Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Trust me, coming at it from the legal standpoint is a lot easier.
I would say no, Candyfloss. What's your point?
Women are not Impressed and impregnated by the state.
They become pregnant as a result of behavior they willingly engage in. If they feel oppressed by the fact that they are pregnant they should consider their behavior choices that made them so.
Pregnancy is not a punishment.
It is a biological fact of life.
Railing that the Universe is Unfair because women get pregnant and men do not is spitting into the wind.
You totally ignore Responsibilty for ones' actions.
This is, of course, an article of faith of the liberal secular humanist theology.
Women have full control of their bodies.
They have exercised that control, chosen and taken actions, and now are pregnant.
Choice carries Consequences.
Did you know that?
Not punishments, just Consequences.
If those consequences are perceived as Punishments it signifies that the person engaging in the behavior did not think out the consequences before they took action.
Many women see pregnancy as a desired blessing.
They engage in behavior that makes them pregnant and are pleased with the outcome.
They excercised their control of their body wisely.
Other women engage in the same behavior with the same known consequences and achieve the same result.
Shocking, isn't it.
They see those consequences as Unfair.
They haven't handled their freedom very well.
They have Rights.
they have excersised their rights.
They just aren't happy with the outcome.
No one cares if these women have babies or not.
Society does not covet their bodies to produce babies.
If they never wish to have any babies that is fine.
It is up to them to excersise the Contrl of their bodies that they have in a way that the consequences of their actions match their desires.
That is what mature grownups do.
If they don't want to be pregnant they should not get pregnant.
Is that too complicared?
Less than 1% of abortions involve cases of rape/incest.
Women who actually become pregnant against their will should have the option to end the pregnancy.
Society accepts a responsibility to protect and care for its members. We watch out for each other. If a child is starved or beaten or neglected or abused, even (and especially) if by a parent, society reserves and claimns the right to intervene to protect the child.
Does this oppress the abuser parent?
Does it strip them of their citizenship?
Does it interfere with how they treat their 'property'?
Does this offend you?
The most helpless and vulnerable are the most needing of society's protection.
There are no more helpless and vulnerable members of the human race than the newly conceived.
There is agreement that they are Human and Alive.
There is disagreement on what protection they deserve.
We come down on the side of protecting Life.
We come down on the side of the helpless.
...the vulnerable.
...the defenseless.
...the innocent.
"Her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to the will of the state? "
OMG- did the state get her pregnant?
Oregon must be different from where we live...
Let's fix this:
"Her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to her choices and actions. She is a free agent with endless options and choices and opportunities. It is up to her to exercise her choice in such a way that complements and facilitates her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights."
But she is a Big Girl- who demands Responsibility for her Own Body!- so we're sure this will be no problem...
oh, one more correction:
"Her child's hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to her whims under current law. She can snuff them out at will. And that is not right."
much better, don't you think?
"Men have rights. The state has rights. But, the woman she is nothing... just a uterus to incubate without person hood and subject to the rights of an embryo which can not survive without her forced compliance? "
"Men have rights."
Men have responsibilities, as well.
True, they often shirk them.
Worthless scum, it's really innacurate to call them 'men'...
Before a woman lets some clown use her perhaps she should have a talk.
She has the Right to do it, you know...
About Rights.
And Responsibilities.
And Expectations.
Maybe she should hold out for a pretty firm understanding before she puts herself out on a limb.
Maybe a ring?
An ounce of precaution beats a pound of bitching about how sorry men are and how unfair life is.
Just a thought...
'the woman she is nothing... '
gosh- excuse me a moment while I weep....
'just a uterus to incubate without person hood'
ah, "personhood"- we like how you sneak that in there...
They're taking away my Personhood!!!
How does it feel?
If they were really taking away your 'personhood' you'd be dead.
it happens 840,000 times a year...
"subject to the rights of an embryo ..."
..'an' embryo...
I have No Idea how it got there, doctor-
just get it out!!!
"without her forced compliance"
A little dramatic, even hysterical, don't you think?
Do the same State thugs that impregnated her stand guard over her uterus?
"And, should that embryo finish gestation and develop and be born a female, then she will join the ranks of uteri with less rights than she had as an embryo? "
Oooh- CatFight!
Women oppressing Women!!
SteelCage Deathmatch-
'This uterus isn't big enough for the both of us, sister...'
But which woman is oppressing which?
The woman who kills her Daughter?
"Listen, Sweetie, I'm only doing this to protect your rights as a Woman!"
"Yes, general- we had to Destroy that Woman in order to Save her..."
Of course not, silly.
The daughter is the Oppressor.
She Raped her Mother.
She Forced her to get pregnant.
She Impressed her mother's body- for Nine Months!
She Forced Compliance on her mother.
(damn. imagine what she'll be like as a teenager...)
Unless you can demonstrate that women have accurate knowledge of fertility, conception rates, birth control functioning and failure rates, and common myths and fallacies (e.g., douching prevents pregnancy) than you can't assume that women "made a behavior choice... with the same known consequences."
Many women (and men) truly don't know enough about fertility, sex, and birth control to understand the real consequences. Remember, not everyone in the world knows everything you know, not everyone has had the same upbringing, schooling, or experiences you have had. Don't be surprised that some people truly don't know that babies are made from sex and that birth control sometimes fails... It's true, despite how much you want to believe it's not true.
If we as a country are:
1. Not going to educate people properly and comprehensively on reproduction and birth control, and
2. Not going to provide medical care and public assistance for needy families, and provide generous support and promotion of adoption services -
Then we should allow women easy and guilt-free access to abortions.
Trying to eliminate abortions by cutting off supply will be as ineffective as trying to eliminate marijuana use by cutting off supply. The solution to reducing abortions is education and cheap and accessible birth control and family planning care. Cut off demand for abortions and you won't have to worry about supply.
We agree with your basic premise that eliminating unwanted pregnancy addresses the root problem.
One can favor comprehensive extensive sex education and still find abortion morally indefensible.
A nice starting point might be to require every birth certificate list the name of the father/sperm donor.
DNA testing is such that it would be feasable.
Raising babies cost a lot.
More and more of that burden is thrown on the state/taxpayer.
Society has a right to demand from Bobby that if he is going to make a baby he will get to help pay for the cost of raising it.
Say, $350 a month until the child turns 18.
At a minimum.
Adjusted annually for inflation, of course.
If Bobby is underage then Bobby's mom and dad can pay it until Bobby himself turns 18.
It's about taking responsibility.
(Is that too offensive to liberal sensibilities?)
Bobby may be an irresponsible schmuck but he's probably not stupid.
If Bobby sees a few classmates nailed for the 'daddy fee' he probably will figure out real quick how do use a condom.
Or, heaven forbid, keep it in his pants.
Or in his hand.
Bobby's mom and dad may also find it in their interest to help Bobby understand.
And it's iot just the high school Bobbies.
Bobby's brother in college.
Bobby's dad.
All men might take a more realistic view of their behavior.
It just might cut down on unwanted pregnancies a little.
Do you believe a child is the property of it's parents, Urinal?
So a woman who engages in sex (protected or unprotected) with the man of her choice and becomes pregnant unintentionally should be able to get an abortion. I agree. But by saying this you have just said that virtually all abortion should be legal, something with which I also agree. After all, how many women become pregnant intentionally and then decide to have an abortion?
Thank you for articulating this for us; we now know that at least one Alleged supports a woman's right to abortion.
@107: You might come off a little smarter if you READ THE FUCKING POST. The point of the quote you took from kim in portland was not that a female embryo or child oppresses the mother, you twat. It is, rather, that if the child is born female, then she may eventually come to some point in her life where she too would find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and have her rights as a person violated by the state in favor of preserving a mindless clump of cells within her uterus.
Your utter lack of reading comprehension (of ONE FUCKING SENTENCE) leads me only to the conclusion that you are taking the piss and should really stop before you find yourself with gout.
@109: Your suggestion is somewhat logical but entirely unfeasible. DNA testing, remember, can only prove the identity of the father if he is tested; it also cannot prove for certain that a certain man is the father, but is limited to proving that he COULD HAVE BEEN the father. So what will happen is that men whose paternity tests come up positive but who lack the ability or desire to pay will get a lawyer and argue that the actual father was just some other schmuck with a genome similar to his. In the end, it will probably cost the state more money for DNA testing and legal battles than it would to pay modest (and believe me, they are very modest) benefits to single mothers who are not receiving child support from the father.
Though, I think his numbers are fictitious and the basic premise, abortion = murder, is absurd.
Ok, but realize that all those paternity tests and the medical staff necessary to administer and analyze them, and all those extra family court judges and lawyers, and all those case workers tasked with making sure child-support payments keep coming in is going to cost the state/taxpayer a HELL of a lot of money too.
This is an issue that conservatives often seem to forget. "Just make the mothers and fathers pay for it... personal responsibility" doesn't work unless you actually ENFORCE them to pay for it, and the only way to do that is to use government agencies to do so (enlisting a private/non-government agency to do so would be asking for a nightmare... imagine a child-support payment mafia enforcement squad).
stand aside and let the troll work, missy.
liberal women conceive parasites that they long to get rid of.
conservative mommies conceive precious darling babies that they are happy to bear and raise.
The parasitic nature of an embryo is scientifically accurate, not a reflection on the mother's attitude. An embryo or fetus is, strictly speaking, parasitic. It taps into the mother's bloodstream via a placenta (which is generated by genes from the father), tampers with her hormonal levels to persuade her body to feed it, and gives no physiological benefit while in the womb.
Whether an embryo or fetus is wanted or not, it is a parasite while in the womb; this means that its right to existence is trumped by the mother's right to autonomy. We are not saying, here on SLOG, that abortions are necessarily good; we are saying that they are the mother's choice, and not yours.
And your mommy obviously does love you if she lets you live in her basement commenting rabidly on SLOG rather than actually working. I'm assuming that's your deal, considering the sheer volume of posts you churn out.
@117: It's only potty humor if it's funny. Groucho Marx you're not.
you have no idea what a 'parasite' is, do you.
"an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
An embryo lives in the mother: check.
It obtains nourishment from the mother: check.
It provides no physiological benefit to the mother: check.
Embryos typically do not kill the mother: check.
A developing embryo is scientifically parasitic. You really should learn that not all parasites look like this: http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/9846/i…
a parasite is of a different species than its host.
but thanks for sharing your favorite Pokemon
And in the interest of accuracy, my favorite Pokemon is actually this one: http://o.guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/1204…
we're not being 'adamant'.
it's just a fact.
even your definition says it:
"an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (ANOTHER animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
by "another" they mean 'another species'
Oh and, when you send someone to go get help (or seek it, yourself), I'm the one that's there to help you. Hi, Candyfloss. Take a seat on the sofa there.
And, Allegedly, you're repeating yourself again. Read the dialog from top to bottom, and start over. You obviously missed where you move on to the next step.
Hint: liberal secular humanist theology is an oxymoron, perhaps one you intended. The conservative Christian agenda, however, is a grim, anti-American reality.
Since you're just arguing semantics, can you agree with that, Allegedly?
Way too many concepts are called facts when they aren't. It's sloppy.
The embryo lives as a parasite to the mother; a wanted parasite, perhaps, but a parasite, scientifically speaking. End of story.
129 You're a moron.
I say free federal abortion clinics in every hood, barrio and trailer park. Now!
@131: Fuck you, you racist shit.
What, you're not pro-choice? It's not like they aborting actual gang bangers, just fetuses, clumps of cells, parasites. According to you, they're not even people they're aborting.
I get birth control for free. It's readily available at the nearest county health department. But how many women are actually aware of this? Not as many as you would think. If you REALLY don't want abortions then it should be in your best interests to educate the community thoroughly on birth control and sex education instead of relying on abstinence training, which has been proven by many, many studies to actually have an ADVERSE effect. As for the poster that said that Planned Parenthood would con someone into having an abortion, that's just plain GOP bullshit. Planned Parenthood requires that you go through counseling before making the decision and they lay out the facts.
An embryo is not a full fledged human being. It does not have dreams, desires, or thoughts of it's own. The mother does. The mother is already a grown member of society. I find it obvious who is most important in this scenario. Is it a glob of unformed goo? No.
I have yet to hear any convincing arguments against legal abortion that don't involve religion in some way. That is not a sound basis for legislation in a government that is separate and contains individuals of varying backgrounds and beliefs.
After all, with miscarriage as common as it is, God is the greatest abortionist of all.
Thank god.
You're going to have to find another playmate. I have no intention of entertaining you and further responding to your vile racist statements. Here's hoping your a better person then you present.
Click goes the button.
How is @131 racist and sick?
Are black women too stupid to know when they should have an abortion?
And if abortion is morally defensible why does it matter if 40% or 99% end in abortion?
I know that preferring adoption to abortion is my most (I could probably say only) "right-wing" trait and that it will alienate me from many commenters, but I'm just too much of a baby lover. If you are worried that your unborn child would not want you as a parent or not enjoy the life you could give them, why not let a family who WOULD be good for them adopt the child of their dreams? However, I'm sorry, but I don't think, "What would my family/friends/classmates/church think if they found out?" is a good enough reason. Now, I'm not saying keep a child you do not want! Do not keep a child you cannot take care of!
If abortion was the go-to unwanted baby fix, I dare say Dan Savage could not be the happy father he is.
But once we have ectogenesis and a clean, cheap transfer procedure, you're on.
Gay marriage won't resolve the huge problem with unwanted children, just like 2- 4 year old waiting for a baby lists that you mentioned haven't resolved it.
Gay people are not angels, they are like any other people. Only some would want to adopt unwanted, black, sick, with AIDS, born with cocaine addiction, etc etc. Most would want the usual - healthy, white, or maybe asian, if there are no white ones available.
So while I appreciate the humor in your post that's the reality of the situation....
Much as I love all kids, and mine in particular, I will not go through this again. Adoption is NOT a viable alternative for me. Hell, I myself may not be viable if I carry again. I've been lucky enough to never have a birth-control failure (and ALL birth control methods fail) but I would (with real regret) abort any pregnancy.
Being pregnant isn't a state of suspended animation, nine months of wafting about and then you're released to go about your business. Pregnancy carries real consequences, for your health, to your career, in your education, among your friends and family. Nobody has the right, moral or legal, to demand that women lay their lives down for a fetus. Nobody.
Sorry re rough pregnancy. My morning sickness was every day multiple times a day for 9 months, with both. I ended up with ulcers in my throat. I did not have any issues with blood pressure, mine was always too low and I was prone to passing out. It sure was hard to stay hydrated. My body did not like being pregnant, I am fortunate to have the two I have. I don't plan on having more.
That would make a lovely Mother's Day card...
Ximena's odessy with Vancouver General Hospital began the day she was born. After attempting an abortion at a free-standing mill in Bellingham, Wash. Ximena's birth mother entered VGH, where she gave birth. According to court documents, staff delivered the child into a "hat"--a plastic pot--and then senior nurse Vera Wood whisked her away. Ximena was placed in a room "where dead fetuses were stored," even though she was "moving, gasping, (and) crying weakly."
Court documents say Wood checked back some 26 minutes later, to find the child still alive. A nursing supervisor was called and arrived almost an hour after Ximena's birth. She found the child still in the "hat," uncovered, on a stainless-steel counter. By the time the Infant Transport Team arrived, Ximena had suffered a severe loss of heat, which in turn caused extensive and permanent brain damage.
Ximena's adoptive family eventually sued VGH. Hospital officials petitioned to have the case heard before a judge only, but the B.C. Supreme Court ruled it would be best heard before a jury. In June of this year, facing the prospect of a public trial, the hospital settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.
Meanwhile, pro-life activists are calling for criminal charges to be laid. B.C.'s pro-abortion Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh initially balked at the idea of investigating, but then instructed his criminal justice branch to contact Vancouver police. As of press time, no announcement had been made on whether further action will be taken. The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons have claimed the incident is out of their jurisdiction.
VGH continues to face heat over the case. Pro-lifers are now handing out literature outside the hospital, warning women of the events surrounding Ximena's birth. Some pro-lifers are suggesting VGH's recent request for a no-protest "bubble zone" around the facility is an attempt to cover up the case and hide it from patients and possible donors.
But it seems unlikely officials will be able to put a lid on the story, since it may have happened before. A Vancouver Sun article quotes nurse Kathryn Larouche, who spent a year working in the VGH ward where abortions were committed. Larouche stated she saw three infants "die after they were delivered live."
"We were supposed to turn the other way," Larouche said. "We weren't supposed to do anything. There were a couple of people ... I don't want to say who. They told us, ‘Don't do anything. Leave it alone. It will die.'" The events left such emotional scars, Larouche eventually resigned. Five other nurses left with her.
VGH officials insist that, according to their records, there has been no other case where a "viable" infant was born and allowed to die. They have not provided an explanation of what "viable" means.
Gianna's birthmother (named Tina) sought a saline abortion at seven months pregnant. Saline abortions involve injecting a caustic saline solution into the amniotic fluid, which (normally) causes the fetus to be scalded to death and then delivered dead. In this case, however, things didn't go according to plan. Tina went into labor and gave birth to a living baby girl, Gianna. Fortunately for Gianna, she was born before the abortionist had arrived at the clinic for the day. As a result, instead of being killed at birth by the abortionist, she was transported to a hospital. She was severely injured by the abortion attempt, requiring a three month stay in the hospital, but she survived to be placed in a foster family specializing in high risk babies.
As a result of injuries from the abortion, Gianna was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Doctors believed she would never be able to sit up, let alone walk. She surpassed all expectations. Today she is able to run, dance, and walk...and has even taken up rock climbing. She has also become a tireless advocate for the pro-life cause.
Many would expect Gianna to be bitter or angry about the fact her birthmother tried to abort her, especially at such a late point in the pregnancy. However, Gianna does not have any hatred towards her birthmother. She has forgiven her mother for the traumatic circumstances of her birth and treats the post-abortion women who hear her speak with compassion.
Gianna testified before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of abortion. Sadly, out of 13 members of the subcommittee, only 2 were willing to listen to her testimony; abortion supporters boycotted the meeting.
If you looked at Ana Rosa Rodriguez at first glance, she might look like an average little girl to you. However, if you look closely, you'll notice that this child is missing her right arm. That's because her arm was ripped off in the process of an abortion on New York's Lower East Side. Ana Rosa was 32 weeks old at the time of the abortion. It was performed by Abu Hayat. Rosa, Ana Rosa's mother (who was only 20 years old at the time), said when she awoke, she was told that the abortion was incomplete and that she should come back the following day. That evening, however, she experienced increasing pain and bleeding. Her mother took her to Jamaica Hospital by taxi, where, five hours later, baby Ana Rosa was born. Aside from the loss of her right arm, Ana Rosa is a perfectly healthy little girl.
I hope every woman within eyeshot or noseshot of you knows this.
These are not abortion stories, these are incompetent (at dating of pregnancy) doctor stories. No one here is advocating for abortion after viability. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. BTW, many pregnant women seeking termination are so desperate to end their pregnancies that they actually delude themselves into thinking they are much less pregnant than they are, so a sensible doctor evaluates gestational age VERY carefully.
no, the troll gets it off the net.
here they are:http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html
for fee they even speak at antichoice events and rallies
Troll,that is mostly for you. Stop posting your stupid bullshit.
The fertility rate in the U.S. (this is the number of born children over a woman's entire life) among white women in 2008 was about 2.0, and the figure for black women was ....
ALSO 2.0.
We can therefore infer the following (besides the obvious: this is one ineffective genocide): "Women have the quantity of babies they intend to." Of course, they have intercourse way more than 2 times in their life, so some pregnancies are prevented, and some are aborted. Black women have a very high rate of abortions, while white women have a high rate of contraception. It should be noted that education and access to birth control can really make a dent in a community's need for abortions. Making up bullshit about a "genocide" does not.
Oh and thank you for educating me re: Grand Guignol
Sucks doesn't begin to describe it.
My hemmorhoids and breasts both swelled like balloons and hurt like hell.
How about you?
Have you been to a ghetto? You can't walk 50 meters without getting free rubbers at clinics, schools, community centers. The problem for the baby mamas and their sperminators ((can we call them fathers?) in the barrios, hoods and trailer parks is there unwillingness to use the fucking things.
Stupid and lazy. Conditions best removed from the gene pool by abortion.
Access to birth control is worthless without decent sex ed to teach the kids how to use the damn things, and sadly, schools in ghettos tend to be remiss in this as well as most other aspects of teaching.
Have you been to a ghetto? Two big problems with inner-city poor neighborhoods are the LACK of clinics and community centers, and the chronic underfunding of schools. Don't expect to see many places where teenagers can get free party balloons if necessary.
I live on the South Side of Chicago and tutor kids from the area (and they live in relatively good neighborhoods, for the South Side) and have at least some sense of what poor areas have to deal with. Don't think that just because you're a white trash bitch (judging by your attitude and relative illiteracy) you actually know what ghettos are like. Shut your fucking face, uncle fucker.
Face it, this is a cultural problem in the ghetto. Just watch an hour of BET on cable if you don't think so.
"Access to birth control is worthless without decent sex ed to teach the kids how to use the damn things"
People tend to figure out how babies are made by the time they're capable of making them. What sex ed helps to do is teach kids how to bump the uglies without making any babies; things like how to use a condom properly or why coitus interruptus doesn't work need to be taught. It's really more of a financial problem in the ghetto; underfunded schools, underfunded community centers (or even a total absence), and a cycle of poverty. Bad neighborhood=>fewer companies based in neighborhood=>dearth of jobs=>people turn to drug dealing for money=>drugs sold by or through violent gangs=>bad neighborhood. Repeat ad nauseum.
Thank you for answering my question, though. The fact that you think that dirt-poor people in the inner city arrange their priorities so as to buy cable service shows that you have no idea what slums are even like. Go read There Are No Children Here by Alex Kotlowitz if you want a primer.
Your posts really demonstrate that you're just on a crusade against black people and black culture. Well, take it somewhere else, you cracker-ass bitch. We minorities are about sick of people like you.
Regardless, Lovely Linda, for the sake of St. Luke's I wouldn't advise you advertising your tenure there. It does make me wonder if St. Luke's lack of baby-mama-drama is due to the Roman Catholic policy to cover up anything embarrassing (and successful implementation thereof) or if it was simply that students there weren't trusted to be within a furlong of boys until they graduated.