posted on January 23, 2003 04:59:37 PM new
Twinsoft: It's not your choice/your body if there's someone else living in it. Does that person have a choice about whether it should be terminated? If you don't want children, don't have sex. A million aborted fetuses a year paints a pretty gruesome picture.
You are telling women they don't own their own bodies during pregnancy? I wish you would listen to the taped show I linked above. I can picture it now, you must have grown up in the fifties, right? I'll bet the wife should cleave to her husband and obey
him no matter what right?
A woman's body is hers alone. Not her husbands, babies, an idiot Presidents or the Catholic Churchs (though three of them act like it.) She is responsible for her own body until she leaves it behind at death. Period! One of the guests on the linked radio program wondered if it would stop at overturning Roe. Where WOULD a government like this one stop? What else do they have in store for women?
Abortions won’t end because of some idiot President or a Right to Life march with Catholics chanting "Hail Mary, Mother of God” or some Southern white dude giving tales of abortion horrors on the radio.
Aborting went on before Roe Vs Wade and will go on after if the Catholic Church and Christian fundamentalists overturn it. It just won’t be available to the poor or middle classes. The wealthier classes will always have a choice and some of the middle class will use their life savings for it. It will be poor women who will suffer.
One of the radio program’s guests said the CDC found that half of the abortions were done on women who used some form of contraception. That means some serious work has to be done on contraceptive methods.
The guest said the contraception methods had been used correctly, but had failed.
Maybe men should take some responsibility in this. How many men do you know who have left contraception up to women? Gees, there are men who don’t want to use condoms because of lack of feeling. How juvenile is that?
How many men have opted out of a vasectomy, but let the women have a more invasive surgery instead? A few weeks ago the news said another contraceptive method for women would be introduced soon. When will there be more contraceptive choices for men? Probably when there are more female researchers! But if people like Bush have their way women will be back in the kitchen and not in research labs.
I believe much of this has come about because of the Catholic Church and its outdated feelings about women, children and the men who the church believes should control both. The other night I was on the internet doing some research and happened on articles about nuns suing priests for rape this month. If Catholic priest can’t control themselves with little girls, little boys, women or nuns why should they have any say in moral issues? The Catholic hierarchy can’t control themselves and their sexual desires/perversions, but want to control all women’s lives, Catholic or not! Give me a break! It is incredible to me women are still giving money to this church and marching for morally high ideals too!
A caller on the same show said he thought the whole abortion issue was because Christian fundamentalists want to get back to ancient biblical ideas. Pure subjugation of women and children!
I couldn’t agree more as I have said above.
Ashcroft believes an embryo is a life and must be saved at any cost, including NOT using
the morning after pill but will get on TV to say he has moved the Malvo case to Virginia
where the death penalty can be invoked. So he is a Right to Life person and a Right to Death
person too? If saving a day old embryo is so important to these people why not an 18 year old life?
Do anti-abortion/anti-women’s rights people have an age where you cut off “Right to Life?”
Lives of women and babies in Iraq are expendable to men like Bush and crew because we need more oil
for Exxon, etc. They are expendable as collateral damage because Bush Sr’s war must be finished. What about those women’s unborn fetuses, do they have a “Right to Death” purely because they are in
Bush’s way?
posted on January 23, 2003 06:54:37 PM newFirst prove that someone else is living in it.
I don't have to prove anything to you, Borillar. I'm sure someone who is as (how shall I put this? ) outspoken as yourself grants others an equal right to their own opinions.
Aposter, your argument is stupid. A baby in the womb didn't pull the trigger on a dozen innocent people. Don't be an idiot.
posted on January 23, 2003 09:41:27 PM new
>First prove that someone else is living in it.
My point was simply that there is no proof. The question was rhetorical in nature. After all, aren't I the one who has stated that we should not be asked to prove our opinions with links?
posted on January 24, 2003 07:33:27 AM new
Twinsoft. No, I do NOT think my argument is stupid.
How can anyone (Ashcroft +) have such a “holy” attitude about an unborn few hours old embryo yet want the death penalty so badly for a (at the time) 17 year old? Where would Ashcroft and the others draw the magic line? Five year olds? Six? Males are getting more violent at earlier ages.
The line needs to be drawn somewhere. The “Right to Life-Right to Death” proponents should give that magic number. Frankly, I think if they are so intent that unborn lives are saved at all costs, they should rally around ANY life! Whether it is a fetus in Iraq, a fetus in New York, a small boy molested by his priest or a 17-year-old who probably lived without guidance all his life.
The Catholic Church is intent on saving embryos, but seeks to cover up the lives that are destroyed by
rapes and child molestation going on in the church. Those actions to me results in a form of death, death of
spirit and trust of other human beings.
As for the Malvo case, my office is in Virginia and my child lives there. People were terrorized and Malvo doesn’t deserve to be out in public again. I believe in the death penalty when the evidence is airtight. This is one of those cases. But, I am not one of the ones espousing saving unborn lives on one hand and taking other children’s lives like Ashcroft is doing!
Maryland just recently reported that most of the death sentences given were for minorities, not whites. While we still have actions like this happening we have an unbalanced judicial system . I believe the
religious system is just as unbalanced.
No Twinsoft. I do not agree with you. But then I rarely do.
posted on January 24, 2003 08:32:42 AM new
"It would be incorrect to conclude that these results point to racial animus in the death penalty system," Paternoster says. "Other explanations are possible, and this study doesn't allow us to get inside prosecutors' heads.
But it does systematically allow a 21-year record of homicide prosecutions to speak. The record says race and geography do play a role in prosecutors' decisions to pursue a death sentence.
Edited to add: from the University of Maryland's website on their Outlook Online site:
Maryland has only executed three people since 1977. Sixteen people are currently on death row, 12 of whom are African American, according to the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 24, 2003 08:46 AM ]
posted on January 24, 2003 08:58:23 AM newMy point was simply that there is no proof. The question was rhetorical in nature.
Proof that a fetus age 3, 6, 8 months has a right to constitutional protection? Since there's no real proof of when a fetus becomes a "person," perhaps it would be better to err on the side of caution. Funny how a dozen innocent men on death row is front page news, while a million babies waiting to be aborted is laughed off so easily.
Aposter, I'm not Ashcroft. Don't ask me to justify what he does, or says, or thinks.
posted on January 24, 2003 11:43:24 AM new
It is unfortunate that this is the point at which most of the controversy swings about. It is the meeting place of both science and religion and neither one is up to the task. How will we ever find out? Sceince and religion does not even have a good description of just what constitutes life. I know, that debate has been around for much, much longer than Roe v. Wade and there is no end in sight just yet.
Should we err on the side of caution? Can we sucessfully regulate morality? What is the best choice among two evils? Are these questions to be so simply answered as Right and Wrong? Simple answers do not fix complicated problems.
