HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Confused
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:10 PM

Confused

Maybe someone can help me understand. I'm perplexed over how much rancor my comments have caused over my pro-birth position. President Clinton said abortion should be legal, safe and rare. President Obama said we need to work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. As far as I know, their Progressive credentials are not questioned.

I come on this board and say that I value the life of the fetus and the woman. I am not coercive, but volitional pro-birth. I respect the complexity of the issue, and I understand good people differ. But, what I don't understand is the criticism I have attracted for simply holding a position that differs from the majority. I am devoutly pro-life. I believe in universal health care, ecological stewardship, etc. I am opposed to capital punishment. It would be harder to be more Progressive than I. As part of my pro-life belief is being volitionally pro-birth. I fail to understand how wanting mothers to choose life is radical. Obviously, society needs to help mothers in this choice by making available services to pregnant women. In any case, please help me understand why my position draws so much hostility. Thank you.

135 replies, 8181 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 135 replies Author Time Post
Reply Confused (Original post)
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 OP
sadbear Oct 2012 #1
kalli007 Oct 2012 #2
1gobluedem Oct 2012 #5
ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #16
GitRDun Oct 2012 #54
Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #57
renie408 Oct 2012 #118
Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #126
Chorophyll Oct 2012 #91
renie408 Oct 2012 #117
REP Oct 2012 #123
get the red out Oct 2012 #3
mcranor Oct 2012 #4
immoderate Oct 2012 #6
chille1 Oct 2012 #7
bluerum Oct 2012 #8
i was a cathar. Oct 2012 #125
riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #127
bluerum Oct 2012 #128
ornotna Oct 2012 #9
justiceischeap Oct 2012 #10
Dyedinthewoolliberal Oct 2012 #11
Viking12 Oct 2012 #12
TwilightGardener Oct 2012 #13
Liberalynn Oct 2012 #46
nc4bo Oct 2012 #130
OldHippieChick Oct 2012 #14
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #21
riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #29
uppityperson Oct 2012 #43
sinkingfeeling Oct 2012 #15
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #23
Fla Dem Oct 2012 #67
skinnertest Oct 2012 #69
Mariana Oct 2012 #28
Iris Oct 2012 #73
uppityperson Oct 2012 #17
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #30
uppityperson Oct 2012 #36
riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #40
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #49
marions ghost Oct 2012 #52
uppityperson Oct 2012 #53
Horse with no Name Oct 2012 #18
hamsterjill Oct 2012 #27
Javaman Oct 2012 #70
Mariana Oct 2012 #19
ceile Oct 2012 #20
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #32
Viking12 Oct 2012 #37
riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #39
Mariana Oct 2012 #80
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #86
Herlong Oct 2012 #97
Iris Oct 2012 #75
REP Oct 2012 #78
Spazito Oct 2012 #87
REP Oct 2012 #124
Onlooker Oct 2012 #22
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #33
WiffenPoof Oct 2012 #24
BarackTheVote Oct 2012 #25
freshwest Oct 2012 #101
uppityperson Oct 2012 #104
BarackTheVote Oct 2012 #111
Spazito Oct 2012 #26
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #35
Spazito Oct 2012 #48
KatyMan Oct 2012 #31
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #38
uppityperson Oct 2012 #105
Iris Oct 2012 #74
Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #34
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #42
Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #55
Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #115
gollygee Oct 2012 #41
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #44
uppityperson Oct 2012 #45
WhollyHeretic Oct 2012 #47
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #56
riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #58
Horse with no Name Oct 2012 #59
KatyMan Oct 2012 #62
riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #63
Horse with no Name Oct 2012 #64
Iris Oct 2012 #76
uppityperson Oct 2012 #106
Viking12 Oct 2012 #66
marions ghost Oct 2012 #50
treestar Oct 2012 #51
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #65
billh58 Oct 2012 #107
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #109
billh58 Oct 2012 #120
Indpndnt Oct 2012 #60
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #68
HangOnKids Oct 2012 #72
GitRDun Oct 2012 #61
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #71
jeff47 Oct 2012 #79
GitRDun Oct 2012 #81
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #82
GitRDun Oct 2012 #83
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #96
Herlong Oct 2012 #92
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #99
Herlong Oct 2012 #103
BigDemVoter Oct 2012 #77
morningfog Oct 2012 #84
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #85
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #88
Iris Oct 2012 #90
Herlong Oct 2012 #93
Herlong Oct 2012 #100
Arugula Latte Oct 2012 #132
freshwest Oct 2012 #89
Herlong Oct 2012 #94
seabeyond Oct 2012 #95
WinkyDink Oct 2012 #98
freshwest Oct 2012 #102
Indpndnt Oct 2012 #108
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #110
Indpndnt Oct 2012 #112
Wildcat1955 Oct 2012 #114
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #122
freshwest Oct 2012 #113
renie408 Oct 2012 #116
Starry Messenger Oct 2012 #119
Generic Other Oct 2012 #121
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2012 #129
Arugula Latte Oct 2012 #131
Ellipsis Oct 2012 #133
liberal_at_heart Oct 2012 #134
Logical Oct 2012 #135

Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:16 PM

1. How many unwanted children have you adopted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:16 PM

2. Wanting mothers to CHOOSE life is not radical.

Forcing women to give birth is. Huge difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kalli007 (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:18 PM

5. Exactly

Every woman should be given the right to make her own choice. Be strong in your beliefs, practice your beliefs, but don't force others to comply/conform to your standards. It's none of your business. It's private.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1gobluedem (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:39 PM

16. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kalli007 (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:51 PM

54. kalli007 is correct

Nothing wrong with being pro-life personally. I suspect most are.

However, if it was your position on this site that you, the government or anyone else can subject a woman to living by your rules/dogma with regard to life, then all hostility is warranted. The place for that kind of rhetoric is on a religious, or, sadly, some Republican sites.

From my perspective, in a free society, we should not allow the government to impose "moral" or even religious views on others when it serves no broad public interest. That is the essence of separation of church and state.

We are all allowed our views on when life begins, but to say one group's views are so superior to all others is the height of hubris.

Consider these thoughts from a former Weather Underground bomber, "If you think you have the moral high ground, that's a very dangerous position, and you can do some really dreadful things....the Oklahoma City bombing, I am sure that guy felt that he was on the side of right and there was maybe a handful of people who agreed with him so that is a dangerous ethical position we (Weather Underground) fell into that was caused I think by the Vietnam War, the Vietnam War made us a little crazy, that's the only way I can explain it."

Where we don't get along as well as we should in this country you will ALWAYS find arrogance, indifference to the views of others and a sectarian pursuit of one sided goals, e.g., the zero sum game. You can take that to the bank.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kalli007 (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:02 PM

57. Except that "prohibition with exceptions" precludes choice. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #57)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:35 AM

118. Ok. What has that got to do with this conversation?

Did the OP write that somewhere else or something? Cause they sure didn't say it in their opening post to this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #118)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:31 PM

126. Yes. In the thread that instigated this one. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kalli007 (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:24 PM

91. THIS right here.

End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kalli007 (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:33 AM

117. What she said x's 100.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kalli007 (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:02 PM

123. A woman is not a mother until she has given birth (or adopted)

Some women don't want to be mothers, ever, under any circumstances. Several of them post here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:17 PM

3. My answer

We have been subjected to RW lunatics trying to end all choices for women, including birth control, under the guise of "pro-life" for a long time. It is extremely difficult for me, personally, to fully trust someone saying they are "pro-life" because I am quite used to their agenda being to use the courts and intimidation to end all reproductive rights in this country. I admit in some cases that is a knee-jerk reaction on my part. But I hold reproductive rights very dear and voice my opposition to any attempt to make abortion illegal or unobtainable, and I become even more rageful at the attempts to end access to birth control and low cost health care such as Planned Parenthood provides.

Progressives have been under attack from the right for too long simply for believing in people's rights. It is difficult to separate out people that have certain beliefs and miraculously don't want to force them on others from the huge majority who do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:18 PM

4. Do you believe...

...a woman has the right to control her own body, i.e., to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

If not, that is probably the source of the hostility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:19 PM

6. You want to impose your beliefs and their consequences on others.

That's not good.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:20 PM

7. Because some not all believe you should believe what they believe !!!!!!

I wouldn't take it personal remember Your right to have your opinion ,and criticism comes with living in America ,So keep speaking and sharing your opinion and that is how conversations positive or negative turn into Change !!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:21 PM

8. It is a volatile issue. Don't expect people to embrace a position that makes no sense.

If you are going to ask women to carry every pregnancy to full term because you think it's the right thing to do, you will need to give them a lot more incentive than prenatal health care. How about health care for the child into adulthood? Education. Jobs. Economic equality. Civil rights.

Beyond that, what other people do with their bodies is frankly, none of your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluerum (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:11 PM

125. So all women who get knocked up have not the means to support a child?

 

Puleeze. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, snowflake.

It may not be my business what you do with your body but I have the right to declare my opinion. I am not for abortion being illegal; I am for people to stop acting like it's no biggie, a "choice" like whether to get a latte or a no-foam capp, and to act like the sperminators have no part in the decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i was a cathar. (Reply #125)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:37 PM

127. As a rape crisis advocate and women's shelter volunteer, I can say for some it IS "no biggie"

Welcome to DU by the way.

Every woman has their own reaction and that's perfectly okay. There are those who are very pragmatic about their experience and very matter of fact. I would never dare presume to judge or expect them to react in any other way than what's best for them. Your ASSumption that its wrong in some way for people to act like it's "no biggie" is problematic imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i was a cathar. (Reply #125)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 01:02 AM

128. Ooookay. Have a good one. Snowflake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:22 PM

9. So what you're saying is that you are pro choice. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:23 PM

10. Just want to add - you're anti-choice. Saying you're pro-life

implies that people who are pro-choice are anti-life and that's just not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:23 PM

11. If you do not want to get an abortion

then don't get one. But that decision belongs to you only and shouldn't be forced on another who may believe differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:23 PM

12. Yes, you appear to be quite confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:25 PM

13. Don't care what you believe, or what you practice. Just don't

try to force your beliefs on everybody else. As a woman, I don't think I'd ever have had an abortion. However, I also don't vote for people who want to take that right away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:34 PM

46. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:38 PM

130. +1000. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:29 PM

14. Well I'm confused too

I don't understand what you mean by "volitional" in the same paragraph as "devoutly" pro-life. I don't want women to have to choose abortion either, but I don't want to take that choice away from them. Be advised that many pro-lifers support a "personhood" amendment that would outlaw all abortions and many forms of birth control. The Ryan/Akins wording would also impose 14th Amendment rights on an unborn fetus at conception. This would criminalize abortion and make it murder as well as taking away additional choices for women. If I were counselling women in their decision, I would help them explore options, in the hope that adoption would be possible, but many circumstances just make that impossible. If all you mean is that you would try to help women find ways to have children in a responsible way and would provide help after the birth, then I would understand, but you are not really clarifying your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldHippieChick (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:49 PM

21. Volitional pro-birth

Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe that the social structure should be formed in such a way that woman would freely choose to bring the child to term. I know this will never be entirely possible, but I'm suggesting that life is a wonderful thing and everything possible should be done to make for birth. Somehow there seems to be a disconnect between being pro-birth and pro-life. The Right insists on births, but not a favorable life. The left insists on a favorable life , but not births. I want to see the disconnect eliminated as much as possible and promote life from conception to death. Yet, do this in a non-coercive manner that respects individual freedom. I think the disconnect is a sub-optimal choice. Life deserves a bias over death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:02 PM

29. The left does not have a bias for "death", nor are they less favorable towards "birth"

THAT'S the disconnect.

Combined with your insulting women's abilities to make the decision for themselves (telling us that women need a "spiritual counseling session" before they have an abortion) sets people's teeth on edge.

As long as you realize that abortion is a private medical decision between a patient and her doctor, and respect that privacy, you should be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:29 PM

43. "do this in a non-coercive manner that respects individual freedom" What laws re abortion do you

support, agree with, wish were in place, vote for or support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:38 PM

15. I have a question for you. I don't know if you are male or female, but tell me what you

would do, if your birth control failed at the same time you were taking a cancer drug for your medical condition. This drug has all kinds of warnings about birth defects, both physical and mental. You are also the mother of a healthy 3 year old. Do you abort as all your doctors believe you should or do you deliver (30% change of carrying to term) a severely handicapped child that will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Oh, you have no insurance and must work full time to support your other child.

That was my situation and I truly believe that I made the moral decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:52 PM

23. I understand

I could never criticize a decision in the context of this scenario. I don't honestly know what I would do, but I think the person must be at liberty to make whatever choice they feel is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

67. And this is what pro-choice is all about. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:29 PM

69. So you're pro-choice. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:01 PM

28. It sounds like you may have "looked at it in purely medical terms"

when you made your choice. According to the poster, if you did so, you have "trivialized what's involved" in your decision, and "may have profound regrets later."

Aren't you pleased to know that the poster is so concerned for your well-being?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:55 PM

73. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:39 PM

17. Perhaps you missed my reply asking you to define some terms to make it easier to discuss this.

Terms that may seem apparent to each of us but in reality may be very different for each of us.

What is "pro-birth"?
What is "life"?

Thank you for answering.

Oh, 1 more question. How do you "reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies" by making abortions illegal? I fail to understand how making this procedure illegal will change how people feel about being pregnant. Please educate me. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:05 PM

30. Pro-birth

To me to be pro-Birth is to have a bias in favor of the gift of life. Other things will weigh in and must be factored, but the process begins with a preference to bring the child to term.

Life is something organic that experiences growth and development over time.

One can in theory reduce abortions by providing economic, spiritual and physical help to the mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:19 PM

36. Is the opposite a bias in favor of...death? That is insulting most everyone but a few sociopaths

You seem to be calling every woman who has had an abortion "pro-death". Is this right?

Do you favor making abortions illegal? What restrictions would you like?

You didn't answer this question. How do you "reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies" by making abortions illegal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:23 PM

40. She just did say that in Post #21. ALL Dems are biased towards "death"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:45 PM

49. Absolutely not!

I personally have a bias toward being pro-birth. My thinking is that an overwhelming majority would have this bias too. The issue is complex, and I am not so presumptuous that I think I can possibly know what determinations a woman must make in choosing an abortion.

I'm not wanting to make abortions legally coercive. I'm wanting to make sure women think they have real options available to them that can enable them to choose life. I detest abortions for gender selection, but as a practical matter how could that exclusion be enforced.

I don't know how one reduces the number of abortions by making them illegal. That's not my agenda. I want to reduce them through offering women support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #49)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:50 PM

52. There are lots of organizations that offer women support

that is not legally coercive--join one, or start one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #49)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:51 PM

53. To clarify, sorry, you don't want to make abortions legally unavailable? Be coerced into not being

able to get one? I am unclear of what you mean and would like to understand rather than assume. Thanks

I don't understand "I'm not wanting to make abortions legally coercive" as no one is saying women should be coerced into having an abortion.

Offering women support is a good thing. I wish there was more backing for affordable child care along with the child care providers being paid an affordable wage. Something I think gvt should be involved in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:41 PM

18. Don't like abortions?

Don't have one. That is YOUR choice.

But honestly, if the uterus you speak of is not in YOUR body, then it is none of YOUR business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:01 PM

27. That sums it up for me!

Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:34 PM

70. +1000. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:44 PM

19. You were condescending toward women.

You implied that women are just too stupid to make this decision for themselves, that we silly women just aren't capable of thinking the thing though thoroughly. These are your words:

It seems to me prudent that the women seeks counsel from her spiritual adviser and her family. I fear that if the mother looks at this purely in medical terms, she trivializes what's involved and may have profound regrets later.

Edited for spelling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:46 PM

20. This.

Incredibly insulting. The poster is indeed "confused".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:12 PM

32. No

That completely misrepresents what I believe. The choice is the woman's. It's prudent for us all in life altering decisions to seek the counsel and wisdom of others. I think most intelligent people approach decision making that way. I do think if the woman looks at this in only a medical context (which a previous poster on the other thread suggested), I think she is limiting other important considerations from my perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:19 PM

37. Your own words misrepresent what you believe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:21 PM

39. That's a direct copy of your other post! And you've just re-stated the exact same thing here!

From this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021602143

From Post #6 It seems to me prudent that the women seeks counsel from her spiritual adviser and her family. I fear that if the mother looks at this purely in medical terms, she trivializes what's involved and may have profound regrets later.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:56 PM

80. So now women aren't intelligent

unless the steps they take in making a decision are the exact ones you think they should take?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:37 PM

86. Don't you have enough on your own plate? Seriously.

I mean, life is a complex business. Simply managing the one body attached to a single human head is, to me, enough of a full-time job.

Really, do you honestly believe that all these other people are so grievously 'doing it wrong' that they need helpful unsolicited advice like you are trying to, apparently, offer them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #86)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:11 PM

97. damn, what Warren said

 

+!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:02 PM

75. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:08 PM

78. Condescending ... and wrong

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31

Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.


RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)

This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.




Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...

The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed

PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...


Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.

Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.

Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...


Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?

Koop CE.

What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.

PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.

Romans-Clarkson SE.

Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.

This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.

PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.

Handy JA.

The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #78)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:40 PM

87. Excellent post...

Thanks for posting this, it provides very important data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #87)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:05 PM

124. I haven't updated it for a while; there's probably even more data negating his "concerns"

But I did include decades of peer-reviewed studies - including Koop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:52 PM

22. Your view deserves respect

I believe there are many pro-life people who feel about the fetus what many of us feel about death row, namely that if there's a chance that an innocent life is being taken, we should err on the side of caution. But, as a liberal, I don't think the way to end abortion is to ban it, but it's to create better services for pregnant women and new mothers, make adoption easier (for example, by allowing gays to adopt and making the process more affordable), educating young men and women to practice safe sex, and so on. Where I disagree with the pro-life movement is in its desire to take the easy way out by simply passing a law: That's unfair to women who want to keep their reproductive rights private and who may face enormous distress by bearing a child to term, and it does nothing to address the issue that some women have that they will not be able to raise their child because of poverty, mental illness, physical disability, troubled relationships, etc.

As a liberal, I respect the pro-life viewpoint, but disagree with the idea that the solution is to outlaw abortion. All that does is force women to take more desperate measures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Onlooker (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:14 PM

33. Onlooker

Excellent wisdom!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:57 PM

24. No Problem Here....but

I have no problem with your position at all. There are probably a number of people here that "secretly" believe as you do.

The only issue (and I might have missed it in you post)...is whether or not you would support making abortion illegal. As long as your position on abortion isn't forced on others, I have no problem with it.

-P

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:57 PM

25. "pro" and "anti" lables just dumb down the discourse

I personally believe abortions in general are immoral, but in some cases, they are the more moral choice, as in sinkingfeeling's example (post #15). The Church's current teachings on abortion are contrary to every other doctrine of self defense, which leaves me to admit that there's an element of sexism in it. Also, because different religions have different teachings on ensoulment (i.e., when the fetus receives a soul and therefore becomes human), it becomes an issue of separation of Church and State, which is a dangerous line to cross under any condition. That said, my goddaughter is the product of rape; she's 18 now, a spectacular young woman and I couldn't imagine my life without her and I'm grateful every day that she's in the world. So there's that.

But because, like I said, this is largely a religious issue, and ultimately, constitutionally, cannot be a matter of law or legislation. But as someone who wants this to happen as seldom as possible, I support welfare for single mothers and low-income families to lessen their burden, I believe that the stigma against single mothers--which is prevalent in many religions--needs to go away, and there needs to be easy access to birth control and sexual education. Statistics say that a lot of times, more often than not, an abortion is the result of a woman or family's financial situation... and I'm sure there's a fairly large minority of abortions caused by young Xtian girls terrified at their parents finding out they've been having premarital sex... so, change the culture, provide support, provide contraception, and by a sidelong ways, you've done a lot to limit this from happening.

My $00.2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BarackTheVote (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:20 PM

101. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BarackTheVote (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:29 PM

104. Did you know married women also have abortions? Not just single mothers?

Women who have had other children, or go on later to have a child, but are married?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #104)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:54 AM

111. I am aware of that, which is why I said:

I support welfare for single mothers and low-income families to lessen their burden, I believe that the stigma against single mothers--which is prevalent in many religions--needs to go away, and there needs to be easy access to birth control and sexual education. Statistics say that a lot of times, more often than not, an abortion is the result of a woman or family's financial situation..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:59 PM

26. "Pro-birth"?

One can be as "pro-birth" (whatever that's supposed to mean) as they want, birth as many times as they want, no one is stopping them ie the Duggars. Go for it.

One cannot, however, force others to do the same regardless of their wishes. Surely you are not suggesting you want to force others to adhere to your demands?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:17 PM

35. Not at all

A fair reading of my posts should make that obvious. I don't want to coerce one soul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:35 PM

48. In reading your posts, it does come across as wanting to "coerce"...

otherwise why posit the inference those who do not believe as you do are in need of "spiritual" help? It is not the "soul" we are talking about, it is the legal right of privacy woman have and those who choose, for themselves, what to do with their own body.

Bringing religion into this is, in itself, an attempt at coercion, imo. You have the right to believe what you want, you do not have the right to foist your beliefs upon others under the guise of "pro-birth" (again, whatever that is supposed to mean), imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:10 PM

31. Spiritual???

There are many people in this great nation who are not spiritual at all. I am one of them. So is my wife. Why would she ever need to seek "spiritual advice" on anything????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:20 PM

38. Spiritual advice

I'm not trying to promulgate a legislative process on how to decide to abort or take to term. I'm just saying what seems prudent to me. If not to you, that's fine. Again, I'm not coercive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #38)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:30 PM

105. So you are not advocating limiting abortions legally. Thank you for making that clear.

From elsewhere in this topic: "doesn't mean that I have to insist on government to coerce my position through law."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyMan (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:01 PM

74. Thank you. Maybe a man's opinion will actually count for something.

I pointed out I'm my own "spiritual adviser" in another thread to no avail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:15 PM

34. Your position implies that legal coercion of a person's body is just. That's the problem I see.

 

I cannot imagine anything more antithetical to the concept of individual liberty than the idea that the law has supremacy over a person's own body.

That you apparently can't see that is the problem. It implies that each of us is, first and foremost, the property of the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #34)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:24 PM

42. What?

Obviously, you haven't read my threads. I see everyone's point that the government should not use coercive means over a citizen's body. Where do I dispute that point? Again, I'm volitional, and not coercive pro-birth. If you're going to criticize my position, please be fair enough to represent it correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #42)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:56 PM

55. From just your first reply; "but as an issue ethical concerns are paramount"

 

"To say that abortions are morally neutral is to say we should be ethically indifferent to life or death as long as it's in the womb."

"I firmly believe that America wants a culture of life, and not death."

"Human nature and culture aren't autonomous for theists."

Your second reply in its entirety reinforces the collection of dog whistles in the first.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021602143


More; " It seems to me prudent that the women seeks counsel from her spiritual adviser and her family. I fear that if the mother looks at this purely in medical terms, she trivializes what's involved and may have profound regrets later."

"If you regress every human's life timeline, you would have an integrated grouping of cells on the wall of the uterus. That is human life in my judgment."

I could go on, and from only a few posts, but it is clear from that first thread where your belief lies. If you are in fact misunderstood, remedying it is simplicity itself, but here you are claiming to be confused while repeating the same argument for the necessity and justification of third party intervention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #42)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 05:54 AM

115. So no response to your own words? Do you really imagine that those of us

 

that have fought this issue for decades don't recognize the dog whistle when we hear it? Do you think that we have not previously encountered these "soft" anti-choice ops before?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:24 PM

41. I don't understand your position

If you just hope more women would choose not to abort, and maybe you'd like to make WIC and other services for parents provide more to help them raise their kids so they're less likely to choose abortion for financial reasons, I don't have a problem with that.

If you want to actually restrict the choice at all, then I do have a problem with that.

I think the choice should absolutely be available, but there are cases where greater social services for mothers would make more choose not to abort, and so long as it's their choice, that's awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #41)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:29 PM

44. Amen!

I can only repeat, the woman's choice or volition is the deciding factor. Coercion is unacceptable. I am sorry if I haven't articulated that point well, but that is my position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:30 PM

45. What laws do you support regarding abortions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:35 PM

47. You say you believe in "prohibition with exceptions" what does that mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhollyHeretic (Reply #47)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:57 PM

56. Reply to #47

In a perfect world we would have no abortions. If I could persuade every soul on earth then I would prohibit abortions for gender selection. I am obviously not persuasive, so that's not in play. Moreover. if I could, I would try to make birth control universally available and acceptable so that no one would have an abortion for birth control reasons. Those two, gender selection and birth control would be the prohibitions. I know that's not possible by persuasion, and I don't want to do anything by coercion. My wording was nit the best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #56)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:02 PM

58. China has universal health care, free birth control and sterilizations - a family planner's dream!

Even the tiniest towns have family planning centers. Yet even they report unwanted pregnancies (unrelated to gender selection or their laws about population control).

FWIW, your assertion that ANY woman has abortions as "birth control" is offensive. You can edit that. Gender selection abortions in the US are also extremely rare. But I'm presuming you know that. Again, you can edit that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #56)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:14 PM

59. I know A LOT of people

I know a LOT of people who have had abortions.

Not ONCE have I EVER known ANYONE that had an abortion for gender selection and none for birth control. That is right out of Randall Terry's playbook on framing the debate for abortions.

I think you are in the wrong place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:18 PM

62. What she said n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:20 PM

63. I was trying to be nice and give the poster some time to edit

Even made the suggestions on exactly what to cut myself.

Glad to see Randall Terry's framing is known and understood by others here.

The "confused" schtick, along with clumsy and veiled phrasing, is wearing very thin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #63)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:22 PM

64. You can always count on me to not be subtle,lol n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:07 PM

76. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:33 PM

106. I know women who had abortions for birth control. I mean, they all did, right? Abortion = no child?

If you mean as their ONLY birth control method, again, I knew one over the years. One of hundreds. Otherwise it really isn't that pleasant of a thing to do regularly.

I don't know anyone who has had an abortion and ever said "oh, that was fun, I want to do that again". It hurts. Then you can't have sex for a while while you heal. It costs money. And it hurts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #56)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:24 PM

66. Prohibit: to forbid by authority or law

So if you could persuade everyone, you would want laws to forbid abortions for "birth control" (whatever the hell that means) or gender selection? Sounds an awful lot like coercion to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:47 PM

50. What I would say has already been well said in this thread

but here's my remaining 2 cents.

TRY TO IMAGINE what it would feel like to have NO control over what happens to your own body--to cede those basic rights over to the courts or to the government. It is such irony that those who tout "small government" favor this most horrific invasion of the government into the personal lives of American citizens. We call the sterilization programs of the past barbaric --but the idea that government enters into ANY such deeply personal decision is barbaric--that is what we should have learned by now. You seem not to understand the slippery slope of letting the current "pro-life" crowd dominate the argument and eliminate Roe v Wade.

Abortion is not a good form of birth control, but it is the best, most humane, most enlightened compromise for a difficult situation. You are free to speak out all you want against it--but DO NOT COMPROMISE the right to safe and legal abortion, or to birth control & other legal pregnancy termination/health care--for others. In aligning with the current "pro-life" forces you are perceived to be one of them on this issue. Better come up with a different description, or something without "pro" in it--if you really are different and need to promote your views.

-----------------------------

&feature=related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:49 PM

51. I think progressives should be able to tolerate differences of opinion

Some people see this as a litmus test. But as your positions indicate, it is not always true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #51)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:23 PM

65. Thanks tree star

A lot of words have been put into my mouth. A lot of straw men have been constructed to be torn down on this thread. I'm not confused about my position. I'm confused over the response to it. If Clinton or Obama came on here, their positions would be trivialized and intentionally misconstrued by some. My position comports and is congruent with their's, yet some distort it and misapply it. Maybe you feel that abortion is morally indifferent and therefore you don't care if it's rare. You don't care if the numbers are reduced. I do care because in most cases I believe the option of life is far more morally preferable. If you disagree with me, I don't try and denigrate you. I don't try and score points off of you. I understand that good people think differently. I wish I were more persuasive than I am, but I don't want to coerce anyone to my position. But my position is a reflection of who I am, and it seems to me some tolerance is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #65)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:41 PM

107. Let's see...

Last edited Fri Nov 2, 2012, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

First you claim to be "confused" as to why your holier-than-thou sermon about being "pro-life" is firmly countered. Then you have the gall to compare yourself to President Clinton and President Obama and claim to have knowledge of how DU members would respond to them should they come on DU.

And lastly, you insult anyone who disagrees with you by claiming that they are attacking you and your position, and that your condescending and moralizing demeanor is totally innocent. Your comments about "tolerance" would fall squarely under the category of: "physician, heal thyself."

You are typical of all right-wing "pro-lifers" who believe that it is their mission in life to dictate the rights and personal beliefs of others, while acting offended if called on it.

Being "pro-life" is perfectly acceptable on DU. Being an overbearing, sermonizing, bore about it is not. The issue of abortion is a matter of personal choice for women, and the SCOTUS has ruled that to be the case. If you are against abortion, don't have one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #107)


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #109)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:17 AM

120. Whatever?

My kids used to use that phrase when they ran out of excuses. Yes, you are pompous and by far the most obnoxious of all other posters I've seen in this thread. And, please let me be the judge of what is, or isn't, a waste of my time.

As I said earlier, it is perfectly fine to be "pro-life" (whatever that means), and to express your views about it on DU. It is NOT okay to lecture, preach, and talk down to those who don't agree with you -- especially when you knew the likely response you would receive. I believe that you actually came to DU to pick a fight, and then act all innocent when you were called out. That is a strong indication of purposeful disruptive behavior.

BTW, your response sounds very much like it came from Free Republic. Are you sure that you're not lost and on the wrong board?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:16 PM

60. Gotten enough attention, yet? Or will you be starting a third thread to discuss yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #60)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

68. Turn the channel

Please don't feel obligated to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #68)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:43 PM

72. The Channel Will Be Turned Soon Dear

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:17 PM

61. This thread was a waste of our time

From what I have read, you favor life, but are only against abortion in the case of sex selection and as a means of birth control and "wish" all would feel this way.

That puts you in the same category as most other people. There is no need really for much discussion.

If you want to know something that gets people hopped up, it is your quote below,

"The Right insists on births, but not a favorable life. The left insists on a favorable life , but not births."

Let me translate this for you as your words come across as creating a false equivalency at a minimum and are truly insulting if you really think about it.

The Right wants to coerce woman into giving birth, regardless of the individual's wishes, e.g., nationalize womens' bodies during their child bearing years.

but wants to do nothing to support that coerced mother or child once birth is given.


The Left insists on assisting impoverished families, and does not believe the government has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

It should be obvious why people are aggravated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #61)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:37 PM

71. I'm sorry

I'm sorry, but there does seem to me a disconnect on the issue of birth and subsequent life. I think the disconnect lacks conceptual appeal. I may not have stated it the best way, but I was trying to suggest there is another way to look at this issue. Birth and life are part of a pro-life philosophy. In practical terms, a culture of life will emphasize and promote both. My readings here suggests that to affirm and promote a pro-birth view is somehow intellectually deficient. Fine, but I have a different opinion. I believe that life is a good thing, and as a society we should make sure we do all that we can do to assist mothers in making a choice for life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #71)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:16 PM

79. So how many children have you adopted?

There's plenty of unwanted children in foster care. How many have you adopted in order to promote birth?

Or is it up to everyone else to support these children once they're born?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #71)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:24 PM

81. This is where it goes off the rails

"...we should make sure we do all that we can do to assist mothers in making a choice for life."

It is not your place to "assist" mothers unless you are providing services they ask for. No pregnant woman I ever heard of wants an "assist in making a choice for life". That is a distinctly personal decision that has nothing to with the rest of us.

This notion of prosthelytizing your views to these women reeks of the extraordinary hubris that is the source of many of society's ills today. I want life too, and I wish all mothers would make the choice for life. But it is not my place, neither yours, to "assist" them no matter how misguided you feel their choice is...it is still a free country.

That again is what gets people aggravated. You present your arguments as those of "intellect", but their reality in effect is a sugar coated version of the now blatant right wing coercion model.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #81)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:05 PM

82. Assist

I was talking about things like prenatal care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #82)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:47 PM

83. You asked why people get aggravated with you. Well your last response is why...

When you say "...we should make sure we do all that we can do to assist mothers in making a choice for life." in NO WAY can any rational person infer that means pre-natal care.

Pre-natal care comes AFTER making the choice for life.

I don't think we need anymore discussion. You are entitled to your opinions, for sure.

There are rational reasons why you upset people. If you cannot see them, there is nothing more I can say to get you over the hump....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #82)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:11 PM

96. And you honestly think that anyone here is opposed to prenatal care?

Most people on DU are supporters of a Single Payer Health Care system, which would certainly do more for poor pregnant women than the system we have in place today.

I think you're flailing, frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #71)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:46 PM

92. Have you ever thought of having a pro humanity stance

 

And starting from there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #71)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:12 PM

99. I'd like to know the specific paramaters of this "Culture of life" you think we should have

and how it is specifically different from the country we have now.

Please, be specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #71)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:29 PM

103. You're message would never be confused on FreeRepublic

 

I believe coming here means at least
you have a soul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:07 PM

77. I have no problem with your views. . .

As long as you're not attempting to force them on the rest of us-- i.e. make abortion illegal and prosecute doctors and women. You are free to believe what you like. IT's just when those beliefs begin to interfere with the rest of us that I draw the line.

P.S. ALL abortions are a form of birth control, so opposing it on these grounds is a bogus argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:49 PM

84. Take this to Meta. Actually, just take it elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:57 PM

85. I suspect the "hostility" comes from that fact that some in this country want to outlaw abortion.

If you don't want to outlaw abortion, you are pro-choice.

If you DO want to outlaw abortion, i.e. what is considered the political "pro-life" (although I object to that terminology) position- then you should acknowledge that and realize that may be the source of the friction.

Many people are personally against abortion. Wanting to outlaw it or make that decision for others is another animal entirely.

Beyond that, I suspect some of the "rancor" you are sensing is from people wondering why you have taken it upon yourself to 'educate' or otherwise correct the behavior of women who apparently feel differently about this matter than you, presumably, do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #85)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:07 PM

88. Correction

I'm not trying to educate or correct anyone. The thread was started for the purpose of ascertaining why my position draws such hostility. The invitation brought several posts trying to correct
,educate and in some cases attack me. I suspect that some think since I attach intrinsic value and worth to the fetus, I must of necessity depreciate the welfare and freedom of the mother. Others understand that my position is built on a religious framework, and for some reason that seems anathema on here. I'm unapologetically pro-birth although I do understand that there are some reasons that abortion is more than understandable. Now, being pro-birth doesn't mean that I have to insist on government to coerce my position through law. Women should make the judgment based on their own conscience. I'm finished with the thread, and that's all I have to say. Thanks to those who offered constructive advice. For those who were petty and abrasive, I'm sorry you're Progressives. Frankly, your rudeness eliminates you from being effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #88)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:20 PM

90. Effective for or at what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #88)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:53 PM

93. Therefore you can see humanity

 

in shades of grey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #88)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:16 PM

100. Intrinsic value and worth to the fetus,

 

Are you a vegan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #88)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 11:06 PM

132. Okay, bye bye, see ya and go fuck yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:20 PM

89. Because that attitude is not progressive, no matter what the alleged pro-lifers claim:

Anyone holding up their right to intervene in the lives of people who they will never know, in situations they have no knowledge about whatsover, is not liberal. It's oppression.

The alleged pro-lifer is not the victim here, nor does it wash that such views support social safety nets. Because the people in that camp don't do any such thing, ever. as they don't believe in funding it. The willful ignorance of the diversity of situation that people find themselves in, is callous and judgemental.

Abortion is not the answer, RU487 which is the closest thing to a natural miscarriage, and birth control being freely available, is the answer. The same people who are now redefining rape, restricting or criminalizing abortion, are also restricting birth control. And here's a list of stories to read, and why it is not progressive, and never will be:

'We Have No Choice': One Woman's Ordeal with Texas' New Sonogram Law

Halfway through my pregnancy, I learned that my baby was ill. Profoundly so. My doctor gave us the news kindly, but still, my husband and I weren’t prepared. Just a few minutes earlier, we’d been smiling giddily at fellow expectant parents as we waited for the doctor to see us. In a sonography room smelling faintly of lemongrass, I’d just had gel rubbed on my stomach, just seen blots on the screen become tiny hands. For a brief, exultant moment, we’d seen our son—a brother for our 2-year-old girl...

Instead, before I’d even known I was pregnant, a molecular flaw had determined that our son’s brain, spine and legs wouldn’t develop correctly. If he were to make it to term—something our doctor couldn’t guarantee— he’d need a lifetime of medical care. From the moment he was born, my doctor told us, our son would suffer greatly...

http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know

But the alleged pro-lifers don't to hear those details. They wash their hands of the grief of a mother and father, in the most personal and hurtful experience of their lives. The alleged pro-lifer wants to get involved in the lives of people they have never met, for their own egotistical satisfaction. What is being done to a lot of people is so cruei and dehumanizing, that it borders on vicarious sadism.

If she'd been in Pennsylvania, the govenor has this advice for those women who didn't want to hear anymore about it:

'Just close your eyes if you don't want to see it.'

It's bad company to keep, leading to things like this, and PA just passed a law to deny TANF to children whose mothers can't prove their life wasn't the product of rape. In other words, they don't support life after birth. The alleged pro-lifers don't.

The pleas of the alleged pro-lifers ring hollow. Here's more, that the alleged pro-lifers have caused to happen, and how they are shredding all empathy in our laws. These same people do not support rape crisis centers, battered women shelters, taking care of those who have been hurt by violence. But they wave their alleged pro-life flag to batter other people's lives that they never met:

Questioning ‘forced' sonograms

The new law proposed by state Sen. Dan Patrick pretends that women have abortions casually and without thought.

As a psychotherapist for 30 years, I am convinced that this paternalistic premise is wrong. The bill is punitively aimed at the woman who is so miserable and fearful in her pregnancy that she considers abortion. To impose a layer of patriarchal officialdom by requiring that these women review sonograms adds to the torment and lingering trauma of one of life's most difficult ordeals. What about the sexual partner? Shouldn't he be made to watch this video? Becoming pregnant when there is no support or resources is not done solo. Passing a law that pretends that it is amounts to anti-woman discrimination.


http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/forced-sonograms-immigration-legislation/nRXYD/

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/21/its_not_just_forced_ultrasound_abortion_rights_under_assault/

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/826225/forced_ultrasounds%2C_%22informed_consent%2C%22_and_women%27s_health_in_texas%3A_the_sad_state_of_the_state/

http://truth-out.org/news/item/6745:statesanctioned-rape-forced-transvaginal-ultrasounds-in-virginia-texas-and-iowa

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/15/government-sanctioned-rape-in-state-virginia-and-texas

EOM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:02 PM

94. Just curious

 

Are you a vegan? Cause vegans are the biggest pro lifers on planet earth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:06 PM

95. "pro-birth position"? cute. you mean FORCED birth. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:12 PM

98. Yes, you ARE confused,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #98)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:29 PM

102. Or baiting us here for friends elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #102)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:45 PM

108. By starting multiple threads on the same topic.

Interesting, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #108)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:50 AM

110. Good grief

It amazes me the misinformation that is spewed out on here. Veracity should count for something. This is the initial thread for me on the subject. I have posted on some other threads, but this is the only one on the topic I started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #110)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:06 AM

112. Really? Interesting.

Since there is a thread started two days ago with over 300 posts in it on the very same subject that I now see you didn't bother to contribute to, I thought surely that must have been yours, too. It's virtually identical. Why wouldn't you post there? Why begin yet another thread on the exact same subject? And why do you suppose the author of that other identical thread hasn't bothered to post in this thread? Very curious. You and CthulusEvilCousin friends? If not, you should introduce yourselves. You have identical beliefs.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1598057

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #112)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 04:12 AM

114. Veracity

You should be more honest before you throw out misrepresentations. I have no idea who you're talking about, and I never saw his post. My original post was specifically related to the hostility to my posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Reply #114)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 11:40 AM

122. Then this thread does belong in meta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #108)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:08 AM

113. You never know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:32 AM

116. Because there are as many knee jerkers that are liberals as there are conservatives.

There is nothing about being pro-life that makes you anti-liberal. And you can be pro-life as well as pro-choice. You just hope the woman chooses life.

It is easy for people to be assholes on the internet and progressives are not immune from that phenomena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:47 AM

119. Bigotry tends to draw hostility.

If you'd posted to deny any other oppressed group medical care based on their inborn characteristics you'd probably be deep sixed by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:30 AM

121. You are too old to have a dog in this fight

Your uterus doesn't have to make this decision 1955. Your view matters as much as Akin's or Mourdick's.

It aint up to you to tell the women who CAN have children that they MUST.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:28 PM

129. Let me explain my position on this...

I don't believe it is right for the government which is supposed to be impartial and represent EVERYBODY to prohibit by law something that should be a personal decision. ESPECIALLY when they are doing it to impose morality based on someone's interpretation of their own religious doctrine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 11:05 PM

131. Are you advocating for outlawing abortion? If so, you can go fuck yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 11:13 PM

133. Confusion could be your epitaph...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 11:24 PM

134. "I fail to understand how wanting mothers to chose life is radical"

wanting usually leads to coersion. If pregnant women have ALL options open to them they will chose what is best for them. Having social programs available for low income pregnant women who want to have their babies will allow them to take care of their babies. Having adoption services available also allows pregnant women who want to give birth to do so. All you have to do is make sure those services are available and those that want those services will use them. Women who are not sure should be given unbiased information of ALL their choices so they can chose what is best for them. They should not be coersed by either pro-lifers or pro-choicers. Those who want abortion should have access to it and should not be coersed into giving birth when that is not what she believes is best for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wildcat1955 (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 11:26 PM

135. Do you think abortion should be legal? Yes/No?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread