Pro Choice?????

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As someone mentioned previously, its sad that this "ususual" case has been used to generate 20 pages of political debate about abortion (which makes me wonder if that was the main reason it was posted).

I think that should be obvious from the topic title.

True - some spinning has been done. The original article has a broader focus than is being suggested - and that has been completely ignored in favor of rubbishing the opinions of "pro-choice" advocates.

On Munchausen Syndrome - people might be interested in reading up on Sir Roy Meadow who was struck off the medical register in the UK over a number of criminal cases involving infant cot death. Is there really no relevance to what the woman's defence laywer is saying in the original article?

Edited October 25, 2006 by erekose

[garya505 2]

After 75 Years: A More Humane Culture?

by Rosemary Oelrich Bottcher, President, FFLA

from The American Feminist, Winter 1995/1996

"We women recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave our sex the right to vote. Seventy-five years seems like a long time, until I consider that women were not allowed to vote in most states in this country at the time that my own mother was born. And my grandmother -- a strong, independent, highly intelligent woman -- was 44 years old the first time she was able to cast a ballot. (However, she told me that women's suffrage just meant that she got two votes, because she had been telling my grandfather how to vote for years.) Having been greatly influenced as a child by my grandmother's wry wisdom, I now find it incredible that for the first half of her life she was deemed unfit to participate in the decisions of democracy solely because of her sex.

The inherent injustice of denying a class of persons such a basic right as that of the vote seems so obvious to us now, but it took the suffragists more than 70 years to persuade their countrymen to pass and ratify the 19th Amendment in 1920. Our foremothers believed that society would be greatly improved when women were active participants in its management, because the "maternal thinking" of women would demand a more humane, compassionate culture.

So it was with an exquisite sense of irony that I watched pro-abortion feminists dress up like suffragists to commemorate the anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Susan B. Anthony and her supporters would have been appalled that so many modern feminists consider abortion, not the vote, to be the cornerstone of women's equality.

The women who struggled so tenaciously to secure the rights of women were also steadfast in their defense of the rights of all human beings, including the unborn. They realized that all human rights are inextricably entwined, and that rights can survive only in an atmosphere of responsibility. They considered the practice of abortion to be a paradigm of society's failure to recognize both the rights of children and the responsibilities of adults. It is tragic that modern pro-abortion feminists have forgotten and ignored their foremothers' brilliant analysis of this issue.

But I remain hopeful that the moral evolution that eventually secured suffrage for women will continue to unfold. After all, we are amazed when we talk to those who remember the sad, dark days when women had no right to vote. Perhaps in 70 years our granddaughters will be amazed when they talk to those who remember the sad, dark days when the unborn had no right to life."

[Carol&Marc 0]

a recent study showed that 100% of those that are pro choice have already been born. interesting.

Hits it out of the park! for a GRAND SLAM!

[Jenn! 918]

a recent study showed that 100% of those that are pro choice have already been born. interesting.

Hits it out of the park! for a GRAND SLAM!

Are we watching the same game?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

After 75 Years: A More Humane Culture?

by Rosemary Oelrich Bottcher, President, FFLA

from The American Feminist, Winter 1995/1996

"We women recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave our sex the right to vote. Seventy-five years seems like a long time, until I consider that women were not allowed to vote in most states in this country at the time that my own mother was born. And my grandmother -- a strong, independent, highly intelligent woman -- was 44 years old the first time she was able to cast a ballot. (However, she told me that women's suffrage just meant that she got two votes, because she had been telling my grandfather how to vote for years.) Having been greatly influenced as a child by my grandmother's wry wisdom, I now find it incredible that for the first half of her life she was deemed unfit to participate in the decisions of democracy solely because of her sex.

The inherent injustice of denying a class of persons such a basic right as that of the vote seems so obvious to us now, but it took the suffragists more than 70 years to persuade their countrymen to pass and ratify the 19th Amendment in 1920. Our foremothers believed that society would be greatly improved when women were active participants in its management, because the "maternal thinking" of women would demand a more humane, compassionate culture.

So it was with an exquisite sense of irony that I watched pro-abortion feminists dress up like suffragists to commemorate the anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Susan B. Anthony and her supporters would have been appalled that so many modern feminists consider abortion, not the vote, to be the cornerstone of women's equality.

The women who struggled so tenaciously to secure the rights of women were also steadfast in their defense of the rights of all human beings, including the unborn. They realized that all human rights are inextricably entwined, and that rights can survive only in an atmosphere of responsibility. They considered the practice of abortion to be a paradigm of society's failure to recognize both the rights of children and the responsibilities of adults. It is tragic that modern pro-abortion feminists have forgotten and ignored their foremothers' brilliant analysis of this issue.

But I remain hopeful that the moral evolution that eventually secured suffrage for women will continue to unfold. After all, we are amazed when we talk to those who remember the sad, dark days when women had no right to vote. Perhaps in 70 years our granddaughters will be amazed when they talk to those who remember the sad, dark days when the unborn had no right to life."

Are you familiar with Andrea Dworkin, by chance?

a recent study showed that 100% of those that are pro choice have already been born. interesting.

Hits it out of the park! for a GRAND SLAM!

Nice statement of the obvious. But that too... would be stating the obvious

[ChristinaM 0]

Abortion has only become the "cornerstone of women's equality" because those who are anti-choice have made it so. If they would live and let live, not choosing a solution that they feel is not right for them in the same way that those who do not wish to smoke cigarettes do not smoke cigarettes, then those who are pro-choice would have not have to defend that right.

Those on the anti-choice side forget that nobody is forcing them to have an abortion. They are free to deal with the consequences of their actions in whatever way they see fit. However, to insist that if the legal right to abortion is abolished that all of the children that would never have been will be happily and quickly adopted is naive. Some of those children would have had serious problems - what of them? Some of them milder problems - what of them? Some of them would have been born black boys - what of them? Statistically, the vast majority of people who want to adopt want a healthy, caucasian female newborn. No matter how you look at it, there are never going to be enough of those to go round. So what of the rest?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Abortion has only become the "cornerstone of women's equality" because those who are anti-choice have made it so. If they would live and let live, not choosing a solution that they feel is not right for them in the same way that those who do not wish to smoke cigarettes do not smoke cigarettes, then those who are pro-choice would have not have to defend that right.

Those on the anti-choice side forget that nobody is forcing them to have an abortion. They are free to deal with the consequences of their actions in whatever way they see fit. However, to insist that if the legal right to abortion is abolished that all of the children that would never have been will be happily and quickly adopted is naive. Some of those children would have had serious problems - what of them? Some of them milder problems - what of them? Some of them would have been born black boys - what of them? Statistically, the vast majority of people who want to adopt want a healthy, caucasian female newborn. No matter how you look at it, there are never going to be enough of those to go round. So what of the rest?

There's enough material there for a whole separate thread. Hopefully without wanting to take things too far O/T:

Andrea Dworkin

In 1983, Dworkin published Right-Wing Women: The Politics of Domesticated Females, an examination of what she claimed were women's reasons for collaborating with men for the limitation of women's freedom.[38] In the Preface to the British edition (reprinted in Letters from a War Zone, 185-194), Dworkin stated that the New Right in the United States focused especially on preserving male authority in the family, the promotion of fundamentalist versions of orthodox religion, combating abortion, and undermining efforts to combat domestic violence (192-193), but that it also had, for the first time, "succeeded in getting women as women (women who claim to be acting in the interests of women as a group) to act effectively in behalf of male authority over women, in behalf of a hierarchy in which women are subservient to men, in behalf of women as the rightful property of men, in behalf of religion as an expression of transcendent male supremacy" (193). Taking this as her problem, Dworkin asked, "Why do right-wing women agitate for their own subordination? How does the Right, controlled by men, enlist their participation and loyalty? And why do right-wing women truly hate the feminist struggle for equality?" (194).

[rclouse 0]

you could always try to be born again. i wanted to be but my mom said NO! sad.gif

Did you try going back?

[mawilson 2,133]

a recent study showed that 100% of those that are pro choice have already been born. interesting.

Sometimes I wish I hadn't though.

you could always try to be born again.

Like a born-again religious nut^W^WChristian?

[Veiled Princess 1]

live and let live

Unfortunately the pro-murder side does not do this.... the baby always dies.

[mawilson 2,133]

live and let live

Unfortunately the pro-murder side does not do this.... the baby always dies.

Not the baby - the "foetus"

[Veiled Princess 1]

live and let live

Unfortunately the pro-murder side does not do this.... the baby always dies.

Not the baby - the "foetus"

the baby

[garya505 2]

Abortion has only become the "cornerstone of women's equality" because those who are anti-choice have made it so. If they would live and let live, not choosing a solution that they feel is not right for them in the same way that those who do not wish to smoke cigarettes do not smoke cigarettes, then those who are pro-choice would have not have to defend that right.

Those on the anti-choice side forget that nobody is forcing them to have an abortion. They are free to deal with the consequences of their actions in whatever way they see fit. However, to insist that if the legal right to abortion is abolished that all of the children that would never have been will be happily and quickly adopted is naive. Some of those children would have had serious problems - what of them? Some of them milder problems - what of them? Some of them would have been born black boys - what of them? Statistically, the vast majority of people who want to adopt want a healthy, caucasian female newborn. No matter how you look at it, there are never going to be enough of those to go round. So what of the rest?

So you are suggesting that the decision to terminate the life of a human embryo or fetus is equivalent to the decision to smoke a cigarette?

And, you are suggesting that children who might not be adoptable because they aren't perfect are better off dead?

[Veiled Princess 1]

Some of them would have been born black boys -

We should abort all black boys?????? This is a birth defect now????

I realize I quoted that incorrectly.... sorry garya

Edited October 25, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[aussiewench 9]

Some of them would have been born black boys -

We should abort all black boys?????? This is a birth defect now????

I realize I quoted that incorrectly.... sorry garya

quoting something in the context it is said, always helps

Some of them would have been born black boys - what of them? Statistically, the vast majority of people who want to adopt want a healthy, caucasian female newborn.