Log in

View Full Version : She's disabled, raped and pregnant, but... - Jeb Bush demand



Conghaileach
5th June 2003, 15:23
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the May 29, 2003
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------

SHE'S DISABLED, RAPED AND PREGNANT, BUT ...

JEB BUSH DEMANDS, "PROTECT THE FETUS"

By Leslie Feinberg

It's hard to imagine a more vulnerable young person for Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush to offer up as a sacrifice to the ultra-right strategy of
abolishing women's reproductive rights.

She is 22 and publicy identified only as JDS. She is severely
developmentally disabled and autistic. JDS lives with cerebral palsy and
seizure disorder. She cannot speak. She can't stand or take a step
without assistance. She weighs only 88 pounds.

She has been institutionalized in a small state-licensed group facility
in southwest Orlando for 19 years, where she reportedly slept on a bed
in an open hallway next to a bathroom. (Orlando Sentinel, May 16)

In April, say officials of the Department of Children and Families, they
discovered she was approximately five months pregnant. She is unable to
consent to sexual intercourse. Her pregnancy is a result of rape.

Doctors stress that her disabilities are multiple and severe, making
this a high-risk pregnancy that endangers her life.

In early May, DCF officials asked an Orange County
circuit judge to appoint two guardians--one for the woman, the other for
her fetus. But on May 12, officials retracted the request for a fetal
guardian, acknowledging that a landmark 1989 Florida Supreme Court
decision had ruled such an appeal "clearly improper."

The very next day, Gov. Bush--who is consistent in opposing a woman's
right to control her own body--publicly intervened. He ordered state
lawyers to fight for one guardian only--for the fetus.

The National Organization for Women, Center for Reproductive Rights and
the American Civil Liberties Union immediately filed a brief asking the
court to reject Bush's move.

A June 2 hearing has been set to determine JDS's competency. Soon after
June 2, a guardianship hearing will take place. There, Bush has vowed to
push state officials to ask a judge to appoint a "guardian" for the
fetus.

Pro-choice activists are angered at these attempts to keep the case
moving slowly through the courts. After the sixth month, an abortion
will no longer be a legal alternative in the state.

ROE VS. WADE IN THE CROSS HAIRS

A decision in this case would not result in the wholesale elimination of
Roe vs. Wade--the hard-won 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing
abortion.

But it is the use of the courts to make an end-run around Roe, while
avoiding a direct assault on the law that could ignite mass protests.
This reactionary tactic is sharply focused in Gov. Bush's carefully
crafted language.

"Given the facts of this case, it is entirely appropriate that an
advocate be appointed to represent the unborn child's best interests in
all decisions," he said in a May 13 statement. "This is a tragic case
about a mom who cannot make decisions for herself," he said on May 15.

A pregnant woman is not a "mom" until she bears a child. A fetus becomes
a child at birth.

This is the second attempt nationally in recent weeks to set a legal
precedent to establish the "personhood" of a fetus.

In April, Jeb Bush's brother in the White House, plus members of
Congress, tried to manipulate the public horror and rage generated by
the apparent murder of a pregnant woman in California--Laci Peterson.
They used her death to press for congressional passage of the "Unborn
Victims of Violence Act." This bill would make a fetus a separate
"person" from the woman carrying it--making a fetus the woman's legal
adversary.

This legislation would extend to the womb 14th Amendment protections to
life, liberty or property that women themselves do not automatically
have.

It was conservative men, of the same stripe as those now arguing for
legislation to "protect" the fetus, who killed the Equal Rights
Amendment that would have provided equal protection to women under the
law.

One such legislator is Sen. Orrin Hatch, a very conservative Republican
from Utah. Speaking approvingly of the "Unborn Victims" bill, he said of
its critics, "They say it undermines abortion rights. It does." (BBC
News, May 15)

DISABILITY RIGHTS?

The shocking insensitivity to JDS's body and life also illuminates
conditions for disabled people in this country.

Her potentially life-threatening pregnancy requires careful monitoring
of her health, but even JDS's court-appointed lawyer doesn't know what
kind of care she's getting--if any.

Rod Taylor, her sole official advocate at this point, said he "doesn't
know what kind of medical attention she's receiving beyond her daily
medication and vitamins." (Orlando Sentinel, May 19)

Carla Josephson, president of the Orlando-area chapter of the National
Organization for Women, questioned how the state could provide complete
medical care for JDS and other disabled people if they have no
guardians.

"What kind of medical care was she getting all along?" Josephine asked.

A month after JDS's pregnancy was confirmed, the state has still not
found her a guardian with the legal power to make life-or-death
decisions--despite a court document stating that she is in "imminent
danger."

Pressed by the Sentinel, officials revealed that JDS is one of 857
developmentally disabled adults in Florida's state-licensed group homes
who have no legal guardian.

Tallahassee lawyer Lance Block says it doesn't look like the DCF has
learned anything since he represented a developmentally disabled young
woman who became pregnant after being raped in a state home 12 years
ago. The DCF left the woman without a guardian in the home for three
months, near her rapist--the home operator's son.

But even after the high-profile exposure of the abuse of JDS, the May 19
Sentinel article concludes, "For now, DCF says it has no immediate plans
to change its rules or call for changing the law governing its
practices."

'PRO-LIFE'? THEY GOTTA BE KIDDING!

The right-wing of the national political establishment views Florida as
an ideal battleground to wage war against women's reproductive rights.

Its "pro-life" governor helped deliver his anti-choice brother to the
Oval Office by disenfranchising Black voters.

Now the Bush brothers and members of both parties of big business are
pushing to roll back the right to abortion under the slogan "right to
life."

NOT JDS'S LIFE.

And certainly not the rights of women and children as a whole.

A zealous crusade against lesbians and gays was waged by orange-juice
industry figurehead Anita Bryant in 1977 under the cynical banner "Save
Our Children." The result was a ban in Florida on lesbian and gay
adoption and foster parenting.

The "Scarlet Letter Law," now in the process of being repealed, was
enacted by the state in October 2001, penned by state Sen. Walter
Campbell--a Democrat, it's worth noting. It required that a pregnant
woman of any age who planned to give up her baby for adoption must pay
for ads to publish her name and descriptions of all her sexual partners
over a 12-month period in the newspaper--even in cases of rape and
incest. The rationale given was that the father would then be able to
claim the child.

The right wing's "we care about children" campaign is a deliberate
distraction. It portrays poor women as villains when in fact they face
especially difficult decisions about having children in this period of
dwindling jobs and deteriorating living conditions.

Politicians from both parties, with the backing of their right-wing
patrons, have succeeded in abolishing welfare, which offered minimal
sustenance to women and children impoverished under capitalism. After
having minimized taxes on the rich, they claim there's not enough money
for programs like Medicaid. That is already translating into less pre-
natal care and medical access for poor children. Education is on the
chopping block. Day care is less available and priced out of reach.

Many of the social programs important to women were won during the last
period of progressive mass action in the 1960s and 1970s, when the
militancy of the anti-war and civil rights struggles, along with
national liberation movements around the world, helped spark mass
movements for women's and gay liberation as well. The huge anti-war
mobilizations of the past year, which have been even more diverse than
back then, give promise that a new social movement has begun that can
turn back the right-wing offensive and win new and stronger rights for
women.

- END -

(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: [email protected] Subscribe wwnews-
[email protected] Unsubscribe [email protected] Support the
voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)

Dirty Commie
5th June 2003, 15:30
Holy $hit, she was raped, mentaly unstable, and yet she can't get an abortion. I hate this state.

Sabocat
5th June 2003, 17:41
Sickening.

Soul Rebel
5th June 2003, 17:47
Thats horrible- but seriously what do you expect from a Bush? Now that abortion is at threat (to be made illegal) these are the scary scenerios we must look at- the reality of the issue. The anti-choice disagree, but abortion is a necessity in the world and in womyn's lives.

jjack
5th June 2003, 18:06
I don't agree with abortion, but it's always going to be necessary in cases like this where it could threaten the mother's life.

But what's even more, I think we need abortion as long as we have capitalism. We have a fear of teen moms in our society for a good reason -- because capitalism will throw them out on the street if they try to take time to raise a child. It just saddens me that we live in a society where a woman giving birth to a child could be seen as something that will ruin her life.

It's also sad that we live in a country where contraceptives still have such a taboo attached to them. I've had girls ask me to go into the health center and ask how much the pill costs because they were too embarrassed to do it themselves. Most stores have the condoms hidden behind the counter and/or locked up in some plexiglass cage where you have to ask an employee to go out of his way and get them for you. There is some kind of fear in our society that we have to deter kids from having access to contraceptives, like if a kid gets ahold of a condom it's going to tear apart the very moral fabric that holds our society together...get real.

Like I said, i'm against it in most cases, but I dont' think we should make it illegal. I think we need to look at what's causing it -- capitalism and conservative paranoia -- and make THAT illegal.

(Edited by jjack at 6:16 pm on June 5, 2003)

Zombie
5th June 2003, 18:20
Someone should rape Gov Bush's daughter, make her pregnant, and we'll see if he still wants that precioussss feotus of his.

Guardia Bolivariano
5th June 2003, 19:24
This is a man has great moral.

"I don't live It so why should I care?"

YKTMX
5th June 2003, 20:35
I'd like ten minutes in a windowless room with that fuck.

Sandanista
5th June 2003, 21:03
Yeah, Im gonna get some flak, Abortion is wrong, it is wrong to kill another human being...

Dirty Commie
5th June 2003, 21:10
Quote: from Sandanista on 4:03 pm on June 5, 2003
Yeah, Im gonna get some flak, Abortion is wrong, it is wrong to kill another human being...

A fetus should not be recognized as a human until it is damn near birth. Until then, it can't think for itself, and even when it is a mature adult human, it probably won't think for itself, but that's no the point. The point is that the fetus is property(for lack of a better word) of the mother, and if she want's to have an abortion, she has the legal and in my sense of morality, the moral right to one.

truthaddict11
5th June 2003, 21:21
I don't agree with abortion, but it's always going to be necessary in cases like this where it could threaten the mother's life.

But what's even more, I think we need abortion as long as we have capitalism. We have a fear of teen moms in our society for a good reason -- because capitalism will throw them out on the street if they try to take time to raise a child. It just saddens me that we live in a society where a woman giving birth to a child could be seen as something that will ruin her life.

It's also sad that we live in a country where contraceptives still have such a taboo attached to them. I've had girls ask me to go into the health center and ask how much the pill costs because they were too embarrassed to do it themselves. Most stores have the condoms hidden behind the counter and/or locked up in some plexiglass cage where you have to ask an employee to go out of his way and get them for you. There is some kind of fear in our society that we have to deter kids from having access to contraceptives, like if a kid gets ahold of a condom it's going to tear apart the very moral fabric that holds our society together...get real.

Like I said, i'm against it in most cases, but I dont' think we should make it illegal. I think we need to look at what's causing it -- capitalism and conservative paranoia -- and make THAT illegal.

so after capitalism is completly desrtoyed abortion should be illegal? what fucking planet do you live on? yes the way contraceptives and the abstinence only sex education out there ( i got the abstinence only propaghanda in PUBLIC SCHOOL )but that does not mean we should ever deny a women freedom of her body no matter what the circumstances.

thanks to current legislation we are seeing womens rights go backwards with the recent ban on "partial birth" abortions.


The anti-choice disagree, but abortion is a necessity in the world and in womyn's lives
I completly agree

YKTMX
5th June 2003, 21:38
Quote: from Sandanista on 9:03 pm on June 5, 2003
Yeah, Im gonna get some flak, Abortion is wrong, it is wrong to kill another human being...


Not a human being. Bundle of cells.

Invader Zim
5th June 2003, 23:27
Quote: from Sandanista on 9:03 pm on June 5, 2003
Yeah, Im gonna get some flak, Abortion is wrong, it is wrong to kill another human being...



Yeah, Im gonna get some flak, Abortion is wrong, it is wrong to kill another human being...

It si not another human being though. It is connected to the mother has no ability to think or feal and is completely dependant on the mother for survival. It is no more a human life than a tuma. When it is born and is able to think, breath, eat, etc. Then it is a living human.

The anti-abortion campain is a direct attack agaist a womans rights to hav full and complete control of her body. It is on a level with saying that women should no-longer have the right to vote in a general election...

Im sorry but I am some what of a male femanist when it comes to this king of issue.

truthaddict11
6th June 2003, 00:18
It si not another human being though. It is connected to the mother has no ability to think or feal and is completely dependant on the mother for survival. It is no more a human life than a tuma. When it is born and is able to think, breath, eat, etc. Then it is a living human.

i have heard people call this viability i think it is correct to assume that too.

Mashka
4th July 2003, 16:09
Whether we exist as 'souls' before birth and recollect this knowledge as we live along, or just start existing with 'life'
itself; my position is the same. There is certain sacredness to a fetus. If we give women the right to do whatever they want with their bodies we're not really being fair. Would it be fair for some whore to slut around and every time she gets pregnant "oopsie! guess we're going for abortion again!".

There must be some control, our acts bring consequences. HOWEVER, it shocks me to see this retard's double standards. Like we say in Chile, he's professing morality with his dick on his hand. We owe ourselves to the person. The person here would be this girl, the fetus is not the priority. After all, it is just a fetus; it has no conscience!

It's all about primitive Victorian morality, so fucking hypocritical.... :angry:

(Edited by Mashka at 4:11 pm on July 4, 2003)

RedFW
4th July 2003, 19:12
There is certain sacredness to a fetus.

I think as harmless as this comment was probably meant to be, it is telling of the habit of anti-choicers to deify the fetus, constructing it as something that is separate from the woman carrying it and transcending her and her needs in importance; something holy, that is at all coststo be worshipped.

What is so 'certain' about the 'sacredness' of a fetus?

. If we give women the right to do whatever they want with their bodies we're not really being fair.

How is my control over my fertility unfair? Unfair to whom?

Would it be fair for some whore to slut around and every time she gets pregnant "oopsie! guess we're going for abortion again!".

Okay, you are presenting one scenario as the only scenario for women seeking abortions. And why do you assume is it your business how many men a woman sleeps with, how many times she gets pregnant and how many times she decides to abort.

If you have some reason for opposing abortion, let's hear it! If your opposition to it is based on nothing more than your dislike of women who sleep with more than one man and get pregnant more than once, please take note of the quote in my signature.

There must be some control, our acts bring consequences.

So are you arguing that pregnancy is punishment for having sex?

We owe ourselves to the person. The person here would be this girl, the fetus is not the priority. After all, it is just a fetus; it has no conscience!

Surely if the fetus is sacred, as you argued above, you owe all to the fetus regardless of the girl's situation? Why do you get to decide when the fetus is priority and a 'person' and when the woman carrying it is? Double standard indeed!

mentalbunny
4th July 2003, 20:17
I don't like abortion because I see it as expenisve and traumatic, and it is sad to see that the potential for life has been destroyed (note use of "potential", but it's all about priorities, and I cannot force other people to hold the same opinions as me. Obviously there are some cases where the mother would want to abort and I would, in that position, keep the child, but there are also situations the other way around, where I would be reluctant to keep the child but in actual fact the mother did (I read a case in the paper, the foetus had ceased to grow and the doctors advised the mother to abrot but she didn't want to, the baby was a few weeks old when the article was printed, still alive but very fragile).

Anyway, essentially, abortion has to be there as a choice, and in these particular circumstances, isn't it obvious what the decision should be? The Bush family makes me sick.

Soul Rebel
4th July 2003, 21:25
If we are going to discuss expenses then we need to discuss how expensive it is to raise a child. Sure at the time being abortion may seem expensive, depending on where it is performed, but raising a child is a lot more costly. Putting unwanted children into a system that fails to take care of them is expensive, crime is expensive (when people are desperate they will resort to crime and then trying to fight this is expensive. Seriously imagine how much more crime there would be if there werent abortion. People would always feel trapped).

Also what is more traumatic is having a child that you dont want. Sure it could be given up for adoption, but lets be realistic. There are so many children in centers who will never be taken home. Then the biological mother will always wonder what happened to the child- did someone take them, are they being taken care of, does someone love them, etc. This is traumatic. Abortion may be emotionally difficult at first, but later on in life many womyn realize that it was the best choice. Traumatic is also having to suffer throughout life because you were not offered a choice. A choice that affects your own body and life. Traumatic is not being able to support the child that you were forced to have and watch them suffer through life.

(Edited by SenoraChe at 9:31 pm on July 4, 2003)

Red Comrade
4th July 2003, 21:28
The authoritarian Christian right is sure a pain in the ass. It's a disgrace that women aren't able to exercise their rights in a first world nation!

Blackberry
5th July 2003, 04:52
Quote: from Red Comrade on 9:28 pm on July 4, 2003
The authoritarian Christian right is sure a pain in the ass. It's a disgrace that women aren't able to exercise their rights in a first world nation!


Well, we do live in a capitalist world after all.

Mashka
5th July 2003, 13:00
" I think as harmless as this comment was probably meant to be, it is telling of the habit of anti-choicers to deify the fetus..."

Great. Let's define what "certain sacredness" could mean, okay? First of all, are you a woman? Am I too "old fashioned" because my child-to-be holds "certain sacredness" to me??

"...constructing it as something that is separate from the woman carrying it and transcending her and her needs in importance"

See my old post.... "We owe ourselves to the PERSON. The person here would be this girl, the fetus is not the priority."

"something holy, that is at all coststo be worshipped".

This is where the word "certain" would moderate/modify the word "sacredness", correct?

"What is so 'certain' about the 'sacredness' of a fetus?"

Certain-4 that need not be specified or may not be known to the reader or hearer. Oxford Dictionary of Current English

"How is my control over my fertility unfair? "

Nobody has said that controlling your FERTILITY is unfair. Sex=babies. If you don't want babies, use birthcontrol. Plain and simple.

"Would it be fair for some whore to slut around and every time she gets pregnant 'oopsie! guess we're going for abortion again!' ". Are you saying that the above IS fair? :confused:

"Okay, you are presenting one scenario as the only scenario for women seeking abortions".

EXACTLY. That's the scenario I don't agree with...why would I bring it up otherwise?

"And why do you assume is it your business how many men a woman sleeps with..."

Oh well...I must admit I have a certain bias against hedonists (aka sluts). But hey! sluts have a choice! if the risk of getting venereal diseases is a thrill for them that's fine and dandy...just use birth control.

" ...and how many times she decides to abort".
Sluts have a choice, babies don't. Hey...how is it any of your business that right winger governments are oppressing their people?? They're not bothering you, are they??

"Double standard indeed!"

Finally, we agree on something...

RedFW
5th July 2003, 20:53
Great. Let's define what "certain sacredness" could mean, okay? First of all, are you a woman? Am I too "old fashioned" because my child-to-be holds "certain sacredness" to me??

Why do you feel the need to know my sex?

You are backpedaling now. You said: 'There is certain sacredness to a fetus.' That is different from what you are now saying, which is that your 'child-to-be' holds a 'certain sacredness. The first comment you made about it described sacredness as being characteristic of a fetus, which you have obviously realised is something probably subjective and is certainly not a strong enough case for denying abortions to women.

Whether you are old fashioned or not is neither here nor there and has little bearing upon whether a fetus is or is not sacred.

See my old post.... "We owe ourselves to the PERSON. The person here would be this girl, the fetus is not the priority."

Yeah, I read your post, and I responded to that section of it. The bit your quoted from my post was about applying 'sacredness' to a fetus. I was describing the habit of anti-choicers deify the fetus.

This is where the word "certain" would moderate/modify the word "sacredness", correct?

Why not explain what you meant by it because I am not sure I agree.

Certain-4 that need not be specified or may not be known to the reader or hearer. Oxford Dictionary of Current English

You can quote Oxford Dictionary of Current English all you like; however, I think point I made still stands and would appreciate it if you would address it.

Nobody has said that controlling your FERTILITY is unfair. Sex=babies. If you don't want babies, use birthcontrol. Plain and simple.

No, you said: 'If we give women the right to do whatever they want with their bodies we're not really being fair.' As a woman, to whom am I or you or we being unfair if I am allowed to do what I want with my body?

Birth control is neither fail-safe nor is it affordable or widely available to most women, not that I understand how not using birth control translates to not being fair. And if some of the most popular forms of long-term contraception are themselves abortive, then what is the difference between allowing a woman to use these contraceptives and allowing a woman to have an abortion? There isn't a difference except that you consider the latter to be your business.

Are you saying that the above IS fair?

I think I was very clear about what I was saying, which was that you are presenting only one scenario for a woman seeking an abortion when really the situations vary from woman to woman. And that it is none of your business how many men a woman has sex with, how many different men she gets pregnant by, whether she gets pregnant only once or more than once. It is none of your business. As for being fair, you still haven't answered to whom allowing women the right to have an abortion is being unfair.

EXACTLY. That's the scenario I don't agree with...why would I bring it up otherwise?

I don't understand why you consider it any of your business or why it is an excuse to want to see abortion limited to women who do have multiple sex partners. It is still abortion whether they sleep with one man or with seven.

And you didn't say that is the scenario you disagree with, you said: 'Whether we exist as 'souls' before birth and recollect this knowledge as we live along, or just start existing with 'life' itself; my position is the same.'

Why would you bring it up? Well, I cannot speak for you, but after participating in quite a few of these threads of several different boards, I come to the conclusion that once women who seek abortions have been made to look like hysterical 'sluts' too stupid to use birth control it becomes much easier to control their fertility for them.

Oh well...I must admit I have a certain bias against hedonists (aka sluts). But hey! sluts have a choice! if the risk of getting venereal diseases is a thrill for them that's fine and dandy...just use birth control.

'Sluts' who do not use protection have a risk of getting venereal diseases. The point I was making was that it is none of your business unless you are a 'slut' or are sleeping with one.

Sluts have a choice, babies don't. Hey...how is it any of your business that right winger governments are oppressing their people?? They're not bothering you, are they??

There are many significant differences between a baby and a fetus. They are not interchangable, which you are suggesting, so I will just dismiss your analogy based on that.

Finally, we agree on something...

No, the point was we don't agree. The double standard I was referring to was (I notice you daren't quote that part of my post): Surely if the fetus is sacred, as you argued above, you owe all to the fetus regardless of the girl's situation? Why do you get to decide when the fetus is priority and a 'person' and when the woman carrying it is?

So, which is it? 'there is certain sacredness to a fetus' but only when you say so or women who are sluts should not be allowed abortions?

Bush is a capitalist
6th July 2003, 00:24
IF the woman wants to abort the fetus within the first three months of development, I think it's fine. If the child threatens the womans life, same. IF the woman has some sort of urgent emergency then it should be considered (after the first three months).

dopediana
7th July 2003, 05:06
abort the fetus. the hospital costs for the baby's birth can be up to 5,000 dollars or more. the rough estimate for how much it costs each month to maintain a child is 471 dollars p/ month.

a handicapped, raped woman could not possibly accomodate the child with that. at only 88 pounds delivery will be near impossible. c-sections cost money. she probably won't be able to breastfeed. there's a good chance that the child will be screwy as well. republicans have the most ridiculous, inhumane principles ever.......

Mashka
7th July 2003, 19:42
Given that I have to spell things out for you, be patient and pore over the post. Based on your reading skills I'm guessing you're young, a 'not-so-bright' adult, or in a bad day. Since I'm feeling like shit I guess I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt...may I dare to ask for a reciprocal attitude, Sparky?

You are backpedaling now. You said: 'There is certain sacredness to a fetus.' That is different from what you are now saying, which is that your 'child-to-be' holds a 'certain sacredness.

Pulleez!! You have no idea how many times I have to deal with such semantical games. Ooookay...

"Certain Sacredness": since you were not able to grasp this concept, even though I provided you with the definition of the modifying word (certain), I'll take the liberty to translate it for you.

Keep the definition in mind...

Certain-4 that need not be specified or may not be known to the reader or hearer. Oxford Dictionary of Current English

If certain implies that the object it is modifying might not be known, or simply not needed to be specified...what is the word "certain" modifying in my post?? "Sacredness", right? So if I say that a fetus holds "certain sacredness", what I'm saying is that the "amount" of sacredness it holds isn't really known, correct?

...which you have obviously realised is something probably subjective and is certainly not a strong enough case for denying abortions to women.

Again, for my first post..."We owe ourselves to the person. The person here would be this girl, the fetus is not the priority". --->what would this translate into? Kill the fetus, right? Am I denying abortion to this woman? ...I don't think so! See your point fade away, it hasn't been an issue in the first place.

The bit your quoted from my post was about applying 'sacredness' to a fetus. I was describing the habit of anti-choicers deify the fetus.
That's right...and then you said: (on your first post)

"you owe all to the fetus regardless of the girl's situation? Why do you get to decide when the fetus is priority and a 'person' and when the woman carrying it is? Double standard indeed!"

I think you totally ignored what I said on my fist post as well (sorry for posting it YET again):

"We owe ourselves to the person. The person here would be this girl, the fetus is not the priority"

Seriously, aren't you dizzy from going on circles so much?

No, you said: 'If we give women the right to do whatever they want with their bodies we're not really being fair.' As a woman, to whom am I or you or we being unfair if I am allowed to do what I want with my body?

Let's post the entire idea for you and we'll work from there, okay?

" If we give women the right to do whatever they want with their bodies we're not really being fair. Would it be fair for some whore to slut around and every time she gets pregnant "oopsie! guess we're going for abortion again!".

I already answered this on my last post I believe, I'll post it AGAIN:

" But hey! sluts have a choice! if the risk of getting venereal diseases is a thrill for them that's fine and dandy...just use birth control. "

"Sluts have a choice, babies don't."--> translation: Sluts (and all women for that matter) have the ability to control whether they get pregnant or not. Babies don't ask to be born.
Clear enough?

Birth control is neither fail-safe nor is it affordable or widely available to most women, not that I understand how not using birth control translates to not being fair.

Wow, apparently you have read the back of the box...yeah yeah, I think it is widely known that birthcontrol is not a 100% effective. But in that same little box, they give you a percentage indicating how 'safe' it actually is...that's a huge gap to fill, huh?

Most of the potential clientele for abortions are coming straight out from the trailer park or the Jerry Springer Show..." we were drunk and it kinda just happened, ya know?"... "I ain't gonna use nutting!! booo!!...Jerry Jerry!". I'm assuming you're not trying to justify a whole social phenomenon by saying that "condoms tear". I work at a community centre in a very trashy neighbourhood, and we'r practically chasing the kids and stuffing their pockets with condoms. Surprisingly the "*****es still get pregnant y'all!"

And if some of the most popular forms of long-term contraception are themselves abortive, then what is the difference between allowing a woman to use these contraceptives and allowing a woman to have an abortion? There isn't a difference except that you consider the latter to be your business.

Do you realize the magnitude of the Olympic stupidity you have just said? Contraceptive is the exact opposite of abortive. Contraceptive PREVENTS conception. Abort means "to stop too early". If you want to "stop something"...that something must be there to be stopped. In other words, conception has to happen.

I never thought I'd be forced to speak on such redundant terms.

I don't understand why you consider it any of your business or why it is an excuse to want to see abortion limited to women who do have multiple sex partners. It is still abortion whether they sleep with one man or with seven.
OMG...I don't think a physically and mentally disabled woman is in the same position as one who knows what she's getting into, and chooses not to use birthcontrol...You've got a bizarre logic.

'Sluts' who do not use protection have a risk of getting venereal diseases. The point I was making was that it is none of your business unless you are a 'slut' or are sleeping with one.

Oookay, let's apply your logic then (again)... why the hell are we complaining about countries oppressing their people, if most of us are being 'benefited' by the capitalistic system? Because it is just not fair. Why isn't it fair...see above.

There are many significant differences between a baby and a fetus. They are not interchangable, which you are suggesting, so I will just dismiss your analogy based on that.

That was an advance...putting restrictions to abortion? Congratualtions, 'cause that's exactly what I've been trying to do all this time. Just now you're changing your tune. You never specified you had something against abortion. You went a 100% for it. I assume you don't go a 100% for it now, since you've tried to justify yourself with the argument that a fetus is not the same as a baby. So killing a baby is wrong then? Good.

Have you ever seen a doctor performing an abortion? I have, and I could see the baby's little hand sprouting from what seemed to be 2 pounds of ground beef. Well, it wasn't ground beef, it was the baby's body. Yeah, I would consider that a baby for some reason.

No, the point was we don't agree. The double standard I was referring to was (I notice you daren't quote that part of my post): Surely if the fetus is sacred, as you argued above, you owe all to the fetus regardless of the girl's situation? Why do you get to decide when the fetus is priority and a 'person' and when the woman carrying it is?

Go back to my analogy and think again. Haven't been introduced the term sarcasm, have we?
And I think I responded pretty clearly your questions above.

Going to bed now...later.

redstar2000
9th July 2003, 04:45
Given that I have to spell things out for you, be patient and pore over the post. Based on your reading skills I'm guessing you're young, a 'not-so-bright' adult, or in a bad day.

Charming introduction. I'm "guessing" you're a misogynist asshole.

If certain implies that the object it is modifying might not be known, or simply not needed to be specified...what is the word "certain" modifying in my post?? "Sacredness", right? So if I say that a fetus holds "certain sacredness", what I'm saying is that the "amount" of sacredness it holds isn't really known, correct?

Why not quit dicking around and specify it? What units of measurement do you use and how do you ascertain whether "sacredness" is present or not, and, if present, how much of it is there?

And, since you like dictionary definitions, what is this "sacredness" crap anyway?

1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2 a : worthy of religious veneration : HOLY b : entitled to reverence and respect
3 : of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>

When you use the word "sacredness", you are obviously attempting to smuggle a religious concern into a secular discussion. Want to guess how far you'll get with that approach on this board?

If we give women the right to do whatever they want with their bodies we're not really being fair. Would it be fair for some whore to slut around and every time she gets pregnant "oopsie! guess we're going for abortion again!

Actually, whores do it for money; sluts do it for fun. I don't expect that distinction would occur to you.

Either way, what's it to you? Who annointed you Archbishop of Female Sexuality...vested with the power to determine which women are entitled to an abortion and which women should be punished for their "whorish" or "sluttish" behavior?

Most of the potential clientele for abortions are coming straight out from the trailer park or the Jerry Springer Show..." we were drunk and it kinda just happened, ya know?"... "I ain't gonna use nutting!! booo!!...Jerry Jerry!". I'm assuming you're not trying to justify a whole social phenomenon by saying that "condoms tear". I work at a community centre in a very trashy neighbourhood, and we'r practically chasing the kids and stuffing their pockets with condoms. Surprisingly the "*****es still get pregnant y'all!"

A "whole social phenomenon", is it? Millions of "sluts" out there fucking their brains out, getting pregnant, and having abortions??? Trailer trash! *****es! Scum of the Earth!

But, lucky folks to have a "compassionate" and "caring" person like yourself to look after their welfare.

I'm surprised the sluts and whores and *****es don't all get together and hang your supercilious ass from the nearest streetlight.

Have you ever seen a doctor performing an abortion? I have, and I could see the baby's little hand sprouting from what seemed to be 2 pounds of ground beef. Well, it wasn't ground beef, it was the baby's body. Yeah, I would consider that a baby for some reason.

What, no pictures? Isn't that the next level of your "argument"...some nice gory photos? (Tip: Use Photoshop to make the blood look redder.)

How about if after the baby is born, we turn the "slut" into "ground beef"...would that be fitting?

Mashka, why the (pardon the expression) hell do people like you come to Che-Lives? And if, for some inexplicable reason, you must come here and post, why don't you do it in the Opposing Ideologies Forum?

This is not a right-wing board. It is not for misognyists, homophobes, racists, anti-semites, etc. There are other boards for those kinds of people...why can't you find one and join it?

Or even start your own: sluts_deserve_to_suffer.org--I'm sure it will be a very popular site.

:cool:

El Brujo
9th July 2003, 19:01
Meh. Fucking Christians. I think its hillarious how the contemporary Judeo-Christian does one thing because "God tells him to" (oppose abortion) but dosen't give a rats ass about the less fortunate and even sends people to kill them so they can get their hands on more oil (greed and murder. very big sins are they not?). Im obviously not a religious person, but morally, I appear to be more of a Christian than those fucking slimeballs.

elijahcraig
10th July 2003, 00:18
ABORT CHRIST. That is a slogan Mary should have heard. Abortion would have done this world a great favor, had Jesus been aborted.

Soul Rebel
10th July 2003, 05:23
Im getting really sick and tired of hearing sexually active womyn and those who recieve an abortion being referred to as sluts. It makes me sick to think that as so-called leftists that many of you continue to use this word. Do you not see how offensive this word is, the damage it does, and the control is has over womyn's sexuality? In all the posts made here by the anti-choicers about abortion how come the men seem to be excluded? Do they have no responsibility in using protection? Are they not sluts for 'sleeping around'? Shouldnt they be denied sexual freedom because they can impregnate womyn? How come the womyn must have the baby when the man can just walk out? Does this seem fair? No it doesnt and it really makes me sick. To truly be leftists you should desire that womyn have control over their main power- reproduction; that womyn be treated as humans and adults, rather then as children; that womyn have control over their lives in general- free from the decisions of men; that womyn be allowed the freedom to make choices; etc.

Sensitive
10th July 2003, 07:57
Quote: from SenoraChe on 11:23 pm on July 9, 2003
Im getting really sick and tired of hearing sexually active womyn and those who recieve an abortion being referred to as sluts. It makes me sick to think that as so-called leftists that many of you continue to use this word. Do you not see how offensive this word is, the damage it does, and the control is has over womyn's sexuality? In all the posts made here by the anti-choicers about abortion how come the men seem to be excluded? Do they have no responsibility in using protection? Are they not sluts for 'sleeping around'? Shouldnt they be denied sexual freedom because they can impregnate womyn? How come the womyn must have the baby when the man can just walk out? Does this seem fair? No it doesnt and it really makes me sick. To truly be leftists you should desire that womyn have control over their main power- reproduction; that womyn be treated as humans and adults, rather then as children; that womyn have control over their lives in general- free from the decisions of men; that womyn be allowed the freedom to make choices; etc. I am in complete agreement with you, SenoraChe.

redstar2000
10th July 2003, 10:25
As am I! At Che-Lives, we ought to react to words like "slut" and "whore" the same way we react to the words used by racists!

When men (or misguided women) use those words to "justify" their opposition to reproductive freedom for women, their motives are identical to the motives of a segregation-era racist or a German anti-semite of 1930.

If it were up to me, the first use of those words would send the offender to Opposing Ideologies and the second offense would result in banning.

There is no good reason to tolerate that crap!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:27 am on July 10, 2003)

elijahcraig
11th July 2003, 06:58
I agree.

Invader Zim
11th July 2003, 09:32
Quote: from Mashka on 1:00 pm on July 5, 2003

"How is my control over my fertility unfair? "

Nobody has said that controlling your FERTILITY is unfair. Sex=babies. If you don't want babies, use birthcontrol. Plain and simple.



If you don't want babies, use birthcontrol.

Abortion is a form Birth control! So what exactly is your problem with abortion? How does it differ from standard forms of "birth control" such as the condom? You are still destroying potential, and that I add is all that a fetus is. It is not truly alive and a human, it is mearly has potential to be alive and human. The same could be said for any sprim or "egg".

Urban Rubble
12th July 2003, 18:18
I'm not even going to get into the abortion debate.

All I have to say is this, Jeb is a really fucking stupid name. How can you take anyone with the name JEB seriously ?

truthaddict11
12th July 2003, 18:20
he is an idiot i cant believe that people in this state voted for him.

Ian
14th July 2003, 15:38
Man Mashka and Sandanista should go and join those prayer circles that are held monthly that pray for the souls of ova.

GET YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES :)(I don't have ovaries however)

Monks Aflame
14th July 2003, 16:51
I'm torn on abortion. I think careful thought should always be present when having sex. I don't think a situation where abortion is needed should exist, in a rational world. But there is rape. Contraconceptives and condoms are great, I think they should be promoted more. They are available at my high school clinic. hmm, then, taking an enviromentalist view, there's too many damn humans to begin with.

mentalbunny
14th July 2003, 17:13
taking an enviromentalist view, there's too many damn humans to begin with.

Wow, there's someone brave enough to say what I've been thinking! I get really worried about what people will think of me if I say things like that, I really do agree. Although technically we don't take up a lot of space (everyone alive could fit on to Jamaica standing up, apparently) we use a lot of resources and perhaps we should reduce the population, get it down to a more manageable size. I'm not advocating culling or anything like that, just more birth control. We have to look at things on a larger scale than the human race, we're accustomed to seeing ourselves as the most imporant things ever, when maybe we aren't. I don't know, that cuold be seen as pretty contraversial.

Saint-Just
14th July 2003, 17:49
Quote: from mentalbunny on 5:13 pm on July 14, 2003
taking an enviromentalist view, there's too many damn humans to begin with.

Wow, there's someone brave enough to say what I've been thinking! I get really worried about what people will think of me if I say things like that, I really do agree. Although technically we don't take up a lot of space (everyone alive could fit on to Jamaica standing up, apparently) we use a lot of resources and perhaps we should reduce the population, get it down to a more manageable size. I'm not advocating culling or anything like that, just more birth control. We have to look at things on a larger scale than the human race, we're accustomed to seeing ourselves as the most imporant things ever, when maybe we aren't. I don't know, that cuold be seen as pretty contraversial.

Currently we can sustain our world population if energy consumption was equally distributed. Obviously it isn't, those in developed countries often use excessive amounts of energy.

We don't need to reduce our population size globally. Some nations, e.g. China do have a problem and they have taken steps and are succeeding in slowing population growth.

In some countries population is falling (e.g. Britain, france), immigration could mean we can keep our population steady.

As techology developes it becomes possible to sustain more people on this planet. So it is ok as long as technoligical growth keeps up with or ahead of population growth.

Monks Aflame
14th July 2003, 17:50
If I was a fetus, and was magically given view to the situation I would be dropped in if I was born, which is, being an unwanted child raised by perhaps a single mother, or a mother and an abusive boyfriend (in either scenario, still unwanted) without the resources (or desire) to feed, clothe, or educate me, I'd tell the doc to pull the plug on me.

dopediana
15th July 2003, 23:57
this thread's theme song ought to be diana ross's "love child"....


but honestly, monks aflame, i've always thought the same thing. what do we do with rabid dogs? we kill them. now i'm not saying kill mentally disabled people. i'm saying, humans are humane only where humans are concerned. and generally only humans of the same nationality and social class. this fucking makes me mad.


If I was a fetus, and was magically given view to the situation I would be dropped in if I was born, which is, being an unwanted child raised by perhaps a single mother, or a mother and an abusive boyfriend (in either scenario, still unwanted) without the resources (or desire) to feed, clothe, or educate me, I'd tell the doc to pull the plug on me.

exactly. and if you're a practicing hindu/buddhist, you'd have another chance at life in a few seconds anyway.

we control animal's populations. we've wiped out entire populations. at the turn of the 20th century, there were over 6,000 languages spoken on the face of the earth. now there are less than 3,000 and there will be less in the years to come. this is amazing. cultures are dying. soon the tigers will be no more. and we're worried about a fucking group of cells? call me an insensitive, illogical *****, but that's the way i feel and you won't change it.

WUOrevolt
17th July 2003, 22:26
we have to fight this

MiNdGaMe
17th July 2003, 22:54
Abortion is the consented termination of an unborn fetus in a women's body.

Without the women the fetus would cease to exist, mainly due to the fetus dependency of the umbilical cord. Therefore logically the child is a part of the womens body yes?

To combat that it is killing a living organism, we will compare a unborn fetus to that of a virus.A virus is considered a living organism when it has "infected" a host. Without a "host" the virus would cease to exit. Administering anti-biotetics to ones immune system to combat the virus is comparable to abortion.

The virus is removed/terminated because it is unwanted and wil/is causing harm to its host, either that be physical, emotional etc...

dopediana
18th July 2003, 17:18
Quote: from MiNdGaMe on 10:54 pm on July 17, 2003
Abortion is the consented termination of an unborn fetus in a women's body.

Without the women the fetus would cease to exist, mainly due to the fetus dependency of the umbilical cord. Therefore logically the child is a part of the womens body yes?

To combat that it is killing a living organism, we will compare a unborn fetus to that of a virus.A virus is considered a living organism when it has "infected" a host. Without a "host" the virus would cease to exit. Administering anti-biotetics to ones immune system to combat the virus is comparable to abortion.

The virus is removed/terminated because it is unwanted and wil/is causing harm to its host, either that be physical, emotional etc...

babies are viruses! please remember to cover your mouth when you have sex to prevent the spread of this horrible disease.

Dr. Rosenpenis
19th July 2003, 08:22
reading that article gives me an uncontrolable urge to put my fist through mr Bush and watch him die in agony for his heinous crimes against human rights.

Moskitto
19th July 2003, 20:24
I find Jeb Bush's attitude rather disgusting and disturbing considering even the most right-wing christians I know support abortion for rape victims and girls under 16.

truthaddict11
20th July 2003, 18:33
Quote: from Moskitto on 3:24 pm on July 19, 2003
I find Jeb Bush's attitude rather disgusting and disturbing considering even the most right-wing christians I know support abortion for rape victims and girls under 16.

Tell that to Ashcroft, and btwin Florida there is now a measure to make it so that underaged teens need parental consent in order to have an abortion

Moskitto
20th July 2003, 23:13
Quote: from truthaddict11 on 6:33 pm on July 20, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 3:24 pm on July 19, 2003
I find Jeb Bush's attitude rather disgusting and disturbing considering even the most right-wing christians I know support abortion for rape victims and girls under 16.

Tell that to Ashcroft, and btwin Florida there is now a measure to make it so that underaged teens need parental consent in order to have an abortion

Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are possibly the 2 most evil men alive.

The system is screwed up here as well, they want to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and STD infections, by restricting supply of condoms to people under 16?!?! at least they allow them to take the pill (from the school nurse.) Even my local MP who, although a conservative, is in terms of his community work a fantastic MP is opposing greater access to condoms.

Rastafari
21st July 2003, 00:35
They care about Religious Right votes=money and not the individual, classical capitalism

Moskitto
21st July 2003, 07:31
The problem with the virus comparison is that viruses are never actually alive whever they have infected the cell or have reproduced, a feotus is alive once it has been born. A virus will also resolve itself only by the action of the immune system, a feotus more resembles a tumour.

Pingu
26th July 2003, 10:27
i am a Christian, but i can live with abortion, especially is someone is raped.

Comrade Gorley
26th July 2003, 19:14
Pingu,

I, too, am a Communist Christian, and I am pro-choice. Remember the law of Moses in Exodus 21?

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

If the fetus is killed, the man simply has to pay a fine. If the woman is killed, the man must be killed, as well. Doesn't this indicate that a woman is more important than a fetus? Besides, the Bible also says that you don't have a soul until you breathe-

Genesis 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Finally, the Bible says that babies go to Heaven-

2 Samuel 12
15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Obviously, David went to Heaven (he was, after all, "a man after God's own heart", and if he went to Hell, why would be be rejoicing?) and so he said that "I shall go to him".

Women are more important than fetuses, fetuses don't have souls, babies go to Heaven- Abortion is clearly acceptable. It's perfectly possible to be Christian and pro-choice.


By the way, the term SHOULD be "pro-birth", not "pro-life". If a woman dies because of giving birth, are they "pro-life"? Obviously not. :cool:

MikeyBoy
26th July 2003, 19:45
Women should always have the choice for an abortion, I'd rather have a baby not live at all than live a horrible life.

MiNdGaMe
28th July 2003, 09:56
Quote: from the amaryllis on 5:18 pm on
babies are viruses! please remember to cover your mouth when you have sex to prevent the spread of this horrible disease.


Its apparent you failed to read the post in full and were unable to digest it. A baby (infant) is a organism seperate from that of its mother, a fetus is an organism only when it has another organism (its mother) to survive off.

(Edited by MiNdGaMe at 10:00 am on July 28, 2003)

Fabi
28th July 2003, 10:17
Quote: from Pingu on 10:27 am on July 26, 2003
i am a Christian, but i can live with abortion, especially is someone is raped.


i can live with abortion?
That is kind of funny. ;)

(Edited by Fabi at 10:18 am on July 28, 2003)