November 12, 2014 at 12:16 pm #3018
This piece gets right to the core of the matter, and I’m frankly stunned that I didn’t just state it this way over the years. Most women I know would easily identify with this.
So I am posting this because it very clearly expresses the view I find resonates with me. Clearly others differ, and that is fine. Go ahead and post it, if you want. I won’t be debating any of it.November 12, 2014 at 1:46 pm #3022
“we need to make it clear that abortions are not about fetuses or embryos. Nor are they about babies, except insofar as they enable women to make sound decisions about if or when to have them. They’re about women: their choices, health, and their own moral value. It might sound far-fetched to suggest that the public debate about reproduction could ever sound this sensible. But there have been times in our history when it did—even when (and sometimes because) women had far fewer rights and freedoms than they do today.”
That is the part that the pro control anti abortionists will never come to grips with. That is the basis of the GOP war on women. Sure, their minions like F&B and Broadstroke will post otherwise, but the GOP has packaged this issue in a way that has sold the wrong and immoral position of controlling women’s rights to control their own bodies to half the nation. Through their lies and bible thumping rhetoric which is useless at best, they have translated the real issue of equality for all as applying to a bunch of cells that may or may not be viable. If that isn’t bad enough, they are big hypocrites about this, historically speaking. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data, non-Hispanic Catholic women of childbearing age are 29% more likely than their Protestant counterparts to have abortions (full study*). The rate is even higher–33%–if Hispanics are factored in. Another way of looking at it: while Protestant women make up about 54% of the population, they account for only 37% of the abortions. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions.November 12, 2014 at 2:32 pm #3023
Therefore the woman should be able to determine the moral value of her fetus throughout the entire term. One woman thinks it’s her baby. Great. Another woman thinks it’s a blob of cells. Fantastic. Another woman doesn’t care what it is. She just doesn’t want to be pregnant. That’s cool too. There is no moral objectivity. Restrictions against late term abortions go against the thinking behind the article.
It’s very cut-and-dried from the prolife perspective. An abortion kills a baby/person. That’s wrong and unjust and there needs to be laws to protect them, but better than that, there needs to be a national change of heart and the develompment of compassion for those waiting to be born.
“The WAR on Women!!!!”
Didn’t go over so well last week, did it?November 12, 2014 at 2:41 pm #3025
The recent election results do not have much to do with this topic, or the idea of “war on women” in general.November 12, 2014 at 2:47 pm #3027
I would think if there was a WAR raging, especially against those doing the voting, that that issue would be front-and-center in their minds. The truth it that it’s a crock. It plays well on a message board where almost everyone thinks the same, but not in the diverse real world.November 12, 2014 at 2:48 pm #3028
The truth is that your opinion and analysis is a crock.November 12, 2014 at 2:52 pm #3030RobPParticipant
Looks like Andy’s been posting again while looking in the mirror.November 12, 2014 at 2:55 pm #3031
What’s your issue Rob? Trying to make this about me is pretty lame, as usual for you when they let you out of your cage. Glad to see that you figured out how to post, though.November 12, 2014 at 3:02 pm #3032
This: There is no moral objectivity.
Honestly, I’ve never, ever been convinced there actually are any objective moral facts. You have not ever presented any.November 12, 2014 at 3:08 pm #3033duxruleParticipant
“Didn’t go over so well last week, did it?”
Actually, it did. The Pro-choice side hit .666:
Two Of Three States Reject Ballot Measures Restricting Abortion
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/07/362327684/two-of-three-states-reject-ballot-measures-restricting-abortionNovember 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm #3035
” It plays well on a message board where almost everyone thinks the same”
I was hoping that the new board software might encourage you to leave the “oh I am so persecuted on pdxradio” attitude behind. Guess not.
The sustained legislative assault on the interests of poor and working-class women by the House Republicans is as real as can be. The Republitards introduced bills that would allow health-care providers and pharmacists to cite their religion as a basis for denying birth control to women. They voted against legislation that aims to strengthen labor laws against pay inequities based on gender. They also blocked efforts to raise the pay of minimum-wage workers, nearly two-thirds of whom are women.
The laws passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures have been even more detrimental to women. Few of the GOP’s efforts will do more than inconvenience women of means; they are not worrying about choosing between paying for reproductive health care or the groceries. But the effect of these cruel policies on poor women is devastating.
Wake up and quit talking about “reality” when it is clear to even a grade schooler that might be reading this that you have no grasp of life outside your delusional bubble.November 12, 2014 at 7:29 pm #3043VitalogyParticipant
Those that claim to be pro-life really aren’t pro-life.
They are pro-control over someone else’s right to their decision making.
If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one. In the meantime, don’t tell my wife or sister she can’t have one if the need arose.November 12, 2014 at 9:28 pm #3054Chris_TaylorParticipant
It seems pro-life is actually pro-birth.November 12, 2014 at 10:27 pm #3060
This was the first time I heard that being opposed to price controls is to be against women. Republicans prefer market forces to determine prices of goods and labor–not pointy-headed bureaucrats who constrain the economy and subvert our freedom to do business as we choose. What’s most fair for all is to not artificially set prices. Let the market do that. We would do well to not only not raise the minimum wage, but to eliminate minimum wage laws entirely. Being for the free market or some aspect of it, is not to be against women. That’s ridiculous.
Contraception is cheap and easy to obtain. The government doesn’t need to be in the contraception business and neither should it be forcing anyone to be dispensors of it, especially those for whom it would violate religious beliefs. To oppose government giveaways and government mandates is not to be in a “WAR” against women or anyone. It’s simply preferring freedom to coercion. Beside, any woman who needs contraception has a man in her life. The “war” would be against him getting free stuff too, since he could buy contraception for her or that he could use, so it’s not just a “war against women.” Nobody is being DENIED contraception.
Thank god the “War on Women” mantra is not working so well anymore. Ask Senator Udall. The voters can see that it’s pandering and very deceitful. Wars kill people. Republicans are not killing women and are not advocating that they be killed. If there were a war against women by Republicans, they would not own 55% of Congress and almost 70% of state governments.
On the other hand, it would be much more accurate to say that pro-choicers are waging a war against the unborn. 3,000 of them die every day because of abortion. Even if it’s debatable that an emberyo or fetus is a person, and I think a farir-minded person would give them every benefit of the doubt, it is an indisputable fact that an embryo or fetus is killed by each abortion, so the war imagery ironically fits those doing the name calling. However, good manners and graciousness require that they be given the benefit of the doubt, though it’s frustrating that in dealing with liberals, often the graciousness street is one-way only. I don’t believe that the intent of the prochoicer is to kill, regardless of the unfortunate outcome of an abortion.November 12, 2014 at 11:01 pm #3063
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The same old party line/church line from the choirboy.
Not once does the word “rights” or “equality” come into your usual mantra.
You are in the bubble of denial and ignorance of reality and will remain there until the day you perish. You know not the true agenda of those you defend. Not one bit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.