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner and the morning after pill would be sold in the candy isle.

 8) If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:02:18 PM

  (0+)

1)

My answer: Yes, you make the final decision in this matter. But... the reality

is that there is another life within you and that life wants to live.

2) " Why did you miss one .....

My answer: I believe that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is asking for trouble and morally wrong. So personally it wouldn't bother me in the least.

3) " Why should any one else's religious beliefs or beliefs....
My answer: They shouldn't... but again, who speaks for the innocent life

within? If someone wants an abortion they will get one regardless of the law.

4) "Abortion being used as a contraceptive method by women is a urban myth.....

My answer: Beg to differ. A relative of mine got pregnant twice outside of

marriage. Neither pregnancy was wanted or convenient and

2 abortions were performed. It happens all the time.

5) What kind of world would we have if there were no unwanted children?

Answer: The end doesn't justify the means . Are you implying that abortion is a good way to get rid of unwanted children?

6) Why do you believe embryos are "innocents"?

My answer: They are as innocent as can be. I think you're real question

is why do I think they are living human beings, right?

Gee... when I see that beating heart, the head, the nose,

the legs, etc. I can't help to feel some empathy for this innocent. If it's life inside or outside the womb, what does it matter?

Even if the life is a small embryo it still has the potential to be

born. I look at life as gift, not a problem.
7) " If men were the ones with wombs there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner and the morning after pill would be sold in the candy isle."

My answer: Not worthy of a comment

8) "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one."

My answer: Good point.... but again, who speaks for the innocent inside.

Conclusion:

What are your priorities in life?

To me the highest priority is life. This is why I believe abortion should be

rare and done only under the most extenuating circumstances. That is why

I abhor the war in Iraq and just about any war. You dig?

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37:01 PM

  (0+)

We should stop killing viruses or bacteria. Are they not also innocent cellular life?

Sorry - I just had to.

When does the embryo become a child? Scientific and theological debates differ.

The argument is a moral issue, not one for the courts to decide. Don't take us down the Shiavo path again.

Just for the sake of argument -

What if the family is strapped already beyond the point of being able to feed the already born children?

What if the addition of another mouth to feed endangers the rest and one or more of them becomes dangerously ill because of lack of food or necessities - including housing?

What if the child is born and given to an adoption agency? I don't see any of these lawmakers or pro-lifers scrambling to adopt or give aid to these children. Listen to the religious right on this topic ... they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop whining for any kind of aid.

This is the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement.

by AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:01:39 PM

  (0+)

My daughter is adopted.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:51:50 AM

  (0+)

I also abhor the war on women's reproductive rights.

To believe that an embryo is worth outlawing a woman's right to choose is either a religious belief or a personal belief and has no place in dictating what is correct for every woman.

Sex is as natural as air, it doesn't require marriage to make it special or good. Again your belief that there is some morality attached to the sex act is either a religious one or a personal one and has no place in dictating what is correct for every woman.

Your relative was either irresponsible in allowing herself to become pregnant twice with an unintended pregnancy or had limited birth control access or both. Either way if she did not want to have a child it is her right to end those pregnancies.

Abortion is one way of ending unwanted pregnancies - free and easy access to birth control and sex education is the best way of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

How about feeling some empathy for a woman forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want and cannot afford to raise?

I'm perfectly at peace with regards to my priorities, thank you.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:09:05 PM

  (0+)

I realize people make mistakes.

There is a line of people waiting to adopt children.

Why not give the child up for adoption?

My daughter is adopted, her birth mother was 18 years old when we adopted.

She got pregnant again and wanted us to adopt again. We thought about

it, but no way could we afford it. She lost the baby through natural means.

We had great empathy for the birth mother.... we paid her living expenses

while she was pregnant, we paid her hospital bill, etc. (and we aren't rich by a long shot).

Again.... if she had waited until marriage there would have been less anxiety about the whole matter.

Yes, sex is natural, but we are more than mere animals driven by a powerful sex drive. We have a mind that can look into the future and see the consequences of our actions.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:12:34 AM

  (0+)

2)...even oral contraceptives could become unavailable to women under this plan?

Think Progress LINK

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief who is now the Republican National Committee’s “Victory Chairman,” was discussing consumer-driven health insurance at a breakfast with reporters when she proposed “a real, live example which I’ve been hearing a lot about from women: There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won’t cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice.”

NOTE:

McCain voted against a 2005 bill requiring health insurance companies to cover birth-control pills as well as Viagra.

by AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:48:40 PM

  (0+)

In a perfect world, the outcome of a woman getting pregnant would be that a baby would be born and raised in a loving, caring, comfortable family. I think we all can agree on that.

Unfortunately, we do not now live in a perfect world, and even though we certainly can make the world far better than it is now, it may never be perfect. Therefore, we must resolve the conflict between Pro-Choice advocates who feel that women should have the right to abortion services if needed, and Anti-Abortion advocates who believe that abortion is utterly wrong and should be illegal. And to resolve the conflict, we need to be rational and realistic.

The fact is that unplanned and unwanted pregnancies do occur, as they always have and always will. Furthermore, sometimes the impregnated woman either cannot afford to raise a child, or for some other reason would face hardship or problems if she were to have to give birth to a child. So, the question is whether women who find themselves in that predicament should have a choice in the matter, or not.

We should all understand why Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. law which established a woman’s right to abortion, was enacted. Prior to that, abortion was illegal in the U.S., and part of the reason the law was enacted was to protect women from being maimed or killed by botched illegal abortions. The mortality rate for women had been growing, and many people felt that such procedures contributed to the increase in deaths of women. (You can watch the great movie starring Natalie Wood and Steve McQueen, Love With a Proper Stranger, which helped to make people aware of the problem).

Furthermore, another part of the reason for making abortion legal was to reduce the rates of child abuse and neglect. The law acknowledged that those rates were as high as they were in large part because most women felt they had no choice but to give birth when they got pregnant, even if they did not really want or could not afford to have a child.

Therefore, we need to face the fact that if abortion were to be made illegal again, deaths due to botched illegal abortions would once again occur, and child abuse and neglect would only increase, along with domestic violence. When parents have unwanted children, or cannot afford to sufficiently feed or clothe or house the children they have, it causes guilt, frustration and anger, and it creates many problems. Those are facts we must face, and they should mitigate any other considerations, if we are rational and realistic about this issue.

Of course, a small minority of people have claimed otherwise. But we should remember that the Anti-Abortion Crusade was begun in the late 1970s by sanctimonious leaders of the American Christian Right, because they thought they had found a cause and a fight they would win. They thought they would stand on high moral ground with this issue, but the record clearly shows otherwise. After all, many of their words and actions have been bigoted and hypocritical (as they have typically been regarding other issues as well), and they have caused a lot of conflict, division, anger, violence, death, grief, and suffering.

Fortunately, the most malicious and hypocritical of the so-called "Pro-Life" (Anti-Abortion) forces have stopped bombing medical clinics and stopped killing health professionals to try to impose their will and force their beliefs on the rest of us. But they certainly haven’t gone away. They are still causing grief and despair for many women, despite the fact that they are in a small minority.

Polls show that most of us still feel their anti-abortion crusade is misguided and wrong, because most of us feel that abortion should be legal. Most of us feel that the leaders of the anti-abortion forces are arrogant and offensive, especially since some of them still harass and harangue young pregnant women who have enough trouble as it is. Hard feelings still persist because of all that, and it is one of the main reasons people are so divided and polarized over this issue.

Of course, bigoted and hypocritical right-wing preachers like Pat Robertson are largely responsible for that. After all, he said things like this: "(Planned Parenthood) is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism...."

Robertson deceptively tried to demonize Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Choice Movement (along with all other liberals and progressives), and the whole anti-abortion movement was fueled by such deceptive and inflammatory rhetoric, spouting from the mouths of people who loudly and hypocritically claimed to be Christians.

The murder and assassination of doctors and medical clinic staff, the bombing of medical clinics, and the harassment and intimidation of troubled pregnant women in crisis were a very predictable result. After all, "religious" zealots seem to think they can do no wrong if they do it in the "name of God." And terrorists, whether they claim to be Christians or Jews or Muslims, have no problem with committing mayhem, murder and destruction of property if they believe it is destroying "evil" as they self-righteously judge it.

Not only were staff and doctors who perform clinical abortions murdered, many other clinic staff and doctors were harassed and intimidated in a variety of different ways. Many have been given good and ample reason to fear for their lives, because their names have been posted on "hit lists" on the Internet. Moreover, in some cases, young, pregnant women in crisis, and even some who have desperately needed medically necessary abortions to protect their own lives, have been intimidated and harassed so mercilessly that they have been forced to flee to another state, and their lives have been jeopardized.

I believe we should face the fact that if abortion were to be illegal and against the law once again, as it was prior to 1973, women would still need and seek abortions. Consequently, many women would be cheated and taken advantage of, and, as I said, many women would be maimed or killed by botched amateur abortion procedures. Furthermore, if we were to again force women to bear children they don’t want or can’t care for or feed or clothe properly, many problems would only grow worse. The rates of child abuse and neglect would only grow worse, and domestic violence would surely increase.

A more sensible approach would be to ensure that all women of child-bearing age have ready access to safe and affordable birth control. That is paramount. And, in cases where birth control was not used or not effective and unwanted pregnancy is the result, women ought to have two easy options –– to either arrange for the baby to be adopted if they wish to carry the pregnancy to term, or to have the pregnancy terminated, preferably during the first trimester (the first three months), before the fetus is viable, unless it is absolutely necessary later due to medical emergency.

Whatever the case, abortion should not be undertaken lightly, and it really should not be used as post-pregnancy birth control because a woman simply preferred not to use safe and effective pre-coital birth control methods. Furthermore, abortion really should not be used by women (like some in India and China) who abort female fetuses just because they would prefer a male. That is a very short-sighted practice that could have disastrous future consequence for their whole society. It is one of the sexist, patriarchal traditions that has no place in the modern world.

In the final analysis, the main issue here is a woman’s right to plan her family, and to choose and use whatever is currently available to prevent and avoid pregnancy if and when she chooses. And, if an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy does occur, that right should extend naturally to using modern medical means to abort that pregnancy during the first trimester if she chooses. That should be a woman’s right and prerogative, and it should be her free choice.

To say otherwise would be to reduce a woman to the status of chattel and breeding stock. It would be telling her that her body is not her own, but the property of her father or husband or the state. It would be telling her that her body is meant solely to produce offspring, no matter what, even if and even when it would be against her wishes and against her will. It would be telling her that she has no rights and no choice in the matter.

That is why the Christian Right is so wrong about this issue, just as it is wrong about so many other issues.

Quoted from:  http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/Abortion.html

(Most of the above was also quoted from the book, More Observations & Suggestions: The Followup to Real Prophecy Unveiled, by Joseph J. Adamson.)

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:52:42 PM

  (0+)

Very well said, Ruth. 

by AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:07:25 PM

  (0+)

I quoted them from that web page, but I totally agree with them.

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:15:53 PM

  (0+)

And posted it - and much appreciated.

Birth of a Crisis

Shelley Page
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, October 23, 2004

In a horrible irony, the U.S. policy, which was intended to decrease abortions, has instead resulted in a dearth of family planning counselling and contraception that has, according to activists, resulted in unwanted pregnancies and an increasing number of abortions. Mr. Bush ushered the policy into law on his first full day in office in 2001. Supporters of this act, including anti-abortion organizations such as Concerned Women for America, argued the U.S. does not pay for abortions in the U.S., and shouldn't overseas, either. Nor should family planning organizations counsel on abortion at U.S. taxpayers' expense.

Never mind that since 1973, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act has prohibited the use of U.S. funds for abortion services. And since 1981, the use of U.S. funds for lobbying on abortion has also been prohibited. No violations have ever been found.

Most of the international family planning organizations that refused to sign the conditions of the 2001 policy did not, in fact, provide abortions, although many have used their own funds to lobby for liberalized abortion laws in the developing world, or counselled women on how to obtain abortion services, or provided post-abortion care. For example, International Planned Parenthood Federation -- the world's largest voluntary organization working in sexual and reproductive health care -- lost $12 million because of its refusal to agree to the gag rule. In 1999, only eight of IPPF's 156 member associations (Barbados, Hong Kong, India, Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Thailand and Uganda) carried out abortion-related activities -- mostly counselling and abortion care -- which amounted to .05 per cent of IPPF's total income.

But IPPF and other organizations, believing they are being "gagged" by the Bush administration and their rights to free speech threatened, forfeited millions in funding.

" The rule has absolutely led to more illegal abortions," says Dr. Solomon Orero, a prominent Kenyan gynecologist and reproductive rights activist. "It was like passing a death sentence on women who otherwise would have been saved."

A recent report, titled Access Denied, by Population Action International and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, investigated the effects of the U.S. policy in Ethiopia, Kenya, Romania and Zambia and found dozens of family-planning clinics have closed, reducing a broad range of services to women and their families.

Most of these clinics were located among the poorest of the society in slums and rural areas, and the populations depended on them for other heavily subsidized health services like immunization of the children, vitamin A supplements, malaria treatment, and treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS.

[More at Link]

by AllDems08 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:24:37 PM

  (0+)

Well said.

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:11:24 PM

  (0+)

Keep up the good work. We shall overcome.

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:17:36 PM

  (0+)

to know what is in Bush's mind.  But I have a pretty good idea what the conspiracy is up to.

In the late 60's, America's population growth was locally driven.  Fertility rates were high as were living standards.  The plan was to lower Americas standard of living and import population growth with immigration to weaken the American base for the changes to come.

Abortion and contraceptives were great tools.  Especially to reduce African-Americans growth.  The War on Drugs was rolled out to get more blacks in prisons to keep them from breeding and voting.  They also gave us Feminism to get women into the work place, keep them too busy to have many kids.  Their entry also caused wage suppression, making it too expensive for many to have too many children, and helping lower our standard of living.  In the 60's, it was common for families to have 6-8 kids and live comfortably on one income; today, it is 1-3 kids, and a struggle even with both members of the household working.  Mission Accomplished.   Fertility rates have been at or below replacement level for 35 years.

I do not think Bush really wants to eliminate abortion and contraception in the US.  He has not succeeded in any event.  However, the conspiracy does want to prevent abortion and contraception in the 3rd world, and murdered the Smiling Pope in 1978 to ensure this.  We did have a program of involuntary sterilization for the darker races (African descent) in South America under USAID, since the conspiracy considers them racially inferior and wants to limit their population in the Americas.  Look at Puerto Rico, Brazil, etc

Overpopulation is a great weapon to keep countries poor, especially in Africa and South Asia.   Also, the HIV we unleashed would be less effective if everyone had condoms.  And the increasing populations in the 3rd world gave us a good supply of immigrants to import into Europe and the US to make up for the low fertility rates.

But in any event, over the last 35 years, Americas base from the pre-1970 era has had a stable population of about 200 million.  The base has been diluted due to immigration, and children had by the immigrants, getting us up to 300 million, more polarized than ever, and more open to Globalization and One World Government that they plan to give.

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:16:12 PM

  (0+)

There's some kind of irony goin' on here.

Not one man commented on this linked article: Voices too often missing in op-ed land: Womens'

 http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=64190

Yet here, when the word vagina is in the headline, you guys come rattling in like snakes. And you know what they say about men having sex and snakes.

Men are the cork poppers and women are the fine wine who nuture the vintage crop to it full bloom and then tend it for the rest of their lives.

So when you guys do more that pop your corks, and carry those babies for nine months, painfully give birth to them and tend to them 24/7, then and only then can you have a say in the matter.

As for the rest of these Cretins who go into medical fields and won't fill patients needs or requests, they should be sued for malpractice and drummed out of the business.

If they're not going to tend to every patient's needs, they have no business going into the medical field in any capacity.

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:49:50 PM

  (0+)

Despite your hurtful and sexist comments, I must ask the obvious question.  What exactly can a man add to an article on why women do not write more op-eds.  I defer to the women on this one.   

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:51:40 PM

  (0+)

after reading Bob Gormley's post, I am reminded of the photo taken in the Rose Garden amid the right-wing fanfare surrounding Bush's signing of the late-term abortion bill. Bush, as usual sat in the front with his s**t-eating grin. He was surrounded by Senators and Representatives, all men, all white, probably all wealthy. Between the lot of them, there was no danger of a stray thought of compassion or common sense. Instead, there was only a celebration of a "victory" in their struggle to keep the right-wing fanatic vote. No women were in the picture, and no people of color.

Sandy is right. Men have no place in this debate, and would not in fact be in it except for the rotten legacy of patriarchy, that would destroy society rather than be denied power in it. 

by Wayne Turner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:22:00 PM

  (0+)

I suppose Condii Rice and Laura were given some input on the issue, even if they were not around for the photo-op.

You accept that men have no place in the debate, after adding your 2 cents in.  I must remind you that the title of the article is ""Why is Bush So Interested in Our Vaginas?"

Last time I checked is Bush is a man.  Who better than a man to speak of interest men have in vaginas, or control over them, than other men.   Makes no sense to me that they should be excluded from the debate.

Obviously, whats happening today is  government exercising their  rights over everyone and everything they can do.  Getting suckered into the divide and rule tactics plays right into their hands.

Pretty soon they will say they have a right to determine who gets to marry, who gets to have children and how many, who gets to keep their kids, who gets to work, what religion you may have, etc.  This authoritarian control crosses lines of gender, race, religion, etc.  The issue is government control over individual rights and liberty.

Making it into Black vs White or Male vs Female issues misses the forest for the trees and is counterproductive.   Plays right into their hands actually. The country has learned little over the past 40 years.

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:20:17 AM

  (0+)

FYI Wayne,

    I can't stand Bush.

I  often hear that men have no place in this debate.

What if the women wants an abortion and the involved man does not? 

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:18:29 AM

  (0+)

Why do they want to control women? THEY are the "stupid white men" Michael Moore wrote about in his book of the same name-- the ones who are the "base" of the right wing, and "they" do it because they feel insecure, unmanly, weak, castrated by falling industries and a system that has let them down, so they take it out on women. Bush and Iraq ere their viagra. 

Then, there's this business of contraception. I've been saying for a few years that Democrats should use it as a wedge issue. The far Christian right really wants to ban contraception and many GOP candidates need to pander to them. If the issue is forced, then they have to side with being anti-contraception, anti- insurance reimbursement for contraception. It's as stron an issue for the dems as gay marriage is for Republicans because there's a much smaller percentage of right wingers who  oppose contraception. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:14:42 PM

  (0+)

Why do they want to control women? THEY are the "stupid white men" Michael Moore wrote about in his book of the same name-- the ones who are the "base" of the right wing, and "they" do it because they feel insecure, unmanly, weak, castrated by falling industries and a system that has let them down, so they take it out on women. Bush and Iraq ere their viagra.

It's not about controlling women, it's about protecting innocent lives. 

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:22:51 AM

  (0+)

No matter what is legislated, outlawed, banned, or made illegal and punishable in relation to these matters... the rich and wealthy (including our ever so noble politicians) will ALWAYS have access to such procedures and contraception performed and delivered under sanitary conditions by qualified medical personnel!  It'll always be that way.  Money is entitlement and exception. 

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:50:39 AM

  (0+)

Let the women move to a particular chosen area and allow abortion and

contraception without the male interference to their lives. Men shall move

to a differentiated area, and not be involved with the opposite sex. Only

when they choose to go on vacation in another country can they reproduce.

This will provide great releif from gender hatred and misogyny.

The laws of the separate areas will bound their inhabitants. No men will

be allowed in Femalia. All goods will be transferred to women delivery

personnel of goods from Maleania, and vice versa.

This will make the divided country more apt to protect and defend their

subjects from the discord that arises from mixed gender dispersion

that has resulted in pro-female rights from expanding to equalization due

to the unjust Maleanians.

Separate but equal will win out. Stop these mixed marraiges of Femalians

and Maleanians. This is a very modest proposal to produce greater rights to

females who have sufferred from these injustices. Without a framework for

egality with  preservation of sheilding the political weaker from the

predatory is dishonourable

Will the men step up to the plate to give their voice to reason, or will they

use their macho machinations to blur liberty with authoriatarianism.

If so then the ultimate reaction must be separation of the warring class

of men that have metasticized into their Quango resulting in a full fledged

absolutism without redress.

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:02:55 AM

  (0+)

says Mr. Gormley.

The problem is that ''protecting innocent lives'' means, concretely, forcing women to bear children against their will, turning their wombs into government property, thus denying them this basic right of human beings in democratic societies: my body is mine and nobody--not a person, nor the State, nor any church-- has the right to claim ownership to it.

Apparently, the republicans want no government intervention in the boardroom, but lots of government intervention is the bedroom.

This notion that women's bodies are men's property is prevalent in authoritarian societies and dictatorial regimes, because these systems need population growth--as cannon fodder, industry fodder,etc.--and they usually encourage a high birthrate by forcing women to bear unwanted children, like nazi Germany, Ceaucescu or the Vichy regime in France. The justifications for these policies being usually of a racist, nationalistic, or religious nature, like yours--the sacred quality of human life and the defense of the ''innocent''unborn.

Protecting ''inocent lives'' means supporting slavery for women, reproductive slavery that is, but slavery nonetheless.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:55:39 AM

  (0+)

My view on abortion is not based on my need to control women.

I don't believe people with similar views as mine also feel the need to control women. Of course, with anything, there exceptions to every rule.

      My view in abortion is not based on my religious beliefs either, but what my heart tells me inside.

      The word "selfishness" keeps popping into my brain when I read many

of these comments. ie me, mine,my, etc.

      I don't believe you can force morality on anyone, it is a choice.

But, I am free to express my opinion, you can take it or leave it.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:15:17 AM

  (0+)

Also, I don't apologize for considering life sacred.

How do you view life?

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:17:47 AM

  (0+)

''The word "selfishness" keeps popping into my brain when I read manyof these comments. ie me, mine,my, etc. ''

So, for you, , women are selfish if they refuse to give property rights on their bodies to men?
If I see a kid who has a bag of candY and I try to take his candy against his will--if he refuses to hand it to me, he is selfish?  If a guy has a nice car, and I try to steal it, if the guy refuses adamantly to hand me the keys, he is selfish?

And what about these women who refuse to have sex with men if they don't want to? Isn't that selfish too?

This notion that women are men's property and should defer to them in everything,  least their are branded selfish/bad women, is not only outrageous, arrogant nonsense, it has led to the most hideous abuses of power over centuries.

SO i would not tell ''butt out'' to Mr. Gormley; his blatant prejudice is a useful reminder that the sexist biases  promoting these abuses are still widespread, and a witness to the fact that women's equal status is still far from achieved.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:14:04 AM

  (0+)

You don't get it Francine, and you probably never will.

Like I said before it's not a man controlling woman issue, it's about

the rights of the unborn. The "selfishness" I'm referring to is the unimportance placed on the rights of the unborn.

Feminists always make it a man/woman issue. Blind they are.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:01:59 AM

  (0+)

You seem to have a real problem with men.

Why is that?

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:03:08 AM

  (0+)

I was expecting this tired old cliché--conservatives are very predictable in their arguments, they have a limited stock, so they tend to recycle them endelessly--you know, ""feminists hate men'', ''they are ugly'', ''they don't shave their legs'', ''what they need is a good f..k'', etc. I have heard it all before. God, I wished that conservatives had more imagination, that would make political debate more stimulating, but I guess it would be like asking a pig to fly.

So, here we go again: ''you must have a problem with men''. No Mr. Gormley, I have problems with men like you, that's quite different.

There are many men, including  on this forum,  for whom I feel nothing but respect; I could make a long list, but I will just name Mr. Kall, who has shown nothing but correction and decency when it comes to the treatment of women on this forum--although I was not sure at first. :-D

In fact, it's not very difficult for men to get respect from women--and affection, love, etc.: do not try to control them or patronize them, do not claim that men have rights that women don't have, do not treat them as second rate citizens placed on this earth only to cater to men's needs or serve as baby factories; in one word: respect them too and treat them like full fledged human beings.

And so I have a problem with you Mr. Gormley, because your posts fall way short of the mark in this respect; in fact, they cover so thoroughly the whole gammut of  prejudiced attitudes towards women that they could be called  studies in sexism. They do not convey any respect for women--you see them essentially as good for churning out babies--and exsude such a sense of  entitlement  that I could cut it with a knife. Moreover, your political views are so very conservative they could be called medieval. 

Now, you are asking me also why I have a problem with men. Allow me to return the question: why this interest in my personal life? Isn't it a bit voyeuristic for a conservative? Ah, those straightlaced Republicans, always so interested by what happens in our vaginas, as the article says...

And lastly, I think I explained clearly why advocating the ''rights of the unborn'' equates with enforcing reproductive slavery on women, something that you  don't see as a big problem apparently.  If you fail to understand that if I write that a = b = c, therefore a = c, there is nothing that further explaining can achieve, and this lack of training in logic 101 is your problem, not mine.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:50:49 PM

  (0+)

Looks like I really pushed your button Francine.

I must admit I don't particularly like you either.

The comments above (not just yours)are laced with sexist remarks concerning men.

Ie. see Cheryl Abraham's comment concerning men if they could get pregnant,

and Sandy Sand's comment, and "pft's" response to Sandy's sexist remarks.

Most guys politely brush off these remarks, but women like you sieze every

opportunity to find hate speech in anything, especially if someone disagrees

with you.

My views medieval? With all the so-called progressive thinking in the world is the world a better place? I'm sure you have an answer for that too.

It's all those women-hating men's fault right?

Why don't you take a good look at yourself in the mirror Francine. You

blast me because I don't like the killing of innocentsin the womb. I'm just a

bad, bad conservative right? Actually my views are 66% conservative and 33% liberal, and I take each issue on an individual basis.

So you only respect people who agree with you?

By the way... I am married and my wife has the same views on abortion as I do. Is she a woman hater too? You blame "conservatives" for the same

tired arguments, yet you label people as "women hater's" if they disagree

with you. You are wrong, dead wrong.

As far as Rob Kall goes he seems like a pretty decent guy. However, he seems to pander to women concerning concerning "hate speech" by men.

Even though women engage in it as much as the men.

You probably dislike my "medieval" thinking because you can't live up to

it, right?

    Go to a conservative forum and spout your ideas on abortion or whatever

there. I'm sure the responses will be much less civil then mine.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:37:48 PM

  (0+)

    I reviewed all my comments to see if I was disrespectful in any way.

I believe my comments were presented in a polite manner while disagreeing

with some of the other comments.

     The only comment which showed disrespect was the last one which was

a backlash to your own backlash. 

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:44:52 PM

  (0+)

The problem with "protecting the rights of the unborn" is that unless you do it with the agreement OF the person containing the unborn, you are dismissing her rights as unimportant. When this becomes a question of forbidding her even the choice to not become pregnant in the first place, it's dehumanizing as well as disrespectful.

In other words, when you say "Pro-Life", what people hear is Pro-Male-Life, because this moral stance completely dismisses the ability of a woman to make a responsible moral, ethical choice without consultation with a male athority - and one outside of her family unit, I might add. Just to spread the dissing around.

For myself, I consider the term "homicide" to be roughly applicable to a third trimester abortion. But then, I also recognize that there are, unfortunately, many times in life when people have to choose between one life and another. Those issues are settled in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Now, who has competent jurisdiction over their own body?

Right. The person that owns that body. So, are you going to come right out and state that women should be the involentary chattel property (not EVEN of the status of a slave) of what ever man currently possesses her? Because this is the logical implication of the arguement. It's not even a reducto ad absurdem - I've seen that argument made by many people who share your agenda.

But as a matter of practical fact, it is her body and she will make the final decision, based on what few options are available. You have every right to appeal to the court, and I'm sure there would be broad support - pun not intended, but since it's there, we shall allow it - for a wider range of choices. The more choices there are, the more likely it is that there will be an outcome you would be happy with.

But the fact is, there is no way in which you can have an ethical position here AND ensure that no abortions happen. Indeed, you can't even have an UN ethical position and ensure that no abortions happen. These are facts, and all that the anti-choice movement has accomplished, frankly, is to multiply harm.

Of course, the fact that this debate has been at an impasse for as long as I can recall, with these very same talking points, tends to underline the fact that this IS entirely about the presumed right to impose a "moral order" upon others without regard to or even acknowledgment of any harm that imposition might cause.

This understanding is entirely consistent with other positions taken and other decisions made, for if "pro-life" were really pro-life, there would be a consistency across all decisions that would advantage women and children; you would be arm twisting legislators to make children more affordable for families, you would be all for support for single women, there would be universal health care already, and the term "welfare queen" would not be heard in the land - for did not Jesus command us to "care for the widows and orphans?"

He didn't' say "of your church." He didn't say "of your race." He didn't say "of your nation." He CERTAINLY did not say "those that are of upright moral character."

He DID have a lot to say about those of his time who were very sure they had the right to throw rocks at those they thought of IN sufficient moral character - and he was eventually crucified by people who argued points of "law" as selectively and as maliciously, to the advantage of the few at the price of the freedom and dignity of the many.

So, I ask you sir, on what basis does your position deserve my respect? For I am quite unable to see any reason to give your tired rehash of the same arguemnts any greater weight simply because you are trying to be conversationally inoffensive.  I do believe I'm a reasonably competent ethicist, and here's the reason why I cannot.

Your arguments are ineherently offensive to persons, inherently unethical; leading inevitably to a mulitplication of harm and are therefore the product of a moral system that is bankrupt. For a morality to be useful and respectable, the moral dictates it offers must generally produce results that usually lead to results better than the opposite choice for the person being guided by the moral system.

If this is NOT the case, then it is not a moral system, it's a system of enslavement and brainwashing, with the goal of concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. 

As this is precisely the observed reality in every single congregation that makes a big fat hairy deal about the moral choices of other people, I think it's time that you cultural warriers ask yourself if what you think you are fighting for bears any relationship whatsoever to what it is you are likely to achieve from where you are and who you stand with.

I assure you with every confidence of my years and what wisdom I have gained from it that an honest examination of the results will prove your assumptions wrong. Further, you will find that an honest reading of the complete bible, using a decent translation and refering to an interliniar to find the little added and subtracted bits will give you quite a different picture than most churches of the expectations Christ had of the duties of a christian.

In no place will you find any direct statement giving you any jurisdiction whatsoever within the underwear of another person. Period. Exclamation point and effin' Amen. 

by Bob King (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jul 19, 2008 at 8:52:25 AM

  (0+)

1. Bush does not care for anything. He uses the opportunities to cavort to the forces he needs.

2. Abortion  is an unfortunate option. There is nothing good about it but   it is an option available, it is the decision of the free person and   is a part of freedom.   Not all parts of freedom are 'good'. Not all of them are ' noble'. But  we  either have freedom or we  don't.

3.  Unless  a society considers  ALL unborn  as citizens it has no right to specify a Particular Unborn as the one.

4.  Women do not have problems with men and vice -versa.  But every free individual  surely has an issue  with someone who wants to  take his/her freedom away.

5. if we want  abortions to be rare we need to  make it possible  for those who give birth to see it as a better alternative for THEM.  

That's my put

Thanks 

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:01:17 PM

  (0+)

Well put Mark.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:18:47 PM

  (0+)

So many of us have been polarized and divided by those who are polarizing and divisive, fostering a "them against us" mentality.

Whether it's right against left or men against women, it's not productive. It's part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Granted, we must fight for our righteous beliefs when we know in our heart what it right. But it is all too easy to fall into the temptation of taking a self-rigteous and superior attititude, and merely offending those we disagree with rather than foster understanding.

I've learned a lot by debating on Internet discussion boards like this, and more and more I'm learning how to be more effective. I hope I keep learning. After all, even my main teacher, Joseph J. Adamson, says he is continually learning. We teach by learning and then sharing, and realizing that we will always have a lot to learn.

by Jessica Moore (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM

  (0+)