Do You Consider Yourself a Feminist?

[pahoben]

Jim Jones did focus on collecting unwanted children and adults that were previously unwanted children.

Much easier to convince legislators in some areas to enact anti abortion laws then it is to convince them of expanding budgets for social welfare programs to pay for the unwanted children that result. Is that free of sin?

 

[mrodgers]

Refresher course in examples of "opposite":
The opposite of pro-life is anti-life.
The opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice.
Life and choice are not synonymous, therefore the quoted statement is invalid.

This, Jason, indicates you might just be a feminist. Not a radical feminist, just a feminist. Welcome aboard!

It was in response to a poster that said pro-life is anti-choice and not pro-life. The post you quote is explanation the pro-life is about the unborn living human therefore pro-choice is actually anti-life.

 

[Nancyg56]

We are talking about a living human. A baby. I cannot in good conscience get behind killing it.

I am all for sex education. And not abstinence only. Of course that isn’t productive. Dd had a health class that covered many things including sex education. Abstinence was only a small part of it. So I am unsure of where all this abstinence only sex Ed is taking place.

The heartbeat law passed in this state does not take away the choice. One just has to choose before a heartbeat is detected. I do wish exceptions were made for rape and incest. Exceptions are there for the health of the mother and the baby.

There is a huge debate to reduce sex education. It seems that there is a group of people who believe this will discourage teenage sex. Because you know, that is always waht happens when you stop education people. They find something else to occupy themselves.....

Access to birth control and womens health care is also being curtailed. Funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood is in danger becuase of that same group of people. I cannot be any clearer in my own position. I woudl never have an abortion. I know that when I was told it was best for me I chose not. I was lucky and gave birth to a healthy baby and i did not suffer the complications the Dr thought woudl occur, however I cannot in good conscience tell another woman what she should do.

The fact that there is no exception for rape or incest is very telling to me what themindset is behind this law. WOmen are vehicles. That is it. Their health, both mental and physical is less important that the well being of a rapist.

The anger behind this law is mind boggling to me, but the reaction is not. As a woman I cannot allow us to regress back to the days when women were less than human in terms of protection.

Actually, abortions are at their lowest point ever in this country. This is due to better education, better birth control, better access to doctors, etc. Convenience abortions are the exception not the rule in today's world.

The vast majority of today's abortions are all about the health of the mother or the child.

I know a few women who have resorted to an abortion. Not one of these women considered it "birth control" and not one made that decision lightly. I also am extremely close to a man whose GF made the decision to abort their child. He was devastated then and to this day carries that pain. He also had no choice in the decison, and in my heart I find this to be very sad as well.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

We are talking about a living human. A baby. I cannot in good conscience get behind killing it.

I am all for sex education. And not abstinence only. Of course that isn’t productive. Dd had a health class that covered many things including sex education. Abstinence was only a small part of it. So I am unsure of where all this abstinence only sex Ed is taking place.

The heartbeat law passed in this state does not take away the choice. One just has to choose before a heartbeat is detected. I do wish exceptions were made for rape and incest. Exceptions are there for the health of the mother and the baby.

Here's another policy ... the so called "gag rule." Anti-choice celebrate every time the gag rule gets re-established, however multiple studies show that it actually increases rates of abortion. When the rule is in place, women in Africa are up to three times more likely to have an abortion. So if you support someone who enacts the gag rule, you are directly increasing the abortion rate - or "getting behind killing it" as you put it.

 

[luvsJack]

In case you forgot, here is your exact quote:

Babies should have rights too. And don’t say in one breath (not you but pro choice people in general) that it’s not used for birth control when the largest number are in fact for birth control.


You said that the largest number of abortions are for birth control. There is absolutely no evidence to back that up.

Stop making it sound like women have abortions on a whim. That they go and get them like they are picking up a happy meal. For the vast majority of women this is a difficult decision, and never one that is made lightly. Everyone wants to come up with anecdotal stories about women who have 15 abortions, or women who were told their child wouldn't survive, or they wouldn't survive, and then the child is miraculously healthy, or the birth was as easy as drinking a glass of water, but these are the rare cases, the extreme exception to the rule.

No child should be brought into this world just to suffer, and emotional suffering is just as painful as physical.

It may be how you want to spin it to say that women use abortion as birth control to demonize women who choose abortion, but the facts don't support that.

Back up to a previous post when I stated what the three biggest reasons were. I didn’t state it again in the post you are quoting because I had already said it.

I am not demonizing anyone. I am stating that all these extreme examples that we all keep discussing are not the norm.

I never said anyone makes the decision on a whim. Not once. You are reading that into it.

And you may want to spin it to say that most abortions are about more than simply not wanting to be pregnant but the facts say different. Less than .5% are because of rape and 3% due to health of the mother or baby. All I am saying is that any time abortion comes up, the stories of the rape victims and mother having to choose her life over the baby abound as though those are the main reasons for abortions. They aren’t. A lot of people that are pro life will tell you that there should be exceptions in these cases. But all that gets thrown at us are the extreme cases and “what about this one?” It’s the other 97% that we want to look at not those few.

I don’t know the answers and I do feel that the new laws coming up are extreme. But otoh, it should be harder than it has been. Again somewhere in the middle. We have a tendency in this country to change laws from one extreme to the other or not change things enough at one time. With stricter abortion laws, there should be more funding into free birth control (in areas where it’s not available), sex education, women’s and children’s healthcare. Adoption should be made to be a more desirable option. The sheer cost of it alone makes it hard for couples to adopt. Perhaps there should be government assistance with that.

Another number that gets thrown around are the 400,000 kids in foster care. Only about 100,00 are available for adoption. Still a lot but not 400,000. The foster care system includes a lot of children that they are trying to reunite with their family. For some that is good, for others not so much. Perhaps the whole system needs to be revamped. Perhaps it is the best we can do. But it seems like perhaps a good time to look at it.

For every baby that is put up for adoption there are something like 20 couples that apply to adopt. And that is what we are talking about here, babies.

I am not even sure where you are going with the “birth as easy as drinking a glass of water” comment. Birth can be and many times is a very easy process. And it can be dangerous for the mother. And it can be, and usually is, somewhere in the middle.

 

[dish rag]

Here's another policy ... the so called "gag rule." Anti-choice celebrate every time the gag rule gets re-established, however multiple studies show that it actually increases rates of abortion. When the rule is in place, women in Africa are up to three times more likely to have an abortion. So if you support someone who enacts the gag rule, you are directly increasing the abortion rate - or "getting behind killing it" as you put it.

It’s pro life, not anti choice. I know it’s hard for pro choice to accept they are actually pro death and want to gloss it over.

 

[sa cheermom]

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

There are calls for boycotting businesses based in those states (AL, GA, TX, OH, MO), and calls for boycotting spending any money on the 20th/21st of the month. Calls to make safe havens in states that aren't as uptight and holier-than-thou.

Slippery slopes lead downhill.

Cheersport is one of Atlanta's biggest revenue streams. It is a HUGE cheer competition. It has brought in more money to the city of Atlanta than the final 4 did when they hosted it.

My gym and others have been discussing going elsewhere this year. While the 3 biggest are in questionable states, Georgia, Texas, Indiana, the latter two are the lesser of evils. Many of the cheerleader families refuse to go to Georgia for the competition so they are looking to go elsewhere, probably Indy.

 

[Moliphino]

You make it sound like all fathers will be controlling and abusive. That isn’t the case.

What about the father that truly want his child? The one that would raise the child on his own and be a wonderful father. That is the majority of fathers.

Two people enter a marriage and plan a life together. Two not one. Marriage is supposed to a life together. If a man decided to buy a house without the wife getting a voice, everyone would say “what a controlling xxx he is! That’s just wrong!” But it’s perfectly ok for the wife to take away his choices about children?

She isn't taking away his choices about children. He can still procreate should he want to. And really, if one goes behind their spouse's back to sterilize themselves they probably don't have a healthy relationship. I think a couple should certainly discuss it before going ahead, but doctors should not require the other's permission to do the procedure.

 

[mnrose]

She isn't taking away his choices about children. He can still procreate should he want to. And really, if one goes behind their spouse's back to sterilize themselves they probably don't have a healthy relationship. I think a couple should certainly discuss it before going ahead, but doctors should not require the other's permission to do the procedure.

Exactly. If a woman doesn't feel comfortable discussing that with her partner, there's some huge issues in that marriage. You can't dictate that all marriages be healthy.

 

[Hrhpd]

It’s pro life, not anti choice. I know it’s hard for pro choice to accept they are actually pro death and want to gloss it over.

I am pro-choice but certainly not pro-death. I am anti-government.

Every situation needs to be assessed individually and the decision must rest in the hands of the professionals; the doctors, the woman, and her god. Your beliefs should not dictate what treatment her medical condition warrants. Neither should mine nor anyone else's.

And you are not pro-life if you advocate for the possible death of the mother for the sake a nonviable fetus. You are just pro-birth. And if you say there can be exceptions and it is ok to kill some babies, you really are not pro-life. That is even more despicable, that it is ok to kill imperfect babies, but not the perfect ones.

Hopefully, with your stance, you are also fighting tooth and nail for medicare expansion, increased special education and regular education funding, maximum increases to other social services safety nets. Because these will all be needed to support all these unwanted children. And according to some here, the number of unwanted children will be large because abortion is used as birth control.

Right now, all the social service safety nets and education funding are on the chopping block in the proposed budgets. Hopefully, you are fighting to keep the funding to support the babies being born.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Here's another policy ... the so called "gag rule." Anti-choice celebrate every time the gag rule gets re-established, however multiple studies show that it actually increases rates of abortion. When the rule is in place, women in Africa are up to three times more likely to have an abortion. So if you support someone who enacts the gag rule, you are directly increasing the abortion rate - or "getting behind killing it" as you put it.

It’s pro life, not anti choice. I know it’s hard for pro choice to accept they are actually pro death and want to gloss it over.

So do you care to address the comment itself that the gag rule you likely support leads a woman to be 3x more likely to abort? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me, so you're right, I have a hard time calling it that.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

BBut otoh, it should be harder than it has been. Again somewhere in the middle. We have a tendency in this country to change laws from one extreme to the other or not change things enough at one time. With stricter abortion laws, there should be more funding into free birth control (in areas where it’s not available), sex education, women’s and children’s healthcare. Adoption should be made to be a more desirable option. The sheer cost of it alone makes it hard for couples to adopt. Perhaps there should be government assistance with that.

Another number that gets thrown around are the 400,000 kids in foster care. Only about 100,00 are available for adoption. Still a lot but not 400,000. The foster care system includes a lot of children that they are trying to reunite with their family. For some that is good, for others not so much. Perhaps the whole system needs to be revamped. Perhaps it is the best we can do. But it seems like perhaps a good time to look at it.

For every baby that is put up for adoption there are something like 20 couples that apply to adopt. And that is what we are talking about here, babies.

I am not even sure where you are going with the “birth as easy as drinking a glass of water” comment. Birth can be and many times is a very easy process. And it can be dangerous for the mother. And it can be, and usually is, somewhere in the middle.

1. How much harder does it need to be? One has to walk through protestors (at many clinics), being yelled at and ridiculed for their choice. One has to read a packet of information on what the abortion entails, and in many states (IDK how many), have to return to the clinic 24 hours later so that the information has had a chance to sink in. One is strapped to a table (at least ankles, but I've heard of thighs as well), given medication to numb (but not block all sensation), and then one waits. After, one is helped to stand, given instructions on what to do, and then is escorted out of the building, back into that crowd of protestors, who are now even more vicious in their comments. There is pain...physical and emotional and mental. An abortion is not something to take lightly. But it's utter crud that people are allowed to harass other people that way outside a medical clinic; there's no mandatory 24 hour waiting period to get an IUD or a tooth pulled or breast augmentation surgery; only for an abortion.

2. Yeah, let's give free birth control! I'm all for that. But when the young girl goes to the clinic above to pick up those pills or get their shot, they have to wade through those protestors, and they are just as vicious to those girls getting BCP as they are with those getting an abortion. After all, how can they tell whose who? Most women getting an abortion are not getting one when they are showing a pregnancy, so how can you tell who is just getting BCP and who is getting an abortion? You can't. So they harass everyone. And the government keeps removing funding for those free birth control clinics, and women/children care clinics, and forget sex education...the old men in charge want it to be abstinance only. Do you really think that a 16 year old boy or girl will say "oh hey, I can't have sex until I married because old man says so"? Nope, they will do it anyways, but without the information that a condom can prevent an STD or that no BC is 100% effective.

ETA: Sometimes there are videos involved in the process. I forgot to mention those.

3. Those babies grow up into toddlers, who still need homes. Where are the people adopting them? Those toddlers grow up into children, who still need homes. Where are the people adopting them? Those children grow up to be teenagers, who still need homes. Where are the people adopting them? 100,000 kids in an adoptable system, but how many really get adopted? And those that aren't able to be adopted? Where are the people helping to raise them?

The entire system is broken. And again, I'll say to you, my uterus, my business.

 

[pahoben]

Back up to a previous post when I stated what the three biggest reasons were. I didn’t state it again in the post you are quoting because I had already said it.

I am not demonizing anyone. I am stating that all these extreme examples that we all keep discussing are not the norm.

I never said anyone makes the decision on a whim. Not once. You are reading that into it.

And you may want to spin it to say that most abortions are about more than simply not wanting to be pregnant but the facts say different. Less than .5% are because of rape and 3% due to health of the mother or baby. All I am saying is that any time abortion comes up, the stories of the rape victims and mother having to choose her life over the baby abound as though those are the main reasons for abortions. They aren’t. A lot of people that are pro life will tell you that there should be exceptions in these cases. But all that gets thrown at us are the extreme cases and “what about this one?” It’s the other 97% that we want to look at not those few.

I don’t know the answers and I do feel that the new laws coming up are extreme. But otoh, it should be harder than it has been. Again somewhere in the middle. We have a tendency in this country to change laws from one extreme to the other or not change things enough at one time. With stricter abortion laws, there should be more funding into free birth control (in areas where it’s not available), sex education, women’s and children’s healthcare. Adoption should be made to be a more desirable option. The sheer cost of it alone makes it hard for couples to adopt. Perhaps there should be government assistance with that.

Another number that gets thrown around are the 400,000 kids in foster care. Only about 100,00 are available for adoption. Still a lot but not 400,000. The foster care system includes a lot of children that they are trying to reunite with their family. For some that is good, for others not so much. Perhaps the whole system needs to be revamped. Perhaps it is the best we can do. But it seems like perhaps a good time to look at it.

For every baby that is put up for adoption there are something like 20 couples that apply to adopt. And that is what we are talking about here, babies.

I am not even sure where you are going with the “birth as easy as drinking a glass of water” comment. Birth can be and many times is a very easy process. And it can be dangerous for the mother. And it can be, and usually is, somewhere in the middle.

Unfortunately we do not and never will live in a world where the “should be’s” are realized in fact pretty safe to assume in fact they won’t. Other posters have noted the current political opposition to these should be’s. Very easy to decide no abortion for some one by societal legislation and then bemoan the fact that the child is being neglected or abused in the home because of lousy parenting and the same people that supported no abortion will tsk tsk tsk-can you believe these horrible parents. They will bemoan in 20 years if that child commits some horrible crime-tsk tsk tsk how was he reared by his parents.

The real sin is forcing a moral decision on someone by legislation (no matter how bad the outcome of that decision is likely to be) and in fact being divorced in fact from the outcome.

You break it you bought it should be enforced for supporters of anti abortion legislation but it isn’t and never will be since very inconvenient. Much easier just to moralize at the start and then forget about it so they can feel they accomplished something wonderful.

 

[luvsJack]

Exactly. If a woman doesn't feel comfortable discussing that with her partner, there's some huge issues in that marriage. You can't dictate that all marriages be healthy.

No and I am not trying to. Nor can you dictate that all women will have the discussion with their husband and it not have a thing to do with her comfort level.

 

[luvsJack]

She isn't taking away his choices about children. He can still procreate should he want to. And really, if one goes behind their spouse's back to sterilize themselves they probably don't have a healthy relationship. I think a couple should certainly discuss it before going ahead, but doctors should not require the other's permission to do the procedure.

So you are perfectly fine with a man procreating with someone other than his wife? You do realize that there are actually people out there that do believe in "till death do us part"?

 

[luvsJack]

Unfortunately we do not and never will live in a world where the “should be’s” are realized in fact pretty safe to assume in fact they won’t. Other posters have noted the current political opposition to these should be’s. Very easy to decide no abortion for some one by societal legislation and then bemoan the fact that the child is being neglected or abused in the home because of lousy parenting and the same people that supported no abortion will tsk tsk tsk-can you believe these horrible parents. They will bemoan in 20 years if that child commits some horrible crime-tsk tsk tsk how was he reared by his parents.

The real sin is forcing a moral decision on someone by legislation (no matter how bad the outcome of that decision is likely to be) and in fact being divorced in fact from the outcome.

You break it you bought it should be enforced for supporters of anti abortion legislation but it isn’t and never will be since very inconvenient. Much easier just to moralize at the start and then forget about it so they can feel they accomplished something wonderful.

I would be glad to take as many unwanted children as the law would allow me to take. But why is it abortion or keeping an unwanted child? Why not encourage the woman to give the child up for adoption?

Are you seriously saying "well that child would probably end up committing a crime so he should be killed before birth"?

And what is or isn't a "sin" is pretty clear. But we all sin in one way or another so I don't think that even needs to be brought up.

Instead of bemoaning the fact that we don't live in a world of "should be", perhaps anyone that feels the things should come to pass with the abortion laws should speak out about that instead of throwing extreme cases at anyone that is pro-life?

 

[pahoben]

I would be glad to take as many unwanted children as the law would allow me to take. But why is it abortion or keeping an unwanted child? Why not encourage the woman to give the child up for adoption?

Are you seriously saying "well that child would probably end up committing a crime so he should be killed before birth"?

And what is or isn't a "sin" is pretty clear. But we all sin in one way or another so I don't think that even needs to be brought up.

There are apparently 100,000 available right now so get busy.

 

[Moliphino]

So you are perfectly fine with a man procreating with someone other than his wife? You do realize that there are actually people out there that do believe in "till death do us part"?

Divorce is an option. Hypothetically, if my husband went and got a vasectomy without discussing it with me at all I'd probably start considering one.

 

[pahoben]

I would be glad to take as many unwanted children as the law would allow me to take. But why is it abortion or keeping an unwanted child? Why not encourage the woman to give the child up for adoption?

Are you seriously saying "well that child would probably end up committing a crime so he should be killed before birth"?

And what is or isn't a "sin" is pretty clear. But we all sin in one way or another so I don't think that even needs to be brought up.

There are apparently 100,000 available right now so you are falling behind.

 

[luvsJack]

There are apparently 100,000 available right now so get busy.

Yes, because the law would let me take 100,000--insert eye roll here. You know its not that easy and that is something we can fight for a change.

Again, we are talking about BABIES. There are hardly 100,000 babies up for adoption. You make it sound like all of the children in foster care would have been aborted. They could have been and weren't for some reason. So one doesn't really have that much to do with the other.