posted on March 15, 2001 12:21:39 PM new
Hi raw!.....well....naturally I assumed her adopted child was handicapped as she said they were moving to a bigger house for him/her......I assumed it was for ramps/better access, etc.,.....am I mistaken mzalez??
posted on March 15, 2001 12:27:34 PM new
The end is not in sight is it?
When women are scrutinized as in snowydays post with a morality police motif.
Or mzlz tosses in the "close legs" blah blarg.
They aren't saving lives. They could care less about the life of the mother. The lives of her other children etc.
They are as bad as nazis, these anti abortion propagandists. They have a fascist view that the only good is their good. It is a perversion of the bible, of the teachings of Christ etc.
The only forgiveness in their hearts is for the pure soul of the child.
Ever hear any of these anti-choice types speak up against the death penalty? Of course not.
Or against a pantheon of injustices to living children in other countries?
No, it is constant spewing of misinformation, poorly reworked (and written) stories by "X" who regrets she did it.
Then they call women who are trying to deal with the reality of their lives nazis and all sorts of names. They prey on the illiterate, poorly educated. They want to help, but at a cost.
Are we talking Dr Faustus here? I have talked to women who go to these abortion counselling "shops" it's a farce. You don't just sell your soul to the cause, you are made to feel like a lower life form because you even considered it.
Oh then pray for forgiveness.
It is at the heart of cultism...brainwashing...tearing women from their community psychologically by ensuring they don't use their own doctors.
The adoptiona agencies muddied up in these waters is always an exciting marriage isn't it?
I have seen the pulpit full of male priests who have no concept of what an abusive husband is like (oh, blame the victim - she should know better or leave! Poverty economics are nothing like yours and mine) or worse, make a woman risk heart/stroke and other illnesses to bring a child to term.
Then they brainwash folks like mzalez into pouring this information into newsgroups and chatrooms.
WHY?
Because no one actually goes to their websites! Except the converted. Boring preaching to the choir.
So...You can have your misinformation. You can couch it in morality. You can debate life, you can call women who do this immoral and uncaring. Or worse portray them as fallen women, victims of a corrupting society. You repeat the blather ad infinitum.
I vote, I vote choice. I am a member of NARAL, Planned Parenthood. My representatives know what I think.
I also would add that any man who thinks this is "up with chicks" talk you are sooooo wrong.
It is about men and women. Not that the guys have to lead the fight, but stand up and say want you think. Too many men know more about the life of Michael Jordan than the life of the woman they are dating.
For the record mzalez you know darn good and well that you aren't "discussing" you aren't the least interested in anything but furthering the perverted agenda of an extremely flawed group who resort to weak tactics to do so: bombings, killings, intimidation, harassment...the list is endless.
I am, frankly embarrassed for you. That you don't rise above this and see it for what it is...you have been used, and badly.
I will pray for you. I can't pray for unborn children because they aren't living until they are born. You know it, as do I.
Besides, did you know that at early term the body aborts fetuses without women even knowing it?
We are not talking murder. We are talking about abortion. It is the sole right of the woman who makes that decision.
Note to moderator: I do not feel I have busted any guidelines. This topic is egregiously offensive. If she came on this board and spouted racist epithets I would find it as equally offensive.
People need to realize that this isn't Pro Child it is Anti Woman.
Repeat that last sentence.
posted on March 15, 2001 12:30:04 PM new
Kraftdinner
Issues such as abortion, drugs, equal rights for various classes and so on have been debated way before any of us were born and will be way before any of us are long gone.
posted on March 15, 2001 12:34:17 PM newEver hear any of these anti-choice types speak up against the death penalty? Of course not.
The Catholic Church is opposed to both. Likely that will provoke something about the Catholic Church's history, but there are people who are in fact opposed to both. You gotta at least admire the stated consistency.
posted on March 15, 2001 12:35:17 PM new
Remember a few years ago Operation Rescue thought they had a big victory when "Jane Roe" stepped over to their side? As if.....
I still think of it and laugh!
posted on March 15, 2001 12:36:28 PM new
I'm with you Kraftdinner.. I can't believe this is still going on either. But I have to say, it is one of the most civilized threads I've read here!
It is pretty plain to see that mzalez isn't going to be swayed by fact or opinion. She has made up her own facts and borrowed opinions already.
Peeeeeople, were talking to the wall here.
Check this page out, I don't know how to do a link, sorry:
http://www.roevbush.com/home2.html
Anyway, it paints a pretty frightening picture for those of us who currently have a choice. Looks like the next 4 years may wipe out the previous 30 years of progress!
This thread has proven that you can't sway the staunch supporters or opponents of a cause by words. It has also proven that the rhetoric of the anti choicers hasn't changed, nor will it. This is the same stuff I have been hearing since 1973. If you all want to maintain some freedom and dignity, contact your elected officials riiiiight away.
Pro choicers are usually afraid to speak out though, because the zealots of the radical right will lable us murderers and mail a bomb to us... you brave souls!
posted on March 15, 2001 12:42:11 PM new
sugar2912
I am not trying to change mzalez's mind. Her mind is apparently already made up. On any issue there is those who are on the extreme sides and then there are the ones in the middle -the swing vote. Am I trying to influence their opinions, well I just believe that there should be a balance on the PBA/abortion issue.
There are points that us older people have forgotten and points that the younger people need to be aware of.
posted on March 15, 2001 12:45:05 PM new
I just want to say, I feel as if I'm living in a different planet from a lot of other people here. Is New York really that different? Some people sound as if they're literally encircled by zealots with an agenda that poses a real threat to them. I guess I shoulda figured that out, from this thread at the least....
Honestly though, I think the fear that Roe v. Wade can potentially be overturned is unfounded. Even if it may not seem like it in the area you live, the vast majority of this country do not want Roe v. Wade overturned, and the lesson of the 19th Amendment is that no laws which the American people won't put up with can stand.
posted on March 15, 2001 12:47:06 PM new
Sorry raw..... (I added 2 more in case I forget late on....)
You are so right again bobbysoxer.....in all of this, I've just been trying to figure out what the point of this thread was.
At first, I thought maybe a bunch of you had asked what a PBA was and mzalez was answering. When I realized the initial post was unsolicited, I kept wondering what was mzalez's point.
After reading (skimming) most of the posts, I thought maybe mzalez was speaking about what she herself had experienced. I assumed she had adopted a baby that was handicapped because of her adamantcy on this subject....if I'm wrong, then I REALLY don't understand the point of this topic. If I'm right, then her posts kind of make sense to me.
If mzalez has gone through something so horrific, then I feel she is doing her part in trying to solve the problem...by adopting an unwanted, handicapped child.
posted on March 15, 2001 12:49:13 PM new
Nicely said, Capriole... I would encourage ALL men to think about abortion, and hopefully come out on the choice side, for their wives, their sister, and their daughters.
If people REALLY want to diminish the number of late abortions that take place, they must support easy access to early abortion. Mzalez is not interested it this - her stance is not to put an end to D&X, but rather to piecemeal take apart access to ANY abortion.
The call for morality sickens me, based on hypocrisy where unborn life is more valued that living, breathing and struggling people. Believe it or not, mzalez, the choice to have an abortion for most women is an agonised one. They have an intense awareness of the profound nature of the decision they are making. Ultimately, it is THEY that have to live their lives. THEY that know the consequences to them of keeping or not keeping a baby.
In a country with pretty crap maternity leave, I find it fascinating that so much energy could go into opposing abortion. (In England I had 9 months off with at least half pay for each of my children). For a country that supposedly uphold "the family", it has a really funny way of showing that support.
I have yet to see any hard facts to support the amazing prevalence of using D&X for "convenience". The use of the term "elective" had previously been covered, and it is absolutely true that this covers procedures that are medically necessary but not at that point medical emergencies.
If you want to carry on opposing D&X, by all means, continue... But why not try to put forward some positive alternative? I loathe the idea of late abortions - and most of those are happening to young women, teenagers even. Access to early abortion is the answer, and your stance is making it HARDER, but not actually diminishing the need for the abortion in any way.
The Pope's continued opposition to contraception exacerbates the need for abortion. If he REALLY cared about abortion, he would sanction contraception.
The Right's dislike of sex education is contributing to this problem too. Start looking at the underlying issues AND promote positive solutions, before you begin promoting simplistic "fixes" like this one.
And thanks, Julesy, for your comment about my GIF. I found some bits and tried to merge them nicely together.
posted on March 15, 2001 12:54:27 PM new
Oh James...bless your naive heart.
Try going to middle america. Even rural america. women can't even GET abortions in some places.
Open your eyes.
If you have volunteered for a NARAL antiprotest to help patients walk to the clinic you will know the feeling of being surrounded by zealots.
edited to add...Minova, also love your gif.
I lived in GB for 5 years...I think her look is very "spot on."
[ edited by capriole on Mar 15, 2001 12:58 PM ]
posted on March 15, 2001 01:00:35 PM new
kraftdinner
I hate being right all the time LOL!
What is the point? Originally mzalez had started a thread the other day to promote a petition to ban PBA and to present it to Bush. I had immediately posted a thread to gather signatures for a petition to support choice. Balance
Spaz promptly went to MC and reported both threads and pattaylor deleted both threads. This particular thread is -in my opinion- a feeble attempt -in a round about way to avoid disipline from the community guidelines- to gather signatures to ban PBA.
Check out her first post (after editing):
"mzalez
posted on March 14, 2001 09:58:59 AM
I know many of you that post here are 'pro-choice', but this is not posted to start a huge argument. (a nice discussion would be great, though...emphasis on 'nice')
As you know, the President says he is all for a ban on partial birth abortion (PBA)--a form of infantcide most Americans would like to see outlawed. Because their 'pro-choice'-slant, the media won't give the details of PBA, many people don't have a clue to what partial birth abortion entails. Here are some facts you might like to pass on...
The procedure:
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the unborn baby's legs with forceps. The baby's legs are pulled out into the birth canal. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head. By keeping the baby's head in the birth canal, the baby is not 'legally born'.
Holding the baby's head in position in the birth canal, the abortionist jams scissors into the bottom back base of the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed from the birth canal, legally 'born dead'. In addition, the baby's body is now available for sale to research labs.
This procedure can be performed on babies in the uterus from 4 1/2 months old up to 9 months old.
Registered nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer, once admittedly pro-choice, now works against partial-birth abortion. The change in her perspective began when she personally attended three partial-birth abortions. Her description of the death of a baby, age 6 months: "The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a 'startle' reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out..."
In addition, the American Medical Association's Council on Legislation voted unanimously to support a ban on partial-birth abortion. The council reportedly designated the procedure "basically repulsive." The doctors also agree this brutal procedure is extremely painful to the baby, and risky for the mother.
If you would like to see PBA banned, there are many petitions circulating--literally hundreds. A quick search on 'partial birth abortion ban' will bring up many you can sign electronically. You can also contact your Senators and Congressmen.
By the way, this goes both ways...I'm sure there must be many pro-PBA sites, too. But if this post can reach just one person's heart and conscience--the purpose of this thread is fulfilled.
mistakenly put 'weeks' for 'months'...fixed now.
[ edited by mzalez on Mar 14, 2001 10:41 AM]"
I will be sure to be wrong the next time around to show that I am human, I do cry, I do bleed and will die some day just like everyone else.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:01:25 PM new
Remember James, the majority of this country did not want Bush for President either but the Supreme Court gave him to us. Do you really believe that they cannot overturn Roe V Wade?
I thought New York was a different planet? [no, I have never been there]
edited for UBB
[ edited by rawbunzel on Mar 15, 2001 01:15 PM ]
posted on March 15, 2001 01:01:55 PM new
Laws are legislated. This is within the rhelm of government. This is done by people of questionablr ethics and morals.
Ethics and morals are taught, within the family unit, based on societal and cultural norms.
If you don't like abortions, if you don't like PBAs...get off your duff and personally start helping people that are put in the situation to need them. Quit expecting government to lower abortions...you help lower the need for them.
Partial birth abortions are at times the best medical option. If you truly were researching the issue you would know that. Your source's lack credibility, and that reflects upon the opinion you represent.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:11:38 PM new
The topic of the thread is grave, but some of you are cracking me up.
Thank you bobbysoxer for posting the original post, because I wanted to add this link:
The illustrations in the link below show how a partial-birth abortion is performed. These diagrams have been shown in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House. According to Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist in Dayton, Ohio, who uses this method, the diagrams are "technically correct."
They are medical drawings, but don't look if you think you might be offended.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:12:19 PM new
The bottom line is that a genetic fetus is not a person.
The mother, who is an actual person has rights that outweigh those of
any potential person.
A woman has the right to protect her health, happiness, freedom and even her life by terminating an unwanted pregnancy. And this right
will always override whatever right to life a fetus may have, even a fully developed one.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:19:50 PM new
bobbysoxer "Just because we disagree on this issue (may agree on another) doesn't mean we don't have to be polite to each other."
posted on March 15, 2001 01:21:08 PM new
Helen, would it were so simple. A baby being delivered at the end of nine months in a normal, healthy delivery situation is not a "genetic fetus".
As far as the Bush thing, the vast majority of the country didn't want Gore. Among voters it was something like 49.7 to 49.3. That's a split down the middle. While I vehemntly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, the will of the vast majority of Americans wasn't flaunted. The election and the result was basically a glitch in the system, compounded by a narrow interpretation of law. However, polls consistently show that a much greater number of Americans are pro-choice then not. The same needs that called for legalizing abortion in 1973 still apply in 2001 -- or 2973. If abortion were to become illegal, the same social problems would exist, compounded by dead girls in back alleys. The clock can't be turned back on this one. On the other hand if 80-90% of this country were to somehow support a ban, then it could happen. Almost anything that 80-90% of the country supports should be passed into law. However, it's unlikely that a majority like that will ever arise to support a diminshing of rights.
Capriole, like I said, I wasn't that aware of how things are. We're all sheltered by the extent of our own experience. I hope the feeling that your rights are under a serious attack is more illusory then real. I think it is, and I hope I'm right. My heart goes out to anyone who is harassed by self-righteous zealots.
By the way, Supreme Court judges aren't only appointed -- they have to be confirmed.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Mar 15, 2001 01:25 PM ]
posted on March 15, 2001 01:22:56 PM new
Yet another post by mzalez to get around specific directives issued by AW moderators. Pat said no pics, mzalez.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:22:57 PM new
I had a teacher once that was polite. He always smiled and talked real nice while he was slamming the boys into the wall . The ones he percieved had done some minor transgression. Truth. Not made up.
There are more ways to be polite than just talking "nice".
James, the vast majority of VOTERS did not want Bush. A large portion of the country did -if you base it on land mass and not people.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Mar 15, 2001 01:30 PM ]
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
<<<<<<<<<,kraftdinner, you forgot this!
.....in all of this, I've just been trying to figure out what the point of this thread was.
