If not overturning RvW, how would you suggest pro-lifers fight to *end* abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cry me a river. The question you posed delt with a nanny, and what's ironic is my wife is preggers right now, so no, I'd not want her to be fired, but we both bear the burden that we don't expect our employers to bend over for our needs. In the real world, the individual that simply cannot meet the demands of a FT job have to make some difficult decisions.

I know, in your world I'm evil, but it's reality.

And because of reality you cannot stand in judgement and demand that women in dire circumstances have babies. You are married and have a job, every woman does not have a man like you. Some women have a man even better than what you are, but not with a stable job and for them a womans job is not something they canafford to lose when pregrnant.
Your baby is not in any way better than someone elses. We are all human
As long as the employer is not able to see that, every healthy pregnancy is not feasible.

Unless te society does provide a safety net for women and families, which it does not do and will not do for a very long time.

I'm a little unsure what you're arguing here, but I am enjoying this discussion (genuine, not snark). I think you're saying a couple of different things above, suggesting that I (or my party) would prefer to essentially force a woman to have her child, being born during uncertain times, or conversly prevent her from aborting since she may not be ready. I am pro-life, although not single issue. I don't know, OP's looking for solutions, and this may not be one, but I think a healthy dose of reminding prospective mothers that the social safety net can't (not won't) be there for them is a helpful reminder.

Bear with me here, point being that we could probably agree that current strategies may be failing, i.e. sex ed., controception, etc., to stem the tide of chrildren born out of wedlock or by accident. Maybe the fear of losing the social safety net might cause them to be more responsible. I don't want to get into a dependency rant, but when the expectation is that the net will be there, and it typically is, then the disincentive to be more careful may be going away.

I think an interesting case study is the new CEO of Yahoo! as I understand it, she plans to work through her pregnancy, which is great, but I think even she would state that she's got a remendous amount of support beneath her, and she appears to be the exception, not the rule. I'm not suggesting moms stay at home, I'm married to a working (preggo mom). It just gets very dicey and challenging to put businesses into the position of making decisions based on rigid PC laws, no matter how heartening they are.

What happens if Yahoo! tanks and she's got a four month old. I'm not saying we should be worried about her finances, but is teh Yahoo! board now in the position of firing a poorly performing CEO who just gave birth? I don't think either would happen, largely b/c she probably has a good supporting team beneath her.

How many women do you personally know who would seek out government as a first step if their money situation got dire? Like, really, who among your friends would be signing up? Maybe you have a lot of female friends who you think would rather be on the dole? Among my friends? None. For none of them would "government assistance" be the first thing they'd think of, and I think that's true for a majority of Americans. Plus, bennies are just not that good from what I've read. When my husband was fired the first year of our marriage (ten years ago) and after not finding a job of any kind for three months, he did inquire to see what unemployment would be. Since he'd been part time (we were students) a grand total of 132.00 a month. That's just one example, but I don't think anyone makes decisions thinking about what the "welfare state" can provide. Because in this country, it's jack. Now Norway or France....

I don't think either of us is referring to college educated, middle class women here. And to go one step further, many of these women I'm thinkining about are aready ON some form of assistance. Point being, if YOU are on assistance, you probaby ought to not add to that, that's basically my point here.

As you suggest, you don't know anyone, nor do I, we're talking about those much less fortunate. Giving them a leg up is important, an important component of that is they do their part and avoid adding to the system if they can prevent it.

I don't think I get your point. Poster prior to me made it sound like the existence of safety net social programs could be bad as they might not provide a disincentive. I think that public assistance is generally a good thing, that parts of it should be overhauled and expanded. I've used the middle class safety net - mortgage deduction, federal student loans - but have never needed food stamps, section 8, welfare, etc.

Oh gosh, I so want to avoid this, but I have to point out your recognition of how our progressive tax code benefits the middle class and not just the rich.

[Anonymous]

http://www.marysshelterva.org/

[Anonymous]

In merry old England, for example, they didn't have birth control. They didn't have welfare. They didn't have sex ed (hell they didn't have schools) What they did have were a lot of poor people starving in the streets. A lot of abandoned babies. Street urchins. "Bastards". Starving families with too many mouths to feed. Women dying because of too many babies. I know, I know, "Cry me a river", right???

But if you are serious about saving fetuses:
innundate the population with free, accessible, no shame birth control. Innundate kids with abstinence messages AND real biology facts. And as a last resort, provide enough of a social safety net so that if a poor woman chooses life, she and her child won't starve on the streets.

I think Halliburton got rich off my tax dollars, not Welfare Queens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In merry old England, for example, they didn't have birth control. They didn't have welfare. They didn't have sex ed (hell they didn't have schools) What they did have were a lot of poor people starving in the streets. A lot of abandoned babies. Street urchins. "Bastards". Starving families with too many mouths to feed. Women dying because of too many babies. I know, I know, "Cry me a river", right???

Social Darwinism.

[Anonymous]

What is with all this birth control and sex ed talk? Many of you very lovely and high educated posters have had abortions up the wazoo.

1) I am sure you knew how babies were made
2) I am sure you had sex ed
3) I am sure you could afford a box of Trojans

So stop getting off topic and acting like poor people are the only ones having abortions like it's drinking a cup of water.

Why aren't you focusing on your own skeletons? What would make you stop having abortions? Nothing, because your heart is cold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is with all this birth control and sex ed talk? Many of you very lovely and high educated posters have had abortions up the wazoo.

1) I am sure you knew how babies were made
2) I am sure you had sex ed
3) I am sure you could afford a box of Trojans

So stop getting off topic and acting like poor people are the only ones having abortions like it's drinking a cup of water.

Why aren't you focusing on your own skeletons? What would make you stop having abortions? Nothing, because your heart is cold.

Why are you so sure? Your navel gazing is gross. I'm the PP who has never had a abortion.

You display a willfully shallow understanding of this issue. Abortion happens; always has, always will. Rather than address OP's question, you're making judgements about who has abortions and why and whether that's okay with you. You are not God.

[Anonymous]

Timely:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/technology/yahoo-ceo-mayer-baby/?source=cnn_bin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is with all this birth control and sex ed talk? Many of you very lovely and high educated posters have had abortions up the wazoo.

1) I am sure you knew how babies were made
2) I am sure you had sex ed
3) I am sure you could afford a box of Trojans

So stop getting off topic and acting like poor people are the only ones having abortions like it's drinking a cup of water.

Why aren't you focusing on your own skeletons? What would make you stop having abortions? Nothing, because your heart is cold.

Why are you so sure? Your navel gazing is gross. I'm the PP who has never had a abortion.

You display a willfully shallow understanding of this issue. Abortion happens; always has, always will. Rather than address OP's question, you're making judgements about who has abortions and why and whether that's okay with you. You are not God.

Why am I so sure? Because of the threads on here with people talking about their 3rd and 4th abortions.

Yes, I am making judgements- so what? You are too. That's what people who THINK do. They evaluate, and then come to a conclusion (judgement). Hey guess what, if you steal my car, I am going to JUDGE you as a low life criminal.

I find it sad that people are so cold and callous that they are offended when someone says it's wrong to murder infants. Why is that offensive to you? It's ridiculous that you would be upset by that, and not upset by people ripping up babies and throwing them in the trash.

Yes there will always be abortion and nothing is going to change that because people are foul. You can talk about birth control, welfare, sex ed all you want. It means nothing. It's foolishness. Until you change peoples hearts- until abortion is seen for what it is- then people aren't going to stop. Why would they? They know they can rip the baby up by it's limbs, get some pain meds, and then get lots of hugs and "it's okay, it was for the best".

So laws or no laws, this conversation is foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A heart issue? What is this the Hallmark Channel?

Abortion has been around since women have been getting pregnant - forever!

You will never get rid of it, only push it into the black market.

I am personally pro-life and politically pro-choice, if that makes sense. My pro-life friends, and I have quite a few, are fighting to erode abortion laws.

They do so on a state-by-state basis -- the ultrasound law, the waiting period. They want to chip away slowly at what has become an entitlement in their minds.

One pro-life friend told me she would be very happy to see abortion limited to rape, incest and mother's life issues, even though she is staunchly pro-life in all those situations. She would consider that a start.

Most pro-lifers view abortion as sort of a litmus test for how depraved our society is. They truly believe it is akin to the Holocaust.

There will never be a meeting of the minds or the "hearts" on this matter, just compromise.

Oh, as for birth control -- forget it. While that makes total sense to secular pro-choicers as a way to end abortion, most staunch pro-lifers just see that as shifting the problem.

Shifting the problem to what, pray tell? Do these lovely friends of yours think that everyone should be forced to wear a chastity belt, too?

I don't understand this either.

I was not the first PP, but I suspect the reference was to the fact that the most ardently prolife are also opposed to birth control.

[Anonymous]

The way around RvW is not to bring an "anti-abortion" law to the Supremes to decide. Abortion is legal, and limited restrictions on it are legal.

The way to get the Supremese to decide it without reference to RvW is to bring a "personhood" law to the Supremes to decide. They can decide such a law without any reference to abortion. Then, if a fetus, or fertilized egg, is a person, all abortion would become de facto illegal as murder, and states would be free to enact personhood laws, as would Congress, which would effectively eliminate all legal abortion.

[Anonymous]

Personhood is littered with all sorts of legal problems. A few among them...

"The process of interpreting and implementing the amendment is likely to be complicated and fraught with legal challenges, considering the word "person" appears more than 9,000 times in the Mississippi constitution.

...The initiative could be interpreted to ban emergency contraception as well as the regular birth control pill, which can both affect a fertilized egg's ability to attach to the uterus. It could also complicate the legality of in vitro fertilization, which can result in a number of unused embryos, and stem cell research.

The "personhood" amendment raises other, murkier questions: If every fetus is considered a person, does this affect voter districting? Would a woman who is three weeks pregnant be able to claim her fetus as a dependent on federal tax forms, or in claims for government assistance? If a woman who doesn't know she's pregnant engages in some negligent activity that leads to a miscarriage, could someone prosecute her on behalf of the embryo?

"This law can go to the silliest and most radical extreme if you take it literally," said Michele Alexandre, a civil rights law professor at the University of Mississippi. "If this passes, all heads will turn to the legislature to figure out how to implement it, but the law gives no guidance as to how to do that. It can reach into so many spheres -- the combinations are endless."

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/mississippi-personhood-la_n_1079710.html

[Anonymous]

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members."

Those of the more liberal persuasion love to trot that one out, but ignore that it also refers to the Unborn. They do, however, feel that the more they repeat "it's just a clump of cells," it will continue to be true in someone's eyes. But they're just trying to make themselves feel better because they know abortion is a heinous thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way around RvW is not to bring an "anti-abortion" law to the Supremes to decide. Abortion is legal, and limited restrictions on it are legal.

The way to get the Supremese to decide it without reference to RvW is to bring a "personhood" law to the Supremes to decide. They can decide such a law without any reference to abortion. Then, if a fetus, or fertilized egg, is a person, all abortion would become de facto illegal as murder, and states would be free to enact personhood laws, as would Congress, which would effectively eliminate all legal abortion.

You are dreaming if you think that avoids Roe v. Wade. Roe already decided that personhood under the constitution does not apply to any baby/fetus/whatevertermyouwant prior to birth. So in order to obtain constitutional protection, it is necessary to amend the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is with all this birth control and sex ed talk? Many of you very lovely and high educated posters have had abortions up the wazoo.

1) I am sure you knew how babies were made
2) I am sure you had sex ed
3) I am sure you could afford a box of Trojans

So stop getting off topic and acting like poor people are the only ones having abortions like it's drinking a cup of water.

Why aren't you focusing on your own skeletons? What would make you stop having abortions? Nothing, because your heart is cold.

Why are you so sure? Your navel gazing is gross. I'm the PP who has never had a abortion.

You display a willfully shallow understanding of this issue. Abortion happens; always has, always will. Rather than address OP's question, you're making judgements about who has abortions and why and whether that's okay with you. You are not God.

Why am I so sure? Because of the threads on here with people talking about their 3rd and 4th abortions.

Yes, I am making judgements- so what? You are too. That's what people who THINK do. They evaluate, and then come to a conclusion (judgement). Hey guess what, if you steal my car, I am going to JUDGE you as a low life criminal.

I find it sad that people are so cold and callous that they are offended when someone says it's wrong to murder infants. Why is that offensive to you? It's ridiculous that you would be upset by that, and not upset by people ripping up babies and throwing them in the trash.

Yes there will always be abortion and nothing is going to change that because people are foul. You can talk about birth control, welfare, sex ed all you want. It means nothing. It's foolishness. Until you change peoples hearts- until abortion is seen for what it is- then people aren't going to stop. Why would they? They know they can rip the baby up by it's limbs, get some pain meds, and then get lots of hugs and "it's okay, it was for the best".

So laws or no laws, this conversation is foolish.

This is your belief. For as outraged as you are in that direction, I'm equally pissed in the other and cannot fathom how anti-choicers refuse to realize that their beliefs reduce women to incubators. I find that offensive beyond all measure, and foolish, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is with all this birth control and sex ed talk? Many of you very lovely and high educated posters have had abortions up the wazoo.

1) I am sure you knew how babies were made
2) I am sure you had sex ed
3) I am sure you could afford a box of Trojans

So stop getting off topic and acting like poor people are the only ones having abortions like it's drinking a cup of water.

Why aren't you focusing on your own skeletons? What would make you stop having abortions? Nothing, because your heart is cold.

Why are you so sure? Your navel gazing is gross. I'm the PP who has never had a abortion.

You display a willfully shallow understanding of this issue. Abortion happens; always has, always will. Rather than address OP's question, you're making judgements about who has abortions and why and whether that's okay with you. You are not God.

Why am I so sure? Because of the threads on here with people talking about their 3rd and 4th abortions.

Yes, I am making judgements- so what? You are too. That's what people who THINK do. They evaluate, and then come to a conclusion (judgement). Hey guess what, if you steal my car, I am going to JUDGE you as a low life criminal.

I find it sad that people are so cold and callous that they are offended when someone says it's wrong to murder infants. Why is that offensive to you? It's ridiculous that you would be upset by that, and not upset by people ripping up babies and throwing them in the trash.

Yes there will always be abortion and nothing is going to change that because people are foul. You can talk about birth control, welfare, sex ed all you want. It means nothing. It's foolishness. Until you change peoples hearts- until abortion is seen for what it is- then people aren't going to stop. Why would they? They know they can rip the baby up by it's limbs, get some pain meds, and then get lots of hugs and "it's okay, it was for the best".

So laws or no laws, this conversation is foolish.

This is your belief. For as outraged as you are in that direction, I'm equally pissed in the other and cannot fathom how anti-choicers refuse to realize that their beliefs reduce women to incubators. I find that offensive beyond all measure, and foolish, too.

And I cannot fathom how pro-abortionists reduce children to trash that should be ripped apart by its limbs, and discarded. Then on top of it, there's no conscience whatsoever. That is offensive and utterly ridiculous. If you feel that women are incubators, shame on you for degrading women in that fashion. Life is a gift- as is being able to carry life. It's an honor, not a curse. If you don't feel that way, then remove your reproductive parts- or abstain from sexual activity. Don't try to justify your sick and twisted sadism and paint it as empowerment for women.