I would never advocate the termination of developing pregnancies with disabilities- but late term abortion exists solely for the cases like the one I cited above. That baby was only being kept alive by its connection the mother and the safety of her womb.
That situation is complete different from children being born with spina bifida or Down's Syndrome. I'm talking about fetuses who could NEVER survive outside the womb. The mother who had the child with no skull held her child in her arms after the procedure. She loved the baby very much but knew there was absolutely nothing anyone could do. To prevent her from having that experience would have been criminal.
I don't know any pro-choice people who are pro-abortion. Almost every pro-choice person I know is pro-education. Education about birth control and the reality of having a child (like the mechanical babies in use in some schools) can help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Telling girls not to have sex will not. Yes, some girls will listen- but sadly, there will always been girls who do not and ever more sadly, men who do not respect girls and impregnate them.
Exactly handmaid. Nobody wants a woman to have an abortion. Its like the bumper sticker I have: Sex ed prevents abortion [img]wink.gif[/img]
BTW handmaid, I really want to read the book your name and registration is after but have yet to get around to it. This talking of womens rights though makes me want to go out and buy it right now, lol.
I highly recommend it.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Margaret Atwood's novel "The Handmaid's Tale," it is a story about a woman living in the future- a future where conservative, fundamental Christians have suceeded in making the nation a theocracy. They name their country "The Republic of Gilead."
I wasn't attempting to compare my sister's syndrome with the other situation. My post was more in reference to Teri's post which was removed shortly after I responded to her.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh ok. I wasnt sure if you were or not. I thought your expierence was very touching, btw.Originally posted by monimarine:
I wasn't attempting to compare my sister's syndrome with the other situation. My post was more in reference to Teri's post which was removed shortly after I responded to her.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yup. And considering the state of our country right now, I think that novel is more appropriate than ever. Its amazing that it was written a decade ago considering how relevant it is to today.Originally posted by The Handmaid:
I highly recommend it.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Margaret Atwood's novel "The Handmaid's Tale," it is a story about a woman living in the future- a future where conservative, fundamental Christians have suceeded in making the nation a theocracy. They name their country "The Republic of Gilead."
I think this country is entirely too liberal and we are in no danger of becoming a theocracy anytime soon. That said, the book sounds interesting.
The Handmaid's Tale is one of the best novels ever written in the English language, hands down. Definitely required reading.
Unfortunately, I think we *are* in danger of the scenario of the book coming true. It may be important to clarify that the theocratic government is not *elected* in The Handmaid's Tale; they come into power by coup. All it takes is one handful of zealots to overthrow the Constitution and start regulating people's private lives and bodies. And zealots are out there. Just look at this board--we have people saying consensual sex between two adults of the same gender ought to be illegal, for pete's sake!
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 19, 2005 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Voice-of-Reason ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">After the last presidential election, I find myself in agreement. The phrase "moral majority" was repeatedly flung about, with no regard to the fact that a 1-2% margin was all that separated them from the rest of the masses. And why "moral majority" anyhow? That implies that they feel their morals are above everyone elses. It's a label that smacks of superiority.Unfortunately, I think we *are* in danger of the scenario of the book coming true.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 19, 2005 05:42 PM: Message edited by: kitschywoman ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">After the last presidential election, I find myself in agreement. The phrase "moral majority" was repeatedly flung about, with no regard to the fact that a 1-2% margin was all that separated them from the rest of the masses. And why "moral majority" anyhow? That implies that they feel their morals are above everyone elses. It's a label that smacks of superiority.Originally posted by kitschywoman:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Unfortunately, I think we *are* in danger of the scenario of the book coming true.
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 19, 2005 05:42 PM: Message edited by: kitschywoman ]</font></font></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I couldnt agree more. The US is hardly too liberal. Out of all the industrialized, first world countries, it is one of the consistently most conservative. You only have to look at our last few presidents for evidence-hey that kinda rymed [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] Granted, we did have ole slick willy in there-Bill Clinton of course-but he took office as a conservative Democrat. He's no left wing liberal by any means.
Just because there is a religous majority that doesnt give them the right to enforce their beliefs on the rest of the country. Period. We dont live in a theocracy but attempting to place Christian ideas/ideals onto everyone is certainly taking dangerous steps toward becoming one. Since when did everyone suddenly forget about the numerous Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Athiests, Agnostics, Buddhists-am I forgetting any?-that are in this country? Its cr*ap. As long as we are a democracy with freedom of and freedom FROM religion, you cannot place the ideas of the majority onto the law.
PERIOD
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks