It would be more “democratic?”
| July 23rd, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
11 Responses to “It would be more “democratic?””
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!
July 23rd, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Your introductory points are very well put.
I for one would like to see Roe go and be replaced by clear and firm Federal legislation spelling out the protections and liberties to remove the ambiguity and threatened position that we find ourselves by it being an interpretation of the court. Talk about political third rail though… if politicians took it to task, just think we could all move on to other issues that need attention. (Like National Healthcare.)
While we are at it, how about guaranteeing care for expectant mothers and care for children? It is an established fact that countries that provide for mothers and their children have the lowest abortion rates. If women feel secure in the choices they make they are less apt to abort, lowering the rate without impeding those that choose to do so. Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
July 23rd, 2005 at 9:07 pm
I’m in Ohio, where Tom Brinkman recently introduced bill 228 in the house. Essentially it calls for a ban on all abortions and would make it a felony to leave the state for abortion.
This comment was written by ccw.This is enough for me to know that I do not want my state in control of reproductive rights.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 23rd, 2005 at 9:20 pm
The issue of healthcare is roped inextricably to that of abortion–since abortion is one facet of women’s healthcare. Even if we were in any danger of getting single-payer anytime soon, you can rest assured that the same fuckwits who don’t think women should have birth control from private pharmacies will complain about them getting it through Federal-run or -funded pharmacies as well;To cite just one example. And I’m sure that if the passage or failure of single-payer rested on winning over a half dozen pro-life zealots, millions of women would be told by the usual know-it-all liberal/progressive men to suck it up, take one for the team, yadda yadda yadda.
Blecch. :(
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 23rd, 2005 at 9:28 pm
“And I’m sure that if the passage or failure of single-payer rested on winning over a half dozen pro-life zealots, millions of women would be told by the usual know-it-all liberal/progressive men to suck it up, take one for the team, yadda yadda yadda.”
Alsis, help me out, I do not understand your point here. (Really, call me slow but I need some help.) Can you explain what you mean? Blessings.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
July 23rd, 2005 at 9:47 pm
You mentioned “National Healthcare,” Rock. Which I translated to “single-payer.” Sorry for the confusion. It’s a pet issue of mine, so I frequently forget that it’s not everyone’s pet obsession. :o You can find more about it here if you like:
http://www.pnhp.org/
Sorry for the drift, All. As you were.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 23rd, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Gotcha!
This comment was written by Rock.We are definitely on the same page. Thank you for the site, I was not aware of it.
It is a no brainer the way I see it too. We could help lots of folks who need independence and care, while taking a chip away from Big Business to hold over their workers just for starters. (Plus, it is the right thing to do.)Blessings.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2005 at 11:57 am
I always have this argument with my brother, who thinks the “reasonable” compromise is so obvious- let the people vote in each state! Yes, that worked out great with slavery.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
As a blue-state right-to-lifer, I think half a loaf is better than none. However, abolition is much preferred. You really think that pro-lifers want a woman to bear a child against her will? She already has, but the question is whether that child dies within her. The family of humankind relies on one another for shelter.
This comment was written by Fielder's Choice.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Fielder - If you say that crap about the “family of humankind” while ignoring that women may not want to BE mothers yet (or at all) is definitely not sheltering them, my friend. I just don’t feel that the 6,450,000,000th fertilized egg right this moment needs to become the 6,450,000,000th person. Or to put it another way, I’m relying on you to treat the female citizens of our shared country like PEOPLE and not like uteruses, and allow them to decide when, where, how, and why they will reproduce, if ever. We do not get to decide IF we conceive (no matter how hard we try to prevent it), but we do get to decide if we reproduce.
Prohibition is never a good thing, respecting CITIZENS of this country is a good thing… and those citizens are asking you not to force your “women must reproduce if they conceive” views on them. They are not forcing you to abort if you conceive… you can conceive and choose to deliver, can’t you, Fielder?
This comment was written by UnApologetic Atheist.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Oh, and before you try the “we prohibit murder” line, I’ll stop to point out to you that if you come into MY house and threaten MY life, I’m going to use my .45 Glock to blow your chest in. When it threatens my life, I get to kill it, even if that “it” is a fellow citizen like yourself, with a name and a self-aware identity. But that’s an issue that was overwhelmingly decided by guys like me (and, I suspect, you) — that we get to “destroy life” in our own self-defense.
Many have a problem both with guns and with killing even in self-defense, but we tell them to shut up and sit down; and simply make the choice not to kill for themselves, or use guns, in their own situations. But those are issues that affect men directly… when it comes around to women choosing not to have their health threatened by a pregnancy (or choosing not to breed with the idiot they decided to screw because he was cute but was too stupid to breed with, and have that demon-spawn ruin the rest of their life), suddenly everyone’s got a problem with it.
What it really does boil down to is that we think it’s okay to kill for “manly” reasons, but not for womanly ones. And so I’ll repeat it again and again until you all get it: TRUST WOMEN. Trust them to make moral/ethical/medical decisions that are appropriate for them, and stop trying to turn them into baby factories because you are squeamish about denying a fetus access to her body’s resources.
This comment was written by UnApologetic Atheist.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
My concern with the “let it go to the states” argument is that it would mean abandoning our red state sisters to whatever creepy Handmaiden’s Tale style madness that their local legislators can dream up. Frankly any time I hear my blue state brethren suggest this my first thought is “stop being such a selfish ass”. Sure, this would work out fine for me since I live in California, but what about my high school buddy who lives in Houston? What about all the other women in the red states, especially the ones who won’t be able to travel to other states if they need an abortion? I don’t think it’s morally or ethically acceptable to abandon them.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators