Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
1/06 SF feminists fall into trap set by rightwingers
Wanna march on the same day as anti-choice demonstrators?
Okay -- but march AWAY from the right-wingers,
NOT toward them! Better yet, hold a concert in a park.
Okay -- but march AWAY from the right-wingers,
NOT toward them! Better yet, hold a concert in a park.
Redstaters come to San Francisco, famous center of free speech,
to voice their ugly opinions.
Bluestaters, led by feminists, try to stop their march,
saying "those outsiders can't demonstrate in OUR town."
[ For SF Chronicle report, please see
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/22/BAG5QGRAKC1.DTL ]
What's wrong with this picture?
It's a trap for unwary progressives and feminists ---
cleverly designed to make the right-wing marchers
look like victims.
( Of course, the REAL victims are babies who are born without being planned nor wanted;
often to a single teen girl who can't improve her own future nor theirs;
often of low birth-weight;
possibly with brain damage caused by pre-natal exposure to alcohol, nicotine, etc.;
usually without any pre-natal care; and so forth ---
often socially and medically handicapped from birth,
whose bad start may have life-long results.
But their multi-year problems can't be videotaped
in sixty seconds. )
In past decades,
the anti-abortion crowd looked like bullies on TV,
screaming at frightened girls
outside abortion clinics.
Now they sneakily attempt to reverse the field of perception --
at least for those unfortunate voters who depend on commercial television for news
( those citizens who think they're "watching the news",
without realizing that TV "news" is mere entertainment
designed to make them watch the real content --
the commercials).
In the new televised mirage,
the rightwing marchers will try to remain silent,
trying to look like past nonviolent marchers for better causes.
They'll encourage gullible progressives to scream at them;
thus trying to make progressives look like bullies
who seemingly oppose the right to demonstrate.
Some abortion-rights activists have figured out
this slick trick;
so they have (quietly) stopped counter-demonstrating.
Others are fooled,
and flock to the Embarcadero
like mice to a super-glue trap,
to jeer and taunt the mostly-silent marchers.
Wanna march on the same day
as anti-choice demonstrators?
Okay -- but march AWAY from the right-wingers,
NOT toward them!
Better yet, instead of marching,
hold a pro-choice and pro-feminist musical concert
in Golden Gate Park, or perhaps in Dolores Park.
-- queer feminist progressive,
Sunday, 22 January 2006
.......
to voice their ugly opinions.
Bluestaters, led by feminists, try to stop their march,
saying "those outsiders can't demonstrate in OUR town."
[ For SF Chronicle report, please see
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/22/BAG5QGRAKC1.DTL ]
What's wrong with this picture?
It's a trap for unwary progressives and feminists ---
cleverly designed to make the right-wing marchers
look like victims.
( Of course, the REAL victims are babies who are born without being planned nor wanted;
often to a single teen girl who can't improve her own future nor theirs;
often of low birth-weight;
possibly with brain damage caused by pre-natal exposure to alcohol, nicotine, etc.;
usually without any pre-natal care; and so forth ---
often socially and medically handicapped from birth,
whose bad start may have life-long results.
But their multi-year problems can't be videotaped
in sixty seconds. )
In past decades,
the anti-abortion crowd looked like bullies on TV,
screaming at frightened girls
outside abortion clinics.
Now they sneakily attempt to reverse the field of perception --
at least for those unfortunate voters who depend on commercial television for news
( those citizens who think they're "watching the news",
without realizing that TV "news" is mere entertainment
designed to make them watch the real content --
the commercials).
In the new televised mirage,
the rightwing marchers will try to remain silent,
trying to look like past nonviolent marchers for better causes.
They'll encourage gullible progressives to scream at them;
thus trying to make progressives look like bullies
who seemingly oppose the right to demonstrate.
Some abortion-rights activists have figured out
this slick trick;
so they have (quietly) stopped counter-demonstrating.
Others are fooled,
and flock to the Embarcadero
like mice to a super-glue trap,
to jeer and taunt the mostly-silent marchers.
Wanna march on the same day
as anti-choice demonstrators?
Okay -- but march AWAY from the right-wingers,
NOT toward them!
Better yet, instead of marching,
hold a pro-choice and pro-feminist musical concert
in Golden Gate Park, or perhaps in Dolores Park.
-- queer feminist progressive,
Sunday, 22 January 2006
.......
For more information:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I don't have a problem with grassroots response against the monolithic corporate Catholic church. To have no one come out would be a disgrace to our tradition of rights for women.
I think some of your other suggestions are good. But where are these suggestions when things are being planned? I strongly suggest that you and others who agree get more involved next year in the planning. Your input would be welcomed!
I think some of your other suggestions are good. But where are these suggestions when things are being planned? I strongly suggest that you and others who agree get more involved next year in the planning. Your input would be welcomed!
"monolithic corporate Catholic church"?? Before you paint all Catholics with such a broad stroke, please know that not all Catholics are part of the corrupt institutionalized part of the church.
groups like Catholics For Free Choice, Dignity (Catholic lgbtq rights group), the Good Catholics use Condoms campaign, are just a few examples who question Catholic teachings on abortion, birth control, and sexuality.
Just as one cannot automatically assume that every U.S. citizen is a war-loving imperialist lemming, there are many, many dissenting Catholics who do not unnquestioningly obey every dictate that comes out of the pope's mouth. the Catholic Church is incredibly diverse, and yesterday's "pro-life" marchers DO NOT speak for all Catholics.
groups like Catholics For Free Choice, Dignity (Catholic lgbtq rights group), the Good Catholics use Condoms campaign, are just a few examples who question Catholic teachings on abortion, birth control, and sexuality.
Just as one cannot automatically assume that every U.S. citizen is a war-loving imperialist lemming, there are many, many dissenting Catholics who do not unnquestioningly obey every dictate that comes out of the pope's mouth. the Catholic Church is incredibly diverse, and yesterday's "pro-life" marchers DO NOT speak for all Catholics.
It's about the money. Whether prochoice catholics like it or not, their church paid to have all these anti-choice protestors bused in from other towns.
I'm glad your church is different and diverse. However, the leaders or the Catholic Church's opposition to women's role in the church and their reproductive rights is well known.
I'm glad your church is different and diverse. However, the leaders or the Catholic Church's opposition to women's role in the church and their reproductive rights is well known.
We have a right and duty to protest this fascist police parade masquerading as an anti-abortion religious idiot march. The police marched and drove by the hundreds right along side the official idiot parade. THIS IS HOW A FASCIST MOVEMENT DEVELOPS. This parade will get much bigger and threaten our lives, our labor unions, our right to strike, and everything else they can get away with if we do not protest. The person who posted this article is clearly a good Democrat, and we all know it was the Democrats and their organizations like Planned Parenthood who stayed away. The Democratic Party is busy welcoming the anti-abortion crowd back to its fold, where currently also sit death penalty supporters, warmongers, and lots of police. The voting record of these Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich, who has a vicious anti-abortion voting record and reinvinted himself as "Pro-choice" to run for president so as to divert the peace movement from its worthy goal to the graveyard of the Democratic Party, is one of either voting anti-abortion, collaborating with the anti-abortionists, and/or making abortion rare, by not funding abortion clinics. Pres. Clinton stated he wanted abortion clinics to be rare and now his wife is welcoming the anti-abortionists back to the Democratic Party, some of whom never left. The HUNDREDS OF POLICE attending were clearly unneeded and thus this was a POLICE PARADE under the guise of religion. Another police parade in San Francisco is the St. Patrick's Day Parade. The Chronicle usually reports 150,000 people attend as spectators when actually perhaps 1,000 watch. The police are there in uniformed contingents of at least 100 strong, throughout the parade as "security" and sitting in a huge van usually marked at 7th and Mission (perhaps it is moved now that there is construction; I will check this year) guzzling coffee, etc. on TAXPAYER TIME AND DIME. Meanwhile we have a budget crisis and school closures. If the Board of Supervisors allows this fascist parade, WE WILL ALL BE THERE AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL THIS CITY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THIS FASCIST POLICE PARADE MASQUERADING AS AN ANTI-ABORTION PARADE.
I noticed that all the dozens of buses (and shuttle buses) had full use of the parking lot at the public Marina Middle School. They were neatly staged and numbered, and the protesters were trickling in from the Marina Green.
Maybe it was all approved properly, but it doesn't sit right with me. I'm sure parents of Marina Middle students weren't part of the process. Was the School Board informed? Anyone have any information about this kind of arrangement?
Maybe it was all approved properly, but it doesn't sit right with me. I'm sure parents of Marina Middle students weren't part of the process. Was the School Board informed? Anyone have any information about this kind of arrangement?
Were they guarded?
by our own sfpd... were you there, or didn't you notice?
I think there's a lot of worth in the observation that the polarity of image has changed. I do think we need to invest their newly non-verbal(wouldnt call it "peaceful" by a long shot) tactic seriously.
Having said that...the above comments did sting a bit, not because I have a problem with critique/analysis, but because we knew about this march from June on. And at every turn, BACORR and other groups disseminated information about it. And yet, there were maybe 5 people who really did the heavy lifting to shape any sort of response.
? What's up with that? I'm not saying you have to work with BACORR in order to have a legit response. But you should work to make your ideas known, and to find others who share that vision. Did you do that? If not, why not?
So...yeah. It's all about planning. They will be back next year. We need a response both to this march and the reproductive rights landscape in general. And...that response will be shaped and changed according to the ideas that are being thrown into the pot. I think many of us gained insights on Jan 21st. What are we going to do with them?
One thing that people should know about is that there is a forum on the abortion/reproductive rights movement at New College on Tuesday at 7. I think everyone who marched should go.
In love and determination,
Elizabeth
Ps. If you want, you can respond to bacorrinfo@rise up.net with any questions/comments..etc...
Having said that...the above comments did sting a bit, not because I have a problem with critique/analysis, but because we knew about this march from June on. And at every turn, BACORR and other groups disseminated information about it. And yet, there were maybe 5 people who really did the heavy lifting to shape any sort of response.
? What's up with that? I'm not saying you have to work with BACORR in order to have a legit response. But you should work to make your ideas known, and to find others who share that vision. Did you do that? If not, why not?
So...yeah. It's all about planning. They will be back next year. We need a response both to this march and the reproductive rights landscape in general. And...that response will be shaped and changed according to the ideas that are being thrown into the pot. I think many of us gained insights on Jan 21st. What are we going to do with them?
One thing that people should know about is that there is a forum on the abortion/reproductive rights movement at New College on Tuesday at 7. I think everyone who marched should go.
In love and determination,
Elizabeth
Ps. If you want, you can respond to bacorrinfo@rise up.net with any questions/comments..etc...
Progressive movements are notoriously behind the professional rightwinger PR techniques because they hire professionals to handle their 'framing' and spectacle production for media exposure. The conservative left has improved since 911 but still refuses to work more closely with immaginative communicators from the arts community. Our romance with cardboard signs and shoes on asphalt is a diversion of creative enery that can be used to upstage the PR trained hucksters of the status quo. There are ways to win this one....
Who refuses to work with you? Did you volunteer to get involved? Did you organize any street theater? If not, why not?
Frances: Isn't it interesting that you go about planning your strategy and deciding what you might do next time.It must be because you were not aborted, you are alive! No matter if you were at any time a burden to your parents , you were given a chance to choose.The slogan( it's my body it's my choice)is equally valid for the BABY. If it isnt, then you are not defending womens rights because millions of female babies have been aborted and THEIR BODY is as valuable as yours. You are only defending some womens rights we are defending everyones rights male and female.
I posted this on another thread, and I still haven't recieved a response. If you had been concieved a few hours later or earlier, you wouldn't be around. Should we blame couples for not attempting reproduction at all possible times because they are taking away the potential for lives?
At the counterprotest, we chanted "pro-life, that's a lie, you don't care if women die." It cannot be denied that abortions are going to occur NO MATTER WHAT. Teenagers will get pregnant and it will be ridiculous for them to carry the fetus to term. Others will simply not have the money. Would you prefer that women die in back alley abortions to tissues being taken out of the body?
Also, would you deny the right of abortion to a woman who has been raped, and may look at her child with some sort of resentment, or someone who's condom slipped? Due to privacy rights, it simply would not be justified to investigate every woman's claim, thus the service must be offered to everyone.
Once again, animals have more awareness than an embryo. I ask you once more-- are you a vegetarian?
I posted this on another thread, and I still haven't recieved a response. If you had been concieved a few hours later or earlier, you wouldn't be around. Should we blame couples for not attempting reproduction at all possible times because they are taking away the potential for lives?
At the counterprotest, we chanted "pro-life, that's a lie, you don't care if women die." It cannot be denied that abortions are going to occur NO MATTER WHAT. Teenagers will get pregnant and it will be ridiculous for them to carry the fetus to term. Others will simply not have the money. Would you prefer that women die in back alley abortions to tissues being taken out of the body?
Also, would you deny the right of abortion to a woman who has been raped, and may look at her child with some sort of resentment, or someone who's condom slipped? Due to privacy rights, it simply would not be justified to investigate every woman's claim, thus the service must be offered to everyone.
Once again, animals have more awareness than an embryo. I ask you once more-- are you a vegetarian?
Yes,you are right and wrong.If a persons parents had intercourse at a different time or day that didn't result in conception that person COULD NOT be around because there was NO PERSON to be around. You must be conceived to be a person.WHen a child is CONCEIVED and aborted or is miscarried or stillborn then that child will never be around .But he/she has a soul and that soul will live forever and so will ours whether we believe it or not. I challenge you to look at pictures or ultrasounds of babies in the first trimester .At that stage they can smile , can swallow , urinate,the heart has been beating since the 21st day and by the 9th week is beating strongly.I held a baby that was born 41/2 moths early his mother DID NOT name him blob of tissue. He is now 18 years old and you try taking his life now."Thank you, mom" may be crap to you but she still gave you the very life you wish to deny others.You can't change that no matter how hard you try.What I prefer or don't prefer has nothing to do with anything.Women are still dying in abortion clinics.You don't care that our future men and women ,a whole generation of them, are gone. I don't want anyone to die. You are for picking and choosing who dies as if you were God! Who by the way created us all knowing full well what kind of people we would become and yet He created us any way. We are a sorry lot but we've still were given life. I think you will agree that life is a wonderful gift.
on how many women die in childbirth. You are not entitled to make these decisions for other people Frances, you are too emotionally attached to your own point of view.
it's a baby if it's viable. And if it threatens the life of the mother, it should be terminated regardless. Laws are not based on emotions. If we were ruled by our emotions, there would be chaos. Well maybe that's how it already is, in -your- world.
Yes, at the stage that the mother had the baby shower, it may have been a blob of tissues. Perhaps it was develped enough to have some internal organs, but it certainly was not viable outside of the womb, and it had not consiciousness. Once again, if you REALLY believe that that much constitutes life, you had better not be eating meat or you're a bloody hypocrite.
I'm glad that you believe it has a soul-- you're entitled to your own religious beliefs, but here in the US, we have something we like to call separation of church and state, in which religion CANNOT interfere with the law. I personally wouldn't want to have an abortion either-- but these are personal standards that I cannot hold the rest of the population to, since a fetus is objectively NOT a viable life. In the case of a fetus which could be viable out of the womb-- this is a different story. I'm a vegetarian-- do you see me telling people it should be illegal to eat meat?
By the way, out of curiosity-- do you think birth control should be banned, too?
I'm glad that you believe it has a soul-- you're entitled to your own religious beliefs, but here in the US, we have something we like to call separation of church and state, in which religion CANNOT interfere with the law. I personally wouldn't want to have an abortion either-- but these are personal standards that I cannot hold the rest of the population to, since a fetus is objectively NOT a viable life. In the case of a fetus which could be viable out of the womb-- this is a different story. I'm a vegetarian-- do you see me telling people it should be illegal to eat meat?
By the way, out of curiosity-- do you think birth control should be banned, too?
Are you a supporter of the death penalty?
Just curious.
Just curious.
You are incorrect.There is no law that that states religion cannot interfere with the law.The first amendment states ,congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free enterprise thereof.This was so that government could not impose a a particular religion on the nation as they had in England. Nowhere do the words -separation of church and state -appear anywhere in the first amendment.
As for the reference to the baby shower, you do not know if it would be viable at the time or not. There have been many babies born prematurely and they are fine.Look up the meaning of viable : having a chance,able to exist, able to survive.if they were given the chance, allowed to exist, allowed to survive they would. Abortions are allowed at any time in the 9 months of pregnancy.Some people say they don't agree to partial birth abortion but how are you going to tell someone there way of abortion is wrong and yours is right. They are all wrong. I do not consider myself or anyone else equal to an animal. We are human beings .There is a difference and we should act like there is. In all the history of the world there have been good laws and bad laws. Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean it is moral. No I don't support the death penalty. As a catholic contraception is wrong. There is natural family planning that can and should be used. Many people, even from other faiths are finding that it is safe (unlike the pill etc.) and brings a closeness to the relationship in a marriage that was not there before.
As for the reference to the baby shower, you do not know if it would be viable at the time or not. There have been many babies born prematurely and they are fine.Look up the meaning of viable : having a chance,able to exist, able to survive.if they were given the chance, allowed to exist, allowed to survive they would. Abortions are allowed at any time in the 9 months of pregnancy.Some people say they don't agree to partial birth abortion but how are you going to tell someone there way of abortion is wrong and yours is right. They are all wrong. I do not consider myself or anyone else equal to an animal. We are human beings .There is a difference and we should act like there is. In all the history of the world there have been good laws and bad laws. Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean it is moral. No I don't support the death penalty. As a catholic contraception is wrong. There is natural family planning that can and should be used. Many people, even from other faiths are finding that it is safe (unlike the pill etc.) and brings a closeness to the relationship in a marriage that was not there before.
Does this mean those of us who aren't Catholic are just out of luck and will have to have your religion rammed down our throats at every turn? Darn I guess we'll just have to have all the other faiths and all the people who are agnostic or atheists shut the heck up!
You guys rule! We really do need more people to starve to death don't we? And contraceptives being wrong, it's just too bad about the spread of AIDS in Africa, isn't it? All those little babies born with AIDS, too bad for them. Oh well!
You guys rule! We really do need more people to starve to death don't we? And contraceptives being wrong, it's just too bad about the spread of AIDS in Africa, isn't it? All those little babies born with AIDS, too bad for them. Oh well!
Frances: As a catholic contraception is wrong. There is natural family planning that can and should be used
NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING?! Please tell me this is a joke. Vatican roulette? It works about...oh...half the time, especially now that they've discovered that sperm can survive longer than previously thought of. Saying this is a legitimate birth control method sends the wrong message to those teenagers who are going to have sex no matter what, and feel that this would be the easiest.
If you contend that if copulation occurs before or after a certain time that a woman gets pregnant, she wouldn't have conceived, then why is something that does block the flow of semen any worse? At least then the couple can have intercourse at the times of month when its best for the woman (women, if you haven't figured it out yet, have evolved to be most aroused during the time of month when pregnancy is possible) and have a healthy relationship-- even you admitted earlier that sex has proven to be helpful for some couples. If it helps, than it had better damned well be good rather than unsatisfactory.
And please keep YOUR religion out of this. Christianity shoud not determine the laws of America, what best protects and serves the populice should determine this. As somebody who personally is uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, since it is biologically no more advanced than a bug-- and science is really the only thing that we all can agree on as being objective, I have no right to impose these beliefs upon others. I really don't have all that much of a problem with non- religious arguements on Roe v Wade being overturned, but bring your own religion into the picture, and-- well, forget it. It's irrelevant in the legal arena.
NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING?! Please tell me this is a joke. Vatican roulette? It works about...oh...half the time, especially now that they've discovered that sperm can survive longer than previously thought of. Saying this is a legitimate birth control method sends the wrong message to those teenagers who are going to have sex no matter what, and feel that this would be the easiest.
If you contend that if copulation occurs before or after a certain time that a woman gets pregnant, she wouldn't have conceived, then why is something that does block the flow of semen any worse? At least then the couple can have intercourse at the times of month when its best for the woman (women, if you haven't figured it out yet, have evolved to be most aroused during the time of month when pregnancy is possible) and have a healthy relationship-- even you admitted earlier that sex has proven to be helpful for some couples. If it helps, than it had better damned well be good rather than unsatisfactory.
And please keep YOUR religion out of this. Christianity shoud not determine the laws of America, what best protects and serves the populice should determine this. As somebody who personally is uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, since it is biologically no more advanced than a bug-- and science is really the only thing that we all can agree on as being objective, I have no right to impose these beliefs upon others. I really don't have all that much of a problem with non- religious arguements on Roe v Wade being overturned, but bring your own religion into the picture, and-- well, forget it. It's irrelevant in the legal arena.
My hat's off
No I am not joking .I wouldn't joke about something so important.Correct Natural Family Planning works 98% of the time.Unless you have learned how to properly use this method and tried it you don't know.I have and I know of many who do.I didn't say sex was proven to be helpful to some couples.I said using this method has brought many couples to a deeper and more meaningful relationship.
Your message to teenagers is the wrong message and no they don't all have sex no matter what.
The laws do not always protect or serve the populice.When slavery was legal it was never moral.You didn't have to have a slave just because it was legal nor did you have to treat them as slaves if you did own one. It was up to your conscience.You could choose to say no I will not treat a human being like that.
My faith is part of who I am and I try to live it to the best of my ability with the help of God. I could no more act against my beliefs than I could live without breathing.
I am not imposing my religion on you or anyone nor do I accuse you of imposing your thoughts on me.
Out of curiosity -why are you uncomfortable with the idea of abortion?
Your message to teenagers is the wrong message and no they don't all have sex no matter what.
The laws do not always protect or serve the populice.When slavery was legal it was never moral.You didn't have to have a slave just because it was legal nor did you have to treat them as slaves if you did own one. It was up to your conscience.You could choose to say no I will not treat a human being like that.
My faith is part of who I am and I try to live it to the best of my ability with the help of God. I could no more act against my beliefs than I could live without breathing.
I am not imposing my religion on you or anyone nor do I accuse you of imposing your thoughts on me.
Out of curiosity -why are you uncomfortable with the idea of abortion?
Would you vote to overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal?
"No I am not joking .I wouldn't joke about something so important.Correct Natural Family Planning works 98% of the time.Unless you have learned how to properly use this method and tried it you don't know."
I know the product of vatican roulette. I mean, I'm glad she's around, luckily her parents were ready to raise a child and decided to get married. But no, not so effective...particularly for those of younger ages, who are fertile, and more likely to be irresponsible.
"I have and I know of many who do.I didn't say sex was proven to be helpful to some couples.I said using this method has brought many couples to a deeper and more meaningful relationship."
Right, so why have bad sex?
"Your message to teenagers is the wrong message and no they don't all have sex no matter what."
As a college student, yes i know those my age and younger don't all have sex no matter what. However, it cannot be denied that the teenage years are generally years of raging hormones, and there are going to be those who, no matter what, will submit to them. Hell, who am I to say that whether this is right or wrong? Point being...it happens, and I wouldn't want to see young girls lives ruined. Pregnancy rates are typically higher in less economically advantaged communities, and its hard enough getting to college from there.
"The laws do not always protect or serve the populice.When slavery was legal it was never moral.You didn't have to have a slave just because it was legal nor did you have to treat them as slaves if you did own one. It was up to your conscience.You could choose to say no I will not treat a human being like that. "
Umm, yeah...those were unjust laws. They clearly did not serve the general populice, as much of it was enslaved.
"My faith is part of who I am and I try to live it to the best of my ability with the help of God. I could no more act against my beliefs than I could live without breathing.
I am not imposing my religion on you or anyone nor do I accuse you of imposing your thoughts on me. "
I'm glad that you have faith...if you're happy, great. Yes, you're imposing your beliefs if you wish to overturn Roe v Wade. The only proof you have is your "it has a soul." Scientifically, first trimester embryos are no more advanced then anything that is legal to kill, and are not yet people. They do not have consciousness.
"Out of curiosity -why are you uncomfortable with the idea of abortion?"
That's quite a loaded question. I could never get an abortion (other than for my personal health, or possibly if there was some disease that would prevent a life that is healthy and that I could adequately support), personally, after the first trimester-- it would just feel wrong to me. This isn't something that I would impose upon others. I am somewhat religious (Jewish), and this also contradicts abortion. If I was irresponsible, I would feel guilt, because in theory I should have used birth control. If I did everything I could to prevent the birth (ie there was a condom slip etc), and this was something that could impact my life negatively (make it impossible to continue my studies), I would probably have a first trimester abortion.
However, these are all personal beliefs (besides the fact that I do support a ban on abortions of fetuses that could be viable outside the womb...I suppose the partial birth abortion ban is closest...with the exception of if the mother's life is in danger) and thus irrelevant to the arguement, and anyway, defintiely not planning on any of this happening...not taking much risk.
I know the product of vatican roulette. I mean, I'm glad she's around, luckily her parents were ready to raise a child and decided to get married. But no, not so effective...particularly for those of younger ages, who are fertile, and more likely to be irresponsible.
"I have and I know of many who do.I didn't say sex was proven to be helpful to some couples.I said using this method has brought many couples to a deeper and more meaningful relationship."
Right, so why have bad sex?
"Your message to teenagers is the wrong message and no they don't all have sex no matter what."
As a college student, yes i know those my age and younger don't all have sex no matter what. However, it cannot be denied that the teenage years are generally years of raging hormones, and there are going to be those who, no matter what, will submit to them. Hell, who am I to say that whether this is right or wrong? Point being...it happens, and I wouldn't want to see young girls lives ruined. Pregnancy rates are typically higher in less economically advantaged communities, and its hard enough getting to college from there.
"The laws do not always protect or serve the populice.When slavery was legal it was never moral.You didn't have to have a slave just because it was legal nor did you have to treat them as slaves if you did own one. It was up to your conscience.You could choose to say no I will not treat a human being like that. "
Umm, yeah...those were unjust laws. They clearly did not serve the general populice, as much of it was enslaved.
"My faith is part of who I am and I try to live it to the best of my ability with the help of God. I could no more act against my beliefs than I could live without breathing.
I am not imposing my religion on you or anyone nor do I accuse you of imposing your thoughts on me. "
I'm glad that you have faith...if you're happy, great. Yes, you're imposing your beliefs if you wish to overturn Roe v Wade. The only proof you have is your "it has a soul." Scientifically, first trimester embryos are no more advanced then anything that is legal to kill, and are not yet people. They do not have consciousness.
"Out of curiosity -why are you uncomfortable with the idea of abortion?"
That's quite a loaded question. I could never get an abortion (other than for my personal health, or possibly if there was some disease that would prevent a life that is healthy and that I could adequately support), personally, after the first trimester-- it would just feel wrong to me. This isn't something that I would impose upon others. I am somewhat religious (Jewish), and this also contradicts abortion. If I was irresponsible, I would feel guilt, because in theory I should have used birth control. If I did everything I could to prevent the birth (ie there was a condom slip etc), and this was something that could impact my life negatively (make it impossible to continue my studies), I would probably have a first trimester abortion.
However, these are all personal beliefs (besides the fact that I do support a ban on abortions of fetuses that could be viable outside the womb...I suppose the partial birth abortion ban is closest...with the exception of if the mother's life is in danger) and thus irrelevant to the arguement, and anyway, defintiely not planning on any of this happening...not taking much risk.
In Jeramiah 2:5 Jeremiah says,The word of the Lord says to me thus: BEFORE I FORMED YOU IN THE WOMBI KNEW YOU I KNEW YOU, A PROPHET TO THE NATION I APPOINTED YOU.
God is not only telling us He is the Creator but that He knew us BEFORE He even formed us in the womb.He already had a plan for Jeremiah and He has a plan for each an every one of us. How can we be thwarting Gods plan? You say these are your personal beliefs that you would not impose on another are we not our brothers keeper?
God is not only telling us He is the Creator but that He knew us BEFORE He even formed us in the womb.He already had a plan for Jeremiah and He has a plan for each an every one of us. How can we be thwarting Gods plan? You say these are your personal beliefs that you would not impose on another are we not our brothers keeper?
Just shut up about it. It has no relation to this issue.
You believe in God, I believe in Santa Claus.
Your beliefs and the things your leaders do in the name of your beliefs are oppressive to most of the people on the globe. At least my Santa Claus is jolly and brings joy to the hearts of children everywhere, even the children you abandon after they're born. Yes he's a commercial figure. But how much money do you think the Pope has in the bank?
You believe in God, I believe in Santa Claus.
Your beliefs and the things your leaders do in the name of your beliefs are oppressive to most of the people on the globe. At least my Santa Claus is jolly and brings joy to the hearts of children everywhere, even the children you abandon after they're born. Yes he's a commercial figure. But how much money do you think the Pope has in the bank?
"In Jeramiah 2:5 Jeremiah says,The word of the Lord says to me thus: BEFORE I FORMED YOU IN THE WOMBI KNEW YOU I KNEW YOU, A PROPHET TO THE NATION I APPOINTED YOU.
God is not only telling us He is the Creator but that He knew us BEFORE He even formed us in the womb.He already had a plan for Jeremiah and He has a plan for each an every one of us. How can we be thwarting Gods plan? You say these are your personal beliefs that you would not impose on another are we not our brothers keeper?"
First of all, I don't know what Catholicism teaches, but in Judaism we value humility in the face of God. If God has a plan, S/He will be able to manage it with or without the help of mankind.
I cannot prove my religion to others (and I'm fine with that), and laws are based on facts, and facts, at least for the purpose of law, should be proveable. Anyway, I see every religion as an interpretation of the same "god" or force or however one wishes to think about it...and I prefer my religion, but I'm not sure how right it is to tell somebody else that their way of looking at it is invalid.
God is not only telling us He is the Creator but that He knew us BEFORE He even formed us in the womb.He already had a plan for Jeremiah and He has a plan for each an every one of us. How can we be thwarting Gods plan? You say these are your personal beliefs that you would not impose on another are we not our brothers keeper?"
First of all, I don't know what Catholicism teaches, but in Judaism we value humility in the face of God. If God has a plan, S/He will be able to manage it with or without the help of mankind.
I cannot prove my religion to others (and I'm fine with that), and laws are based on facts, and facts, at least for the purpose of law, should be proveable. Anyway, I see every religion as an interpretation of the same "god" or force or however one wishes to think about it...and I prefer my religion, but I'm not sure how right it is to tell somebody else that their way of looking at it is invalid.
In spite of our much vaunted and often ignored separation of church and state you still have to tell me about YOUR GOD?
start your own topic about god and discuss religious issues there. Abortion is an issue of woman's reproductive rights and privacy.
Perhaps one of the god-freaks can explain to me what your religious belief has to do with my ovaries? I'm somehow missing the connection.
start your own topic about god and discuss religious issues there. Abortion is an issue of woman's reproductive rights and privacy.
Perhaps one of the god-freaks can explain to me what your religious belief has to do with my ovaries? I'm somehow missing the connection.
And I prefer mine, which states specifically that your religion is a bunch of BS, and that a woman's right to control her own body is a sacred right.
why do women never discuss the morality of abortion vs birthing? In other words, i experienced my decision to abort as a specifically moral act. but i feel like i'm the only one who ever says that
"And I prefer mine, which states specifically that your religion is a bunch of BS, and that a woman's right to control her own body is a sacred right."
Hey, why don't you actually read my arguement? In case you haven't noticed, I have consistently argued a pro- choice, anti- religion (in law) stance. When Frances provided biblical evidence for her personal beliefs, and I felt that on a purely religious basis it was incorrect, I stated my arguement.
I have found Judaism to be fairly vague about abortion. However this is not the point. My religion is MY BUSINESS, and I'm NOT forcing it on you or anybody else. Does the word tolerance mean anything to you? In order to not be a bigot, you must also display religious tolerance and not hate me on the basis of my personal religious beliefs. "Liberal," "progressive,"-- bullshit, you're as bad as Pat Robertson.
Hey, why don't you actually read my arguement? In case you haven't noticed, I have consistently argued a pro- choice, anti- religion (in law) stance. When Frances provided biblical evidence for her personal beliefs, and I felt that on a purely religious basis it was incorrect, I stated my arguement.
I have found Judaism to be fairly vague about abortion. However this is not the point. My religion is MY BUSINESS, and I'm NOT forcing it on you or anybody else. Does the word tolerance mean anything to you? In order to not be a bigot, you must also display religious tolerance and not hate me on the basis of my personal religious beliefs. "Liberal," "progressive,"-- bullshit, you're as bad as Pat Robertson.
I thought you did a good job articulating your personal beliefs- the way I read it, you would not have an abortion, but do not have a problem co-existing with thoese who would. Simple. It's hard to believe sometimes that we have to struggle so hard to explain that.
I have had an abortion, and I would never force another women to do so. I have no problem co-existing with those who regard it with horror. I only jump into the fray when they start legislating
I have had an abortion, and I would never force another women to do so. I have no problem co-existing with those who regard it with horror. I only jump into the fray when they start legislating
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network