 |
|
||
|
|
|
 Governing the WombPosted on Apr 19, 2007BOSTON—May I remind you what else was happening on the very day in 2003 when Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. In Florida, the Legislature passed a law that gave politicians the power to override Terri Schiavo’s wishes and have her feeding tube reinserted. Up and down the East Coast, under two Bush administrations—George and Jeb—politicians were playing doctor and God and patient, trumping both medical opinion and individual rights. May I also remind you of the day President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban into law. The photo op had him surrounded by an all-male chorus line of legislators. These men were proudly governing something they never had: a womb. What a long and wounding debate this has been. The moment this procedure was dubbed “partial-birth abortion,” pro-lifers won the PR war. They took women out of the picture, literally. The line drawings that illustrated congressional hearings often showed a headless woman bearing a perfect, healthy baby of six months’ or more gestation. Their words not only described a procedure that was indeed gruesome, they portrayed these invisible women as amoral—women who choose abortion to fit into a prom dress. Advertisement Indeed in 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law by 5-4 because it didn’t have such a health exception. The court called it an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion. Nevertheless, in 2003, with the boldness of a party that controlled two branches of government and was making a bid for the third, Congress passed the law directly confronting that ruling. Now women are again among the “disappeared.” On Wednesday, a new Supreme Court upheld the ban, also by 5-4, proving what a difference the turnover in a justice or two can make. For many years, Sandra Day O’Connor had kept an uneasy peace in the court and maybe the country. She upheld Roe v. Wade while allowing states to regulate abortion as long as they didn’t place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to decide. In many ways, the first justice who had ever been pregnant defined which burdens were “undue.” She said it was an undue burden to ban any procedure without a health exception. She said that if there was any disagreement among doctors about safety, it was to be decided in favor of the woman’s health. But the new court majority has decided something quite different. In an opinion tortured by an attempt to deny what he was doing—overturning a precedent—Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that since only a small minority of women seeking abortions would be affected and since there was another possible procedure, the ban was constitutional. Writing for the majority, Kennedy said it was fine for the politicians to make medical decisions, fine to eliminate health exceptions, fine to overturn precedent. He even pretended to leave the door ajar for individual suits by women in the midst of a pregnancy crisis. From where? Her hospital bed, or perhaps her gurney? Let me remind you of something else. When Samuel Alito was a justice wannabe to replace O’Connor, he reassured lawmakers he’d respect precedent on abortion. When John Roberts talked about his reverence for both precedence and the court, he said he got a “lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps.” That lump in his throat is now a chill up my spine. As Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights said, “It took just a year for this new court to overturn three decades of established law.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did more than hint at the loss of O’Connor in her blistering opinion for the now-minority. The court, she noted, is “differently composed” now. The court’s opinion “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,” Ginsburg wrote. “The court’s defense of it [the ban] cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court.” How many times must it be said that those who support a woman’s right to decide want abortion to be safe, legal and rare? As of today, women whose pregnancies come with alarming words and dangerous diagnoses live in a world that is a little less legal and a lot less safe. Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at symbol)globe.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Battlefield in the War of Ideas
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
By MAN, April 24, 2007 at 12:13 am #
CHANGE IS GOOD
Report thisMY POSITION IS TO GET THEM TO ACT LIKE MAN SO THEY WON’T ACT LIKE THE WOMAN WITH THE COAT HANGER.
PURSUE HAPPINESS IT IS AMERICA
By moodygirl, April 23, 2007 at 6:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Having been around long enough to remember the bad old days of illegal abortions, I’m really worried about the inroads fundamentalist Christians are making on Roe vs. Wade with this latest decision. Women, mostly poor ones, were at the mercy of backstreet abortionists. I saw them come into hospital, some died from septaecimia, some lost the ability to procreate, all had been abused mentally and physically by these restrictions to obtain a legal medical procedure. Please don’t let these people bring back those cruel times.
Report thisBy Mad As Hell, April 23, 2007 at 1:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“The mother and fathers job is to nurture and gently usher this new human being into the world. If you are not up to the job for some reason then do as #65187 DMK said.
Place your newborn for adoption and let the child be raised by parents who care.
I wish that in my youth, I would have had the fortitude and wisdom to do the same.”
Have YOU adopted such a child given up for adoption? If not then you are just another right-wing religious hypocrite dictating YOUR morality to another.
We HAVE adopted such a child—and my wife and I didn’t do it because of fertility problems, because we have a biological child, too. We did it because he needed a family and we wanted another child, and were willing to forego “cooking” another. He brings as much to us as we bring him.
We are PRO-CHOICE but we did what all your fellow hypocrites SAY should be done, but don’t do yourselves. And, of course, I wonder how many of you if you actually considered adoption would willing make a child yours who wasn’t Caucasian?
(At least John McCain didn’t have a problem with that—he and his wife adopted a Bengali girl—and Karl Rove then had phone banks call South Carolina voters and ask them if they’d vote for McCain knowing he was father to an illegitimate Black child…and won SC primary for Bush in 2000 that way.)
Report thisBy THE SNED, April 23, 2007 at 10:11 am #
#65704 by William Lewis on 4/22 at 12:27 pm
(3 comments total )
In response to #65548 by SNED
The only thing you said in your fierce little note that made any sense was I am not an expert on late term abortions. I believe you, and I wouldnt be surprised to learn that you werent an expert on much of anything.
So my not being an expert makes you an expert?
And I suppose you believe the propaganda pictures that the anti abortionists show of late term fetuses when most abortions, are of fetuses that are (since I dont know exactly) tiny.
So why are you going on about an extremely important topic if you really know nothing about it? You say that a child in the womb is a what? A blastocyst?
Mr. Lewis, what I said is that a fetus of any size is not a child.
And a living mother is a person and a fetus isnt. And the Supreme Court has taken the Catholic route that says save the fetus and not the mother, which I find abhorrent.
In my note I asked for proof that an unborn child is not a viable human being, and this pitiful ranting is all I get in return. Why does this not surprise me?
Perhaps you simply have too much guilt? Or that you have some silly notion that you can take any fetus and put it on the living room floor and it will immediately play checkers and fend for itself. If your brain cant provide the proof, then why ask idiots like us who have trouble with your question because its hard to comprehend that it was asked in the first place?
Of course no human can answer this question, this is the grand paradox here.
If you are a woman, I cant tell with a name like SNED. And you get pregnant and decide to do away with the child. Your body and your womb belong to you, however the child inside of you, does not!
I think you can answer the question and wont let yourself because you didnt have the education or the smarts or the whatever it was, that caused you to get a woman pregnant who then got an abortion which made you feel guilty for life, and now youre going to take your guilt on everyone else. You have chosen your route. You made a mistake. Get over it. You personally didnt destroy that fetus and you personally dont own that womans body. Your viewpoint is one step below the Islamic belief that a raped woman is soiled and one can therefore kill her….be she sister, daughter etc. Men don’t own women.
No I am not a woman. And I wont pretend to be one. Neither should you or should a bunch of old men in the Vatican, who when the do father children ignore them, or threaten the mother .and/or if they have any guts at all, leave the church and become a proud parents instead of disgraced humans. Read a few books sir. Want a good one try Forbidden Fruit by Ann Murphy. Want to read how the church abuses psychiatry read Shattered Faith. Want to read how the church screws up the bible. Read “Putting Away Childish Things by Utta Ranke Heinemann. Want to read a good story about how Papal infallibility came into being and about the arrogant Pope that decided it for himself. Read Papal Sin by Gary Wills. Three or the four written by Catholics, and a third who went through an annulment after having raised a family..
The mother and fathers job is to nurture and gently usher this new human being into the world. If you are not up to the job for some reason then do as #65187 DMK said. Place your newborn for adoption and let the child be raised by parents who care. I wish that in my youth, I would have had the fortitude and wisdom to do the same.
That is not always the best decsion for the mother. Period.
My prime reason for posting here is the threat to abortion rights by a solid majority of Catholic justices who have a moral obligation to follow church teachings, and who also have a moral obligation to remove themselves from such cases.
Report thisBecause they are by law required to be impartial.See 65452 by THE SNED on 4/21 at 5:27 am
By Douglas Chalmers, April 22, 2007 at 10:00 pm #
LEC - “...i love how xians and others try to make sense of these events using their flimsy loving god model of reason. they try to understand WHY?!
The Second Freedom will be LOVE…......
“Upon Terra this word is wrongly used. LOVE is not the measure of emotion, whether soft or violent, it is something deeper, something greater, something which cannot be measured even in mind conception. LOVE is an all permeating energy which is above mind. It is the third degree manifestation of the Initial Creative Force. The Initial Creative Force is but an energy which can bring into being, Original Potential. The second degree Creative Force is that energy which binds together this potential bringing manifestation. The third degree Creative Force is that energy known as LOVE.
Freedom from hate can only be brought into active manifestation by its exact opposite polarity. LOVE is the exact opposite from hate, when in basic manifestation. Yet it is more than this much more. Being as it is, an energy which has different octaves of existence, it is mutable and transmutable upon all of these levels back to its one basic source thus it is the great energy of the Cosmos. Freedom from hate can only be brought into being by the manifestation of LOVE upon all levels of existence. LOVE is a natural energy, all pervasive, greater than mind, so therefore, it can be contacted and brought into active manifestation by all terrestrials. LOVE is the transmutes of war. It is the Creator of Peace. LOVE as such is the Healer of disease. Manifestation of The Second Freedom will bring to Terra - Freedom from want. Freedom from war. Freedom from disease. Freedom from one’s lower self. Freedom from hate. Freedom from basic emotionalism.
The manifestation of this one basic Freedom gives, as its prize, all basic Freedoms, with little exception. How is this manifested? LOVE is more than a state of mind - it is a state of whole being. “When terrestrial man begins to realize his true position in the Cosmos, he must then begin to manifest this great Power. LOVE is not the result of ignorance, but the direct result of applied Enlightenment. Become Enlightened, gain understanding of the feelings and problems of all peoples and LOVE becomes a living, vibrant, all-pervasive thing ................the slayer of LOVE is hypocrisy. Many, content in their procrastinations, hypocritically talk and bandy this word about, ‘til it hath no meaning, save a vague, misunderstood academic one. It is an active, living thing. The energy - the Freedom called LOVE - does not only exist on your Holy days, but throughout each day and each night. If terrestrial man manifests this Power during his waking state, he will also manifest this same Power during his sleep state, when part of the consciousness is still active ..........
When such things as these are brought into active being throughout your whole lives, then indeed is this great energy released unto all men upon Terra. All things living - which means all things upon Terra - respond to the release of this great, all pervasive energy, especially if it be released in its highest form. LOVE is not possession. In its highest aspect, it is above all forms of individualization. It is impersonal. It is not binding as is possession, but it brings Freedom. Manifest this great, true, impersonal Power in your every thought and action during your waking state, then it will still be manifested by you during your projected state which you call sleep. Of all the subjects spoken of in terrestrial Religions, LOVE might have been mentioned more than any other Power; yet, it is the Power which is least understood. “LOVE is sacrifice�real sacrifice. If ever there was one thing sure, it is this: at your command there is a whole Macrocosmic System filled with this energy ........... The Second Freedom is LOVE - true LOVE. Manifest this - and mould your future .........” From “The Nine Freedoms” by Dr. George King (Aetherius Press)
Report thisBy DKM, April 22, 2007 at 9:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have never seen so much comparing of apples and oranges as this discussion has generated. The supreme court decision was about LATE term abortions, nothing else. You keep saying that women have a right to govern their own bodies: fine, let them but that does not give them the right to have a pair of scissors plunged into the brain of their baby. So many of the posts act like giving birth is some kind of punishment or the worst thing that could ever happen to a woman. If you don’t want the baby, the greatest gift you could ever give to another woman who can not have a child would be your child. I can not believe the selfishness of all of you who only can think about yourselves and give no thought of all to the child. This kind of of behavior will do more to set back the gains of the women’s right’s movement than anything I can think of. It makes you look like a bunch of screaming, demanding, harpies and not caring, thoughtful, intelligent women.
Report thisBy Petrichoriny, April 22, 2007 at 8:37 pm #
hahaha that’s funny. you people still believe in a god. i’m laughing, but on the inside, i’m crying… for your poor lost intellect. i love how xians and others try to make sense of these events using their flimsy loving god model of reason. they try to understand “WHY?!” their daddy on high would do such things, or allow such things to happen. why indeed. trust me, once you get over the whole god concept things start to make a LOT more sense. god didn’t create man; man created god.
Report thisBy loverofpeace, April 22, 2007 at 8:34 pm #
#65707, Lee: so you take the position that “life is so precious”? Do you then support our Dear Leader in believing that murdering innocent men, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good thing? I’ll bet you are a big support of those invasions. Please tell me how you and your ilk have determined that a 2 week “fetus?” is more precious than people who already are living and breathing here on our planet! You need to do some thinking before you make such bizarre statements!
Report thisBy Trish, April 22, 2007 at 8:33 pm #
I was specifically talking about *fertilized* eggs because the claim is that there is a soul [morally equal to any human alive] from the moment of conception. If so many fertilized eggs do not form babies, how can one deduce that such an event is an offense to God?
Also, if it is, why did he not mention it in the Bible? If God didnt want women aborting, why not put the babies into hard, leathery eggs like dinosaurs had, which could be taken from women and protected by Christians? Why did the Catholic church say until the 1850s that aborting before “quickening” [woman feeling fetal movement] was permitted? Only when Science provided clearer pictures did it turn to sin? But science is bad?
And still, I wonder why it is that the attitude seems to be that a baby is the appropriate punishment for sex that someone disapproves of. How is that good for babies?
Anyone in America is free to live according to what they think God wants them to do. But that means that everyone in America is also free to live according to their own conscience and beliefs. That includes people who dont see any evidence that abortion is murder [just yelling abortion is murder doesnt make it so.]
Report thisBy MAN, April 22, 2007 at 8:31 pm #
In the Realm of Shame - What is perfect compared to a Fig Leaf?
THIS HERE >>>
Titanuium Implants for our Sisters.
The Final version of Perfection is “Not” the Twelve Tribes to which you were headed before we came to this Place where I am Writing NOW.
Give to God Our Father what belongs to God.
A Earth with One Man with Our Father to Guide Away From Satans Voice.
Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar - His Rub Zone until He see’s Our Father and His Divine Purpose.
No need to Fight over the Land or Our Sisters Womb once it Disappears through the Right way.
She has all it takes to help the Man from another Round of Rigormortis…
As A sacred Serpent or Moses Staff SHE is Able to SWALLOW UP Death with the Act of His Living Spirit Guiding Her Actions of Life - So Get Started She Is a Man Deep INSIDE. Mark My Words.
DO NOT LET SATAN MAKE HER OUT TO BE A WOMAN THAT HE HAS DESIGNED AS HE WILL WITHOUT OUR FATHERS POWERFUL INTERCESSION!
Written on Earth Day / Israel Independence Day 2007 by A Christian Son
Report thisBy desertdude, April 22, 2007 at 8:15 pm #
Abortion is wrong. You are taking the life of a child. As for those who say what about all the eggs that go unfertilized. Why does God allow that to happen? Because he can, he is God. We mortals can’t even understand him yet we want to question him. God is. God does not make mistakes. No matter how many scientists tell you he does.
Report thisBy Petrichoriny, April 22, 2007 at 5:27 pm #
Response to the “fierce little” Willaim Lewis:
To answer your question, a blastocyst is a cluster of about 70-100 cells in the womb of a newly pregnant female. Know your science. Being ignorant won’t make any of your rash statements more effective. adoreable as they already are.
I believe SNED is “going on” about this “extremely important topic” because s/he has the right to. See, in case you haven’t yet figured it out, that’s what these little comment thingies are about. If you don’t enjoy this unique little feature and instead prefer to be force fed more the easily digestible and completely vapid news/propoganda, please click here.
The child in the womb does technically belong to the mother considering the fact that she is the only one feeding it an keeping it alive. Actually, the fetus is more like a parasite than anything else. It implants itself in her, uses her body for nourisment and shelter, and grows at the expense of her comfort.
I will not agree that a clump of cells is already a life of its own. That’s just silly. Really, fetus’ don’t even feel pain until the third trimester. Hence, I don’t think an abortion before the third trimester is murder. After the third trimester the mother should wait til birth before she should be allowed to rid herself of the creature that has been growing in her womb. That is unless continuing her pregnancy would put her life in jeopardy. Then the fetus should be removed immediately. At this point is has a chance of surviving outside of the womb anyway.
Report thisBy Lee, April 22, 2007 at 4:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Life is so precious and especially the life of the unborn fetus that anyone who would consider abortion under any circumstances should be summarily executed.
Report thisBy William Lewis, April 22, 2007 at 4:27 pm #
In response to #65548 by SNED
The only thing you said in your fierce little note that made any sense was I am not an expert on late term abortions. I believe you, and I wouldnt be surprised to learn that you werent an expert on much of anything.
So why are you going on about an extremely important topic if you really know nothing about it? You say that a child in the womb is a what? A blastocyst?
In my note I asked for proof that an unborn child is not a viable human being, and this pitiful ranting is all I get in return. Why does this not surprise me?
Of course no human can answer this question, this is the grand paradox here.
If you are a woman, I cant tell with a name like SNED. And you get pregnant and decide to do away with the child. Your body and your womb belong to you, however the
child inside of you, does not!
The mother and fathers job is to nurture and gently usher this new human being into the world. If you are not up to the job for some reason then do as #65187 DMK said.
Report thisPlace your newborn for adoption and let the child be raised by parents who care.
I wish that in my youth, I would have had the fortitude and wisdom to do the same.
By Homer Hewitt, April 22, 2007 at 12:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
George W. Bush and his right wing supporters have been doing their best to subvert our democracy by injecting into our government and laws their religious views. They can rightly claim a major success in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision subverting a woman’s right to choose.
The NY Times has an excellent editorial decrying this decision, pointing out, among other things, that for the first time it allowed a law to ignore any effect on a woman’s health justified a law on the basis of some moral view of repecting a life within a woman. In upholding this legislation outlawing a medical procedure, the Court ignored legal precedent and the evidence that the procedure is often the safest medical alternative.
So Congress can dictate medical procedures? Can it outlaw radiation instead of surgery to treat prostate cancer? Or vice-versa? A woman whose health is adversely affected by denial of intact dilation and extraction should be permitted to sue the government and the Justices who ignored danger to her health. And need a doctor choose between a medical ethic responsibility to the patient and compliance with this intrusive law?
But who is ultimately responsible for this retrograde action? The voters who re-elected George Bush in the face of overwhelming evidence of his misguided actions and incompetence. Contributing culprits are the candidates who failed to alertvoters of the threat to our legal system and the Democrats who so poorly interrogated Roberts and Alito, perhaps believing their statements of respect for precedent, and let these two slip into supreme judicial robes.
Homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com
Report thisBy MAN, April 21, 2007 at 10:44 pm #
THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM OF MAN.
Report thisBy Trish, April 21, 2007 at 10:31 pm #
If egg + sperm not equaling the birth of a live infant so offends god, why is that the most common outcome of fertilization? 80% never implant, of those that do, over 50% exit the womb before the woman notices anything, and at least 1/3 of implanted eggs that result in a woman’s awareness of being pregnant miscarry. Not all - or even most - of those fertilizations contain serious genetic mistakes incompatible with life. Poor maternal diet, accidents, infections, and even causes we can’t discover with present technology can cause fertilizations to not implant or implanted zygotes to fail to mature. Those nonbaby fertilizations outnumber - by far - the number of medical abortions.
What about identical twins from a single egg? One soul or two? What about chimeras - individual persons who have the DNA of two fertilized eggs? Two souls or one?
The thing I find most disturbing is that opponents of abortion seem to believe that a baby is properly punishment for sexual infractions.
Report thisBy MyronH, April 21, 2007 at 8:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Men should not have any authority over a womans reproductive system. In this latest SC decision, which was 5 to 4, it should have been 0 for and 1 against the ban. I am a maried man, my wife and I have 3-grown daughters. I have no right, and want none, to make any decision that affects their reproductive system, which includes: intercourse, birth control, abortion, sterilization, etc. I am shocked that women are not threating to burn-down the SC for making a decison that reeks of politics and religion.
Report thisBy Petrichoriny, April 21, 2007 at 7:56 pm #
QUOTE: Douglas Chalmers: Quote LEC: ...After all, shes the one paying taxes…
Paying taxes is a reason for living?!?!
—————————
Report thisNo, paying taxes is not a reason for living. Not mine, at least. And maybe the pregnant mother doesn’t even pay her taxes. In which case she deserves to die. ha. just kidding. With the “taxes” statement I was simply trying to point out that she is already a functioning, contributing member of society and as such we have a responsibility to her life. The child’s interests are secondary because he/she has not yet begun to participate in society. We can not sacrifice the lives of the living for the potential lives of the unborn.
By loverofpeace, April 21, 2007 at 6:51 pm #
“samuel Burke:I am all for offering educational services to pre-pubescent males and females, but abortion is murder and partial birth abortion is a barbaric act.” What in the world are you talking about? There is no such procedure in medical practice. The Supreme Court has been turned into a Religious Right rubber stamp. This horrendous decision is the first big step to the recriminalization of abortion in this country. What is so absurd is that the same Religious Right also wants to outlaw any real education about birth control or access to condoms or birth control of any kind. Apparently we women are to be returned to the “good old days” when woman’s place was at home having lots of babies and being available to her lord and master to do any and all work he might require of her. I do not want that for the young women of today and tomorrow. Wake up America, we’ve been taken over by those wonderful conservatives who say the government should stay out of their lives! What a crock, they just don’t want money taken from their pockets; it’s okay for them to tell a woman and her doctor what procedures can be used to save their lives. I’m afraid I could go on and on here, but you get the picture, I’m sure.
Report thisBy THE SNED, April 21, 2007 at 5:41 pm #
#65517 by William Lewis on 4/21 at 11:38 am
Mr Lewis a 4, or 8 or 16, cell- blastotcyst is not a child. Period.
And the mother is a functioning human and anything inside her is not. Like it or not. So she should be the one protected first…not the fetus (which is still not a child…it is a fetus until it is born..
That makes all the sense it to me.
I am not an expert on late term abortions. The medical profession is. Lawyers are not doctors. Catholic lawyers are not doctors. And Catholic thinking shouldn’t be forced on any woman, and that is the effect of the partial birth ban. I’m all for Catholics punishing Catholics. Throw them out. Excommunicate them..whatever. But that Church is always 200 -400 years behind the times.
It’s still against condoms. And because of that helps spread aids in Africa unlike any other institution.
It just eliminated the concept of Limbo and needed 41 pages to do it. That alone is sadly funny. I could have done it in One paragrpah. “We now feel that Limbo was made up. It is not part of the Bible. It makes no sense. Maybe it did then. It doesn’t now.”
What’s more amazing is that somehow a baby stays a baby..even in heaven. It’s all so intellectually strained.
A bunch of old single gay and straight men who over time have watched millions upon millions of native peoples and Jews and intellectuals and gays persecuted in the Church’s name and somehow no one sees the horrendous stain.
All their thinking should be rethought and let me recommend a great book for any Christian with an ounce of skepticism to read. Putting Away Childish Things by Utta Ranke-Heinmann…(there are two books by the same name so make sure of the author.) She is a highly educated Catholic scholar. The book is an easy read. And mind opening….
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, April 21, 2007 at 3:48 pm #
Quote THE SNED: “...this is not a giant problem. Its huge. A religion that keeps women down, run by 40-50% gay men (source-Gary Wiils- Papal Sin) who preach against gay rights, while god only knows what the other half does…...”
That’s why they love to refer to “the Father, the SON and the Holy Ghost”!
Any balanced religion would acknowledge the the feminine is an essential component of all Creation - but NOT them! Their liturgy should read “the Mother, the Father and the Holy Spirit”.......
Of course, what could ever be made of a religion which still demands that “Eve” (first woman) was ‘made’ out of the rib of “Adam” (first man)?!?! This was an old way of describing genetics (a ‘rib’ on the human DNA) to primitive tribal people only it has been proven now that XX was varied into XY and thus “Adam” must have been made from “Eve”!
Thus , the reason that their Christian liturgy should not only include the “Divine Mother” but place her at the beginning of the statement…... As *detectivediana said, “...More evidence of patriarchy ”!!!
“...the Supreme Courts upholding of a Federal ban on partial birth abortions was the result of a solid block of Catholic judges voting to uphold the law. Scalioa, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy…”
So, all Catholic women are in trouble. Why do they have to include all other women as well?
Report thisBy William Lewis, April 21, 2007 at 3:38 pm #
Lets call abortion what it really is: killing a child while it is still in the womb. I am one of those misguided men who cannot, no matter how obliquely I twist my mind, make myself believe that this is okay.
How convenient abortion is. When I was very young, I got a girl pregnant. It was of course a nightmare, and in the end, she got an abortion. I killed my son or daughter. It would be pitiful to try to vindicate what I did back then, all I can say is that I had no ideology at that time of my life, and if there is a God and I am most certain there is, my behavior and what to do about it will be in his or her hands.
No I dont have a womb, and I will never really know what it is like to have an unwanted child in my body.
I guess my point is that we as human beings should live our lives by the rules that we know innately to be true, not the rules that some politician has put in place.
The whole abortion thing is a very hot subject, and it should be; yet I live in an area that seems to have embraced the pro-choice stance.
Should abortion be a right? If there is definitive proof that a child who is sucking his or her thumb, with their heart beating, is not a viable human being, then I want to see the proof.
This life we live is at best a precarious one. We each have hard choices to make, and not all of them will have an outcome that is to our liking.
I know that Im not about to change anyones feelings on this issue. Folks need to know that there is at least one person who is against abortion; one who wouldnt think of blowing up a clinic. And, I am as far away from being a Bush follower as anyone could ever get.
There are universal truths that have always existed, they are simple. Thou shalt not kill is number one. Things will always get complicated when we alloy this basic law of human conduct to facilitate selfish needs.
There could not be anything more beautiful, innocent or alive than a new baby, inside or outside of the womb.
Killing the innocent is murder!
Report thisBy detectivediana, April 21, 2007 at 3:22 pm #
More evidence of patriarchy… which seems to overshadow human rights and human lives.
Report thisBy AnnaDaniher, April 21, 2007 at 11:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I admit that the decision doesn’t trouble me as much as the men who made it. For those who can remember-
Report thiscan you picture this happening when John F. Kennedy was president? He was our first Roman Catholic president. He was forbidden from allowing his religious beliefs to influence his political decisions. But it’s OK to load the Supreme Court with
a particular religious group simply because you know which way they’ll vote on your “Right to Life” lie. This comes after you start a war and end countless lives on your own terms.
By THE SNED, April 21, 2007 at 9:27 am #
The American Press has failed to point out that the Supreme Courts upholding of a Federal ban on partial birth abortions was the result of a solid block of Catholic judges voting to uphold the law. Scalioa, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy
I just read an article in a Catholic periodical that pointed out that Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the disenting opinion was a Jew!...And this was after paragraphs of all the bad things she did..like actually falling asleep in one court case! And working with the ACLU. My God!
Heres what I wrote to that paper.
Ahhh thank you for pointing out that Ms Ginsberg is a Jew, at the end of a negative article about her.
Yet you fail to point out that all the voters for upholding the partial abortion ban were the Catholic majority, none of whom have ever done anything stupid…Im sure.
But do throw another Jew on the fire. [ The Church has been the core of anti semitism for 2000 years, apologizes for it..then continues it]
And lets not have the press talk about the Catholic majority or the fact that Pope John Paul stated as dogma in- Evangelium Vitae, March 1995 that the killing of an innocent is gravely immoral, and always morally evil and that our laws 28 USC #455(a) state that any justice, judge, or magistrate in the United States shall dsiqualify himself in any proceedings in which his impartiality might reaonably be questioned. ( SOURCE- April May 2006 Free Inquiry) The Vatican and the Supremem Court
For those of you [Catholic readers] who might read this, and might believe in this countrys constituion….you might ask…is this a problem for this country?
END
My personal belief is that this is not a giant problem. Its huge. A religion that keeps women down, run by 40-50% gay men (source-Gary Wiils- Papal Sin) who preach against gay rights, while god only knows what the other half does effecting our laws is a grave grave issue. And if youre a moderate Protestant reading this….read it again
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, April 21, 2007 at 4:41 am #
Quote LEC: “...After all, shes the one paying taxes…”
Paying taxes is a reason for living?!?!
Report thisBy Petrichoriny, April 20, 2007 at 8:38 pm #
Nobody is pro-Abortion. Abortion is an incredibly painful and invasive procedure, both physically and emotionally, and should never be treated casually. It’s not like making a routine visit to have your teeth cleaned. But ultimately, a woman’s body is a woman’s decision. Even if you pass laws to deny her that freedom of choice she will ultimately make the decision herself, and if she so decides to abort her cells she will find a (unstanitary, illegal) way to do it. If Bush and his cronies did more to ease the plight of the wretched poor then perhaps fewer woman would choose to abort their cells.
Report this3 trimester abortions are absolutely sickening, no matter how you slice it (bad pun…sorry). If a woman has been preggers for more than 1/2 a year and then suddenly decides to have an abortion then I agree she is behaving recklessly. But if she fully intended to carry the cells to term and plans change because of critical health complications then we must do what we can to preserve the health of the currently and cut our losses (ooh, another bad pun). The mother’s life takes priority. After all, she’s the one paying taxes.
By Tom Doff, April 20, 2007 at 7:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Maybe this SCOTUS decision was the first step by the Crypto-Catholic-Christian-Crazy-Fundamentalist-Cabal to disband the US Department of Education, to stop the surreptitious, scurrilous, seditionary propaganda in favor of evolution, and form The Federal Pussy Patrol in it’s place.
The Federal Pussy Patrol would station a Federal Agent to stand guard at the labia of every female child, from birth, and make sure that pussy’s behavior conformed to the heavenly laws of The Scripture, as interpreted by SCOTUS and the CCCCFC.
No male member would be permitted to pass the Labia Portal until the female was wed to be bred. And, once bred, Feti would be kept in captivity for a full nine months.
Possible objections by husbands and fathers-to-be would be overcome by making sure that all Pussy Patrollers were registered republicans (NO priests permitted), after all, of all the sexual scandals caused by republicans, none were of the heterosexual variety.
The job of Commander of the Federal Pussy Patrol could be assigned to Alberto Gonzales, he seems harmless, especially with respect to females, so long as he doesn’t have to do any thinking, or management.
(He’s gonna need a job soon, and whaddaya gonna do with a guy who’s not qualified to flip burgers?)
Report thisBy hendreck, April 20, 2007 at 4:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Here is the link to KGO in San Francisco. I listen Mondays to Fridays from 10 PM to 1 am and hear Bernie Ward the ultra-liberal former Franciscan priest who warns the audience about Catholic legislators who are beholden to orthodox papal doctrine. Bernie warns that you should ask these Catholics about their views on abortion and gay marriage before you vote for them. Bernie approves of abortion, gays and gay marriage contrary to the Vatican line. He is for single-payer health care and free college education for everyone. .
Report thisOnce in a while when Bernie takes a night off he has a substitute Karel who is openly gay who discusses social issues. After Bernie goes off on 1 am Monday to Thursday Ray Taliafero a black Bush hating anti-war liberal takes over until 5 am.
Be sure to listen on Friday nights on KGO after 1 am when Bernie signs off. This is when the Jewish liberal John Rothman takes over until 5 am with his support of Israel and against Bush and the war in Iraq. Rothman with his pure California speech was once believe it or not a speech writer for Nixon but he is now a Bush hating Democrat.
At these hours KGO is just about the only station in the country with liberal talk shows that is until Air America appeared.
http://abcrad.ic.llnwd.net/stream/abcrad_kgo_kgo
By Tom Doff, April 20, 2007 at 4:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
You Know, there is a certain rationale for the crazy-christian-fundamentalist-whackoes making their pre-pubescent daughters pledge themselves to virginity until wed.
After all, most of these whackoes are republican, and the female virginity pledge does create a lot of ‘I can’t get no satisfaction’ young males running around, perfect prey for republican and priestly pedophilic predilections.
But why are they picking on pregnant women? Are they afraid that since democrats are predominantly heterosexual, they, the pregnant women, must be part of the the democratic opposition, and they’re just fighting them out of reflex, under their code of ‘Win at any cost’, as propounded by Gingrich et.al.?
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, April 20, 2007 at 1:34 pm #
Quote Charity: - “...Facts were purposely set aside. This was a decision based on faith and not observed conditions….”
Need I say that the religions and dogmas of men are NOT “faith”. In fact, people like that believe in manipulation and control (psychopaths?) and have no other genuine belief.
Women need to have “faith” in themselves as being an essential part of society and they need to allow this “mustard seed” of faith grow and grow.
Bravely nurturing and defending that kind of FAITH will eventually bring them the victory the deserve! All good men should come to their aid in this battle against the evil of the primitive minds seeking to dominate society.
Report thisBy Charity, April 20, 2007 at 12:53 pm #
The underlying rationale for the Supreme Court ruling to take medical decisions out of the hands of women and their doctors is a political/religious belief on the part of the majority of justices. Facts were purposely set aside. This was a decision based on faith and not observed conditions. It further suggests that a woman’s body is no longer hers while she is pregnant. The fetus is now paramount. It also tells the world that her body is not properly in the care of the medical profession. If the federal government now has lists of people who are on, or have been on, anti-depressant medications, how long until there are lists of the pregnant and the outcomes of those pregnancies? Will there be federal scrutiny of births and methods of delivery? Who will be the watchdogs, and how will they function? This court ruling is in reference to a specific procedure, but it naturally opens a door to much more restriction and control. How will it affect home births and midwife-managed care? Because any misadventure will be even more suspect than is currently the case. Finally, there is a sad confirmation that men, these men on the court and so many more, feel entitled to define women in terms of biological functions and not as whole beings in equal terms with men.
Report thisBy CBE, April 20, 2007 at 12:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Wouldn’t it be great if the only people allowed to legislate on issues that were exclusive to women were women—and the same for men’s issues?
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, April 20, 2007 at 12:24 pm #
Quote 127001: “...As for murder, government is killing the poor, the elderly and the disabled daily, slowly and in some of the most demeaning ways….”
Search “iatrogenic illness” and you will see for yourselves!
Report thisBy 127001, April 20, 2007 at 11:45 am #
Referring to #65187 by DMK on 4/20 at 4:36 am:
I’ll take you on, in a second. Eye to eye and toe to toe, issue by issue.
IMHO <u>you</u> are the one who just doesn’t “get it.” Those abortions are going to happen by the ones you mention anyway. They have the financial resources to find someone to do it.
And this decision wasn’t really even about abortion. It’s about how YOU as a maternity nurse (assuming you are female), just lost the right to make a lot of decisions about your body.
As for murder, government is killing the poor, the elderly and the disabled daily, slowly and in some of the most demeaning ways.
Wake up and crawl out of whatever uterus you crawled up to examine.
Next, I expect Gideon v. Wainwright could be reversed. As a matter of fact, why not just do away with women’s right to vote. Or any of the other civil rights decisions that were fought for by people far better than you, or those you support.
Go back to the middle ages and live as a scullery maid at the whim of the master.
That’s where you belong.
Report thisBy John Lowell, April 20, 2007 at 11:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ah, yes, Ellen Goodman, Boston’s and 2007’s answer to Josef Mengele. If it isn’t stem cells she’d like to steal from some utterly helpless little one it their skull she’d like to crush. But this time it’s Ellen the Theologian with all manner of theories about who’s playing God without ever once managing the personal honesty to acknowledge that she just might be. You see in Ellen’s up-scale, very self-centered world everything belongs to her, even lives that more humble people suspect might belong to God. But folks like these latter are a bit too crude to bring to the table all of the sophistication that Ellen can. You see they haven’t as yet been educated beyond their capacity to understand.
John Lowell
Report thisBy DMK, April 20, 2007 at 8:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am appalled that I do not see one comment about this procedure being cold-blooded murder of a child that with care could live outside the womb. Do any of you really know what this procedure entails? If a woman wants an abortion she can do it very early in the pregnancy. To wait this long and then kill a viable child is nothing but murder. If you don’t want the child then at least have the common decency to deliver it and put it up for adoption. This procedure is not done for the health of the Mother, it is done for convenience. It is not an emergency procedure, it is scheduled. If it were an emergency, a C-section would be done. I think that some do not want that nasty C-section scar to mar their perfect body, or be a tell-tale sign of what they had done. Before you attack me, know that I am a maternity nurse and know and have delt with all sides of this controversy What kind of society have we become that we kill our children for our convenience? What is next, get rid of Mom and Dad because they require some care at the end of their life? This is murder and no matter what spin you try to put on it, it will not change it.
Report thisBy blueguyinredstate, April 20, 2007 at 1:04 am #
Aren’t we missing the “big picture” here? This opinion was joined by five Roman Catholic men. Now, it could just as easily have been five Protestant Fundamentalist men. This is the impostion, by force of law, of a narrow and extreme religious view on every person in this country. Why are we afraid to talk about this?
It is not just these five Roman Catholic men, either. It is the like minded people who voted for George W. Bush. Some of them are your neighbors and co-workers. All of them have all but declared war on the founding principles of this Republic. And they have done so because of a fervent and extreme religious view. These five men did not join this opinion because they are paternalistic and patriarchal. They are paternalistic and patriarchal because their religion demands that they be so. And they are insistent on imposing their religion on everyone else because they fundamentally reject the underlying premise of America itself. After all, didn’t they come to America so that they DID NOT have to follow the Church of England?
Folks, it is time to wake up and call Christian Authoritanism what it is. It is time to label its practitioners, whether public officials or next door neighbors, for who they are and what they seek to do this Republic. Until, we do, they will roll over us like the suckers that we are.
Report thisBy samuel burke, April 20, 2007 at 12:55 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
politics aside, have you all lost your mind along with your conscience?
should we criminialize the use of the male and female reproductive system for producing a baby and wanting to end its life ? can we hold the father and mother to the same standards as the gun store that sold the gun to the university student who killed 32 in vt? is the use of the reproductive organs to produce and then to kill a sacred human life a criminal act?
who is the criminal the parents who produce a live human being and then want to take its life ? or the doctors who take the babys life?
i belief in personal accountability. Life is sacred.
Report thisi am all for offering educational services to pre-pubescent males and females, but abortion is murder and partial birth abortion is a barbaric act.
By julie, April 19, 2007 at 8:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
And they (Gov’t) says they don’t want to micro-manage things like the war (in Iraq?) Hmmm, this appears to be micro-managing, except in this case woman and a person’s right to choice…..
Report thisBy Elia, April 19, 2007 at 6:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There shouldn’t be such arguments over this birth control issue. I’m not saying abortion is right, but women should have right to make their own choices.
Report thisWhat is more important is what can we do for our future generations?
$12 billion can provide education for every kid on earth; $15 billion can provide access to water and sanitation; and it only cost $19 billion to end global poverty, according to The Borgen Project. Comparing to the $522 billion U.S. military budget and $340 billion for Iraq War thus far, these annual costs of improving the world is very little.
Unfortunately, our political leader is not making a commitment to the U.N.s Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty. It is really not so hard if we are truly willing to make a change and bring peace to the world not by military solution but by humanitarian aid.
By Douglas Chalmers, April 19, 2007 at 5:35 pm #
#64994 by Ethel on 4/19 at 10:05 am - “...There is an unfortunate mismatch in this situation. The same people, who seek to end abortion, also seek to end sex education and contraception….”
At some stage, they will also want to instigate ‘honor killings’ of wives and daughters and throwing women on the funeral pyre of dead husbands, etc etc!!!
Report thisBy David, April 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s downright hilarious to see females ONCE AGAIN enslaved by males. I guess it just goes to show who the ‘stronger sex’ truly is. Pregnant and barefoot, that’s the ticket. Strip searches for contraceptives will surly be next.
Report thisBy Ethel, April 19, 2007 at 2:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There is an unfortunate mismatch in this situation. The same people, who seek to end abortion, also seek to end sex education and contraception. The same people, who seek to protect the unborn, fight tooth and nail to eliminate social and health programs designed to give newborns a fighting chance in this society.
The obvious answer to make everyone happy is mass sterilization. Mass sterilization may unfortunately be associated with Adolf Hitler but so are things like invading other countries, for their oil, under the guise of liberation. If abortion is so terrible and it certainly is to most people, it should be avoided in the first place. But since we don’t seem to want to educate our children, or provide them with tools that would protect them from pregnancy, we must obviously sterilize them first before these pregnancies occur. A sterilized girl will never have an abortion. A sterilized boy will never impregnate a woman and precipitate an abortion. Problem solved. What was so hard about that?
There will be those who say that sterilization is unfair. They will point out the fact that those most in need of sterilization are the poor. It is therefore up to the elected representatives of our great nation to set a clear example. It’s critical that a law be passed to carry out the forced sterilization of all elected officials and government appointees. These leaders of America must be the first to have their children and husbands and wives and themselves sterilized. This is the only way to honestly confront the obviously conflicting positions on this issue. The sterilization of Mr. and Mrs. Bush’s daughters will send a clear message to the rest of our nation. The message is, we hate all abortion and we hate even the mention of national health care. We desperately want to see all fetuses given the chance to be born into this world and once here they need to fend for themselves or will slap them and their parents in prison and they will never really get out.
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSSELL, April 19, 2007 at 12:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ladies, in the words of one ¨First Lady¨, JUST SAY NO. ¨They¨ cannot control your womb unless you allow it. Refuse to endanger yourself. If you want a child, then either indulge in sex or be artificially inseminated, otherwise, just say no until you are guaranteed the freedom to make choices for YOUR body and life.
Report thisBy Louise, April 19, 2007 at 12:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Isn’t it interesting.
They “respect” life, legislate death for woman in trouble.
They love unborn children, hate live kids in need.
They hate premarital sex, love keeping kids ignorant about sex education.
They hate gays, but cover for men who release their gay urges on innocent kids.
They love war, hate taking care of Veterans.
They support the troops, but hate hearing about their needs.
They love guns, hate gun ownership responsibility.
They love freedom, but hate people who want to have it.
They love God, but hate people who have their own view of God.
They love cheap “illegal” labor, but hate illegal’s.
They love family values, but hate keeping “illegal” families together.
They hate taxes, but love taxing.
They hate poverty, but love creating it.
And that’s the short list.
I keep waiting for the day when we see one of these folks blow holes through their cheeks while they’re babbling out of both sides of their mouths.
Must be a surgical thing. Somewhere in D.C. I suspect there’s a Clinic that specializes in smile and steel-lined cheek implants.
And somewhere in this nation there must be a “special conservative” school that teaches “How to look moral while being amoral.”
Or, hypocrisy 101.
No charge to FAUX conservatives.
Report thisBy James Yell, April 19, 2007 at 11:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This is disgusting. The pressure behind this judgement is from a group who supports George and Cheney’s crimes against humanity that have left thousands dead in Iraq, for no justified reason.
This from a group that largely wants to destroy the social support system that would feed, shelter and educate children of the poor. This from the group that most objects to mandated minimum wage and now wants to make the poor, poorer by forcing unwanted pregnancy to term, even if it causes the death of the mother.
What a bunch of religious hypocrits. Gangsters in the disguise of Supreme Court Justices. One more strike against common census by religious ideologes. Enough. Impreach Bush/Cheney NOW!
Report thisBy anonymous, April 19, 2007 at 11:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Couldn’t Bush’s daughters fly somewhere for their abortions?
Is it 1st degree murder?
Is it self defense? (It was either me or it.)
Is Nancy Grace drooling?
Report thisBy dp, April 19, 2007 at 11:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree wholeheartedly with opinion #64940. It is based on Christian fundamentalism. The “good old days” when a woman was merely a man’s property. What is wrong with women that they are willing to settle for being a second class citizen? And what is wrong with men that they prefer that their daughters, wives and sisters remain chattel, foregoing their potentials in the only life we’re sure we do have. Come on women, wake up, we could take this country by storm, just with our numbers.
Report thisBy Homer Hewitt, April 19, 2007 at 10:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Homer Hewitt
George W. Bush and his right wing supporters have been doing their best to subvert our democracy by injecting into our government and laws their religious views. They can rightly claim a major success in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision subverting a woman’s right to choose.
The NY Times has an excellent editorial decrying this decision, pointing out, among other things, that for the first time it allowed a law to ignore any effect on a woman’s health justified a law on the basis of some moral view of repecting a life within a woman. In upholding this legislation outlawing a medical procedure, the Court ignored legal precedent and the evidence that the procedure is often the safest medical alternative.
So Congress can dictate medical procedures? Can it outlaw radiation instead of surgery to treat prostate cancer? Or vice-versa? A woman whose health is adversely affected by denial of dilation and extraction should be permitted to sue the government and the Justices who ignored danger to her health.
But who is ultimately responsible for this retrograde action? The voters who re-elected George Bush in the face of overwhelming evidence of his misguided actions and incompetence. Contributing culprits are the candidates who failed to alertvoters of the threat to our legal system and the Democrats who so poorly interrogated Roberts and Alito, perhaps believing their statement of respect for precedent, and let these two slip into supreme judicial robes.
Homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, April 19, 2007 at 9:42 am #
“...Is it any wonder those most eager to legislate the womb are the lawmakers and judges without one…?”
Maybe some of these male judges and lawmakers (I presume that they are human) should be made to undergo a sex-change or some kind of forced feminisation before they rage and rave any further about the biological role of the opposite sex.
Obviously, none of them have any clue what they are on about as far as “rights” are concerned. Neither would any of them ever manage to pass even an entrance exam into any medical college.
Report thisBy 127001, April 19, 2007 at 9:05 am #
It’s time to start legislating vasectomies too. And might be a time to look at republican lobotomies as an option, since common sense seems to be missing in so many.
I don’t like this decision. It’s political, not legal, based on Christian fundamentalism, and reeks of “good ole boy” crap.
Report this