Women who say they aren't voting on the single issue of abortion rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Even if those choices mean no child like yours will be born?

My friend would be 200% supportive of no children like hers being born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Even if those choices mean no child like yours will be born?

My friend would be 200% supportive of no children like hers being born.

What's funny is how you continue to second guess the experiences of women who are living this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Your last line is just such a cop out. We say these things but it’s not true. That’s like saying child abusers can’t exist unless they are men. Women to can make poor and yes unethical choices “for themselves and their offspring”.

So you’re in favor of female child abusers having children they don’t want?

I’m not saying women never make bad choices or harm other people; I’m just saying that they’re far better at judging their own capabilities than legislators are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Even if those choices mean no child like yours will be born?

All of these choices are private individual decisions. They have nothing to do with you.

So a parent smothers a child to death. Does that also have nothing to do with me? You favor termination for genetic abnormalities up through the ninth month. Why stop there?

At what age do you start to value the lives of children?

You are not going to force women to carry pregnancies against their will. It's just not possible for you to do something that you have no power to do.

The states where abortion is regulated can enforce this by going after the providers.

You're going to force some births, but certainly most women that do not want to continue with a pregnancy will terminate the pregnancy whether it's legal or not. It has always been that way and it always will be that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Your last line is just such a cop out. We say these things but it’s not true. That’s like saying child abusers can’t exist unless they are men. Women to can make poor and yes unethical choices “for themselves and their offspring”.

So you’re in favor of female child abusers having children they don’t want?

I’m not saying women never make bad choices or harm other people; I’m just saying that they’re far better at judging their own capabilities than legislators are.

What kind of crazy logical leap is that?! No! But I’m not going to put out platitudes like “I trust all women with offspring” which is patent nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Even if those choices mean no child like yours will be born?

All of these choices are private individual decisions. They have nothing to do with you.

So a parent smothers a child to death. Does that also have nothing to do with me? You favor termination for genetic abnormalities up through the ninth month. Why stop there?

At what age do you start to value the lives of children?

You are not going to force women to carry pregnancies against their will. It's just not possible for you to do something that you have no power to do.

The states where abortion is regulated can enforce this by going after the providers.

You're going to force some births, but certainly most women that do not want to continue with a pregnancy will terminate the pregnancy whether it's legal or not. It has always been that way and it always will be that way.

That’s not an argument for anything. If we used that for logic, we would have no laws against anything because there are always crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Even if those choices mean no child like yours will be born?

All of these choices are private individual decisions. They have nothing to do with you.

So a parent smothers a child to death. Does that also have nothing to do with me? You favor termination for genetic abnormalities up through the ninth month. Why stop there?

At what age do you start to value the lives of children?

You are not going to force women to carry pregnancies against their will. It's just not possible for you to do something that you have no power to do.

The states where abortion is regulated can enforce this by going after the providers.

You're going to force some births, but certainly most women that do not want to continue with a pregnancy will terminate the pregnancy whether it's legal or not. It has always been that way and it always will be that way.

That’s not an argument for anything. If we used that for logic, we would have no laws against anything because there are always crimes.

You can't legislate away a basic human right. You can try but you can't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow the forced birthers are really proud of how much they hate women, aren’t they? Just over and over telling them that they don’t matter, their life doesn’t matter, the lives of their existing children don’t matter, their plans don’t matter… It’s almost like forced birthers don’t think women are people at all.

No one has said any of those things, so stop demonizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Even if those choices mean no child like yours will be born?

All of these choices are private individual decisions. They have nothing to do with you.

So a parent smothers a child to death. Does that also have nothing to do with me? You favor termination for genetic abnormalities up through the ninth month. Why stop there?

At what age do you start to value the lives of children?

You are not going to force women to carry pregnancies against their will. It's just not possible for you to do something that you have no power to do.

You avoided the question. When do you start valuing the lives of children? Do you favor the right of mothers to smother babies after birth, for instance? When do you want the state to be able to step in?

I am, incidentally, not entirely anti-abortion. I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently. I also think that the absolute refusal of current pro-choice advocates to acknowledge that a fetus is a human life at stake, that children have value, that the state has an interest in protecting lives (both mother and child, not just mothers), and that the abortion procedure in the second and third trimesters is barbaric is harming the cause. We have moved from “safe, legal, and rare” to “celebrate your abortion on TikTok and on stage” and that is losing a lot of people who know that abortion ends a child’s life.

The reason this isn’t a single-issue voting issue for many women is that they do not want to be grouped with people who favor broad rights to abortion through the third trimester, and those are the loudest voices now. “Celebrate your abortion” was a catastrophically wrong campaign choice and something that many women want nothing to do with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Even if those choices mean no child like yours will be born?

My friend would be 200% supportive of no children like hers being born.

I’m grateful everyday for my special needs child, but even though my child will have some lifelong struggles, they have a normal IQ, can communicate, can toilet independently, dress themselves, etc. I know how hard it is to parent a child who has greater than average needs, how isolating it can be, even without profound disabilities. If you haven’t walked a mile into is PP’s friend’s shoes, you have no right to judge her and you definitely have no idea how you’d feel in the same position. Just be grateful every day for your healthy, neurotypical children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Your last line is just such a cop out. We say these things but it’s not true. That’s like saying child abusers can’t exist unless they are men. Women to can make poor and yes unethical choices “for themselves and their offspring”.

So you’re in favor of female child abusers having children they don’t want?

I’m not saying women never make bad choices or harm other people; I’m just saying that they’re far better at judging their own capabilities than legislators are.

What kind of crazy logical leap is that?! No! But I’m not going to put out platitudes like “I trust all women with offspring” which is patent nonsense.

That’s not a platitude. Who do you think is in the best position to judge whether an individual woman can handle pregnancy, childbirth, parenting, special needs? You think (mostly male) state legislators are the ones who should have the decision making authority over women’s bodies and family planning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Your last line is just such a cop out. We say these things but it’s not true. That’s like saying child abusers can’t exist unless they are men. Women to can make poor and yes unethical choices “for themselves and their offspring”.

So you’re in favor of female child abusers having children they don’t want?

I’m not saying women never make bad choices or harm other people; I’m just saying that they’re far better at judging their own capabilities than legislators are.

What kind of crazy logical leap is that?! No! But I’m not going to put out platitudes like “I trust all women with offspring” which is patent nonsense.

That’s not a platitude. Who do you think is in the best position to judge whether an individual woman can handle pregnancy, childbirth, parenting, special needs? You think (mostly male) state legislators are the ones who should have the decision making authority over women’s bodies and family planning?

Haha. These boys couldn't handle pregnancy, and childbirth. They are so clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow the forced birthers are really proud of how much they hate women, aren’t they? Just over and over telling them that they don’t matter, their life doesn’t matter, the lives of their existing children don’t matter, their plans don’t matter… It’s almost like forced birthers don’t think women are people at all.

No one has said any of those things, so stop demonizing.

No one has said "abortion up until birth" but that didn't stop you from inventing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow the forced birthers are really proud of how much they hate women, aren’t they? Just over and over telling them that they don’t matter, their life doesn’t matter, the lives of their existing children don’t matter, their plans don’t matter… It’s almost like forced birthers don’t think women are people at all.

No one has said any of those things, so stop demonizing.

No one has said "abortion up until birth" but that didn't stop you from inventing it.

Plenty of people in this thread have advocated for the right to terminate in the third trimester for genetic abnormalities. Are you opposed to that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Trump wins there will be tens of thousands more babies born every year. Another 50,000 children ten years from now.

So Trump is going to push for a national abortion ban like we all suspect. Thanks for putting it out there.