Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Biggest Problem in America? Obviously, the Rights of Women!

The announcement by Thom Tillis that he would be leading the NC House on a crusade to limit the freedoms of women, and the similar movement among conservative Republicans in the U.S. House, are just the tip of the coming chill. Some 20 other states with new Republican majorities in state legislatures will be taking steps to make sure that pregnant women will procreate.

Because there's no greater freedom than the freedom of these Republican legislators to impose their wills on slightly over half of the U.S. population.

It's going to take the awareness and political activism of young women -- and their friends in the other sex -- to stand up to this medieval exercise of power.


Henery said...

The Daily Tarheel at UNC ran an article about the assault on women's rights in NC ( Do the student editors/writers at The Appalachian show any interest at all in this issue? They should.

Brushfire said...

First they brought back torture, now they are denying women rights over their own bodies. I predict that the next step will be to bring back slavery,perhaps in the form of debt-bondage for those who cannot pay their bills.

Mike D. said...

"There can be no rights without women's rights".

"will be taking steps to make sure that pregnant women will procreate"

"medieval exercise of power"

"forcing women to procreate"


"Forcing women to procreate" means tying them down and raping them, not preventing them from flushing their children down the toilet.

I have feelings both ways on the abortion issue, so I am inclined to go along with the will of the majority. Not holding a firm opinion in either direction renders me able to recognize the extreme nature of language used by activists on both sides of this issue.

J.W., your rhetoric on abortion is as revolting as it is intellectually dishonest. If there is something medieval here, it is the manner in which you frame the issue.

The truth is, those opposed truly believe that they are preventing murder. Your words cannot change their true motivation, no matter how bombastic you become.

Bombastic - A use or a user of language more elaborate than is justified by or appropriate to the content being expressed. Bombastic suggests language with a theatricality or staginess of style far too powerful or declamatory for the meaning or sentiment being expressed.

blood is on your hands said...

Saying that killing an unborn baby is not murder is the same as having a court decision that said forcing a woman into sexual activity between the ages of 20 and 30 would not be rape. You baby murderers are despicable.

Henery said...

The term "baby murderer" isn't inflammatory at all!

does the truth hurt said...

No, It's not. It's truthful.

Anne said...

If you don't like abortion, then don't have one. That's it. Short and sweet.

MikeD, your argument is a joke. If I don't have an opinion one way or the other about slavery, does that mean majority rules? If I don't have an opinion one way or another about whether or not gay folks should be allowed to sleep together, does that mean the majority opinion should rule? This is a civil rights issue. Women have the right to control their own bodies. A woman's decision should be made by her and, if needed, in consultation with her doctor.

You men can just butt out, thank you very much.

My hope is in "Plan B" which the anti-choice people can't control. It's out there big time, and women no longer have to go to a clinic to suffer the insults of assholes outside.

Thing is, anti-choice people have actually lost this fight because of Plan B. Clinics may soon be a thing of the past, but women can get what they need from their pharmacist now. Or in the street.

Julia said...

Easy for men to weigh in on this. Men have the option to just walk away (and often do); women don't.

It's just all about control of women.

You whine about big government taking your rights away then you fling your hands up in outrage when discussing the ultimate controls that you propose to place on another persons body.

If you really were concerned about abortion, you would be promoting sex education, access to contraception both pre and post sexual intercourse; but you do everything in your power to prevent such education.

Henery said...

Inflammatory, yes. Until you're willing to charge women who have abortions with cold-blooded murder, you're just stirring up emotion with the word.

It's cheap politics cause it's just so easy.

Casandra said...

First time poster.

Mike D, you are smug and self-righteous. Leave women alone and get back to your own business.

CapitolHill Peon said...

Mike D.
Your response is pretty callous, if you don't mind. I actually know a couple of women who've had abortions and who had pretty excellent reasons. You want to argue with them? I don't feel all that confident, personally, but you seem unusually SURE and fairly breezy about it, like you really don't give a damn. The kind of world a pregnant 19-year-old with violently autocratic parents would have to face ... well, it might be a pretty dire situation. You have any idea how many young women used to die from botched backstreet abortions? Do you give a good goddamn? If these conservatives actually succeed in taking over their daily lives, young women become a form of chattal.

Have you actually thought about that? I think not. You're a man and totally entitled...

Anonymous said...

JW, from a news website. I know you won't post this, but I hope you will at least read this:

"Abby Johnson's life changed dramatically and forever Oct. 6, 2009. That was the day that she witnessed her first abortion as director of a Planned Parenthood clinic and resigned from the largest abortion corporation in the nation and became a pro-life activist.

She tells her story in a new book, "unPLANNED," this month – just in time for the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

What changed her mind about abortion, ultimately, was seeing on an ultrasound screen a 13-week-old baby fighting for its life in the womb – only to lose that battle to the abortionist whom she was assisting.

Not knowing where to go, Johnson turned to a local pro-life resource group. She explained the events that she had witnessed and swore that she would begin to advocate for life in the womb, instead of destroying it. Even though she had not intended on being a public figure, God had different plans."

brushfire said...

Mike and the others of his ilk are always longing for the good old days when the gutter was good enough for sex-ed, and a coat-hanger was good enough for poor women. Rich women always had options of course.
Making abortions illegal doesn't stop a desperate woman from having one. It just increases her chances of dying from it. illegal abortions

amjp said...

What most people don't realize is that this is a religious rights, I.e., First Amendment, Issue. If "Blood" had his/her way he'd/she'd be imposing his/her religious beliefs on others. Most branches of Judaism do not consider unborns before viability to be human beings. Abortion for any reason is not condoned, but the life of the mother is paramount. Therefore, if the life of the mother is threatened, termination of the pregnancy before viability, is usually sanctioned. this even applies in some serious cases to mental distress also. Look it up.

I am "pro-life," meaning pro "the living" which, as I've indicated doesn't refer to embryos from the time of conception.

Anonymous said...

As Barney Frank once famously said, with Republicans, "life begins at conception and ends at birth."

the truth must hurt. said...

Abortion is murder, Period, End of debate. We all know it, just some approve of it.

Brushfire said...

Just a question for all the anti- women's rights crowd. We know you believe that human life in any form, any size, and any condition is sacrosanct and must be preserved at any cost. Which ones of you were out on the streets protesting the two wars that have cost millions of lives so far and continue still yet?

CapitolHill Peon said...

Until people who like to whip themselves & others into a froth of moral absolutism with words like "murder" are willing to call for the indictment of women who commit "murder" by aborting fetuses, then it's just so much greenhouse gas. That is, until elected bodies of our representatives begin to pass laws laying additional restrictions on the choices that young women must make.

still more truth said...

We do call for the indictment of these abortion murderers every day. It can go nowhere until the error made in Roe versus Wade is overturned. We work for this every day also.

Being killed in a war while defending your country is not being murdered. I am not surprised you were unaware of this.

Brushfire said...

How about killing men and women and pregnant women and children in their own country halfway across the planet with bombs and guns and drones? Is that murder? Or is it just "collateral damage"?

amjp said...

Here is an article about a case in Missouri which was won on the very point I raised above, namely that stating in a law that "life ... begins at conception" violates the 1st Amendment, despite what you -- Blood, Truth, Hate, or whoever you are might say: Whether you can understand this or not, whatever you believe, and it is your right to do so, is not what other people believe.

Here is another interesting and informative article on the topic:

Mike D. said...


If a majority of Americans believe that we should withdraw all forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, would you consider that a solid justification for withdrawing the troops?

easy question said...

Collateral damage. They should not be harboring terrorists.

Henery said...

These puritanical absolutists so willing to sacrifice the lives of women for the supposed principle of "life" go off like roman candles when they're compared to the fundamentalists of Islam, but that's exactly what they resemble. Bring back the Old Testament! Let's stone to death a few "whores"!

Liberal POV said...

Easy Question

"Collateral damage. They should not be harboring terrorists."

They have a choice? How about this?

This is what happens in war, What are we doing?
The ignorance of the right is alway surprising.

Anne said...

I guess "easy answer" hasn't seen this (or doesn't give a damn):

readily apparent said...

Everyone always has a choice. Making the wrong one is dangerous.

What are we doing? Defending ourselves.

You're right, I don't give a damn about your propaganda.

Mike D. said...

"Mike and the others of his ilk" - Brushfire

People who try to understand and be sensitive to the valid concerns and feelings of people on both sides of the abortion issue?

These are my "ilk", Brushfire?

Why thank you very much! My "ilk" sound like a pretty reasonable crowd to hang out with.

Now, I just wish you could show me the throngs of people who constitute my "ilk". As I look around, I don't find many people who feel as I do about abortion. In fact, almost everyone I meet is dramatically polar in his or her view, and totally intolerant of any other perspective.

You know, like you!

Opinionated said...

When Life begins is a matter of OPINION, not fact. I do not believe a fetus is a living "human being" until viability. My church has not ordained when a fetus becomes human. I do not believe abortion is murder.

"Blood/does/the/still" - whatever name you're using - you are expressing your own deeply-held religious views...which I respect as your decision for yourself. They are not my religious views or those of my family and, this being the U.S., we will live by our religious views - not yours.

opinionated is a good name for you said...

At conception an unborn baby has unique DNA. He is a person. If you abort him, you are a murderer. That is not opinion. It is fact.

Liberal POV said...

readily apparent

"What are we doing? Defending ourselves. "


The soldiers firing killing Journalist, those both helping the journalist and watching the Journalist also killing the good samaritans giving aid to the seriously wounded journalist and wounding his two children where in the heat of battle making poor and deadly decisions that killed a lots of innocent civilians.

What's your excuse?

Life is Life said...

Opinionated - the beginning of life is NOT a matter of opinion as you would like to believe. A baby's heart begins to beat as early as 21 weeks, and a human life begins to form at the moment of conception. So no, the beginning of life is NOT a matter of opinion. Basic biology. You may call abortion whatever you want to make yourself feel better, like choice, but you cannot get around the simple fact that it is the termination of human life. Period.

Liberal POV said...

Life is Life

You want to reduce abortion? That won't happen supporting the conservative movement.

The billionaire conservative movement funders want your passion as a wedge issue, why would they outlaw abortions? They get you to vote against your own families needs to support your passion of this one issue.

If you really want to reduce abortions support liberal agendas that gives a frightened low income pregnant woman a real choice to an abortion. Liberals want better public schools, sex education, Society funded higher education, living wages, child care for low income mothers prenatal care.
Conservatives want you pissed off with no solutions.

ahead of the game said...

I just heard a bill will be introduced in the Senate that recognizes life begins at conception. When this bill becomes law, it will negate Roe vs. Wade. Opinionated is a good name was ahead of the game.

amjp said...


Here is a very articulate analysis of the "when life begins" argument. Clearly, it is much more complex than you seem able to understand. It is not as simple as your simple-minded approach suggests. If you can, indeed, think, try to consider what is said here:

"Justice White, in his Thornburgh dissent, characterized the "question of when human life begins" as "unanswerable." 476 U.S. at 800. Upon reflection, it becomes apparent why this is so. There are, of course, certain objectively verifiable physical stages of fetal development, commencing from the moment of conception and culminating in the actual birth. Advances in science and medical technology enable observers better to gauge these various stages of fetal development, so that we might know at exactly what point certain fetal organs are present, at what point the fetus achieves viability, and so on. Stated simply, science and medical technology enable us to gain greater insight into the wonder of human development. But that is as far as they can ever take us. The ultimate question -- Is human life present? -- requires a pre-existent value system that defines the very essence of human existence. The great faiths provide those value systems, each according to its own traditions and teachings."

Brushfire said...

Mike - My view is that people should be free to control their own bodies. No one should be forced to procreate or to have an abortion. I support your freedom to decide for yourself.
Your view is that the government should make that decision. You would take away my freedom to decide. Which one of us is intolerant?

Mike D. said...

"Your view is that the government should make that decision. You would take away my freedom to decide. Which one of us is intolerant?" - Brushfire


I said nothing of the sort, and you absolutely mischaracterize my position.

Are you doing it intentionally, or are you so blinded with anger by the concept that someone would attempt to understand the emotional foundation behind the beliefs of your sworn enemies that you are simply lashing out recklessly?

Again, I repeat. I said nothing like what you accuse me of, and the words you assign to me are patently contrary to my views.

Your view of the issue, on the other hand, is simplistic, predictable, repetitive, and so adorable I could just pinch your little cheeks. :)

I agree with amjp. The issue is complex; so much so that I have a hard time coming down firmly on either side, as I think both sides make some very strong points, and both sides make some ridiculously childish and pedantic points.

Honestly, I am ok with someone other than myself deciding the abortion issue. I don't think I want that burden.

Here, how about this. If you can watch the little guy struggle to get away as you try to suck his head out through a little tube, and you can go home and sleep at night, go for it! Knock yourself out! You can have the removal completed by 3:00 and be sucking down shots at the bar by 5:30. Me? I could never do such a thing. I was sobbing as my kitty was lethally injected for her cancer.

But so many people, like Brushfire, are rabidly in favor of keeping the procedure legal, so hey, I'll just go fishing and let Brushfire, Anne, Julia, and Casandra decide this one.

But I would ask that you watch the ultrasound monitor during the removal.

Brushfire said...

Mike - I am not in favor of forced abortions. I believe that abortion is a serious issue. But -an abortion during the first 3 months is a totally different operation from an abortion during the last trimester. A last trimester abortion should be strongly discouraged UNLESS the mother's health is at risk or there are serious health issues with the fetus.
But if we discourage late term abortions, we must be prepared to support women who have difficult circumstances. We have to offer a much broader social safety net.
Otherwise, it's as anonymous (and Barney Frank) said, life begins at conception and ends at birth.