South Dakota and Roe v. Wade

[fire&ice]

The debate does boil down to one''s opinion on when life begins.

Also, bringing a baby to full term & subsequently giving it up for adoption isn''t a walk in the park. It''s a bit cavalier to just put that out there as the answer to unwanted pregnancy.

And, probably get flamed for this - but the more I read the more I don''t think men get it. So, that is why I find it odd (and as mentioned - infuriating) that men are making these decisions.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I just wanted to say that I am not Catholic, have never been Catholic and am not knowledgable on their views on anything other than the general knowledge that they are opposed to abortion. So I have no comments on that.

I certainly agree with the comments about providing birth control to third world countries. And thank you, rainbowtrout, for agreeing with me that more men should take responsibility and treat women with respect. There are far too many abortions AND single mothers who have been abandoned by men in this country, in my opinion. I am surpised at your friend''s experience in Alabama, but thankfully she could go to many other pharmacies to get her prescription. That said though, I think that pharmacist has the right to sell whatever he wants in his store. That is his right to choose and act on his convictions just as it is her right to shop with stores that meet her needs. That applies to us all, of course.

Maria, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. All people (babies included) on earth, to my knowledge, started as a zygote, embryo, and fetus. Therefore, all zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human beings in the process of being created. You do not believe they are living human beings and I do. It''s as simple as that. I have no problem with preventing pregnancy. I have no agendas with birth control. I just feel that once a human being is created, that life has a right to live. I have heard and read stories of failed abortions and the people that survived to say that they are glad they had the chance to live. I just think that child has a right to say whether their life is worth living. I don''t see that once the human being is created that any one else has the right to kill it. You and others here feel that the woman carrying the baby has the right to do whatever she wants. I understand that, and realize we will likely never agree. I did used to think that way myself, however.

I really like it when we can state opposing views without attacking others. I hope I have done that, and most of you have expressed your opinions without attacking mine. Thank you. I think it is important to respect the views of others and have mature discussions even when we disagree.

I want to try to ease out of this discussion so I can get back to the diamond forums! I thank you all for allowing me to express my deep feelings about the value of children, both before and after they are born!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 3/1/2006 9:59:31 AM
Author: fire&ice
The debate does boil down to one's opinion on when life begins.

Also, bringing a baby to full term & subsequently giving it up for adoption isn't a walk in the park. It's a bit cavalier to just put that out there as the answer to unwanted pregnancy.

And, probably get flamed for this - but the more I read the more I don't think men get it. So, that is why I find it odd (and as mentioned - infuriating) that men are making these decisions.

I agree that men don't get it. But my point is that it is the men who are having sex with women and who take no responsibility that are the problem! We need to be after the men who are causing the problems to begin with!!! When women are used by men and then pushed into abortions, I don't see those particular women having a lot of choices!

ETA: I go to a female OB/GYN because I don't think men "get" women's bodies at all! Lol!

But you hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. That is exactly right.

 

[Demelza]

As I said before, I don't really think the salient issue is whether or not we can all agree that life begins at conception. I think the question is, despite the fact that some believe that life begins at conception, is it possible still to allow those who don't share those beliefs the option of terminating an unwanted pregnancy? Can those who believe abortion is inherently wrong tolerate that others might not agree? No one is suggesting that everyone have an abortion, simply that the option be available to those for whom it is a viable solution. That, to me, is a debate worth having. Why do those who feel that abortion is wrong feel the need to impose their views on everyone else? That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I really am curious.

Re: Jeremy's post: He may not have intended to equate the stealing of one's coat to being raped, but it was awfully unclear what he was intending to do. It did seem to me that he was saying that rape, like the stealing of a coat, is unfair and leaves the victim with a deficit of some sort (severe emotional/physical trauma, the lack of...a coat). The result, becoming pregnant or feeling cold (he did seem to equate these two), is simply one of those things one has to deal with ("live it well") because, hey, life isn't always fair. Am I misunderstanding? I sure hope so!!!!

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 3/1/2006 11:36:49 AM
Author: Demelza
As I said before, I don''t really think the salient issue is whether or not we can all agree that life begins at conception. I think the question is, despite the fact that some believe that life begins at conception, is it possible still to allow those who don''t share those beliefs the option of terminating an unwanted pregnancy? Can those who believe abortion is inherently wrong tolerate that others might not agree? No one is suggesting that everyone have an abortion, simply that the option be available to those for whom it is a viable solution. That, to me, is a debate worth having. Why do those who feel that abortion is wrong feel the need to impose their views on everyone else? That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I really am curious.

The issue is about ''when life begins''. If you believe at conception, then how could you ever rationalize that abortion is not killing an innocent? You couldn''t rationalize your neighbor killing their 2 month old. I can not speak for sure as I''m pro-choice - but it''s not as simple as tolerating what others may not believe. I think that is why it is such an explosive issue.

Agreed, debating when life begins is not going to come to any resolve. Just that what you believe is what you believe. I don''t think anyone is going to change anyones mind.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 3/1/2006 11:49:30 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 3/1/2006 11:36:49 AM

Author: Demelza

As I said before, I don't really think the salient issue is whether or not we can all agree that life begins at conception. I think the question is, despite the fact that some believe that life begins at conception, is it possible still to allow those who don't share those beliefs the option of terminating an unwanted pregnancy? Can those who believe abortion is inherently wrong tolerate that others might not agree? No one is suggesting that everyone have an abortion, simply that the option be available to those for whom it is a viable solution. That, to me, is a debate worth having. Why do those who feel that abortion is wrong feel the need to impose their views on everyone else? That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I really am curious.

The issue is about 'when life begins'. If you believe at conception, then how could you ever rationalize that abortion is not killing an innocent? You couldn't rationalize your neighbor killing their 2 month old. I can not speak for sure as I'm pro-choice - but it's not as simple as tolerating what others may not believe. I think that is why it is such an explosive issue.


Agreed, debating when life begins is not going to come to any resolve. Just that what you believe is what you believe. I don't think anyone is going to change anyones mind.

Yes, I do understand what you're saying. I do realize that it must be hard to tolerate what some perceive as murder. Hard, but not impossible. And it is true that no one will convince me that abortion should be illegal. The difference, however, between "choicers" and lifers" is that the former is about allowing each person the freedom to decide for herself what is right for her life and her body; the latter is about limiting choices based on the belief of certain people. I would never in a million years tell a woman she must have an abortion even if it's what I thought was best for her (as her therapist, friend, sister); similarly, I simply can't fathom how people can tell a woman they will never meet that she must carry a baby to term, regardless of what she, her doctor, her husband, etc. thinks is best. It's just so hard for me to understand, just, I'm sure, as hard as it is for the other side to see what they perceive as a cavalier attitude towards life. It sure is the debate to end all debates!

 

[fire&ice]

And precisely why I believe it''s either legal or it''s not. No restrictions or full restrictions. Because when you start putting restrictions - you take out the "choice". Do I believe parents should be notified? Yes. Do I think partial birth abortions should be outlawed? Yes. But, if you do that it even takes one down a slippery slope. And, in the end - who makes the ruling that a teenager''s life would be endangered if parents were notified? Probably some man.

It is the debate of all debates. I just can''t help but wonder what the debate would be about if men bore the children. Oh wait, we wouldn''t have any population - as men couldn''t stand the sacrifice and pain

- totally kidding with the last comment

 

[E B]

Date: 3/1/2006 12:20:43 PM
Author: fire&ice

It is the debate of all debates. I just can't help but wonder what the debate would be about if men bore the children. Oh wait, we wouldn't have any population - as men couldn't stand the sacrifice and pain

- totally kidding with the last comment

If men could bear children, there'd be no debate. Abortion would be legal without question. That is, if, one day in the recent future it'd somehow happen (not if it always was...am I making sense?). Men are free to have careless sex without the responsibility of carrying and raising a child. As I said before, all they have to do is send a check.

 

[cinnabar]

Partial birth abortions are not legal in Europe (which is by and large quite liberal on the subject). I think they are only legal in the US because the legislators who deep down personally oppose abortion are crafty and know that it''s a great way to get all abortion banned by fanning the flames of the anti-abortion lobby into thinking such a barbaric procedure is typical of all abortions.

Abortion is not popular with governments because the men (it''s always the men) in power like the idea that their nation consists of a potential army. That idea goes back to Napoleon, who did a deal with the Vatican; the Catholic church of the time did not oppose abortion, but changed its tune as part of a political deal. So much for Catholic "consistancy". Even when a country has a Catholic majority, I still don''t think that country''s abortion laws are designed to reflect morals, they are a purely political tool: either to oppress women, or to increase the birthrate. The politicians just take advantage of people''s kind hearts, knowing that there are enough folk to do their job for them but with completely different motivation.

 

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 3/1/2006 12:53:29 PM
Author: cinnabar

Abortion is not popular with governments because the men (it''s always the men) in power like the idea that their nation consists of a potential army. That idea goes back to Napoleon, who did a deal with the Vatican; the Catholic church of the time did not oppose abortion, but changed its tune as part of a political deal. So much for Catholic ''consistancy''. Even when a country has a Catholic majority, I still don''t think that country''s abortion laws are designed to reflect morals, they are a purely political tool: either to oppress women, or to increase the birthrate. The politicians just take advantage of people''s kind hearts, knowing that there are enough folk to do their job for them but with completely different motivation.

Hey, that''s what I said way back at the beginning

Well, not quite. But still, nice to know someone is on board with the idea.

 

[Maria D]

The Catholic Church was not always opposed to abortion? I did not know that!

The reason I brought up the consistency of the Catholic Church is because unlike anti-choicers, it is (currently) consistent in its "sanctity of life" policy. No abortion, no death penalty, no war, no IVF...

The anti-choicers, on the other hand, are remarkably inconsistent. When it's abortion, life begins at conception. But then life doesn't begin at conception in the case of IVF. When sperm meets egg it's "innocent life" and the "child" has a right to live. But war and genocide aren't overwhelming concerns (not enough to picket and legislate against) even though plenty of innocent life is affected. The anti-choicers say we must not use abortion as birth control but then make it difficult to use other forms of birth control that prevent pregnancy in the first place -- like emergency contraception which they conveniently try to confuse with the abortion pill.

>>The politicians just take advantage of people's kind hearts, knowing that there are enough folk to do their job for them but with completely different motivation.<<

That's for sure. I don't for one minute think that true-blue conservative republicans really want abortion to be illegal. But stirring up the masses (and letting the democrats stupidly let themselves be portrayed as baby-killers) is one way to stay in power.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/1/2006 3:58:34 PM
Author: Maria D
The reason I brought up the consistency of the Catholic Church is because unlike anti-choicers, it is (currently) consistent in its ''sanctity of life'' policy. No abortion, no death penalty, no war, no IVF...

No "spilling the seed" by a male ejaculating anywhere other than into a woman''s vagina. (Does anyone know the song, "Every Sperm is Sacred"? It was in a Monty Python movie.)


Deb

 

[AGBF]

Here's some more news on a closely related subject. The Supreme Court is slowly chipping away at the right women and their doctors had to make decisions about the women's bodies. I grew up when abortion was outlawed everywhere in the continental United States. Having no right to choice wouldn't be anything new to me. I wonder how young women are going to feel, though. They took the right to decide about their own bodies for granted. No one listened when the women's groups warned that the Bush/fundamentalist Christian coalition was going to reach into our bodies again.


"WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — The Supreme Court brought an end Tuesday to a 20-year effort by the National Organization for Women to hold a coalition of anti-abortion groups accountable for a campaign of disrupting and blockading abortion clinics during the 1980's.

Ruling 8 to 0, the court held that the Hobbs Act, a federal law that makes it a crime to use robbery, extortion or, under some circumstances, violence to obstruct commerce, did not provide a proper basis for the federal court injunction that NOW and two women's health clinics had obtained against groups like Operation Rescue."

article

 

[partgypsy]

Regarding someone''s comment "men don''t get it" I agree that many times it is true. Maybe it''s a control thing, maybe it''s have my cake and eat it too. My sister in law works in a rape crisis center and when they have had informational talks, almost every time some college student guy will ask one of these variations, well what if she was out by herself at night, or dressed suggestively, or drunk? Wasn''t she asking for it?

However some men get it. I work at the VA and this older african american gentlemen was telling me about himself. He saw the picture of my daughter and got started on the subject of children. He told me how he was a minister and said he was completely anti abortion, would give sermons on it. That all changed he said when he witnessed his wife giving birth to his child, all the sweat and pain she went through and realized, I''m not the one carrying this child, I''m not the one giving birth to it. After that he said I realized it''s not my decision to make. It''s the women''s decision.
He seemed like a wise person to me.

"Don''t judge another man until you have walked a mile in his shoes"

Again could say again but echo what someone else said, if you are against abortion, then don''t have an abortion!

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 2/24/2006 5:05:45 PM
Author:AGBF

The governor of South Dakota is reportedly ''inclined'' to sign this bill.

Update: Monday 6 March 2006. He signed it.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 3/6/2006 4:04:56 PM
Author: cinnabar
Update: Monday 6 March 2006. He signed it.

Yes, I heard he wasn''t planning on getting pregnant anytime soon.


Deb

 

[AGBF]

South Dakota Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act (HB 1215)
Signed into Law by South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds
March 6, 2006

AN ACT

ENTITLED, An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefor, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited. Moreover, the Legislature finds that the guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life.

Section 2. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.

Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.

Section 3. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions.

Section 4. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.

Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

Section 5. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

Terms used in this Act mean:

1. "Pregnant," the human female reproductive condition, of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and child birth;

2. "Unborn human being," an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth;

3. "Fertilization," that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum.

Section 6. That § 34-23A-2 be repealed.

Section 7. That § 34-23A-3 be repealed.

Section 8. That § 34-23A-4 be repealed.

Section 9. That § 34-23A-5 be repealed.

Section 10. If any court of law enjoins, suspends, or delays the implementation of a provision of this Act, the provisions of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, of this Act are similarly enjoined, suspended, or delayed during such injunction, suspension, or delayed implementation.

Section 11. If any court of law finds any provision of this Act to be unconstitutional, the other provisions of this Act are severable. If any court of law finds the provisions of this Act to be entirely or substantially unconstitutional, the provisions of § § 34-23A-2, 34-23A-3, 34-23A-4, and 34-23A-5, as of June 30, 2006, are immediately reeffective.

Section 12. This Act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act. An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefor, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances.

Source: South Dakota Legislature


This is my favorite part:

1. "Pregnant," the human female reproductive condition, of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and child birth;

2. "Unborn human being," an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth;

3. "Fertilization," that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum.


Finally someone can tell us when life begins! This guy knows! At 2.3 seconds after ejaculation (the time it takes the lucky, winning sperm to make the swim), the woman has a baby inside her! Why do we need that extra nine months? Why not just buy a bassinet and some clothes and dress that fertilized egg up for a walk in his pram on Ejaculation Day?

 

[fire&ice]

No, my fav. part is the name of the damn bill "Women''s health & human life Protection Act"

Women''s health? What part of Women''s health did they consider?

It''s nutso - does this mean that if a women, while having an fertilized egg inside, plays tennis & falls causing a miscarriage - given this law - why wouldn''t this be involentary manslaughter. - you are knowingly engaging in an act that is putting your baby at risk.

One thing I don''t get - Why S. Dakota? It''s the old West - isn''t it. Is that a hotbed for Religious Right Conservatives? Or are there no people there to form a large scale protest? Mississippi, I can understand.

Yes, someone has figured out when life begins & *he''s* the correct ultimate view!

Seriously though, what "new medical evidence" do they have to prop up *his* point of view because anything I''ve seen has been conjecture.

 

[Angela1977]

Sorry to bring to life this dead thread, but I'm wondering why you all are so appalled at the idea of men making some of the decisions when it comes to abortion?

A man and a woman have sex. The woman gets pregnant. She then makes all the decisions, and the man is then on the hook financially for the next 18 years, and he has no say. He has no choice once the pregnancy occurs. They both decide to have sex, and then she decides for him whether he will have a lifelong financial obligation or not. How is that fair?

So why shouldn't men have some sort of say in the process? Yes, women carry the children for 9 months, but that's a pretty common thing. Women have been having children for thousands of years...don't make it sound like it's some affliction that you're lucky to get through. And you're only physically burdened for 9 more months than the man, so it's 18 years and 9 months v. 18 years. Men should get some say. How can you justify that they shouldn't?

 

[MINE!!]

OHHHH Angela.. the neofeminist around here are going to rip you for that comment.

but I agree with you 100%!

 

[rainbowtrout]

I read some article about how there are registries for men who wish to either claim or deny parenthood in many states. There''s a time limit on it, and most men are not well-informed about their rights, but they do have them.

I think the tricky issue is how much control should the man have, how should it be enacted, when does he have no say, etc. That''s always the problem with laws.

MINE, I can be a feminist and not hate everyone elses'' opinions

I don''t think "femininst" has to be the bad word many of us think it is.

I swear though, the next time I go back down South and I get the "so you advocate killing babies" line I am going to turn around and say "Yes, yes I do. I LIVE to kill infants. I like to drink their blood and dance on their flesh....yes, boys and girls, I''m a feminist. Run away now."

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 4/3/2006 3:15:10 PM
Author: Angela1977
Sorry to bring to life this dead thread, but I''m wondering why you all are so appalled at the idea of men making some of the decisions when it comes to abortion?

A man and a woman have sex. The woman gets pregnant. She then makes all the decisions, and the man is then on the hook financially for the next 18 years, and he has no say. He has no choice once the pregnancy occurs. They both decide to have sex, and then she decides for him whether he will have a lifelong financial obligation or not. How is that fair?

So why shouldn''t men have some sort of say in the process? Yes, women carry the children for 9 months, but that''s a pretty common thing. Women have been having children for thousands of years...don''t make it sound like it''s some affliction that you''re lucky to get through. And you''re only physically burdened for 9 more months than the man, so it''s 18 years and 9 months v. 18 years. Men should get some say. How can you justify that they shouldn''t?

Angela: if the governor of South Dakota, or any member of the Supreme Court, were to impregnate me during a mutually acceptable sexual relationship, then I would be happy for him to have some sort of say in the process.

MINE!!!: The neofeminist objection, as I understand it, is that some man with control issues, in a position of power, is dictating what we do with our own wombs.

 

[rainbowtrout]

I''m not sure if anyone will be interested, but I heard this the other day and was interested in what other people would think of it:

if it''s reasonable to force a woman NOT to have an abortion, to lock her in a room and compel her to let nature take its course in whatever way you have to do that---then what about compelling a woman TO have an abortion? Are these two options equally bad?

Because if it really IS about a "woman''s right to choose" ( a phrase which seems to have lost its meaning), both options should be equally "wrong."

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:17:14 PM
Author: cinnabar

Date: 4/3/2006 3:15:10 PM
Author: Angela1977
Sorry to bring to life this dead thread, but I''m wondering why you all are so appalled at the idea of men making some of the decisions when it comes to abortion?

A man and a woman have sex. The woman gets pregnant. She then makes all the decisions, and the man is then on the hook financially for the next 18 years, and he has no say. He has no choice once the pregnancy occurs. They both decide to have sex, and then she decides for him whether he will have a lifelong financial obligation or not. How is that fair?

So why shouldn''t men have some sort of say in the process? Yes, women carry the children for 9 months, but that''s a pretty common thing. Women have been having children for thousands of years...don''t make it sound like it''s some affliction that you''re lucky to get through. And you''re only physically burdened for 9 more months than the man, so it''s 18 years and 9 months v. 18 years. Men should get some say. How can you justify that they shouldn''t?

Angela: if the governor of South Dakota, or any member of the Supreme Court, were to impregnate me during a mutually acceptable sexual relationship, then I would be happy for him to have some sort of say in the process.

MINE!!!: The neofeminist objection, as I understand it, is that some man with control issues, in a position of power, is dictating what we do with our own wombs.

Precisely.

O.K. Angela - I gotta ask - ever been pregnant for those 9 months? Ever bore a child? Um...no big deal

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:15:07 PM
Author: rainbowtrout
MINE, I can be a feminist and not hate everyone elses'' opinions

I don''t think ''femininst'' has to be the bad word many of us think it is.

I''ve been tempted for a while to use this as my signature:

"I myself have never been able to find out what precisely feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat..."
-Rebecca West, 1913

 

[njc]

Angela - I agree that all parties involved (the father and the mother) should have a say in what happens. That they need to decide together as adults that knew having sex could result in having a baby.

I have issue with some random 45-50 yr old man sitting in an office 100 miles away from me deciding i have no choice what-so-ever over MY body. I''m not pro-abortion, just pro-choice, for everyone.

 

[Angela1977]

I never said it wasn''t a big deal to get/be pregnant. I''m saying that being pregnant isn''t a disease. Millions of women have successfully done it. We''re designed to do it. We''re built for it. Is it the easiest thing ever? No, nor did I allude to that. But is it something to make a federal case over? No. Women willingly go through it over and over again. Women pray and cry to experience "just one more time". It''s a natural biological function.

I also never said whether I was pro-choice or pro-life (I was actually kind of interested to see whether and how much I''d get jumped on for saying that). I also never said that I wasn''t a feminist. I guess you could call me more of a humanist.

I just don''t understand how women can stand up and grand stand about their rights and their choices and their bodies and their babies (or lack thereof depending on your definitioin) when men get no say in the process. Once she''s pregnant, a man has no control. If he wants her to keep the baby, he''s screwed. If he doesn''t want to have a child, she can haul him into court and there goes $500+ a month for the next 18 years, regardless if he wants any active part in his child''s life, he''s still going to have a financial responsibility. Did anyone ask him what HIS choice was? It''s her body for 9 months. Then what happens after those 9 months are over.

Just saying...
18 years + 9 months of physical and emotional "work"
18 years + 9 months of emotional "work"

It''s a pretty small difference for a man to have NO say in this subject. Can you honestly say that that is fair?

 

[MINE!!]

Funny, we are having a discussion on Feminist tomorrow in one of my class. Shoould be quite interested. I think feminist is a bad word. We are in a world today that screams that we must be politically correct and all encomposing and accepting, yet not really. Only all encompasing and accpeting when it agrees with the "new world order or political correctness and rainbow building."

I have had people call me a feminist because I stick up for women and encourage my daughters to d anything they dream of regardless of their sex. but I have had the same neofeminist on this VERY SITE had me some Bull$hit about bringing down women cause I refuse to let others raise my children or work 40+ hours a week in what they may deem an admirable profession. To me it is sickening. I have had people call me a feminist cause I speak my mind and do whatever I damn well please.. and when they do, I say please do not call me that, it is an insult. I prefer to just be a woman.

 

[E B]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:07:22 PM
Author: MINE!!
OHHHH Angela.. the neofeminist around here are going to rip you for that comment.


but I agree with you 100%!

Neofeminists? LOL. Please.

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:40:26 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 4/3/2006 4:07:22 PM

Author: MINE!!

OHHHH Angela.. the neofeminist around here are going to rip you for that comment.



but I agree with you 100%!

Neofeminists? LOL. Please.

Exactly! With a different inflection of course.

but I am through with this thread. The fact is, I think it is ridiculous that women who have never had children, thought about having children, been pregant, etc. are trying to decide on a topic where when that are accusing men of the same thing... making a decision on something about the life of a child without having had children, thought about having children or well.. been pregnant... It is an ironic and ridiculous!