Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Right now, you have the right to have children, or not to
Friday, July 22, 2011 1:48 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:See, within the whole "pro-life" theme, movement, whatever, in between the well meaning do-gooders and the zealots and crusaders looking for any excuse to hurt someone and feel good about it, there lies what I consider to be the very bedrock of the movement - which is NOT, IMHO, the concept that women have this right, but that women have rights at all. Cause come to cases, that's what this is ABOUT - they can't render women back into chattel, and they can't revoke their right to vote, so by gum, by golly, they'll show put those babymaking bitches in their place somehow, since the very fact that women HAVE a role in society other than as fucktoys and baby factories is profoundly offensive to them, although they'd not admit it publicly, oh hell no, but the concept, and most especially the fuckin ATTITUDE, is right there out and up front for anyone willing to look clearly.
Friday, July 22, 2011 3:20 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Friday, July 22, 2011 3:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by TheHappyTrader: This might be my last post in this thread, I'm walking that dangerous line again where I'm attempting to defend people I don't actually agree with. I just felt they were being slandered... or libeled I guess?... and had no one speaking for them.
Friday, July 22, 2011 7:17 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote: if they're going to do it and can't be talked out of it I'd rather they didn't do it in the back alley where they themselves are at more risk. But I think the most important thing is to discourage it being done and encouraging other choices and safer/more protected sex practices to begin with.
Quote: Zogby is secretly a dem, though he tries to be neutral, but he wants to make sure that future demographics support the democratic party
Quote: rape-pregnancies, etc. Were already going on, and were, prior to the insitution of widescale elective abortions, a few hundred a year
Friday, July 22, 2011 7:20 AM
Quote: contraception and education is not part of the abortion restrictions
Friday, July 22, 2011 7:22 AM
Quote: Neil Noesen, a relief pharmacist at the Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., was the only person on duty one day in 2002 when a woman came in to refill her prescription for the contraceptive Loestrin FE. According to a complaint filed by the Wisconsin department of regulation and licensing, Noesen refused because of his religious opposition to birth control. He also declined to transfer the prescription to a nearby pharmacy and refused once again when the woman returned to the store with police. The American Pharmacists Association says pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription. If they do, however, it ought to be filled by someone else or transferred to another pharmacy, the group has said ..... two states, South Dakota and Arkansas, have passed laws that explicitly protect pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions on moral or religious grounds. Similar legislation has been introduced in 13 other states. Karen Brauer, who says she was fired by Kmart in 1996 for refusing to fill a birth-control prescription and is now president of Pharmacists for Life, says such laws are needed. "Pharmacists are being expected to do things that they do not believe they should do," she says.
Quote:But it’s not just about contraception any more: It’s also about the right to have children. Pamela reports that a woman in California was refused IVF treatment by a doctor who said that treating her would be against his religion. Now why in the world would a doctor who disagrees with IVF be working at a fertility clinic, you ask? Because he doesn’t oppose IVF, exactly — he just doesn’t like lesbians, and this woman happened to be one. But at least they’re being honest here: It’s not about “life.” It’s not about babies. It’s about social control. It’s about whose lives are deemed worthy, and which choices fit into the narrow worldview of religious conservatives. The “pro-life” opposition to abortion and contraception doesn’t come from a serious concern for all those fertilized egg-babies out there; it comes out of a concern for changing gender roles, and the evolution of the family into a unit that is increasingly non-patriarchal, egalitarian and diverse. It’s very much about a class of viewpoints: The feminist/humanist/scientific/modern view, which wants to allow individuals the right to self-determination, and the conservative/regressive view, which wants to take us back to a Golden Era of the family that never actually existed in real life, wherein men were in charge and women knew their place. It’s a vision that most people in this country don’t want — which is why anti-choicers and conservatives have to hang their arguments on abortion and babies. But as this case shows, it’s not about that at all. It’s about flat-out hostility towards women who buck the role these men would like to pin on them. Now, to be clear, I do think that conscience clauses have a reasonable place. I don’t think that doctors, nurses or other medical professionals should be forced to perform any procedure the patient wants, even if it violates the doctor’s moral/ethical standards. But I do think that medical professionals should have to do the job they signed up for. That is, if you’re a dermatologist, I can see why it’s not reasonable to expect you to perform an abortion or write someone a birth control prescription. If you went into plastic surgery, you probably shouldn’t be required to freeze someone’s eggs or try in-vitro fertilization just because your patient asks you to. But if the thing you object to is a part of the normal course of your job, and was a totally foreseeable consequences of you taking that job, I don’t have much sympathy.
Friday, July 22, 2011 8:20 AM
Quote:I think contraception is disgusting -- people using each other for pleasure. ...the Pro-Life Action League opposes *all* forms of contraception...
Quote:"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like – and if you have babies, you have babies."
Quote:Dan Savage is right ; the organized anti-choice movement is motivated by the desire to punish what they consider deviant sexuality much more than they are motivated by any love of fetal life. It's been well-observed by pro-choice activists for a long time that anti-choice activists, given the choice between punishing sex and reducing the abortion rate, will choose the former every time. The anti-choice movement's hostility towards contraception is an open secret; most people on both sides of the debate know about it, but anti-choice activists also know better than to flaunt their hatred of contraception when trying to woo people on the issue of abortion. As I discovered when an anti-choice handbook fell into my hands , activists are instructed to dodge questions about their hostility to contraception early in conversations, and put a great deal of work into softening targets up before hitting them with appeals against not just abortion, but contraception.
Quote:I'm sure most of us have been amazed at how disingenuous pro-life groups are when it comes to contraception. They scream "life" is sacred, but then try to prevent all ways that are available to our society when it comes to pregnancy prevention. We've seen insane protests against the Plan B pill which would actually prevent unwanted pregnancies. What many pro-lifers really want to do is control the sex lives of every American. I know it's hard to picture, it creeps me out just thinking about it, but the James Dobsons and Richard Lands of the religious right just want to decide when and how people can have sex.
Monday, July 25, 2011 2:30 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:34 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL