Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What if anti-abortion activists werent sexist?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:08 AM
Original message
Edited on Fri Apr-21-06 12:17 AM by lwfern
The Michigan GOP unanimously approved an anti-abortion position recently, which opposes abortion in cases where the woman was raped, as well as cases where her life would be in danger from pregnancy or childbirth.

The underlying presumptions are that:

1. The government has a compelling interest in mandating the use of our bodies to preserve the life of another.
2. Hardship or inconvenience, to include losing a job because of unapproved time off from work, future lost wages, or failing a semester at school do not release us from this basic responsibility.
3. Health risks, up to and including death, do not release us from this obligation.
4. Our obligation to society to save another life through use of our donor-bodies is not negated by disowning responsibility for creating the situation.
5. The financial burden of doing whats necessary to sustain that life falls upon the donor-body, even if they do not have an interest in preserving the recipients life.

In the spirit of cooperation, I thought Id suggest some additional legislation to support their platform. Here's what I have so far:


1. All citizens over the age of 16 are required to donate blood as often as eligible, i.e. every 56 days.
a. Citizens will be responsible for the cost of donating blood, as well as for the cost of supplying that blood to the recipient.
b. Those persons who fail to report on the 56th day after their previous donation will be charged with a felony offense.

2. All citizens between the ages of 18 and 60 are required to enter the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) Registry.
a. Citizens will be required to pay a fee ranging from $50 to $100 for tissue matching.
b. Those citizens who are a match will be required to undergo surgery, at a doctors convenience, with little or no warning. Surgery will last approximately 45-90 minutes, will be done under general or regional anesthesia, and will entail insertion of a needle from the back of the pelvic bone to extract the marrow.
c. The donor-body (or their insurance) will be responsible for the total cost of this operation (for the donor and the recipient), which runs approximately $250,000.
d. Failure to participate in this important life-saving program is a felony.

3. Citizens are required to provide organ donations when requested by the government. Organs required may include: kidneys, lungs, hearts, pancreas, intestines, and liver.
a. The government recognizes that in some cases these operations may prove life-threatening to the donor (particularly the heart transplant), and sympathizes with this hardship; however a threat to the life of the donor is not an acceptable reason to avoid saving another innocent life.
b. Those citizens who are a match for a recipient will undergo surgery at the surgeons convenience, and should expect a recovery time ranging from weeks to months.
c. The donor-body, or their insurance, will be required to pick up the full medical cost for both the removal of the organ as well as the surgery to transplant it into the recipient. Costs may range anywhere from $25,000 to $367,000 depending on region, and type of transplant.
d. Failure to participate in this program is a felony.

4. Cadaver Harvesting
a. All deceased persons will be inspected for possible organ donation. Those candidates found usable will have organs donated. The immediate family will be responsible for the cost of organ removal, as well as the procedure to transplant the organs into the recipients.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Must Provide Anti-Rejection and All Other Drugs to Organ Recipient
Edited on Fri Apr-21-06 12:13 AM by REP
Those drugs are expensive!

On edit: suggest that OP edit post to read "in danger from pregnancy. Abortion is far less dangerous than either pregnancy or childbirth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thanks - edited
That's what I meant, in danger from pregnancy or childbirth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I Know You Know
Others may not, hence my pedantry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. Big Bro GOP Government at its best
Excellent post. The GOP are more than willing to mandate and control a woman's body, let them take it to the next insane and controlling steps.

Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jschurchin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Remind me never to move to.........
FUCKING MICHIGAN!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. OK
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. It's their GOP position, not proposed legislation at this point.
just to be clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benevolent dictator Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Still, I was screaming "Fuck Michigan!" with the worst of the Buckeyes
down here after I read that.

Well, ok, actually I was screaming "FUCK MICHIGAN REPUBLICANS!!" - followed by several more expletives - after I read that.

I also did not feel the need to tack on "Ann Arbor is a whore." I'm sure if it were up to A2 we'd be a lot better off...

Don't worry, the toxic nuts haven't gotten to me yet. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. and will be legislation if they win enough votes. NOW is the time to
stop this crap./
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Well, then, we don't want you.
This is a blue state, and there are many of us here working hard against the MI GOP. This is just a plank in their platform to con Christians into voting for them. DeVos is running to the right in an attempt to beat Granholm this fall for governor, and he's crazy. I honestly don't think he'll win, but we're working against him anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. may I have your permission to post this to my anti-choice trolls? this
Edited on Fri Apr-21-06 01:32 AM by niyad
is a truly excellent article, and I thank you for it.

I am off for the night quite shortly, and would appreciate if you would email me on this. thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. sure, copy as desired (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. thank you!!! should make their widdle heads explode!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
13. Oh, excellent points
Some of the anti choice people seem to consider women as nothing but incubators, forced to use their bodies as host to the fetus who is growing in them. Sorry, but other people's morals are not sufficient reason for them forcing those morals on other people.

It seems so simple to me, but maybe that's because I'm not terribly sophisticated. It seems to me that if the choice to carry the fetus to term is in place, then both sides are able to exercise their own judgments. Why should the anti choicers be able to determine their own choices, while limiting mine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
14. You outdid yourself with this one!
Edited on Fri Apr-21-06 06:54 AM by femmedem
I'm forwarding it to my friend who's very active in CT's fight to require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.

(Lieberman and the state victims' advocate--a deacon in the Catholic Church--don't think they should have to.)
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
15. Losing a job?
Can American women get fired for being pregnant? Your employers arent obligated to let you take time off????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. It all depends
On the surface, no, they can't fire you for being pregnant.

In reality, yes, it happens all the time.

If you have medical complications and need to take a lot of time off, you're entitled to medical leave. But not necessarily PAID medical leave. So you have no income. Need that to pay your mortgage? Too bad.

During that time that you're on leave (or maternity leave), they can't give your job to someone else, but they can eliminate it.

If you are chronically late to work because of morning sickness, or unable to commute to work because you can't reasonably drive, you can lose your job.

If you are unmarried and pregnant, an employer might fire you under a morality clause. (That happened to a teacher in Nov 2005).

"The number of women claiming they've been discriminated against on the job because they're pregnant is soaring even as the birth rate declines. Mailyn Pickler, 23, was fired from an auto dealership a week after she revealed her pregnancy. Pregnancy discrimination complaints filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) jumped 39% from fiscal year 1992 to 2003" http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-02-16-preg...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Holy crap, I had no idea they could still do that.
I'm pretty sure they can't here in Canada, but that might be only for unionized jobs, I'm not sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
16. Your suggestions ...
... would certainly be consistent with a "state mandated" personal obligation to to give your body to extend the life of others, regardless of the consequences/cost to self.

Maybe the state legislature will consider it :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
18. been saying this for a long time.
there was an old argument, back in the day. suppose you woke up one morning to find yourself intravenously connected to the world's greatest violinist. she is in a coma, and cannot survive without your support. you have to drag her around with you for the next 9 months, in order for her to return to the stage. what is your moral obligation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
20. Hey, you only need one kidney...
not that we should be endorsing voluntary procedures like organ donation from the living or dead. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
21. And in line with "must learn English" and assimilation

Since most Americans have children, why not require those who are able to have children? My fiancee and myself have been together for 9 years and have refused to assimilate to the norms of this country. And that is a much bigger non-assimilation than if we were to be walking around speaking Spanish. Look at what the Republicans think of you if you don't learn to speak English! You know they have to be foaming at the mouth to get a law requiring one birth per female law on the books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
23. Good one, lwfern!
In my case, now my doctor says I can't donate blood due to a heart condition. But of course that wouldn't make me exempt under your new, excellent guidelines! Saving other lives is of the utmost importance, screw the life I'm already living!

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. A little confession
I can't donate blood either, because I was "a member of the of the U.S. military, a civilian military employee, or a dependent of a member of the U.S. military who spent a total time of 6 months on or associated with a military base in any of the following areas during the specified time frames ... From 1980 through 1990 - Belgium, the Netherlands (Holland), or Germany" so I'm at risk for mad cow disease.

I'm not sure what the implications of that are - why just those who were there with a military connection? Does that mean the food in the commisary wasn't tested, even though food for regular Germans was?

No matter, I'm proposing this legislation in solidarity with the Republicans. Therefore, I'm not going to let a little thing like not being affected by the law prevent me from lobbying for it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 22nd 2017, 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC