Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMore Good News From Last Night:
In the last few months I wrote about calls to action against two draconian state referendums intended to deprive women of their legally-guaranteed reproductive choices. Many of you responded and we won in both Colorado and South Dakota!
In the newly blue state of Colorado, voters resoundingly rejected by a three to one margin a ballot initiative that would have eliminated a woman's ability to make personal, private decisions about her health care by granting legal rights to a fertilized egg. It could have banned all abortions and been used to block stem cell research and in vitro fertilization, among other reproductive health services. It could even have prevented doctors from providing lifesaving care to a woman if the medical treatment needed could harm a fertilized egg. Amendment 48 was a darling of social conservatives and it got crushed.
Meanwhile, in South Dakota, already the country's most restrictive state regarding reproductive rights, voters rejected, by a fairly narrow margin, what would be an unconstitutional abortion ban. If Measure 11 had passed, it would have been one of the most complete bans in post-Roe US history.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
ACORN must have stolen all those votes....they just had to have....
they just HAD to have!!!!!!!!!!!!
(/sarcasm off.....sorry, FREI/LVLIB/PONTI/SJCHER...another Sign of the Coming Apocalypse, I guess)
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 12:20pm
Abortion is such an ugly affair.
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 12:24pm
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 12:24pm
Yes it is.
Which is why it's disengenuous, if not just insulting, when the "pro-life" side tries to paint it as "something fun that liberals LIKE to do" and not an often tough choice that people have a right to make without "Big Government" in their lives (what conservatives claim they support the OTHER 90% of the time!)
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 12:32pm
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 12:32pm
Which is why women should take better initiatives to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. It breaks my heart that they depend on such a barbaric practice.
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 1:39pm
And choice is exactly the right word that needs to be used. We are not pro abortion, but pro CHOICE. Big difference, to say the least. As the "right to lifers" will try to tag the "Pro Abortion" label on us, "Pro Choice" is exactly what it says: a personal choice by the individual(s) according to her/their (married couples or non married couples if possible)conscience. For instance, I don't believe for one minute that abortions need to happen. For the most part, it shouldn't. I am not going to impose my opinion/belief on anyone who feels that is the only choice they may have. Their choice is strictly between them and their concept of what they believe a higher power is. The "Pro Life" individual is alligned more often with those who supported the Iraq war, sending over 4,000 American soldiers and well over a 100,000 Iraqis to their deaths without any need whatsoever, alligned with those who support the death penalty, and alligned with those who have the "Onward Christian Soldier" mentality, thinking that somehow they are doing "God's work" while going or sending their loved ones off to a war without Constitutional merit. Yea, right, PRO LIFE? Give me a break. Nut cases, all of them!
Posted by Damascian at 11/05/2008 @ 1:54pm
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by Damascian at 11/05/2008 @ 1:54pm
Agreed to both ..... and the simplest persepective. If you don't want an abortion ... don't have one.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2008 @ 1:59pm
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 1:39pm
How do you feel about Norplant or Jadelle? Why do you think in a country as concerned about abortion, this temporary and effective form of long-term birth control is not available?
The problem with most people against abortion is that they define life - as conception. This definition makes hormonal contraceptives like Norplant essentially an early abortion.
So, pragmaticaly, if you cut out the promotion of hormonal contraceptives, then you are left with ineffective measures like abstinence education or other morally questionable practices like involuntary sterilization.
So, I'm curious. As a nurse, what do you propose? I like the idea of making contraceptives like Norplant available to everyone at subsidized prices. Any problems with that? Any other ideas?
Posted by srjenkins at 11/05/2008 @ 2:00pm
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 1:39pm
Agree, do more to prevent unwanted conceptions and you'll do more to reduce abortions.
Problem is, lotta guys on YOUR side oppose contraception as much as abortion because it "makes sex too fun".
Palin's daughter is the object lesson....want fewer abortions (or fewer teen pregnancies)?...more contraception and more sex ed (REAL sex ed) on how to use them.
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 2:32pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/05/2008 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's above all a privacy issue. the state has no business in a woman's womb.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 3:34pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/05/2008 @ 2:00pm
To answer your first question: Norplant is no longer available in the US because of the side effects. I believe Wyeth pulled this particular product off the shelves back in 2002. Jadelle was pulled from the market as well for the same reason.
Second question: Yes, we do believe life begins at conception, which is why women (and men) need to understand what processes happen once sperm and ovum meet, a new life begins.
Third question: I wouldn't say that. Abstinence can work, if used in conjunction with a comprehensive sex education program that promotes overall reproductive health.
Last question: See the first question. The only ideas I can offer at this point is, if you the individual, decide to engage in sexual intercourse, keep your partners to a minimum, use 2 condoms per act, know your HIV status (if you don't know, get tested), and try not to engage in any sexual activity while under the influence of any substance (alcohol, drugs) because they increase your chances for risk-taking behaviors.
Otherwise, if you don't have to engage, then don't do it. Keep yourself safe.
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 4:09pm
Third question: I wouldn't say that. Abstinence can work, if used in conjunction with a comprehensive sex education program that promotes overall reproductive health.----Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 4:09pm
Curious...why didn't it work with Bristol Palin?
Posted by Maskdelta at 11/05/2008 @ 4:12pm
Problem is, lotta guys on YOUR side oppose contraception as much as abortion because it "makes sex too fun".
Palin's daughter is the object lesson....want fewer abortions (or fewer teen pregnancies)?...more contraception and more sex ed (REAL sex ed) on how to use them.
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 2:32pm
I don't know if I agree with your initial assessment. I do think their intended thinking is more on the lines of people needing to understand that having sexual relations with anyone takes maturity and that you can't throw all caution to the wind.
As for Palin's daughter, I wouldn't say the her lessons of abstinence was a complete failure, for all we know she and her boyfriend may have decided that they were mature enough to handle the consequences of unprotected sex. Just like I wouldn't say the sex education I taught my boys was a complete failure if one of them impregnated a young woman. For all I know, they may have decided it was something they wanted to do.
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 4:48pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 11/05/2008 @ 4:12pm
Sorry about that. I didn't get a chance to read your last post before I posted my response.
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 4:50pm
So you're essentially saying that people who have sex are DEPENDENT upon abortion as a form of birth control?
Are you crazy?
Out of the very tiny handful of people I know that have had abortions, not a single one of them was going about all willy-nilly having unprotected sex with strangers. They were in committed relationships using birth control.
Way to paint a broad, extremely ignorant picture. Is everybody getting an abortion doing so as a well-thought out decision made by two responsible people? I would have to assume not. Then again, I wouldn't assume the other way either. Abortion is shitty thing, and I've yet to ever hear from somebody who enjoyed having a baby sucked from their uterus.
Tell you what, once all the children on this planet that don't have parents or a decent place to sleep are taken care of, THEN we can ban abortion. Tell all your moral majority friends to stop rutting and to go adopt a baby.
Or better yet, figure out a way to ban fertility drugs and keep people from birthing entire litters of spoiled suburban brats.
I'm sorry ACook, I know you're not as crazy as some of the people around here, but don't act willfully stupid for no reason.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 6:01pm
Where's LVLIBERTY to assure us how UnAmerican South Dakotan voters are, and how they're all going to hell?
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 6:05pm
The only important point here is: how is it up to the state to decide who obtains one?
Minority protections are the foundation of law. For example: should my own mother, while she was being forcibly raped by her eldest brother between the age of eight and eighteen-with full knowledge of her mother, have been made to lobby a judge for permission to terminate a resultant pregnancy?
Though she did not "conceive," I can't see the "pro-life" set arguing that she should have been required to bring the product of such a union to term. Even more damaging, how would she have been expected to present her case before her mother's resentful uncle, the Circuit Judge? What kinds of problems would arise in such a situation--an eleven year old explaining to a judge that her mother knew that her older brother had been raping her, and did nothing to stop it? Denial, violence, stigma, and being marked within--if not purged from the community.
If the state is unable to protect her (along with hundreds of millions of American women) from forcible rape and incest to begin with, what business does the state then have requiring her to prove it was impotent in protecting her from such degradation? Forcing her to advocate publicly, in front of an unsympathetic judge, for her own protection in order to terminate the product of such a union--is an idea that should easily be seen repugnant to anyone capable of looking beyond their own privilege.
The idea that a vocal minority ("pro-life") could continue to fail to see why abortion must remain safe and legal, is utterly unconscionable to me due to my personal familiarity with the potential dangers of repealing fundamental protections for the minority--including women such as my mother--that safe, legal, medical abortions provide.
Posted by optimist at 11/05/2008 @ 6:22pm
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 4:48pm
You think Bristol and Levi "maturely, rationally, with lots of serious thought"...
decided not to use contraception?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 7:42pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 6:05pm
Actually, LL is "pro-life"....but a "win hearts and minds" type, not a "ban it over the wishes of anybody" type.
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 7:43pm
Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 4:09pm
First, you need to review the information on Norplant again. It is not available because of lawsuits - lawsuits that claimed that people weren't adequetely informed of the side effects. I'm inclined to believe it was a move by anti-abortion zealots and a terrible litigation environment in the U.S.
I know someone that used Norplant twice over a decade. The only side effect was she no longer had periods - which in her book was a bonus. But by creating an environment where products like Norplant cannot be used, more abortions occur. Although, some people argue that Norplant is abortion.
Second, there is a difference between new life or potential human being - and human being.
Third, abstinence education doesn't work. Period. A fact proven time and time again with any objective evaluation and any person with a modicum of common sense.
Fourth, two condoms per act? Never heard this before, and speaking of something that won't work, that pretty much tears it.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/05/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 7:43pm
Poor LVLIBERTY...
Where he hell IS he.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 11:45pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 11:45pm
Other threads.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 08:53am
Which is why women should take better initiatives to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. It breaks my heart that they depend on such a barbaric practice.
Posted by ACook
Then why do people like you obsess constantly about it?????? Why do you feel the need to dictate to other's what they should believe and not believe??? How they should behave??? There is a lot you people do I don't like. I am enough of a grown up to learn to ignore what I don't like about you! That is all part of being an responsible adult. You learn to accept what you don't like and go on. You have no control over other people's behavior. To try and control behavior is a waste of time and energy. It doesn't work. You people need to redirect all your attentions to the hapless children who are being brought into this world daily no one gives a f... about thanks to your draconian belief's! But, I realize that isn't your thing to help other people! Just criticize and tell them how to live! Grow up and start living according to your religious teachings for once! No one is obligated to follow your religious teachings!
Posted by ganddw42 at 11/06/2008 @ 09:28am
coathanger abortions when abortions were outlawed, now that was a barbaric practice.
I'm sorry I cannot add my voice to the praise of aCook. "she" is dumb, ill informed, spouting the latest party line.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 11:36am
So you're essentially saying that people who have sex are DEPENDENT upon abortion as a form of birth control?
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 6:01pm
No. I'm emphasizing a more proactive attitude.
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 11:56am
You think Bristol and Levi "maturely, rationally, with lots of serious thought"...
decided not to use contraception?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 7:42pm
Why not? Many libs like yourself think teenage girls are mature and rational enough to have an abortion without the consent of her parents. It cuts both ways.
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/05/2008 @ 10:25pm
SRJ,
First, the removal of Norplant and Jadelle had nothing to do with anti-abortion groups. There were studies done that proved the product is not safe. Any women using the product before the 2002 recall was probably OK.
Second, I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly one this, but are you thinking in terms of implantation problems?
Third, abstinence is not for everyone. Sexual impulses can be difficult to control but not impossible.
Fourth, if you wear only one condum and it breaks during an orgasim, both you and your partner run the risk of contracting an STD. If she's your girlfriend and she doesn't use any form of contraceptive, then her chances of getting pregnant is high. Also, it is a recommendation offered in the gay community if anal copulation is involved.
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by ganddw42 at 11/06/2008 @ 09:28am
First and foremost, I do not interfere with nor control the personal behaviors or attitudes of other people. If you had read my post correctly, you would know that I advocate and sometimes recommend better personal responsibility for your overall health. If you chose to be reckless with your health, so be it.
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 12:47pm
I once saw a Pro Life anti abortion sticker on a pick up truck that also had an NRA sticker on one side of it and a pro Death penalty sticker on the other side. I followed it for five blocks past where I was supposed to turn just to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing. All that aside is this not a zero sum game? I mean if women are not smart enough to make a decision about their pregnancy how can they be smart enough to raise kids? As a man I am totally against abortion. Rest assured that if I become pregnant I will not have one. That is pretty much the only abortion decision I can make. Except of course to offer love and support to anyone I know regardless of her choice.
Posted by bascaville at 11/06/2008 @ 2:52pm
Except of course to offer love and support to anyone I know regardless of her choice. Posted by bascaville at 11/06/2008 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
choice is the salient word here.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 3:01pm
Posted by bascaville at 11/06/2008 @ 2:52pm
You based your statement on one individual's ideology?
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 3:21pm
winning the war on the war on drugs
http://www.mpp.org/library/2008-ballot-initiatives.html
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 7:32pm
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 12:07pm
Hardly....you think Bristol wanted to have a baby before she graduated high school?
Or is it more likely she had her mom and dad's evangelical right-wing Christianity drummed into her and was thinking "Okay, got to give it up to Levi...or he'll break up with me...but I can't let him use a rubber or God will be mad!" or similar dopey teenage thinking?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 8:30pm
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 8:30pm
I don't know what Bristol Palin wanted to do and neither do you. Like I said, you were a teenager once...
So what would you do if your 17-year-old son got some girl pregnant and he decided he wanted to marry her? Do you think you could stop them or would you blame yourself because he didn't use protection even after you taught him sex ed?
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 8:52pm
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 11:56am
The question is, who isn't advocating a more proactive solution?
IF you may remember it was the republican moral majority so staunchly enforcing abstinence only sexual education, as if that was enough to combat teenagers having sex. They're going to have sex, might as well teach them how to use a rubber.
Where do you get this train of thought? Nobody LIKES abortions. Well, I suppose somebody somewhere does, but seriously...get a grip.
Everybody here who thinks abortions are just great, and that unwed couples should have unprotected sex and rely on abortions, raise your hand.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/06/2008 @ 9:42pm
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 8:52pm
Uh, ACOOK....Bristol wasn't taught to use contraception.
Palin was and is pretty clear in her religious views and it was for "abstinence ONLY" sex ed....which scientific studies show INCREASES the chance of teen pregnancy and STDs...
where as REAL sex ed reduces them.
BTW, yes...I DO remember being a teenager...and except for poor girls who wanted to get hitched to escape their parents, few girls SOUGHT OUT pregnancies....and NO guys sought them out.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 9:57pm
Are you joking Mask?
Beside being asked to the prom by the QB, every girl I knew had one wish, and that was to give birth to an illegitimate child so they could be coerced into marrying their high school sweetheart!
Every young girl's dream!
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/06/2008 @ 10:08pm
Don't worry though, I'm sure Bristol and her beer-swilling, drug-abusing, good-ol'-boy betrothed will have a long, and more importantly, happy marriage!
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/06/2008 @ 10:11pm
And remember, it's the gays that are ruining the "sanctity" of marriage, not the 50% (heterosexual) divorce rate.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/06/2008 @ 10:15pm
Uh, ACOOK....Bristol wasn't taught to use contraception.
Palin was and is pretty clear in her religious views and it was for "abstinence ONLY" sex ed.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 9:57pm
You have no idea what Governor Palin taught her daughter. For all we know she may have taught her sex ed and told us she believed in abstinence only for the benefit of gaining favor with the GOP base. Politicians do it all the time.
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 11:05pm
Posted by TexasFlood
fine posting, Tex
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 11:59pm
Frosty- off immediate topic, but v. interesting post on GCC re western CA oil shale - looks like Mr. Harper wants to get the ball rolling on development. I wonder what sort of arrangement they will hammer out. My first question - Why are so many Canadian resources being tapped for the American market at this time (shale, biodeisel, etc.)? Don't the Canadians want to conserve/develop them for Canada's needs and according to Canadian standards?
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/07/2008 @ 09:23am
Forgot link: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/canada-proposin.html#comments
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/07/2008 @ 09:24am
Why are so many Canadian resources being tapped for the American market at this time (shale, biodeisel, etc.)? Don't the Canadians want to conserve/develop them for Canada's needs and according to Canadian standards? Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/07/2008 @ 09:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
well, the price of oil was for a time $140 a barrel.
in addition with a push for alternative fuels that oil may be worth a lot less in the future.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 09:27am
Thrust of article seemed to imply an offset to Canada for cosumption of imported oil in the East. I think it's short sighted, imho
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/07/2008 @ 09:31am
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 11:05pm
So now you're saying Sarah Palin is a hypocrite?
Saying ONE thing to her political base...while teaching THE OPPOSITE to her daughter?
(You're digging a hole, ACOOK....stop digging!)
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 10:29am
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 10:29am
No! You're the one that needs to stop digging. You think you have everything figured out and you don't.
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 3:15pm
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 3:15pm
No, just figured out basic logic and facts.
You are making up stuff that doesn't even comport with what Palin SAID she believed in...to try to rationalize away the basic fact that her daughter did NOT make some "rational, thought-out" decision to get knocked up in high school....
to defend the woman.
And in the last post, you actually ATTACKED Palin (by saying she was a hypocrite) to defend her???
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 4:17pm
Acook: Passive/agressive neocon.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/07/2008 @ 6:28pm
No! You're the one that needs to stop digging. You think you have everything figured out and you don't.
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 3:15pm
AC, I've said this a billions times here. There a millions upon millions of children on this planet with nobody to take care of them. A good portion of them are starving to death. A lot of them are living in horrible conditions. Some of them are being abused by step parents and so on.
Quit worrying so God damned much about the unborn, and start worrying about the alive children suffering now. You want to feel high and mighty about protecting a fetus? Get off your high horse.
Adopt some kids in need of help and be part of the solution instead of aiding the problem....which is what you are doing by the way.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/07/2008 @ 6:38pm
No, just figured out basic logic and facts.
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 4:17pm
Oh, gimme a break!! You know no more than the rest of us.
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 8:07pm
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 8:07pm
So what's your argument, ACOOK? (your final argument that is)
Did Palin tell Bristol about contraception, but tell her followers that she supported abstinence-only? (thus is a hypocrite)
Or did Bristol consciously, rationally, and in a well-thought out manner, decide that 17 years old and still in high school was the perfect time to have a baby with Levi? As 17 year old white middle-class girls are so often doing?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 8:16pm
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 8:16pm
There is no argument. I don't know what she was thinking. You were the one who brought up Bristol Palin in the first place. Not me. She never crossed my mind and yet you seem dead set on wanting me to validate your "basic logic" assessment (which is convaluted to say the least) on a 17-year-old girl of whom you know nothing of?
I could have sworn this thread was about rejected abortions bans, and not Sarah and Bristol Palin.
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 9:01pm
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 9:01pm
I brought her up because she is THE most famous example of where abstinence-only sex education can lead.
You found yourself in a quandary, trying to both defend Sarah Palin and defend the idea that abstinence-only education could WORK, especially with THE 'best case' (i.e. a supposedly Christian conservative family)....whose daugher is pregnant out of wedlock.
Ergo how is abstinence only supposed to work with NON-Palin like families, if it didn't work in theirs?????
Again, want to make Sarah a hypocrite....or Bristol that most bizarre of teenagers, who wants to be a mother at 17...and not have another single year of her life available to do anything else but be a mother????
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 10:21pm
I brought her up because she is THE most famous example of where abstinence-only sex education can lead.
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 10:21pm
Oh my bad, I thought Jamie Lynn Spears was the most famous, after all she was only 16 when she got pregnant and she married her baby daddy. Anyway....
Again, I didn't start this. YOU brought up the issue of abstinence, not me. I was speaking about comprehensive sex ed in general. And my response to you on your second post to me was (I thought) casual in context.
What does it matter to you what her mother taught her? If you don't agree with their methods, then you don't agree with it.
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 11:18pm
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 11:18pm
Okay, ACOOK, let's just settle it with a simple question-
Do you support abstinence-ONLY sex education?
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2008 @ 2:14pm
Posted by ACook at 11/07/2008 @ 11:18pm
Errr....
Last I checked, Jamie Lynn-Spears' mother is not the governor of a state, nor is she leading any anti-abortion charges, or abstinence only sex-ed charges, or any other self-righteous, fanatical and IGNORANT nonsense.
I also don't think she was recently running for VP on a platform of small town "values" (y'know, small town values like meth abuse, and illegitimate teen pregnancy), all while trying to enforce her own religious beliefs on the country at large...
Then again, I missed last week's edition of "People" so I may be a little behind the curve.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/08/2008 @ 3:07pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/08/2008 @ 3:07pm
So what! Jamie Lynn's mother is her manager. Before anyone knew who Sarah and Bristol Palin were, Jamie Lynn was popular on the Disney Channel with millions of adoring fans from around the world watching her.
Posted by ACook at 11/08/2008 @ 6:52pm
Do you support abstinence-ONLY sex education?
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2008 @ 2:14pm
I support a comprehensive sex education program that will speak to all alternatives regarding contraception and reproductive health care.
Posted by ACook at 11/08/2008 @ 6:54pm
Posted by ACook at 11/08/2008 @ 6:54pm
Then we have no argument, kiddo.
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2008 @ 7:48pm
Posted by ACook at 11/08/2008 @ 6:52pm
And what does that have to do with anti-abortion, or sexual education policy?!
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/08/2008 @ 10:21pm
Unless of course Mrs. Spears is, was, or will be, in a position to spout anti-abortion rhetoric from the national stage?
Maybe I missed that episode of The Mickey Mouse Club!?
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/08/2008 @ 10:23pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/08/2008 @ 10:23pm
Britney was on Mickey Mouse...Jamie was a toddler then.
Posted by Mask at 11/08/2008 @ 10:27pm
That was only a substitute because, quite simply the name of the younger one's show escapes me, and I'd prefer to not waste the google search!
Although, I'm guessing the elder Spears was still the mother of at least ONE of those mouseketeers, even if it was a long time ago.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/08/2008 @ 10:34pm
emile Dubois wrote: "it's above all a privacy issue. the state has no business in a woman's womb."
ah, the penumbral constitutional right to privacy, found by the Supreme Court in the 1960's!
here's a hypothetical. Agirl has sex with her 15 year old boyfriend on her 15th birthday. They love each other. She gets pregnant. The parents decide they want the baby aborted. The parents are legally responsible for their 15 year old daughter until she's 18, thus they are going to be financially responsible for their grandchild until it is 3 years old. The parents don't want to take on this financial burden.
Who gets to decide whether they baby is aborted?
The 15 year and 9 month old daughter, based on her privacy? Or the parents, partially based on their privacy (i.e., right to parent their child as they see fit?).
thanks in advance for your response (i.e., anyone who decides to respond).
Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2008 @ 2:29pm
The question of abortion will never be settled. Those who think that an embryo should have the same rights as a living, breathing female should work to make the world a place where every child is welcomed. Outlawing it will simply turn it over to outlaws to perform. The Mafia will happily fill that niche and make tons of illegal non-taxable income and provide a less then safe procedures. We have over 1/2 million children living in foster homes. Almost half of those are eligible for adoption. Where are the pro-lifers when it comes to these children? There are approximately 1.2 million abortions every year. The majority take place in the first trimester. Still an embryo, not a baby stage. Most women have abortions because they can't afford to have a child. Where are the "pro-lifers" when it comes to working for a living wage, adequate medical care, food and shelter for this women? They, unfortunately, are the first ones complaining about having to pay more taxes to take care of "someone else's mistake".
Anyway, if you don't believe in abortion, no one is forcing you to have one. You still have your right to say no. Just remember, that Roe v. Wade was based on a woman's right to privacy so if the state can take away a woman's right then they can also take the same right to privacy away from anyone, men as well as women.
When the "pro-lifers' work to make this a world where no child has to go hungry, go without health care, shelter, or a loving home, then come to me and we'll discuss the "morality" of abortion. When it comes to choosing between a woman and the embryo I'll choose the woman. She's here now, she can think, feel, and has relationships in this world. An embryo is essentially a clump of cells that are not fully human until birth.
Posted by Ederlore at 11/11/2008 @ 12:37am