Pro Choice?????

[garya505 2]

Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.

http://www.feministsforlife.org

...especially as exemplified by sex-selection abortion!

Who the hell would do that!?

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then what is wrong with that?

Gary, if you listened to the people who said that being pro-choice was not about being pro-abortion, you might already know the answer.

Nobody likes abortion, and few people condone abortion as a means of birth control.

I'm saying that abortion is physically and psychologically painful in most cases and going through that to choose the gender of your child is insane, and no American woman I know would do it. Ok Sriniv says it is common in China (for obvious reasons) but not here, and no, this discussion does not cross borders, as it has to do with United States law.

I do listen and what I hear is that most pro-choice people don't like abortion. So, my question is, why don't pro-choicers like it? The physical pain of an abortion is short lived and not severe, but the psychological pain can last much longer, perhaps a lifetime (something the pro-choice people don't like to talk about). I also believe that most pro-choicers know in their hearts that it is wrong to take the life of an unborn child, but they justify it because of the burden to the mother, or some other sociopolitical reason. In other words, in the minds of most pro-choicers it's a justifiable killing (and the fetus isn't really a person yet anyway).

Every 36 seconds in America a woman lays her body down, forced to choose abortion out of a lack of practical resources and emotional support. Abortion is a reflection that society has failed women.

Women deserve better.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

[*Robert* 2]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Pro-Life has no borders.

ace, everything has borders..

That's a fact brother Dean, and it's called the law... in this case, the law says abortion is leagal. I don't see how debating it here on an immigration forum will ever change that.

[almaty 19]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Pro-Life has no borders.

ace, everything has borders..

That's a fact brother Dean, and it's called the law... in this case, the law says abortion is leagal. I don't see how debating it here on an immigration forum will ever change that.

true brother robert....the law is the law....and much to some folks dismay.

[*Robert* 2]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Pro-Life has no borders.

ace, everything has borders..

That's a fact brother Dean, and it's called the law... in this case, the law says abortion is leagal. I don't see how debating it here on an immigration forum will ever change that.

true brother robert....the law is the law....and much to some folks dismay.

reminds me of all the fuss over the MBRA law... like anyone on here was going to change it!

[almaty 19]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Pro-Life has no borders.

ace, everything has borders..

That's a fact brother Dean, and it's called the law... in this case, the law says abortion is leagal. I don't see how debating it here on an immigration forum will ever change that.

true brother robert....the law is the law....and much to some folks dismay.

reminds me of all the fuss over the MBRA law... like anyone on here was going to change it!

aw, damn those whiners..almost got me banned a few times...damn, i glad that died down

[*Robert* 2]

:lol:

I remember that bro Dean!!!

First time I ever saw you get wound up here on VJ!!!

[garya505 2]

But not particularly relevant to the debate on abortion in this country

Pro-Life has no borders.

ace, everything has borders..

That's a fact brother Dean, and it's called the law... in this case, the law says abortion is leagal. I don't see how debating it here on an immigration forum will ever change that.

true brother robert....the law is the law....and much to some folks dismay.

But it's only legal because the Supreme Court ruled it is, not because the voters decided it.

[*Robert* 2]

But it's only legal because the Supreme Court ruled it is, not because the voters decided it.

Let's see....

the last time I checked, the voters vote for the President, and it is the President that selects the Supreme Court "Nominee"... then it is the Senete Selection Commitee... (ALSO elected by the voters) that decides on whether or not the nominee should be selected...

Am I missing something here?!!!

Edited October 26, 2006 by roi_aggie

[garya505 2]

But it's only legal because the Supreme Court ruled it is, not because the voters decided it.

Let's see....

the last time I checked, the voters vote for the President, and it is the President that selects the Supreme Court "Nominee"... then it is the Senete Selection Commitee... (ALSO elected by the voters) that decides on whether or not the nominee should be selected...

Am I missing something here?!!!

It's probably not the first or last time that the court has ruled against the majority opinion of the voters.

[*Robert* 2]

But it's only legal because the Supreme Court ruled it is, not because the voters decided it.

Let's see....

the last time I checked, the voters vote for the President, and it is the President that selects the Supreme Court "Nominee"... then it is the Senete Selection Commitee... (ALSO elected by the voters) that decides on whether or not the nominee should be selected...

Am I missing something here?!!!

It's probably not the first or last time that the court has ruled against the majority opinion of the voters.

Poor down trodden voters... when the court makes rulings they like, it's the best thing since sliced bread... when it's not popular... they aren't listening to the voters... NEWS FLASH

The Supreme Court does not make it's decisions based on what's POPULAR... it makes them based on the Constitution (you have heard of it yes?!) and the current set of local, State, and Federal laws already in place.

Thank goodness that's how it works, or we'd be seeing laws change every time the wind changed directions!!!

Edited October 26, 2006 by roi_aggie

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Can you really be a feminist and pro-life? Find out!

http://www.feministsforlife.org/index.htm

Apparently not - which is why I asked you if you were familiar with the work of the noted (recently deceased) feminist scholar

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).

As I said, I'll believe it when I see a crowd of "pro-choice" protestors demonstrating in front of Indian embassy/consulates against sex-selection abortion, or Chinese about forced "one-child-policy-enforcement" abortions!

Find me someone who actually approves of that sort of thing. In fact, perhaps you should ask people who believe in free speech why they do not routinely stage protest outside a Chinese or Russian embassy about government curtailment of freedom of expression. The comparison is meaningless.

8 pages later and I still see little more than a concerted effort to smear and distort a wide variety of opinion that falls under the umbrella of "pro-choice". Believing in the right to choose does not mean I would want my partner to have an abortion, nor do I necessarily approve of it in every circumstance (India and China for example...)

And we are about as far away from the meat of the original story (a desperate woman shooting herself) as it is possible to get. Well done!

Personal agendas abound. Jesus would be proud.

Edited October 26, 2006 by erekose

[garya505 2]

But it's only legal because the Supreme Court ruled it is, not because the voters decided it.

Let's see....

the last time I checked, the voters vote for the President, and it is the President that selects the Supreme Court "Nominee"... then it is the Senete Selection Commitee... (ALSO elected by the voters) that decides on whether or not the nominee should be selected...

Am I missing something here?!!!

It's probably not the first or last time that the court has ruled against the majority opinion of the voters.

Poor down trodden voters... when the court makes rulings they like, it's the best thing since sliced bread... when it's not popular... they aren't listening to the voters... NEWS FLASH

The Supreme Court does not make it's decisions based on what's POPULAR... it makes them based on the Constitution (you have heard of it yes?!) and the current set of local, State, and Federal laws already in place.

Thank goodness that's how it works, or we'd be seeing laws change every time the wind changed directions!!!

The constituion, in the 14th Amendment, says that a state may not "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." However, the constitution doesn't specify when a human life becomes a "person" so it's up to the court to decide that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The constituion, in the 14th Amendment, says that a state may not "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." However, the constitution doesn't specify when a human life becomes a "person" so it's up to the court to decide that.

And currently abortion is (mostly) legal.