Reproductive Rights

[rocketwarrior]

I am broaching this subject because it keeps coming up in the discussions of the presidential election that appear on this site.

Let me make this clear. I think the decision to terminate a pregnancy is between a “mother” and her value system and I am quite willing to stay out of it.

Let me say it another way. I am not in favor of laws to outlaw abortion or to take apart Roe v. Wade (whether or not current science might suggest a basis for a rethink).

Okay, we are clear that I guess I am in favor of what some call “reproductive rights” or “freedom of choice.”

But I will not vilify someone who can’t stomach abortion. I believe that good, well meaning, people can have a problem with abortion. They have for centuries. Especially in a culture that has all kinds of methodologies for avoiding pregnancy in the first place. And I refuse to call them names.

Now, I recognize there are at least two “types” of people who are against abortion. There are those who probably want to control women. I will have no truck with them. But there are those who are sincerely concerned about the rights of unborn children (or fetuses or whatever you think science should call them, maybe “it”, whatever).

And most people who favor “freedom of choice” also feel that children should not be abused. And most feel that a “whatever” in the ninth month of gestation also deserves protection. Personally, I do not want to be in a position to render judgment on at what point a “whatever” should not be protected. I am content to stay out of it.

I wish our government could just stay out of it. But here’s the rub. Because of other “rights”, our government has to be involved and even has to fund abortion in certain cases. My preference would be for nonprofits or someone else to fund abortion. But that’s not the way it is so I will live with that.

But I will never consider someone the enemy because in their conscience they feel abortion is somehow wrong. Or if they feel war is somehow wrong. And I won’t call them names.

 

[danemodsandy]

Mark:

I think you are one of America's eight or nine remaining grown-ups. Nearly everyone today has figured out that they gotta right to this or that or the other, but very, very few people understand that the other guy has a right, too. Fewer still understand that their rights and the other guy's will sometimes bump into each other, and almost no one seems to grasp that there is sometimes no resolution for such clashes. Sometimes we just have to live with the imperfection of irreconcilable differences, and it's best if we do that as civilly as possible.

You get it. Congratulations.

 

[mulls]

Well stated by both of you

I am a conservative,but not the religious type.I just want to be left alone and not taxed and regulated out of my boots.
Tom

 

[frigilux]

Unfortunately, the most vocal contingent of the group wanting to outlaw abortion also favor 'abstinence-only' sex education.

They refuse to admit that a) studies show abstinence-only sex ed is not effective in preventing teen pregnancy, and b) many teens---even those brought up in conservative, religious households like Sarah Palin's---are going to choose to have sex.

If teens are educated about the availability and use of contraceptives, as well as the unarguable importance of abstinence, they are less likely to have unintended pregnancies. Seems logical enough, doesn't it?

That actually raises a problem for the anti-abortion crowd: If legal abortion goes away, the religious right will have nothing left but their anti-gay bigotry to rally the troops, and much to their dismay, young evangelicals are less gay-paranoid than their parents, just like my generation is far less hung up on race than my parents were. The religious right can't afford to lose the millions of dollars they raise over the abortion issue. And we all know that less money equals less political clout.

People my age and younger can barely fathom there was a time when blacks couldn't eat in the same restaurants, attend the same churches, or be enrolled in the same schools as whites. Although it seems unthinkable now, there was huge societal pressure against integration, especially by---surprise, surprise---the religious right, who used the "We must do God's will!" argument, just as they do today, about other issues.

Some day---although I probably won't live to see it---people are going to be amazed there was ever such a fuss over gays wanting the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

 

[gizmo]

I tend to agree with Rocketwarrior. It became an issue in our house because my partner is standing in a local government election in November as an endorsed Greens party candidate.

There is a bill in front of our state parliament at present, hasn't yet been voted on, to remove abortion from our state criminal code. At present, as I understand it,abortion is available where the health of the mother is at risk and in certain other circumstances. In practise it is pretty freely available, but the doctors are operating in a grey area of the law. The Greens party support decriminalisation, there is some discussion still going on about later term abortions.
The final law reform is likely to include decriminalisation up to about 24 weeks, and for later terms under restricted circumstances.

The issue came closer to us when my partner got questioned about his views on abortion and voluntary euthanasia in a letter from a constituent. He thought long and hard about it and eventually decided to decline to answer the direct question, as abortion and voluntary euthanasia are state issues not municipal issues, so he doesn't want an irrelevant debate to develop about candidates views on an issue they will never have to face on Council. He continued that maternal health services are a Council matter and he intends to work hard to improve facilities in the area - the local community health service has recently decided to no longer offer birth services, so mothers have to travel up to two hours to have their babies, a decision he wants to get reversed.

Basically as a gay man I have never felt it was any of my business to tell women what to do with their own bodies, though I get uncomfortable with the idea of later term abortions, and with abortions being used as a form of post-facto contraception.

Chris.

 

[jeffg]

This is another issue where hypocrisy reigns supreme: a majority of Americans say they favor restrictions on abortion, but ask these same people whether they favor the exact same restrictions on *their own daughters*, and 80% of "pro-lifers" say they do not.

 

[mattl]

This gets back to a statement I made in one of the Palin threads. I'm non-religious, not christian, muslim, jewish or what ever. I have no desire to limit the practice of your religion or or to impose my non-beliefs on you. Don't believe in abortion? ---don't have one. But what right do you have to tell me, my wife, or daughter what we can do with our body is beyond me.

That is something so private, so personal, so fundamental to anyone's personal freedom that no one has the right to interfere in. I feel the same way about assisted suicide, if I decide it's time for me to go, that is my right.

Just because YOUR religion states that life begins at conception does not mean my beliefs are the same. Just as an aside, no one ever mentions a study that was done 5 years or so ago that indicated fully 1/3 or more of FERTILIZED eggs ie. embryos are excreted from a woman's body. So, is god performing abortions? No, the body is discarding excess material. If every embryo is a human being and precious then perhaps these religious woman should pray before they flush the toilet when they are fertile.

I'll never have an abortion because I'm a man, but my views on the subject were reinforced when I was quite young and Roe vs. Wade was decided. That day, I was out in the yard with my mother, a very Polish, very Catholic woman, her comment to me was thank god. Growing up in the 30's and 40's she had seen too many young girls butchered from back alley abortions, and she was happy that no other woman would ever have to face that again. She told me of women who could not have children after a botched abortion, and even of an acquaintance of hers that had died. Why would anyone want to force this on a woman? Especially another woman.

Religion is the bane of existence.

 

[panthera]

Personally,

I want us to do everything possible to avoid abortions. In Europe, well, beginning with the eastern border of Germany and going west, north and south, since contraception and sex education have become freely available to young girls, the abortion rate has dropped. We have an enormously lower abortion rate, yes, also adjusted for population, than in the US.
As does every other culture which grants women reproductive rights.
For people living outside of the US, it is hard to imagine just how nasty, twisted and perverted the christianists are. They throw bombs through the windows of planned parenthood centers. They kill doctors who perform abortions.
They attack, yes physically attack, women and gay men who dare to live their own lives.
This is the real problem the US faces and the reason it is called a culture war. The christianists aren't willing to accept that other people have a right to live their lives in accordance with their own beliefs. It is not the charming intellectual and philosophical discussion which goes on in Europe, carried out either with biting irony as in the UK or passionate recitation of literature as in Germany, nor yet carefully built logical analysis as in France. It is the conservatives doing their best to take away our freedoms, have us kicked out of the country, murder us and repress us physically.
I once asked my red-neck sister-in-law why they were so nasty to me. She said the only way to turn me from my evil gay ways was by making my life so miserable I would have no choice.
If the christianists win this election, I can well imagine we will soon see a repeat of Germany in the early 1930's.
To return to the abortion topic directly, by refusing women reproductive rights, the christianists seek to hold them down even more than they do us homosexuals. And that is saying something.
I object vigorously to a woman telling me I must shave my face or be cut (or uncut), have a furry breast or waxed. It is none of her business. By the same token, how dare a man, incapable of being pregnant, even suggest to a woman what she is to do with her body? The day men can become pregnant is the day men shall have standing to discuss what happens with the pregnancy of exactly one individual, themselves. Until then, these christianists need to be told, firmly, to leave women alone.
Elections in the US no longer revolve around the truly important questions of economics or international relations. They have come down to a question of human and civil rights. Vote republican, your rights as a gay man or woman will be curtailed even more. Vote democrat, your rights will be curtailed less. It is that simple.

 

[rocketwarrior]

Keven, orient me...

"....rights as a gay man or woman will be curtailed even more." I, obviously, feel gays should have the same rights as others. Can you give me some examples, say in the last 50-60 years, where there has been a curtailing of gay rights. That is, if you look at gay issues as an historical linear movement, where, in terms of our nation's laws, was there a backward trend in gay rights?

I am not disagreeing with you, I just need some help because I would have said that the trend, generally, has been improvement in gay rights (regardless of noisy extremists). To wit, what rights were curtailed?

 

[panthera]

I was thinking

of the explicit prohibitions embodied in Virginia's constitutional amendment.

 

[rocketwarrior]

Keven, try this on:

I guess I see such measures as clarifications on local level that come out of an aggressive forward movement and that we don't "net out" a loss, or "curtailment". That is, if there was no gay marriage in Virginia before the amendment, then it is not a curtailment - just more of the same in Virginia (I might be being to technical) but like the abortion issue, there are actually a lot of people who are not devils that have trouble with gay marriage.

I think the answer is to take the government out of "marriage" entirely and adopt civil union for everyone, straight or gay, and make it the same, straight or gay. And then if a religion wants to celebrate something else, the government can stay out of that.

For example, you can get an annulment in the Catholic Church in cases that can't get a civil annulmment. No sweat. Then if some religion wants to define "marriage" as between man and woman - the government should stay out of it.

 

[rocketwarrior]

Keven - gonna switch channels

This thread started as "Reproductive Rights" but the discussion has now incorporated gay marriage. I am going to put that portion of my last post on a new thread. See ya there.

 

[panthera]

Well,

the trouble is, there is a big difference between not granting us human and civil rights, which was the status quo pro anti in Virginia. Now we are expressly forbidden these rights.
It is irrelevant to me where we lose rights, the loss of rights is what bothers me.
Please remember, I may be visiting here in the US, but I am a German and tend to see these things through the filter of a culture which grants human and civil rights to homosexuals and women.

 

[perc-o-prince]

No flames please- just my opinion.

Abortions are (probably) 99.5% avoidable. Contraceptives and education are the keys to this. Abortion is (IMHO) murder. And, I can't be convinced that sucking a baby's brain out, then the rest of the body, isn't murder, not to mention an acceptable practice in an evolved society. Yes, I understand this isn't how most abortions are performed, but if only 1.....

Again, my opinion. I'm not bringing religion into this, and I'm not saying the government should or shouldn't have any say in it. Just my thoughts. Go ahead and attack if you must.

Chuck

 

[perc-o-prince]

p.s.- perhaps "Reproductive Responsibilities" might be a more appropos title???

Chuck

 

[lasvegasrox]

omg

Keep Religion out of Government and keep Government out of Religion its as simple as that and if you want to have sex then use a condom or some type of birth control, until you are ready for a child.

Condoms are like $10

Children are like $300,000 dollars

What seems more logical?
lol

 

[conate]

actually, panthera:

If you vote democrat, your rights will be curtailed DIFFERENTLY.

Both parties are enemies of freedom.

As for the abortion thing -- there is absolutely zero chance of it becoming illegal in the USA again. Zero! If Bush couldn't do it having all 3 branches of the legislature AND having appointed two supreme court justices, it ain't gonna happen.

I do agree that not focusing on real issues is what is happening - so that folks don't think about the truly difficult things that we are facing.

NOW do y'all understand why I am anti-gun control?

Conate

 

[panthera]

Hi Nate,

Oh, yes - you're quite right, the democrats advocate many positions with which I don't agree.
In a nutshell, the problem for me is simply this: As a gay man, I have no human rights under the republicans. I can be fired or discriminated against legally, simply because I am gay.
My partner has no rights regarding me in case I should become incapacitated, nor do I towards him.
There is every indication that Palin and McCain will make things even worse for us, making the Virginia rules apply to the whole country.
I've lived too long in a country where gays are given human and civil rights to ever accept being treated as a second class citizen.
Unfortunately, my position on gay rights can be applied analogously to the republican position on shrinking a woman's control and knowledge over her body.
As much as I disagree with many positions of the democrats, in the end it's a question of human and civil rights. The Supreme Court has had to slap the republicans down three times in the last years because they had violated their constitutionally limited powers...that's three times more than all the democrats together since FDR's first term.
Sure, I'd rather we had another option. Realistically, the third party candidates play only one role - they may give or cost the democrats the election. And that's it.
On a personal note, after being threatened with the FBI and deportation by some of the conservatives on this board, I have no patience at all with republicans. The way they treat me is the way they will deal with all opposition.
At least the second amendment is now safe...now we have to worry about some of the others. After the last eight years, it is very clear who the threat is.

 

[conate]

I have no patience with such people either.

I always thought that a natural right was the right to disagree in a civilized manner.

Unfortunately, and sadly, I see little differnce between the two sides. Clinton signed the DOMA act. Disgusting.

The only difference I see is that the Republicans will put queers in camps, and the democrats will offer "Special Resettlement Areas."

What a terrible choice.

How can you be threatened with deportation by a USAian when you live in Germany? That's kind of wierd! And also sad.

The way I see it, both parties are trashing the constitution. It was Mr Gore who was the big proponent of a national ID card in 1999. Of course, then we go the "Real ID act" done by the republicans. And the difference is?

I feel like I'm living in a combination of "Atlas Shrugged" and "Animal Farm" these days.

Sigh.