Today on Blogcritics
Home » Deserving Better Than Abortion

Deserving Better Than Abortion

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I can’t help but recall not long ago the president having to answer questions about whether he had a “litmus test” for appointees to the Supreme Court. He was asked specifically whether a candidate’s view on abortion would determine his or her qualification. The message was clear: Mr. President, you better not make this about abortion.

The president followed through on his word. He appointed an accomplished judge who is a man of integrity. He chose a man hailed on both sides of the aisle. Even former Al Gore Campaign attorney, David Boies, had only complimentary things to say about Judge Roberts (on Hannity and Colmes, Thursday, July 21, 2005)

Judge Roberts’ credentials make it obvious that the president did not make his choice based merely on ideology. There’s even some debate among conservatives as to whether he is conservative enough and whether he personally holds pro-life views.

Yet, despite all of Judge Roberts’ outstanding qualifications, the media and the extreme wing of the Democratic Party are making this about abortion. These are the same people wagging their fingers at the president, warning him to not turn this into an abortion battle. Now that the candidate is selected, it appears that the media and a few Senators have a litmus test of their own. The Los Angeles Times even questioned Roberts’ wife’s views on the subject. (Since when do judges’ spouses have to go through a confirmation process?! Do we even know the names of the spouses of the men and women on the bench?!) In any case, they’re all talking about abortion.

So, let’s talk about it. In reality, there is a large segment of the nation that does hope that the Roe v. Wade decision will get overturned. Not because anyone wants to see the return of back alley abortions. Not because of any bent towards theocracy. But because something is wrong when the most developed and free nation in the world has taken the lives of over 40 million children since 1973.

Something is very wrong. It’s wrong because there is no real constitutional basis for it. It’s wrong that women feel so desperate or so deceived that they see ending a pregnancy as an option. It’s wrong that we would deprive children in the womb the life, liberty and pursuit happiness we hold so dear.

Feminists for Life (the group John Roberts’ wife has supported) said this: “Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion.” (italics mine)

Mother Teresa warned, “The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn’t learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”

The battle in our country has nothing to do with Judge John Roberts. If he sat on the court and overruled Roe v. Wade, our problem would remain: will we extend the blessings of freedom, the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the most defenseless among us?

I pray that history will tell the story of a nation that didn’t simply choose the right justice in a critical time but one that began the process to meet the needs of women, children and generations to come who really do deserve better than abortion.

www.justawoman.org
Published, Changed from News to Opinion: DFN

Powered by

About Lores Rizkalla

  • dee

    I do not want the choice taken from women. I do want them to be able to make the choice but I wish more would chose not to have an abortion.

    But where did you get the idea that women were supposed to always be happy? If your mother told you that, she was wrong. Many were not happy before abortions and they are not happy now. Why? Because they are just not happy with the choices they make in life.

    Perhaps women feel so desperate cause they think they have to live their life thru a man. Even my own college age girl thinks her life is over because a man is not interested in her at this time. I tell her to get beyond that and get an education.

    Until the majority of women find some value in themeselves without looking the mirror and condemning themelves because they are pretty enough for a man to be interested in, they will be miserable.

    Most men, and I do mean REAL men, want a woman who is happy with herself and full of confidence.

  • Eric Olsen

    very well put Dee, and very nice post Lores – thanks and welcome!

    I will always be pro-choice but wish to see the necessity of making the choice reduced as much as is feasible

  • billy

    “In reality, there is a large segment of the nation that does hope that the Roe v. Wade decision will get overturned”

    yes if you consider 33% a large segment.

  • Eric

    I would consider 33% to be a large segment (although far from a majority still). Better than half also want more restrictions on when abortion can be preformed.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    billy is right, the vast majority of Americans do not want to see abortion outlawed because they believe that abortion should be, in the words of former President Clinton, “safe, legal and rare.” And that majority already knows and understands that outlawing abortion will not make it any of those things.

    If you confer the rights of personhood upon fetuses, you deprive every woman of the human right to self-determination.

    Where is the Constitutional logic in prioritizing the rights of the contents of the womb above those of the woman to whom the womb and its contents actually belong?

  • http://toddyarling.com todd

    I think one of the points of this post is that the Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion, so how could the SC just suddenly find it to be a right one day.

    Things like abortion and civil rights and affirmative action are too important to be decided by unelected officials.

    There should be real debate about these issues, preferebly on a state or local level.

    Roe v Wade is right up there with Brown vs Board of Education as one of the worst cases of judicial activism ever.

    Federalism and separation of powers shouldn’t be swept away just because it seems like a way of getting what we want right now.

    That can be tempting… If the SC one day decided the income tax and the FCC and the Federal Reserve was unconstitional, I might be changing my tune :)

  • Janice

    “If you confer the rights of personhood on fetuses…?”

    Fetuses ARE human. They already have personhood. Scientifically life begins at conception. When a woman makes the “choice” to have an abortion, she is robbing a Person, yes a Person, of a whole entire lifetime of choices. A “fetus” is not “the contents of the womb” A fetus is a human being. I think you might find it interesting that the word “fetus” derives from the latin meaning little one or little child.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    sorry to intrude a second..but time to cash a certain reality check here

    the government, on the smallest level, ie: the town you are born in, has already determined when your life begins and ends

    we have a Certificate for each event

    in the beginning, a certified medical doctor says you are alive and breathing, and they put your footprint on the Birth Certificate

    in the end, a certified medical doctor says you aren’t breathing anymore and issues the Death Certificate

    in our little world of secular government, the very conservative and smallest unit of government involved in our lives…the town we live and die in, say when we are born and when we die

    those Certificates are the official duration of our existances…before the birth certificate is only the mother, and after the death certificate…who knows..

    what we get is in between

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Zaundra

    The question I have is who gives man the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body. I’m for pro choice. Not because I want women to go out and use abortion as a means of birth control. But I supported it for those that are raped,for the women who have to make a choice to give birth or have an abortion to save their life. Who knows why a woman may do it but who are we to judge. God is the only one who sits high enough to judge us. If we worried about our own lives and take care of the kids that are our future that are here (some of which come from parents that are on drugs and/or miss treat the child)than we want have time to worry about the unborn. I’d rather see a woman have an abortion than to bring a child here just to neglect him/her.

  • http://www.justawoman.org Lores Rizkalla

    If it were as simple as a birth and death certificate, then explain to me why it is that someone who kills a pregnant woman can be charged for two counts of murder?

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    Lores, please cite the state and case law where such has occured?

    i know there are certain state laws that add time for assault and murder of pregnant women, but i am unaware of any that make 2 murder charges

    if so, have they been put to the test in the Supreme Court?

    never believe me…look it up yourself…check with your own town hall

    if there is such a case of 2 murder charges, then i would bet decent money that it was a prosecutor attempting to create a false precedent for exactly the argument you are trying to make

    but, as of yet…such has not been made Law of the land

    so please…cite the case and state for us to look up

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    I really think abortion on demand is something the men want. It helps them to be less responsible, and not feel bad when they take advantage.

    Gonzo, how would you feel about restricting abortion to the first trimester with full parental notification prior to abortion, detailed notice to the patient of all possible medical and emotional consequences, and a three day cooling off period.

    I would include criminal charges against any abortionist found to be convincing patients to abort. I would extend that rule to any public authority like teachers, guidance counselors, and school nurses.

    Later term abortions would require likelihood of significant physical health issues to the mom.

    Criminal charges if it could be proven that mother aborted for reason of sex of child, defect, or hair color.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    Randy..again..i am not falling for your traps..so please spare me

    problem with parental notification is in the instance when a parent has doen the impregnating

    for the rest…see my comment above..i think my position is pretty clearly stated there…

    Excelsior!

  • Bennett

    Comment #8 is a thing of beauty.

    ….::::Bows, Amazed::::….

  • Bill B

    God gave humans free will. If part of our purpose for being alive is to become more “God-like” shouldn’t we do the same?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>etuses ARE human. They already have personhood. Scientifically life begins at conception. <<

    Actually, the scientific definition of personhood requires the ability to communicate and express a unique personality. So realistically fetuses aren’t ‘persons’ until they hit at least 12 months of age outside the womb.

    Dave

  • Eric

    I believe that trial in California that got so much attention (can’t think of the name right now) was a case of charging the husband with double homicide for killing his wife and unborn child. I know there are several states with similar laws, but don’t have the time to look them up now (I really shouldn’t even be writing this).
    The reason we have birth certificates instead of conception ones, is for simplicity. Trying to find out when someone was conceived would be a very unnecessary challenge for the government.
    The fact remains that embryos/fetuses are living humans by scientific standards. This certainly doesn’t take away a women’s right to control her body, but if the right of the unborn not to be killed is greater than the right of the mother’s to control her body, then abortion shouldn’t be allowed. I think that very rarely does a mother’s right to control her body outweigh her child’s not to be killed. I feel a lot of sympathy for any new mother in a difficult situation, but I still don’t think we can overlook the child’s rights either.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    see comment #8

    that’s the Law

    nuff said.

    Excelsior!

  • Anthony Grande

    Eric, smartest comment I have ever seen on blogcritics.org. I could not agree more.

    No matter what the law says, ebryos, babies, fetuses or what have you are alive, eating and breathing. They are human if you like it or not. However the law says you can kill them just like you can kill mice or rats.

    Choice is condoms, pills or abstinence. Do one of those, but please do not kill the baby.

  • Nancy

    I find it extremely interesting that most of those opposed to abortion are also those that will never, ever run the risk of becoming pregnant – men. I find it incredibly arrogant & unconscionable that these same men arrogate to themselves and other men the right to control womens bodies & lives, without the consent of these same women. I doubt very much that these men would tolerate for one nanosecond anyone even considering the thought that their (men’s) lives & bodies should be so controlled, yet these same men do not hesitate for a second to dictate to women, using various claims such as religion, ‘fetus’s rights’ and other such bullshit, to assert their putative, self-bestowed authority – all of which is nothing more than a cover for their real agenda – control & power, & the goal of reducing women back to chattel status. Good try, you paleolithic assholes.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Randy asked, “…how would you feel about restricting abortion to the first trimester with full parental notification prior to abortion…”

    There are no logical nuances here. Either a fetus is a person with rights or it is not. Abortion is one issue that is a matter of black or white.

    If a fetus is recognized as a person guaranteed civil and human rights, then there can be no exceptions. Ever. There are no gray areas when it comes to rights.

    Fetuses conceived via rape/child molestation must be guaranteed the same rights as fetuses that were conceived via consensual relations.

    Fetuses of mothers whose health may not survive pregnancy, labor and delivery must have the same rights as fetuses of healthy mothers.

    These are some of the pragmatic implications of conferring personhood upon fetuses.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    God gave humans free will. If part of our purpose for being alive is to become more “God-like” shouldn’t we do the same?

    and what if our purpose in life is to NOT try and construct ourselves as false idols?

  • JR

    Randy Kirk: I would include criminal charges against any abortionist found to be convincing patients to abort. I would extend that rule to any public authority like teachers, guidance counselors, and school nurses.

    If we’re going to outlaw persuasion, let’s start with the evangelicals.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Nancy:

    I’d check some polls… there is a health amount of women against abortion.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    From Zogby:

    By gender, men and women’s feeling were statistically the same – 51% of both men and women agreed that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter while 37% of men and 33% of women said that abortion neither destroys a life nor is manslaughter. While 7% of men and 9% of women agreed with neither statement, 5% of men and 7% of women were not sure.

  • Bill B

    RE # 22

    To Steve S – The purpose of my statement was to speak to those who use religion and God as part of their justification for being anti-choice.

    In no way did I intend to infer that belief in God was a prerequisite for being anti choice.

    Would I be correct in surmising that you’re anti-choice from a non-religious perspective?

    I’m not sure if that’s what you’re getting at so if I’m wrong please clarify.

    There are many fronts from which to debate this issue. IMHO, with an issue that is as “gray” and maybe even unknowable as this, we should hold highest our most basic attribute. Free will. Some would certainly argue that life itself is our most attribute but I would argue that life without the ability to act and exist as it sees fit is a bit like having a beautiful gold or diamond neckless that is never taken out of its box on top of the bureau.

    To hold life up on a pedestal and strip it of its essence is to demean it.

    Feelings are so passionate on both sides, one believing that it’s murder of an innocent child and the other that it’s the basic right of the woman to control her own body.

    It only makes sense to me that we should make such incredibly important decisions for ourselves without government interference.

    Of course we as a society should work toward making abortion as rare as possible because after all abortion is most often about an unwanted pregnancy and is always about preventing another individual from being born.

    If one believes it’s murder, nothing of what I’ve said will be persuasive. Seldom does anyone who is entrenched on either side change their mind.

    My ideas on the nature of life itself color my position on abortion, as is likely the case with many.

    We all look at life in varied ways so it should be no surprise that we have many different ways to believe what we believe about abortion.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    actually, I am pro-choice. Legal, safe and rare.

    I’m not sure if that’s what you’re getting at so if I’m wrong please clarify.

    I was pointing out your assumption that one of our purposes in life is to be God-like. Says who?

  • Bill B

    me >The purpose of my statement was to speak to those who use religion and God as part of their justification for being anti-choice.<

    Those who believe in God. Obviously if one doesn’t, it doesn’t apply. Can one believe in God and not strive to be more God-like? I suppose but that likely wouldn’t apply to most who use the idea of religion and God in their opposition to abortion.

  • Peggy Loonan

    To All:

    I’m Peggy Loonan founder and executive director of Life and Liberty for Women. We are a 501 c 3 nonprofit abortion rights organization based in Fort Collins, CO:
    http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.

    Deserving better than abortion means putting our money where our mouth is.

    Abortion’s legality – Roe vs. Wade, isn’t meant as an expression of right or wrong, never has been, never will be. It’s about ensuring the safety of a medical surgical procedure, period. Whether abortion is right or wrong is a judgment an individual woman faced with an unintended pregnancy will make based upon her own set of religious and moral values.

    The majority of Americans don’t want Roe overturned precisely because they understand that illegal abortion – nationwide or in some states – won’t stop abortion, won’t save “babies” but will endanger the lives of determined and desperate women AND because they are smart, they know there’s a better way.

    We can significantly reduce the number of abortions without endangering women’s lives with safe legal abortion and – 1. abstinence-based (not abstinence-only) comprehensive sex education 2. more birth control research: Depo Provera, Norplant and the female condom were developed outside of this country because of pressure from anti-abortion groups 3. better birth control availability: how about health insurance companies covering not Viagra, but female hormonal birth control, including the pill. How about the FDA moving beyond pressure from anti-abortion groups and religious objections that have no place in the development and implementation of public policy, and immediately approving emergency contraception or the morning after pill for over-the-counter use. And finally, 4. Men and Condom. Condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy when used consistently and correctly so if every man correctly wore a condom every time he had sex and didn’t want to become a father, married or not, guess how many unintended pregnancies thereby abortions we wouldn’t have.

    Roe vs. Wade wasn’t wrongly decided. Roe held that there’s a fundamental right to privacy in the matter of terminating an unintended pregnancy, one option to an unintended pregnancy. Eight years earlier – 1965 – in Griswold vs. Connecticut, the Court invalidated a state law banning married couples from accessing birth control, citing a constitutional right to privacy. (It was 1972 in Baird vs. Eisenstadt that unmarried couples got the legal right to access birth control) Justice William O. Douglass, points out Ed Quillen, columnist for the Denver Post, 7/23/05 – said in the majority opinion that even if there’s no explicit right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, there are provision for privacy in the Bill of Rights, like the Third Amendment’s prohibition against quartering soldiers in private homes in peacetime, and the Fourth Amendment’s explicit affirmation of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Quillen also notes this: “It’s been argued that there’s no ‘right to privacy’ specified in the Bill of Rights and thus courts should ignore it, but by similar logic, the U.S. Air Force is a violation of the federal constitution. IN Article I, Section 8, Congress is given power “To raise and support Armies” and “To provide and maintain a Navy,” but there is no constitutional authority “To establish and maintain an Air Force.” We just assume that the U.S. Air Force is a logical extension of the other military authority specifically granted to Congress.

    If there’s no right to privacy –explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights – guaranteed Americans in the constitution then in addition to losing the right to access and use any birth control method available or safe abortion services, no American would be safe from any government intrusion into their home or lives.

    What kind of America do we want to live in?

    Should Roe be overturned jurisdiction will return to the states. I lived in WA State when we codified Roe into state law in 1991. This year in S.Dakota a law passed that would outlaw abortion all together but is unenforceable as long as Roe stands. Two things would occur at Roe’s demise.

    Every state legislative seat would become a referendum on abortion and bills to make abortion illegal would dominate legislatures’ attention – perhaps to the exclusion of important issues to states like budgets, taxes, education, highways etc. Second, Congress will begin to debate a bill that would be introduced within a nanno second of Roe going down, A Human Life Amendment that would pass the current House of Representatives hands down but probably wouldn’t pass the current U.S. Senate – not yet anyway.

    A state-by-state patch work of abortion laws will do nothing to reduce the number of abortions in this country and will fall disproportionately upon poor women and teenage girls just as all the current restrictions like the parental notice, waiting periods, and right to know laws.

    The first thing we’d see with a nationwide ban on all abortions or state bans is blackmarket RU486. Poor women and teens will be the blackmarket’s greatest victims. And by the way, along with illegal abortion comes an end to parental notice/consent laws.

    Let me address the issue of personhood. First, the unborn in the womb is biologically a human being – it isn’t a cat for example. In an effort to balance the right to life of a born woman with constitutional protection and a fetus, which has no constitutional protection, Roe vs. Wade said that a woman may have an abortion for any reason in the first and second trimester. Roe said the State may step in to protect maternal health in the second trimester and the State may step in to protect fetal life in the 3rd trimester. 42 States and the District of Columbia have laws on the books today that make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester except to protect the health and life of the woman.

    Janet Benshoof in “Abortion Rights and Fetal Personhood,” 1990 said “Roe said that the fetus was not a person for the purpose of constitutional rights. Beyond that, the Court said it wasn’t competent to make the decision about whether or not a fetus was a person and took note of the religious and moral debate around the status of the fetus. This doesn’t mean that the Court was unaware of the biological facts of fetal development. Rather, the Court recognized that biology as such does not stand alone, that biology has whatever value we attribute to it, notwithstanding attempts by the anti-abortion movement to end discussion by invoking biological facts when in truth that is where discussion only begins. The Court recognized that what we were dealing with are questions of religion, of conscience, and not just biology, and that by not saying that the fetus was a person, it was leaving it for individual people to make their own conscientious decisions.”

    Abortion kills pre-viable human life which has no right to life over a born woman and in fact God doesn’t disagree with that. No where in the Bible is the word abortion and no where in the Bible does God speak to abortion to either condemn or condone abortion. For all that anti-abortion zealots make of abortion God never spoke directly and on point to condemn abortion and that’s most telling.

    But God did speak to the protection in law he would afford the unborn and the born (Exodus 21:22-25) and in Gen 2:7 we understand why God placed the value of a born woman’s life over that of the unborn human life she carries from conception to birth with no exceptions as established in Exodus.

    Also as far as personhood is concerned God defined person in several verses with the same definition as found in Numbers 35:30 which reads, “Whoso killeth any PERSON the murder shall be pt to death by the mouth of witnesses…” PERSON is defined in the Hebrew as Nephesh or breathing creature (as described in Gen. 2:7) which doesn’t happen until birth. God defines a PERSON as one that is a breathing creature, who breaths the breath of life through the nostrils and that doesn’t happen until birth. It was then that God gave legal protection to human beings as evidenced in Exodus 21:22-25.

    And let’s not forget that God created the conception, gestation, and birth process and he is fully aware that the unborn is alive as opposed to dead in the womb and he still gave legal personhood and a right to life to a born woman over that of unborn human life.

    On our web site is an Issue paper explaining why God does not condemn Roe vs. Wade.
    http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_god_bible_abortion.html

    Also, #7 Janice, Science doesn’t make a judgment about when life begins. Science describes the process of conception and cell division etc. but, unlike religion, science which deals in just the facts has never made a judgment about when life begins. Placing that value or title on the time science says a sperm and egg meet is a religious or personal value not a value science has ever made.

    #21 Margaret you are right that there’s no logical nuances – if abortion is murder and we criminalize it as murder then women and teenage girls who have an illegal abortion would be liable under a first degree pre-meditated murder statute and would either face life in prison or in states like George Bush’s Texas they would be executed. That would be over 1 million women and teenagers a year sent to prison or to death row. And that would be even those who were victims of rape and incest AND there would be no exception even for the life of the woman because if abortion is murder it is so under all circumstances.

    Peggy Loonan
    peggy@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Peggy Loonan is like the LOONY version of Peggy Noonan. Hence, Peggy Loonan.

    That is all.

  • JR

    The loony version of Peggy Noonan? Since when is there any other version?

  • Shark

    I’m for a mandatory post-partum abortion for all right-wing Christian fundamentalist Republicans.

    =======

    If men could have babies, abortions would be available at drive-thru windows at Beer Barns.

    For Free.

    =======

    Some day soon — when this planet has 12 or 15 billion starving little inbred spawn scurrying around eating each other — having an abortion is not only going to be a RIGHT, it’s going to be a source of pride.

    So shut up and stop rutting.

    All of ya.

    ======

    …Oh, and thank gawd Blogcritics has yet another jingoist “essay” writer to cut and paste their one-note political speeches on the internet.

    Lord knows that — what with Herr Bush and the GOP in control of both houses of Congress — the poor things are FRIGGIN’ MARGINALIZED AND WITHOUT A VOICE THESE DAYS.

    PS: re. the quick appearance of “Janice” and others from the Lores’ local church group:

    Anybody wanna buy some Tupperware?

    Email Shark@effyou.net

    Thanks in advance!

  • Peggy Loonan

    Bob and JR:

    My my what intelligent responses! That’s a typical response from anti-abortion extremists who cannot defend their position. Maybe you should re-think your position.

    Peggy Loonan

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Peggy,

    Chill, honey. I’m pro-choice for all my baby mamas out there and you know who ya are.

    I’m just making fun of your name is all.

    That is all.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Couple of points need restating.

    Many, if not most, constitutional scholars will admit that Roe was created from whole cloth.

    Polls do not show that only 35% want Roe overturned. But they do show that a very large majority want restrictions. So if you’re going to use polls for your argument, use all of them. Agree to restrictions.

    Show me the stats that show men are the ones that want to overturn Roe. That is a crock.

    Anti abortion extremists? All they want to do is save lives. Abortion extremists. All they want to do is take lives for the convenience of the mom, which turns out often to be the convenience of the mom’s parents, husband, or other powerful interluders.

    Abortion extremists make money on abortions. Anti Abortion extremists work for free.

    Rodney King had it right. Why can’t we all get along. I assure you, Peggy, if you would agree to reasonable restrictions, this whole debate that is polarizing our nation would go away. But you want it all.

  • Peggy Loonan

    Randy,

    Anti-abortion resrtictions aren’t about protecting womens health and life, they are about trying to stop abortion by regulation. From waiting periods to right to know laws to parental involvement laws to outrageous clinic regulation – all are about trying to stop abortion. I can’t agree to restrictions meant not to promote the health and welfare of women but to stop abortion- restrictions that harm women and teens.

    Restrictions hurt primarily teens and poor women but don’t stop abortion.

    Anti-abortion extremists don’t want to save lives – just stop abortion – something nothing can do. Illegal abortion stops two beating hearts.

    Restrictions are attempts to do just that restrict access to abortion or shut off access to safe legal abortion services. That’s unacceptable.

    Peggy Loonan

  • Jo

    Gonzo Marx…. If a birth certificate conveys personhood, then why is infanticide illegal??? We’ve all heard stories of moms killing their babies at birth and being prosecuted for it. I am sure they didn’t have birth certificates yet.
    Zaundra… For crying out loud, can’t you think of a better argument than that? I know more pro-life WOMEN than men. Men are just as likely to be pro choice as women, if not MORE SO.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    i am steadfastly pro-choice, and i wish there were more choices…

    my 12 year old brought home a permission slip for me to sign that would allow her to take part in a sexual education class at school…i suppose this is progress as my two college kids were never offered the opportunity…in the class itself, my 12 year old found herself one of only 7 students (it was an all-girls class) where the class size had the potential to be in the dozens…this could be telling us that many parents choose to teach their children at home and that would be fine if not for the existence of teen pregnancy, std’s, harrassment, and date rape…even so, there were gaping holes in the sex education my daughter received, holes she was able to fill in with the information i’d already given her and the many discussions we’ve already had…but that did nothing for the other girls in the class, one of whom walked away still convinced that an std could be transmitted through a brand new unwrapped tampon handed to her by another girl thought to have an std — and several other girls concurring based on information they’d received at home…
    just as any good history class includes the feelings, thoughts, motivations, and ideas of historical figures, so must sex education include these very important facets of sexuality…even science class asks “why?”, “what if?”, and “what happens next?”…

    in a country that thinks something we don’t all have in common (religion in any form) belongs in the classroom but that something we do all have in common (sexuality) doesn’t belong or should be permission slipp’ed first, it’s no wonder that abortion is the end of the line for so many girls and women…not being fully knowledgeable and therefore trusting of one’s options is the fastest track to the most desperate of choices…well before having to deal with the consequences of conception, there are other choices which are never disclosed to these girls…
    it’s too much to expect young people to know all there is to know about their sexuality just as it is too much to expect them to know all about history — at least sexuality is of some personal interest to them, and this oft sought after attention span should be exploited for all its worth before the bell rings…
    where does society, much less any parent, get off judging the choices made by those who at one time were scared to death to find themselves bleeding from the vagina? if you legislate and insist that a child be raised up in ignorance, how on earth do you justify expecting anything but ignorant behavior?
    it’s not just girls and women who are being shortchanged…many boys and men have little or no idea there is a real physiological process behind irritability and bloating, much less that being selfless enough to accomodate a women’s orgasm can increase the odds of conception…

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    to continue where the posting machine stopped:

    the choices we’ve legalized and made available are not really choices, they are solutions…the real choices, the ones that could prevent the necessity of these extreme choices, are still being bickered about and hashed out and typed out on permission slips…it’s a sick reflection of a society’s priorities when abortion is a choice but sex ed class requires permission…and it is the sickest part of our society that would deny our children the very information that would prevent what it sees as the greatest tragedy…

  • Marshall Bates

    I often hear two comments about abortion. First “Its my body, therefore my choice!” and secondly “You are a man, and therefore have absolutely no say in the matter.” Since when did my posessing a penis disqualify me from seeking the absolute best for women? I am a son, a nephew, a grandchild, a cousin, and some day hopefully a father, and a husband. I have been around some very influencial and strong women, who helped shape my world view. Women who I hold dearer than life itself. I want the absolute best for my mother, my grandmother, my aunts, my cousins, friends, my future wife, and my future daughters. Secondly, the statement “its my right and my choice.” When do women abort because they have choices? All the women I know who have aborted did so because of lack of resources, lack of education, lack of support. We can do better for women! Women and Children are not the enemies but the root causes are the enemy! Women do not abort out of a desire to “assert themselves” but because they are scared, alone, vulnerable, and feel they have absolutely no options. We can and should do better than this. For all parties involved. Men, women, Children!
    God Bless

  • Ari Ham

    Men do have a right to have a say, everyone does. But I find it slightly hypocritical of a man to make any claim other than it’s a woman’s right to choose. You’re for taking away women’s reproductive rights, huh? Well, that’s awesome for you, it doesn’t affect YOUR body.

    And if you truly want the best for the women in your life, you would want them to have reasonable access to safe and legal medical care, abortions included. The way to reduce abortion is not to make it illegal, that just drives it underground, and more women die. Illegal abortion never saved a single “baby”, but it killed a hell of a lot of women.

    If you want the best for the women in your life, you certainly could afford them more than death, alone, in a dirty hotel room after having bled to death trying to self-abort. Women who are desperate and determined to terminate a pregnancy will do so, regardless of whether it is illegal or not. And more often than not, as with any medical procedure, when attempted by amateurs, it will stastically prevalently end badly.

    If you want the best for the women in your life, you should support their right to choose what happens to their own body, and support their right to have reasonable access to safe and legal medical care.