Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Tuesday Troika: Coercion, Criminalization And Coronation

Folks, there’s just way too much going on to cover one topic today. So consider it triple-play Tuesday.

Campus Coercion
In a predictable ruling, the US Supreme Court has affirmed that colleges receiving federal funds must allow military recruiters onto their campuses.

In a case called Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the former believed that military recruiters had the right to the same access to students that corporate recruiters enjoy.

The latter opposed this over their objection to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which requires homosexual recruits to stay “in the closet” or face dismissal (it’s a financial disaster, by the way). The colleges disagree with the discriminatory policy and don’t wish to accommodate its practitioner.

I understand the colleges’ reluctance to give assistance to an organization which practices discrimination. Would the government withhold money if an anti-Semitic group
wanted to reach out to college kids and the schools refused? Not a true analogy, but the principle's the same.

The government pulls out this federal funds bribery policy on a regular basis. Twenty-odd years ago the Reagan administration threatened to withhold federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21. The states complied, of course.

And these are just two examples that come to mind.

Bribery is ill-suited to a democracy, but democracy will decline under this Supreme Court.

Spawn Of Evil
South Dakota should have its statehood revoked, and then be invaded and colonized by liberals from neighboring Midwest states. It has become the first state to ban all abortions except in situations where the mother’s life is in danger.

Upon signing the law, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds said, “The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society.”

While most of that statement is certainly true, Rounds has not taken into account other vulnerable, helpless people, such as rape victims, who will themselves be considered criminals should they decide to terminate their resulting pregnancies.

Nor will women who’ve conceived through incest be able to obtain a legal abortion in his great state.

Christ, even President Bush is against abortion laws this stringent.

I picture many women dying in South Dakota, either from botched abortions or through suicide, because they didn’t wish to carry their rapists' babies to term. (For shame!)

I can also imagine a woman raising a child who’s a constant living reminder of her degrading assault. Possibly a boy who’ll grow up to look just like his daddy. Or maybe she’ll put him up for adoption, but then run into him one day.

This is legislative moralization run amok. Down with South Dakota. I'm going to find out what they make there and then not buy it.

The Unholy American Empire
Today may be the day Republicants crown Bush as the first American emperor. The Senate Intelligence Committee, upon which Republicants hold a one-seat majority, is set to vote on whether or not to investigate the president’s illegal NSA wiretap program.

Prominent Republicants like Specter, Graham, Hagel, Snowe and others have been critical of Bush’s wiretaps, or have at least expressed doubts about their legality.

Yet, if precedent tells us anything, their furor will die down when it comes time to turn words into actions.

Either through fear of rocking the majority party boat, or due to behind-the-scenes lobbying and/or threats from their higher-ups, these wishy-washy Republicants never follow through on holding one of their own to account, especially the head honcho.

But if they fail to act in the face of the president’s inarguably illegal acts, they’ll be hammering another nail in the coffin of American democracy. And there have been a lot of coffins (2000 plus, and that's just the soldiers) and a lot of nails during Bush's reign.

I get the feeling our Constitution is soon going to end up at the bottom of a birdcage somewhere.

36 comments:

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

yeah. you think "many women" will just die instead of driving an hour, maybe two? or move even? c'mon Bogs! one state! can i get an Amen on "states rights" over here brutha?

BTW never thought I'd come back to find you all mooney over Clooney. well, I guess now they'll know who to cast in the sequel of "humping your broke ass on the mountain."

/howl

Hellpig said...

Make a choice,on campus recruiting with funding

or


no funding and the re-instatement of the draft

Pete Bogs said...

k9 - welcome back...

your argument about one state reminds me of some of the arguments post-Katrina, where some people said, "Why don't they just get in their cars and drive out of there?" not everyone lives like you and I... if they're young or poor they may not know what to do or where to do it... "many" is a subjective thing... one woman dying because of this stupid, backwards law is too many...

yeah, Clooney is awesome to me, ever since I discovered he's a true liberal who can also really act...

hellpig - I pick neither... I choose impeachment and redeployment... who's fault is it if draft becomes necessary? the president who led us into war on lies and bad intelligence...

I'm getting my "DRAFT THIS!!!" shirt ready...

Hellpig said...

don't wory Bogs you are not draft worthy.

who's fault is it if we need to re-instate the draft,why the that would be former(IMPEACHED) President Clintons fault.

Pete Bogs said...

you're living in the 90s... and in denial... I don't care about myself... if the president thinks he's going to take my nephews in the prime of their lives I have news for him...

infinitesimal said...

Yeah K9, a 14 year old girl with the stepdaddies baby in her belly should up and move to a better state. Just because I got away that way does not mean all 14 year olds can, and I was not pregnant!!

WHERE IS MY ROLLED UP NEWSPAPER???? I BOUGHT A SHOCK COLLAR FOR YOU SPECIAL DOG. NOW GET OVER HERE.....

Bogs, S. Dakota is home to the badlands, the worst piece of land in America. The badlands are the territory givin to the Sioux in the treaties of yore.

S. Dakota makes rednecks and poverty...

good reason to move. Maybe K9 is onto something....

Hellpig said...

yeah and you are living in Fantasy land,you can't even answer the question.

you can't even eat a dead animal how you gonna stop your nephews from being drafted(hope they never are BTW)

It's simple if campus recruiting on public federally funded schools are not permitted where do you think Bush will find recruits for his war machine?

students are smart enough to make their own decissions without the liberal/socialist's telling them what to do with their lives

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

okay vanille. I hear you and I get it. but thats the worst case scenario not the most likely. theres always the school nurse for an ounce of prevention.
and for every 14 year old to whom you refer, may their evil stepdaddies rot in a pen of SHB'S!

(I put some vacation poundage on my hips just to accept those smart raps from your paper, miss! the collar? only cheney is authorized to administer shock treatment, er, or was that bird shot treatment?)

Bogs, thanks. it's good to be black in your yard.

/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

The Flabbergasted Heathen said...

I actually agree with the recruiting issue.

If you want the government's money, do as the government says.

If you're funded by a corporation, and you won't let their recruiters on campus, bet your ass they're going to pull their funding. These people are not giving you money because they're good hearted folk. They're doing it to serve their own best interests.

After all, they're recruiting the students, not drafting them...yet.

Pete Bogs said...

k9 - it's good to have you black in my yard... come in through the FRONT entrance anytime*... I don't discriminate against anyone here, even if they are like you (i.e. somewhat conservative)

(* - not euphemistic language)

flabmeister - yeah, but this is the "my money, my house, my rules" argument, which doesn't take into account that the colleges are taking a principled stance... they had little chance of winning before this court, but I applaud their efforts...

Mr Q said...

There will not be another Nixon on this land, and in these times no case stands a chance against Damie.. er Bush, it is impossible. Remeber that the is more stupidity than oxygen... like that guy said. Therefore we have the bushes, the kerries, the gwhores and the dickies. Recruiting? Car Sales? Al Paqueda? all the same. South Dakota? there will be a revision, if there isn't one then prepare for the steaming hot brownies to roll down here to the sandy beaches.

Bogs, have you written a letter to our congressman or grossvernor yet?
I did, and the response was:

"I would politelly ask you to grab your ankles and..."

Hopefully in 2008 a whole new set of mofos will begin the new shitty cycle of life in America. I love it!

Pete Bogs said...

I've written to a few officials... Rep. Adam Putnam typically gets back to me, but he's a lost cause... I wrote and said he should push for an investigation of the NSA wiretaps... he wrote back and repeated the half-truth about Clinton having done the same thing (the issue was physical searches, not taps)... he said he felt the president has been judged without all the facts... I wrote back and asked that since the facts are important to him, could I count on him to bring up the long-stalled investigation of pre-war intelligence when he's in DC again? he didn't respond...

I wrote to Bush, too, and told him to stop trying to undo the will of the voters... he's the only governor I can remember who so actively tries to undo what his constituents have said they want (bullet train, class size, gambling, etc.)

anyway, there's no reasoning with the reasonless...

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

thats a big fat affirmative Mr.Q. reminds me of a great quote from the movie collateral:

"Now, we gotta make the best of it. Improvise. Adapt to the environment. Darwin. Shit happens. I Ching. Whatever, man. We gotta roll with it."

/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Bird said...

Glad to see ya K9.

There is only one abortion provider in the state of South Dakota - abortion access has already been severely limited there and in a large portion of the US. Lack of access = overturning of Roe V Wade without a SUPREME hassle - it's covert. At least this new legislation makes things clear and overt.


Now let's think in terms of access to the "morning after pill" - in such a conservative state as South Dakota, it's highly likely that access to that pill is limited as well.

Look beyond the issue of whether a woman who has been raped should have legal access to abortion - what about any woman's right? Why does the state have rights over my body. MY BODY??????

Yes, I will admit, abortion puts an end to a possibility. Making the decision to abort a pregnancy is often a difficult one, many times a painful one, sometimes a sorrowful one. But who besides a woman (in consultation with her medical provider) should make this decision? Not the state, not the feds, and not even a woman's husband or sex partner.

Why? Because it's not their body - it's the woman's body! I get to choose. Plain and simple, and I don't have to choose to NOT have sex in order to choose not to have a baby. And yes, sometimes mistakes happen - birth control doesn't work. And yes - sometimes a woman is just stupid enough, careless enough, uncaring enough, (or is,conciously or subconciously) out to sabatauge (sp?) herself and gets pregnant when she has no business doing so, but we can't punish her by forcing her to bear a child. Nor should we really punish her at all.

However, it may be a good thing that the state of South Dakota has passed this legislation (and there are several other states following along behind, I think Tennessee is one). Perhaps it will galvanize the pro-choice movement and radicalize and revoluntionize a large demographic of young women who have no clue what it was like before Roe v. Wade and who have no understanding upon whose shoulders they stand and what they have at risk.


Kudos to you Bogs for this posting!

Pete Bogs said...

I agree that rape or incest should not be necessary in order to have an abortion... but by stating the worst case scenarios, as I have, it makes the problems in such a law evident...

I agree that no one but a woman should have control over her own body... where we may disagree is the amount of input the daddy gets to have in the abortion decision... he's part of the baby-making process, and he's also rightfully expected to be part of the support and nurturing process if the decision is made to have the baby... so I don't think you can totally discount his opinion at this step... just playing devil's advocate here, as always, but the deadbeat guy could say, "Your body? OK, then your problem. Raise the damn thing yourself."

interesting what you said about this law possibly having positive effects... some have suggested that if SCOTUS overturns RvW, Republicans will have a hard time getting elected...I'd rather it not be overturned, but I could see that ruining the GOP... people will realize all they've lost under the Gestapo On Parade...

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

Bogs, this is off topic but take a look at this:

http://www.drencrom.com/salesframe.html

/grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Pete Bogs said...

very cool, k9... I like that movie real horrorshow... it gives me a nice warm vibratey feeling all through my guttiwutts...

now off for some laughs and lashings of the old ultraviolence...

ffff said...

Fantastic post Bogs. You bring up so much that is important for us to keep in the forefront of our democracies.
I agree coercion could be another word for blackmail(!?)
Bird is absolutely right.... My body my decision..end of discussion. If you aren't going to provide contraception or education what the hell do you expect.
Great stuff...well argued, keep it up
Cheers

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

Ladies, Bird and Alison, when I read birds words it does not fit my attitude at all!

"And yes - sometimes a woman is just stupid enough, careless enough, uncaring enough, (or is,conciously or subconciously) out to sabatauge (sp?) herself and gets pregnant when she has no business doing so, but we can't punish her by forcing her to bear a child. Nor should we really punish her at all."

Punish is an idea that never crossed my mind. All I am ever saying is theres also a little pup in the mix as well. might even be a female with a body and a future that could include HER right to choose as well someday....just pro-pup not anti-woman. seriously.

and then there's the bigger point. A state needs the right to let the voters define their governance. So if California decides to allow gay marriage, and the voters concur, then it's a go. ND is the same thing in concept. The further the government gets from the individual the worse the representation. whatever the issue.

/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Pete Bogs said...

k9... are you planning to see V For Vendetta? I personally can't wait to see it... fight the power!

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

now we into the isley brothers!
yeah I forgot about lewis black - I was thinking
AC/DC. angus stompin' around in his school uniform. le enfant ta ree blay

yeah, v for vendetta -don't know much about it....

/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Bird said...

Ah, voters should decide.

If we had let voters decide, its highly possible that I would NOT have voting rights. And who else would not have voting rights? If we let voters decide no doubt there would be many who would still be drinking from separate fountains, riding in the back of the bus. Civil and individual rights are typically not furthered by the voting population.

And why should I look the other way, content in my freedom (thus far) here in California to choose, when my sisters in South Dakota (and soon perhaps in Missouri and Tennessee)do not have the same choice I have? And many of my sisters throughout the world don't have that choice, because my government often insists on tying foreign aid to family planning issues. And let's not forget my sisters in the military stationed abroad, who are not able to obtain abortions via their medical benefits or at military medical facilities abroad. The issue of choice - of women's rights cannot be left up to the states,nor to the voting population.

I acknowledge that a fetus has the potential to grow into a baby girl or boy - but a fetus is not a baby girl or boy - not in most abortions which are at around 12 weeks (and late-term abortions are typically done to save the life of the mother, or because there is something horribly, horribly wrong with the fetus).

But quite frankly, even if scientific/medical research were to determine that fetuses have conciousness, feel pain and as such that translates into more than just possibility, well, my body, my life, still trumps that baby. No woman should be forced to bear a child.

For most women,the decision to abort is not taken lightly. Yes, loss, and sometimes great loss, is involved. But it's still my body and it's still my choice.

Ok, I'll shut up now. I have papers to grade and minds to warp.

Thanks for your patience Bogs with my long-winded outbursts.

Pete Bogs said...

bird - your outbursts are always welcome... and that part you mentioned about the government tying foreign aid to family planning, sounds a bit like the blackmail I mentioned in this blog...

Lady Lux said...

oh dear..this is so long...interesting though...i read everything....

nice template!

Pete Bogs said...

"oh dear..this is so long..."

that's what SHE said! ha!

I kid... thanks all for stopping by!

Hellpig said...

South Dakota’s passage of a law banning all abortions is great news. Whatever you may think about the particulars of this law—and in criminalizing abortion even in the cases of rape and incest, it is certainly extreme—the important thing is that the law has been passed in direct defiance of the miscreant U.S. Supreme Court. For 33 years, our country has suffered under the wholly illegitimate reign of the Roe v. Wade decision, which, in an act of pure judicial law-making, as though the Supreme Court were an elected legislature, constructed a federal abortion law out of thin air and declared unconstitutional all state laws against abortion. An entire generation of conservative activists have wasted their energies trying to pass an anti-abortion amendment to the U.S. Constitution (a terrible idea because it would permanently federalize the very matter that should be returned to the state level where it belongs), or to elect presidents who would nominate judges who would overturn Roe. And all that storm and stress has accomplished nothing, except for the not inconsiderable good of keeping the moral and constitutional monstrosity that is Roe before the eyes of the nation. The essence of Roe is its illegitimate assertion of federal power over state legislatures. Who, then, is better suited to resist that usurpation than the states themselves? This is the way our federal system was meant to operate. When one branch of our government overreaches, as the Supreme Court outrageously did with Roe, the other branches need to push back. So let’s have it out.

Pete Bogs said...

when one branch of our government overreaches indeed... who's going to slap Bush's happy ass back into line? certainly not his corrupt cohorts in the GOP...

it's ironic to me that so many people who find RvW repugnant are very selective with their disgust... some of them are the most warmongering, gun-toting people in the country... in other words, a bunch of fucking hypocrites who don't even understand their own values...

Hellpig said...

oh so you agree then

It amazes me everytime you counter a LIB,if they are unable to mount a retort they just MOCK the topic,or dismiss it as though they never heard the question,simply amazing.

Hipocracy indeed that's a liberal with blinders right?

Aunty Belle said...

Mercy Maud....folks, youse a chewing a lot a fat 'round here.

First off, can we agree that the piper calls the tune? Schools that want gov't bucks take the recruiters--ya'll know religious schools who take gov't dollars must follow gov't rules--why not Yale? Fair is fair.

The abortion issues is throny thickett, pets, but leave aside ideology and take a look-see from logic and medicine:

Less than two percent of rapes result in conception--the fear and fight factor releases a killing hormone, neutralizes sperm.

The Rape issue is the political banner that hides what we'uns all know: abortion is 95% of the time for regular women, students, career minded, unattached, etc who were not raped or abused by stepdads.

Why have easy access to a barbaric practice if only 5% are truly tragic circumstances? Why, to cover the poor choices of the OTHER 95%.


truth be told, abortion harms women at the very core of her being. It corrupts her natural function in the most violent manner. No one who honestly cares for women would advocate an aboortion culture that we are saddled with--mosstly from ignorance, but there is an industry to feed (I'll leave that till later).

Abortion is an expedient for a culture saturated with illicit sex (yep, they's STILL such a thang as illicit sex). This means if we are gonna have free love-sex, we need wide access to abortion. We call it "choice" but that choice is to suff a wee one jes' cause' youse bigger and can get away with it. No one thinks that's right. No one.

Now Bird wrote,
Why does the state have rights over my body. MY BODY??????

............cause it is the duly elected authority, puddin'. The state says you can't be a prostitute with your body, don't it? State also says you cain't use your body to kill your ex. State says you cain't sell yourself into slavery or indentured service either, don't it?

An' chile' iffin you try to throw yourself off the empire state building, why they's gonna try to save your body despite your intention to smash "you body" into a grease spot.

The "my body" argument falls short in law as well as logic--but mostly, it ain't jes' YOUR body any more--they's another little body, distinct from yours, that you don't really want to harm do you, all in the name of "my body"?

Bird says,

"Making the decision to abort a pregnancy is often a difficult one, many times a painful one, sometimes a sorrowful one."

THis is so true, Bird. It's a fact that few make it ligtly, but many make it without really knowing what they's choosing. Women who gets they self an abortion before completing a full term pregnancy have THREE times greater risk of cervical and breast cancer. Increased if she smokes.

Why? Cause' darlin' we ladies is made to function a certain way , and abortion does extreme violence to our bodies--it rips what the body knows is precious from her and the hormones freak out--no kiddin' the body goes through a hormonal storm that sets the stage of abnomal cells to form. Cancer often follows.

Lot's of us here in the blogosphere is in favor of organic foods and ecological care--let's apply the same for our bodies--abortion is not natural--even a miscarriage happens as a gradual process, the body shutting down hormones weeks before the miscarriage, and even so, the woman suffers.

Bird says,
"but we can't punish her by forcing her to bear a child. Nor should we really punish her at all."

NO, honey we shouldn't --but we ought not punish the baby either. Fact is, abortion is a worse "punishment" than most women even know.


ALl this doan even touch the most tragic thang of all for the poor woman--she ain't gonna get over it psychologically. She will smoke, drink, take drugs, need anti-depressants, have serious illnesses at a higher rate than women with no abortion history--they never tells you this when youse making your "choice." Now she might not make the connection--that her habits and health are less than postive due to an abortion, but the body has mmemory.

Ya'll knows ole' Aunty Belle has waltzed around the block a time or two, right chickens? This here posting ain't about finger-pointing and shame/blame--no, not a'tall. This here ain;t no rant against any woman who has had an abortion or any fella who urged one on his lady.

This here is a plea to think deeply on this matter. It ain't what hollywood and MTV want ya'll to think. If you believe in "free love"
then be at least as responsible as you would be in a forest--don't throw a cigarette on the floor of the forst and start a fire--lives are at stake. Tie yore tubes. Use birth control. (THis ain;t a good choice either, but better'n abortion)Doan make a wee one pay, cause you was careless.

Best of all, of course is don't uses sex entertainment. It is serious. Even when it doan make babies, it stands for sompin' too special to trivialize.

But you all know this...

Pete Bogs said...

Aunt B - others have made the same argument about schools and the government's money... I think it's wrong for the government to have discriminatory policies... they may have the money and the might, but the colleges are in the right here...

there's no denying abortion can hurt the woman in a lot of ways, too... it's a tough choice to make... some say "it's not a choice, it's a child," but that is fallacious... if an abortion is performed at the right time it's only a little glob of goo - not a thinking, feeling human being...

what's wrong with birth control? it keeps abortions from happening and also keeps some diseases ar bay... I can't agree at all on that with you...

Bird said...

Aunty Belle,
My darlin' old-fashioned, sweet little aunty!

Why isn't birth control a good choice? Are you saying all eggs and sperm are sacred? Why bless your little ol' heart - what rubbish is that? Every sperm and egg is not sacred. And if they are, we'd best invade men's privacy and start doing something about all the spilt seed (masturbation) that occurs. And we'd best start forcing women to have sex whenever they ovulate - so as not to waste one scacred egg.Either that, or harvest eggs every month and freeze them until they are used. Oh heavens - what a hell that would be if the world ran that way.

Let's not forget that the belief that sex is a sacred special act is simply that - a belief. It's not a fact, and it's not a law.

You tell us that abortion isn't natural. Nope,it's not. Neither is driving a car, flying a plane, open-heart surgery, and a host of other medical procedures and modern and technological devices. (It ain't natural that I should crouch over my laptop either, zooming across cyber space conversing with people I don't even know and probably will never meet - though I sure do think it would be one helluva blast to meet up someday at a cocktail party).

I've read a few studies that claim women who have abortions are more likely to be depressed and have an assortment of ills - however, those studies are extremely biased, use a very small sample size, and are conducted by very biased (i.e., anti-abortion activists as opposed to impartial researchers and scientists)folk. The women surveyed and interviewed are not screened for previous conditions of depression or additiction. And the degrees of the negative psychological affects are not specificed. Being depressed for a week is lumped in with long-term, serious depression. Ain't the same thing.

Where are your stats from Aunty? I am not convinved that women who have an abortion are more than three times likely than other women to have cervical and breast cancer. And even if that stat is correct - so what? It's part of the risk factor. Every medical procedure comes with a risk factor. A woman discusses those risk factors with her care provider and makes an informed decision.

You state that women NEVER get over the negative psychological aspect of abortion. Pretty big generalization. I'll generalize back - most women do get over it. Just like we get over miscarriages, divorces, loved ones dying, jobs lost,etc. We manage.

Our society allows for a large measure of control over our own functions. Choosing or not choosing to have a child is one of those decisions that cannot and should not be forced.

I will grant you that some women use abortion as birth control - and that was never its intended purpose. It is a last resort - an emergency measure. I will grant you that some women are torn up emotionally over abortion - but because they can't handle it doesn't mean other women should not be able to make a decision for themselves.

By the way, prostitution is not illegal in all states (take a look at Nevada - it's got some pretty high profile, well-run cathouses).

Life is precious. I agree. Babies and children are precious. A fetus is a possiblity - it is not a human life yet. And as I said before - my right to control what my body goes through trumps the need of that fetus any day. Because I am the vessel that fetus must use to grow and develop into a human being - and I cannot be used as such without my consent.

Pete Bogs said...

a friend sent this... extremely relevant to the sacred sperm conversation, and some of bird's points...

http://www.mikhaela.net/cgi-bin/showpic.cgi?picdir=toons&picname=sacredsperm.gif

Aunty Belle said...

Bawgs and Bird,

Bawgs, the point about gov't $$ is that once you take it you have an obligation to the provider. You can't put controls on the provider--doan like his policy? Give the $$ back and be free to do your thang.

About birth control; my point that it is often not a good choice was a medical comment--some women have risk factors for any sort of hormonal birth control product (Those with history of female cancers and heart problems)--so my point was about the wisdom of it as a medical choice.

But no, Bird honey, a'course Aunty ain't suggesting that every egg is sacred.

I am suggesting that when you and your husband make love, that ought to be sacred. And every conception is a human--not tissue or "goo" Bawgs, but Mozart was Mozart at 10 nano-seconds into his conception. You was too. The genetic reality is there no matter the size.

Now Lady Bird, we'uns could have a long long jaw on your points about abortion. Yep, Nevada allows prostituion, but most places see thast as not a "my body" choice. Hope you agree. Same for slavery--you cain't say it's my body, I can sell iit as a slave iffin I choose to. T'other words, the "my body" theory has large exceptions and Ole Aunty would include abortion as one of those exceptions.

And shure 'nuff flying a plane and cruising the internet is "natural" in that it is the natural extention of man's mind and creative abilities
oriented toward the good. Abortion is not natural because it is the disrruption of humankind's good, not an addition to the good.

Easy handle for this idea is that fire is neither good nor bad of itself--it is the human agent that uses it for good or ill, it can cook your food or burn your neighbor's house down. Abortion uses human agency to turn medical procedures against life, not for life.

The other points are not easily addressed here--I will provide stats for abortion-cancer link on the Back Porch in a few days (Got's some company this weekend and blog time is short).

But one thang more for now--we'uns get ourselves all balled up in the argument for abortion by taking the stance that a woman is "entitled to her rights" well, well, she also has rights and responsibilities before she engages the equipment. (So do you fellas).

I doan discount the sad and difficult decisions some women have had to face--my heart breaks for them and this is no stone throwing post, sweet dears.

I think it is like slavery--someone has to have the guts, the heart to say, STOP. Who better than women?

I jes' wonderin', waht about a higher order of behavior? What of love, and forget "rights."

I offer these thoughts with honest respect for those who come at the subject from a different perspective.

Pete Bogs said...

I don't agree life begins at conception, Aunt B... again, it's not a thinking, feeling human for some time after that... I think your view on that is not based on medical science but on personal beliefs... which you are entitled to...

Anonymous said...

Bawgs--at conception there is human life. That is not a "belief" that is pur science--it is alive (growing, whicj is one definition of life) and it is human, (not mold, not puppy)thus science says it is human life.

But your claim is not science--your claim IS your personal belief, honey. I understand that many folks adopt that form of thinking--it is a defense against the unthinkable--abortion kills a baby.

Bird's comment that "even if" it were shown that the child had pain, it was her body that "trumped" the baby! her decision--

now that is interesting--she doan mean it that way, but that ain't nothin but saying "I am bigger and more powerful than you , so tough turkey baby, I trump you." Might makes right in that formulation. Might without right meant Hitler could gass folks, slaveholders could keep slaves----why theys' only jews,or black (or babies) you see the link.

Bawgs, now think a minute--if we let go of the standard rhetoric and jes' THINK for a spell what this claim means :it is "not a thinking, feeling human for some time after that... "

This can apply to injured people in a coma---and by the way, the infant in utero does feel pain--the sonograms showing the poor wee one desperately trying to swim out of the way of the saline solution that is injecte--I doan wanna say too much here as it might really upset some folks --but that child does feel pain very early on.

Well, I've said mah peice on this, doan wanna wear ya'll out on it. But
the expedient approach to the defeseless among us turns US into less noble that we want to be.


Aunty Belle

Pete Bogs said...

interesting to see how much one topic got, compared to the other two...