You don’t care what the reason is? Suppose the reason is for medical care other than an abortion? You don’t know when someone enters a clinic what their reason is.
I’m not sure what a hunger strike is going to accomplish, but hey go for it.
“classy” lady my ass. Pretty much if you have to call yourself classy, you generally ain’t, and you just keep on proving it. :rolleyes:
This from someone who defended the idea of secretly videoing taping one’s sexual activities, because all women are out to accuse men of rape.
Forgive me if I’m a wee bit skeptical when you complain about “harm to women”. :dubious:
More than that, he was associated with members of a big organization that included Cheryl Sullenger, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit a bombing and served time in prison for it. He and she both admitted that they talked on the phone a lot in the months prior to his murdering Dr. Tiller. I’m surprised there haven’t been more murders, frankly. Thus far, just one of the attempts was carried out by a woman----Shelly Shannon, in whose backyward the FBI found a rulebook for anti-choice organizations.
Zerial you’re just being obtuse. You argue that you use condoms? So the fuck what? You’re one person. And apparently you’re completely blissfully ignorant that the argument that you’re making has been thrashed out for at ten years on various sites, in pretty much the same terms, all over the internet. It’s just as tiresome as the ones that classladywhatever is making here, because they too are old and unoriginal. Her advice, for example, is close your legs. Have you heard that phrase before? It’s a notorious cliche. Well, while no one’s commented on that specific bit, in fact it’s an old and quite ridiculous viewpoint and piece of advice. More and more I continue to be amazed at the idea that this board is fighting ignorance.
Ugh. That’s “knew” as in “assumed, based on no personal experience with Mrs. Klein.”
Folks this is officially the first cuckoo of spring
That’s not exactly uncommon for the anti-choicers. Did you hear of the case of Angela Carder? When the TV assholes got ahold of it, they gave it a happy ending, but in real life both she and the fetus died, thanks entirely to the machinations of anti-choicers.
Basically, Carder was a long-time cancer sufferer but she’d won every fight, and with her cancer in remission, she married and got pregnant. Then the cancer came back. She was six months pregnant, but she wanted to fight. She wanted to proceed immediately with cancer treatment, but doctors at the hospital disagreed with her choice and basically chose the fetus over her. They inserted a feeding tube in an effort to extend her life long enough to incubate the fetus further. The feeding tube silenced her and the sedatives kept her from fighting. The hospital adminstrators, for some reason, feared a law suit by busybody anti-choicers, so a hearing took place in which separate counsels were appointed for Carder—and her fetus. She was not permitted to speak for herlself, and her wishes were ignored. The emergency C-section was performed, it killed her, and the fetus was stillborn. The heartwarning TV movie featured a live birth, however.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_A.C. As predicted, the C-section basically killed her and she died two days later. The doctor who tried to ventilate the infant’s lungs said it was like ‘trying to ventilate a rock’.
120 organizations filed briefs on behalf of Carder and her family in the inevitable trial that followed. Only two argued against the right of people to kill her for a fetus: Americans united for Life, an anti-choice group, and the United Catholic Conference. An attorney for the hospital argued that it was appropriate to sacrifice a dying woman for a fetus. Never mind that Carder had won every fight she ever fought in her life, and this time the doctors took an active part in endangering and finally killing her.
And you’re just continually grinding the same axe against anyone who holds still long enough for it. You’re not worth addressing.
Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Yeah, I notice you didn’t address how YOUR condom use alone had anything to do with general condom use. Who gives a shit what you do?
As for the rest, blah blah blah, another SDMB guy with pretenses.
I’m confused. 120 on behalf of her family, and two argued against the right of people to kill her for a fetus. That sounds like they all opposed what the hospital did.
That should be ‘for’. Not fully caffeinated yet. I did put the link in there, right?
Wake up motherfucker, as one crazy fucker to another, motherfucker please!!??
Try putting one of those fake arrow-through-the-head things on the baby first.
The limits of what protesters can and can’t do at reproductive health clinics is defined by federal law but the limits have been rules lawyered to the inch by protesters’ counsel to the point that clinics have protection from Operation Rescue/Lambs of God style sit-ins but women have no protection from so-called “sidewalk counseling” despite the fact that in any other situation, many tactics could be prosecuted under basic state statutes against assault.
There really isn’t, because ultimately, the anti-abortion argument comes to an incontrovertible and unacceptable bottom line in which the most basic rights of women are completely abrogated in order to prioritize the so called rights of non-person fetuses. There is no gray area there and no other situation in which one would or could be forced to cede their own bodily wellbeing and integrity and put their longterm health and very lives at risk for another individual. Where exactly is the room for reasoned debate? What exactly is the common ground position to be found there? Either I am a full person with full rights to choose what another may do to my body or I am not.
Yeah, the self-hate thing falls apart when you listen to the language of the pro-life movement. We can posit it as a mixed movement but its core and its values are driven by the strange bedfellows of Evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Hence, it is easy for its members to create a bright line us vs. them dichotomy.
In the pro-life philosophy, people who recognize the personhood of innocent (key religious word) unborns are moral actors. Those who do not are immoral actors. From there, all else flows.
And because they are moral actors with God on their side, prolifers believe that when they sin, they can (and will) pray and be forgiven regardless of what they’ve done. There is always a fallback, because they are the redeemed and loved of God. Thus, they have abortions themselves, but because they are moral people, their behavior, including their abortion, is moral overall. Meanwhile, when immoral actors have abortions, it’s part of a larger, ongoing pattern of immoral, and therefore, inexcusable behavior which is abhorrent to them.
They’ve set a cozy little self-reinforcing (tautological) philosophy that elevates, insulates and congratulates themselves for their goodness. They don’t hate themselves at all because they’re convinced that they don’t have to.
I get your point… but the link you gave to support it is ironic, in that it briefly mentions Nancy Klein’s case and then goes on to wax rhapsodical praise in the case of Barbara Blodgett, who was also in a coma, was not given an abortion, and not only survived but is evidently thrilled with her child:
Can you give a specific example of a tactic that would, in some other context, be violative of a state law against assault, but is permitted when done by abortion protesters?
I’m going to preface this, again, by saying I’m pro-abortion-rights. Safe, legal, cheap.
That said, first of all, there doesn’t necessarily have to be a common ground for there to be a debate. Secondly, the debate is exactly the question you’re begging:
- if fetuses are non-persons, there is no debate–abortion is solely a question of the fundamental rights of the mother.
- if fetuses ARE persons, there is a debate on the interrelation of the fundamental rights of the mother and the fetus, and what either is allowed or prohibited from doing to the other.
I don’t think the position of “fetuses are legal persons with full rights” is indefensible, despite the fact I don’t agree with it. Reasonable people can reasonably hold that position–and derive an anti-abortion position from it that holds water.
I have seen protestors grab people’s arms and forced literature into their hands before they enter the clinic. This is assault. I have seen protestors surrounf cars so tight that the doors cannot be opened and the people can’t get out. This is legal kidnapping.
Personhood of the foetus seems to be based largely on religious belief. It certainly isn’t based on scientific argument.
Religions disagree about the personhood of a foetus, and at which point, if any, this personhood exists.
Even religious traditions using the same text reach different conclusions.
Catholicism, for example rejects a deliberate abortion even to save the mother’s life, while Judaism might mandate an abortion in the same circumstances.
Restricting abortion rights in line with one religion’s beliefs, may impose on the freedom of others to follow their own religious beliefs, or the actions of a non-believer which they believe to be moral.
You have a right to believe whatever you wish about abortion.
You have no right, however to impose your religious beliefs on those who do not share them, nor to enshrine those beliefs in law.