<p>
I understand you Hunt. Once one wades into the issue more than “bumper sticker” deep, one finds it to be a rather complicated issue to say the least.</p>
<p>Hunt, didn’t you say:
</p>
<p>That’s asking my opinion about abortion and murder. Now you’re talking about how it’s really a legal definition? That’s a whole other horse of an entirely different color. Sure, mini is correct that the term itself is a legal one, but I took your comment to be regarding the moral implications rather than the legal one based on your wording and I chose to use your term as that is the one you used for me. But I guess I am too extreme (or too passive?) and don’t think deeply enough for you ;)</p>
<p>Relax. Have some red wine and dark chocolate courtesy of your insurance company of choice.</p>
<p>
I do get what you’re saying, Hunt. What I’m saying is that you contradict yourself.</p>
<p>“Murder” is, as mini has noted, a “legal term.” That is, “murder” is the term we use for killing which is not legal. Not war, not government execution, not withholding medication, food or hydration due to a directive to physicians signed by a competent adult.</p>
<p>What I’m saying is that the “default,” unless you’re sure, as a society, that you want to treat something as “murder” is you butt out. Government shouldn’t take steps (particularly drastic steps) unless and until we have at the very least a reasonably firm consensus. We don’t have that. You shouldn’t make things criminal if 51% of the public thinks it’s a crime and 49% doesn’t, any more than the opposite. I don’t care how strongly the 51% feel about it. (And we’re not “one Supreme Court justice” away from declaring that abortion is murder - we’re one Supreme Court justice away from declaring that abortion is not murder. That’s actually a hugely different thing. Trust me - I’m an appellate lawyer. :))</p>
<p>Defining the issue as “protecting the more vulnerable individual” is taking sides. You can define term in such a way as to justify the result - that’s a given.</p>
<p>I respect all opinions on this (honest - I get that this is not an easy question) but I continue to be non-plussed by arguments which take the easy way out by defining terms in a way which favor the proponent’s argument. To me the bottom line isn’t “Is one side right, the other wrong?” -an argument which I think we agree can’t be resolved at this time, but, “If we can’t confidently agree which side is right, what policy should we adopt?”</p>
<p>My answer is that the policy we should adopt is: “Let the person whose body in in question decide.” Absent a clear societal consensus to the contrary, government should butt out. People with opinions don’t like to butt out - I’m old enough to get that - but sometimes it’s worth repeating.</p>
<p>
Surely you don’t mean to make this a general statement about what should be against the law and what shouldn’t do you?</p>
<p>This whole issue of “personhood” according to certain political persuasions truly has me scratching my head. Let me get this straight: Citibank is a person, and so is a fertilized egg?</p>
<p>Zoosermom, my h is an OB GYN and prof at a major medical center. A Transvag ultrasound is NOT necessary in the vast majority of abortions. Just wanted to correct your misperception.</p>
<p>There’s too much of a double standard in these laws. Unless we make a man walking away from his fetus and not paying his part of the medical and birth bills, not to mention child support, a felony, with penalties akin to murder, we really need to stop this charade. This is why it is about control over a woman and her right to do what she will with her body. There is simply not one law to protect the fertilized egg from abandonment and neglect by the sperm donor which even comes close to this. I simply do not believe those who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and then would run around whining about Wic and Welfare for single parents. We do not even have a law which mandates PAID maternity leave in this country… I find the whole thing incredibly disingenious, in terms of so much concern for the “life” of the fetus. I guess the “life of the fetus” is supremely important, but the feeding and educating of the children is NOT. </p>
<p>I just don’t “get it.” I never will.</p>
<p>But, the most important point is that women who are given their birth control pills in a year’s supply at a time, and not month-to-month, have THE highest, nearing 100%, effective prevention of pregnancy. If the ending of abortion was the TRUE goal here, the pro-life advocates would be picketing congress to make certain women were issued the BCP, and women were issued the BCP in one year packets. But, again, the point is simply, as Rush Limbaugh said, that young women are having too much sex without consequences, and that they are “over-educated” and too “entitled.” I am pro-choice, but I am not pro-abortion, by the way, just to be clear. I am really, strongly, pro-access to affordable and effective birth control. That’s what I mainly am, and that’s what we ought to all be, particularly if the goal is prevention of abortions and impoverished families.</p>
<p>Poet, I’ve never understood the hypocrisy either. So many people cry for abortions to be banned under the guise of pro life. Where’s the outrage over our terrible foster care and adoption system for those unwanted children? Where’s the outrage over the high percentage of children who will never break the cycle of poverty because inner city schools are terrible? Where’s the outrage over the fact that many inner city kids never eat fresh vegetables because they don’t have access to a grocery store? Seriously, drive through Detroit sometime. Grocery stores are a rarity. I know many, many children in inner cities who have very little access to good food and therefore will be plagued with health problems throughout their lives. Where is the outrage over QUALITY of life issues?</p>
<p>It seems like once the umbilical cord is cut, they’re expected to fend for themselves.</p>
<p>Yes, Romani, and in the state of Wisconsin, they are actually going to have to vote on proposed legistlation to make single parenthood a crime. So, they are also one of the states attempting to defund planned parenthood. You will have a situation where a woman can become pregnant through having sex with a man (the only known way to accidentally become pregnant), and then also be put in jail for the crime of being a single parent.</p>
<p>This legislation does nothing to punish the parent (father) who LEAVES, but only the parent who stays.</p>
<p>I cannot find any reason for this other than to attempt to get women to PAY for the morally horrendous act of engaging in sex with a man. Heaven forbid!</p>
<p>But, no, I"m sure I’m just paranoid. Women’s rights are not under attack. Not at all. :rolleyes:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Wisconsin-Bill-Says-Single-Mothers-Responsible-for-Child-Abuse-141508403.html[/url]”>http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Wisconsin-Bill-Says-Single-Mothers-Responsible-for-Child-Abuse-141508403.html</a></p>
<p>To be fair, from my understanding of the bill, it is not going to be illegal to be a single parent. I’m not sure how that was twisted from the bill. It’s going to emphasize that single parenthood is a contributing factor to abuse and neglect. </p>
<p>There are enough attacks on women that we don’t need to be twisting words to make them fit. For example, the Michigan bill that would make it a crime to not bury or cremate a fetus as young as 8 weeks, even if it was a miscarriage.</p>
<p>Also, I agree that’s it’s an attack on single mothers, but it doesn’t make illegal.</p>
<p>Yes, that’s true.</p>
<p>They want to start with a bill that labels single parenthood a contributing factor in abuse in neglect. There is no bill to label poverty as a contributing factor in abuse and neglect, and, in fact, there is a bill to limit access to and how single parents can spend Wic and Welfare and to make, and I quote, “Section 8 housing more cramped and crowded”</p>
<p>1/3 of all parents in Wisconsin are single parents. The majority of these are women, you might be surprised to note.</p>
<p>But, really?</p>
<p>Seriously? </p>
<p>Oh, well, I’m out. Nothing will be solved in this thread. Just remember to vote. :)</p>
<p>Poeet and romani, you don’t get it. The birth mother is supposed to carry the pregnancy to term, and then meekly hand the baby over to a nice, middle class–preferably white and Christian–heterosexual couple. The baby will, of course, also be white, and will not have any inconvenient issues. What happens to all of the other babies we just won’t think about. Orphanages, maybe? </p>
<p>BTW, IMNSHO, Godiva is pretty much crap these days. Unless you like your chocolates filled with hydrogenated fats and other fake ingredients.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A source of cheap labor? Extraordinary rendition?</p>
<p>I forgot about cosmetic testing.</p>
<p>“Put it the other way: if, today, we cut off BCPs as part of preventive health services, to the hundreds of thousands of Catholic women in the state who currently receive it, wouldn’t that be offensive to their values - both as Catholics and as women?”</p>
<p>Do their “values” require that Someone Else pay for their birth control pills, or only that birth control pills remain legal and easily available at any pharmacy? </p>
<p>At some point, the vast majority of Christians and Jews will covet their neighbor’s wife, husband, house, car, boat, iPad, cleaning lady, wine collection, golf clubs, or jewelry. Does that collective failure consistently to keep one of the Ten Commandments mean that this particular moral teaching is invalid? Or does it rather mean that we are all sinners in constant need of God’s mercy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think irrelevant is a better choice of word than invalid.</p>
<p>My Ds’ access to birth control is much better and easier than it was for me. This is why I don’t subscribe to the hysteria that we are turning back the clock on women’s rights. However, I have not, and to my knowledge neither of my Ds, have had to seek out abortion services, so I cannot speak to availability of those services with any first-hand knowledge, other than to note that no female that I or my Ds know of, has ended up giving birth to an unwanted child.</p>
<p>The intended effect of the mandate is to save costs, through better health. Unfortunately, we will probably never know whether this goal will be achieved, because there are too many variables. Premiums will continue to increase; and the rate of single-parenting has skyrocketed, so that cannot be linked to the availability of contraception. The rate of teenage pregnancy has already declined without the mandate, and our abortion rate is already lower than that of Sweden, where contraception is free.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PERFECT! </p>
<p>This should be a bumper sticker, as well as on the CC greatest-quotes thread.</p>
<p>Here’s an informative article about a study in progress, on how cost and access to various kinds of contraception affect various kinds of women (wealthy vs low-income, good insurance vs no insurance, etc). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not all birth control is created equal:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pushing lower-income women toward cheap generics is not the answer:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is also an argument against OTC. Bcps are not comparable to condoms. Condoms are not heavy-duty drugs with potentially serious – even fatal – side effects. It’s essential to be under a doctor’s care while taking bcps.</p>
<p>“$100 Or $1,000? Wide Price Range For Birth Control”
<a href=“http://www.witn.com/news/headlines/100_Or_1000_Wide_Price_Range_For_Birth_Control__142237705.html?ref=705[/url]”>http://www.witn.com/news/headlines/100_Or_1000_Wide_Price_Range_For_Birth_Control__142237705.html?ref=705</a></p>
<p>Thanks for the link :)</p>