Human rights

**past7** · February 7th, 2001, 01:15 AM

Thank-you Rant and Syrrah. Right, *deep breath* here goes again.

There are few things more frustrating than debating a person who has blinders on. Sam, again, a redirective. Again I say, now pay attention, consider the alternatives. Thousands of women dying from botched abortions. Thousands, I mean thousands, of unwanted children (not just infants) with severe problems looking for homes. Homes that are not there. How many of these are you willing to adopt and raise? Address these alternatives. Address the reality, the practicality of illegal abortion. Address the fact that thousands of desperate women, whether they have access to safe procedures or not will find ways to abort, yes "terminate the pregnancy". Again I say, face the facts. History shows laws against abortion have little to no effect on the numbers performed. Sam, abortion will continue to be performed, regardless of laws, funding, or the self-appointed "moral majority" dictating their individual beliefs. Stop dancing around these issues with your thinly veiled, right winged, supposed concern for women and "life". This is an issue of women's health and safe legal access to medical procedures.

We live in a world where animals are bred, killed and eaten by humans, their lives taken for nourishment, for sustenance that could be found in many other ways. I find meat-eating distasteful and wrong but more importantly I respect the choice those people (meat-eaters) have made in their lives. Before you jump on this comparison, I am not comparing animal life to human life here. That is an issue for another forum. My point; I do not force my particular beliefs, my philosophy on those around me EVER.

The human embryo, that unique combination of human DNA that has the potential of becoming a person, from the get go, is life in it's most fundamental form. I would never dispute that. It is the potential for a baby. But, it is not a human being as defined by possessing the qualities of consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, think and act, of self-determination. Life is also a few cells splitting and multiplying in a petri dish. Don't be foolish. This is the year 2001. Life takes all forms. We now have in-vitro fertilization, freezing cells/embryos, cloning even (yet another separate debate). The enormous leaps in science have blown away all our preconceptions about the natural progression of life, about evolution and how we fit in to a larger plan.

You speak of "invading a womb". Your womb?? What gives you the right to dictate the way in which I treat my body, the way in which I care for my life and soul? Who are you to say how I choose to cope with personal, intimate issues involving my body? You, Sam, have no right to touch, literally or in theory through laws, the sanctity of a woman's body, which is, in essence what you are saying by attempting to control each woman's individual morals, values and personal choice. A woman is not a mere vessel that carries life, that is solely there to continue the generations. How dare you suggest this with your sweeping statements regarding marginalizing her choice to end a pregnancy safely and with her dignity intact. Women are people first, childbearers second.

I am enormously offended by your suggestion that fighting for women's right is tantamount to dismissal of personal feelings regarding abortion and life. From the other thread on this issue, you obviously read and plucked that which you felt would support your weak case. You see what you want to see, you twist the facts. You do not face reality. There are as widely varied opinions and experiences as I have heard in any discussion on the topic on that thread. You speak of an "abortion going against a woman's natural instincts to protect a child". Sam, you tread on VERY dangerous and personal territory with this blanket assumption and inane speculation of each individual woman's inner life.

The only real sorrow and guilt, or "haunting voice" that I have heard expressed by teens and young women seeking abortions (other than regretting they did not have more resources), is brought on by the societal stigma from right-wing or religious groups, who attach a sense of shame to controlling one's fertility and attendant reproductive health. I would surmise that you, at times, misread emotion over a personal life-changing decison, for guilt. By the way, contraceptives and abstinence even, destroy the chance that a baby will be born. Are you against these choices also? No one disputes that women can control their fertility in other ways. But, with views such as yours, woman's ability to choose contraception, prenatal care or birth are also put at risk.

Your continual sexist undertones have, in this last post, emerged full force. Your statement "we make better soldiers, you make better moms"?? I literally cringed upon reading that. Have you been living under a rock for the last 40 years Sam? Have you missed the impressive achievements and exhaustive fight by women to be treated equally; socially, politically and economically? You so transparently attempt to pad these thinly veiled, conservative and chauvinistic views with your patronizing "envy" your "noble task" comments directed at women. What would you say, practically speaking, to the millions of struggling single mothers in this world abandoned by the fathers of their children, while pregnant or after giving birth? Do you propose somehow forcing them to financially and emotionally support the mother and child? In the real world this does not and will not happen. These women are alone. I am sure not one of them would trade the life of their children who are in the world, but, I am also sure, that if they had had the education and resources prior to becoming pregnant, they would have in many cases made a different decision. If a woman is not permitted to make for herself, such deeply personal and important decisions as whether to bear a child, her status as an autonomous adult, morally equal to men, is obliterated.

Now, absorb. Many prochoice people are opposed to abortion themselves, but they, more fundamentally, see the reality and believe that it is not their right to decide for another. I do not promote abortion, I promote the LEGALITY of it, because the alternatives are truly horrifying. Making abortion illegal does not save embryos or fetuses, this is clear. Laws against abortion are unenforceable. Read the history books, look at other countries. Face the facts Sam, when abortion is a crime women die.

**past7** · February 7th, 2001, 01:26 AM

**CrazySam** · February 7th, 2001, 03:36 AM

Past7, we both agree on one thing, debating someone with blinders is futile. However we probably disagree who has the blinders on. HOw acknowledging that men and women are different is sexist is beyond me??? The emotional/logical link in the brain is science, not right wing theory. And you are the first woman that has ever complained to me that I am sexist. It is getting very difficult to not respond with personal attacks back, but that doesn't get anyone anywhere. so I will refrain and let that to you. I answered your post about how many I would be willing to adopt, yet you refuse to acknowledge the facts there. And this whole attempt to change the arguement from the rightness of the taking of the life, to the circumstances under which we take it doesn't wash for me. And you continue to talk about rights, when the right to live and do with your body is the very thing you deny the life in the womb. Doesn't cut it with me. And as far as your science of when life begins, and when it's worth considering human, I agree, that at conception potential life starts. However, nothing is added to the fertilized egg except nitrogen, oxygen and time. That egg is much more than a potential life, it is actually a natural house in miniature of a new human being needing only to grow and mature.That genetic combination is the individual, it's permanent, and never changes. THe creation of a human being and the beginning of life involves more than tissues and organs, in fact the parents don't give their tissues to make another person. THey give information and potential. WHat grows into a child is not the sperm and the egg, but their genetic information. At the moment of fertilization, a pairing of genetic material from each parent occurs in a unique arrangement (DNA). The body isn't the person, the DNA is. The DNA is the thing that instructs the nutrients to form a body, and in fact determines what diseases it will have, what color it's eyes will be, and everything about it. That DNA, which is unique, happens at conception. And every person is unique from the point of conception, anmd I might add, valuable. Yes, I kow there have been various theories as to when life begins. FIrst we had the age of viability, of which Roe vs Wade was based. And the age of viability basically states that life begins when the baby can live outside the mother's womb. THis basically kept moving back farther and farther. Few in the medical profession actually hold to this theory anymore. SOme hold to a point of integration theory now. BUt all these theories are speculative at best. As is your definition, "But,it is not a human being as defined by possessing the qualities of consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, think and act, of self-determination." And you are correct, science is constantly changing in knowledge of when life begins. HOwever, the changes seem to be toward an earlier time, not a later one. I would rather err on the too early side than the too late side. I can imagine the day when we doscover that life starts at conception, and the horror many women will face on that day. I would rather be cautious now, than regret later.
You attacked me about my supposed "thinly veiled, right winged, supposed concern for women and "life". HOw do you know my concerns are thinly veiled? Are you saying I am not concerned about life? Are you saying I hate women, or at the very least I don't respect them? I am very concerned about life, every life. BUt especially the lives that have no choice, innocent lives. Am I concerned about the woman that has a back alley abortion, of course. But I am more concerned about the life that is going to be taken in that back alley that has no choice, and is at the mercy of the woman that it is being formed inside of. Where is the baby's choice? The mother had her choice, except in the case of rape. So put me on the side of the unborn if you must. But don't dare accuse me of not having concern for the mother. You don't know my heart. You also insist on tying the morality of abortion to the fact that you assume I wouldn't put my money where my mouth is on the adoption question, totally ignoring the facts about how adoption works in this country. And since when does the morality of an act depend on the morality of another person? You insist on creating a straw man of me that somehow either hates women, doesn't respect them, or else just looks at them as a "mere vessel that carries life, that is solely there to continue the generations". I refuse to give these arguements weight and legitimise them. Other than extremely sarcastic remarks in chat about women doing laundry, of which people know I am joking, you would be hard pressed to find any disrespect of women inside me. And I think if you ask my female friends, you will discover that I do respect them. I guess when someone who hasn't even taken the time to get to know me, who just tries to villify me on a message board because I hold a contrary view, says things that I know aren't true, it's hard to take them seriously. Instead, I prefer to let this whole debate stand on it's own, let people judge who I am by what I do, and how I treat them, not on a view I hold. I have tried to show you utmost respect, and at the same time voice what I am passionate about. I have tried not to attack you personally, or put words into your mouth. I have never tried to force my beliefs on you, or attack you. I guess my crime is disagreeing with you? Either way, let the board judge if I have done that or I haven't. And also if you have. Either way, I will let you respond and have the last word, and I promise not to post again. I said my piece, you said yours. Let the other's hearts fall where they may.

**Syrrah** · February 7th, 2001, 10:32 AM

Hmm Rant made an Interesting point to me the other day and I decided to look more into it

So this is for you Rant

Victims of "Pro-Life" Violence

Donald L. Catron, Claudia Gilmore

Largely forgotten by most people, including many in the pro-choice movement, Claudia Gilmore was the office manager at Central Health Center for Women in Springfield, Missouri, and Donald Catron was the clinic's landlord. On December 28, 1991, an unidentified man wearing a ski mask entered the clinic and demanded to see the doctor. He was told to leave and was being escorted from the clinic by Gilmore and Catron when he opened fire with a shotgun. Catron was hit in the abdomen, Gilmore in the back. Both survived the attack; there have been no arrests.

Dr. David Gunn

The first person killed by an anti-choice activist, Dr. David Gunn was shot by Michael Griffin outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida in March, 1993. Griffin is now in prison in Florida.

Dr. George Tiller

Dr. George Tiller was shot in both arms by Shelley Shannon outside his clinic in Wichita, Kansas in August, 1993. He returned to work the next day. Shannon has since pleaded guilty to a series of arsons.

Dr. Wayne Patterson

Dr. Wayne Patterson does not make every list of shooting victims. He was shot and killed by an unidentified assailant in Mobile, Alabama, six days after Father David Trosch attempted to publish his Justifiable Homicide cartoon in a Mobile newspaper. Police have said that robbery was the probable motive, even though there was still money in his wallet when he was found. Many in the pro-choice community believe he was killed because he performed abortions.

Dr. John Britton, Lt. Col. James Barrett, June Barrett

Dr. John Britton and volunteer escort James Barrett were killed outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida by Paul Hill in July, 1994. Volunteer escort June Barrett was wounded in the attack. 13 days earlier, Father David Trosch, who knew Hill, had sent a letter to members of Congress suggesting that the targets of anti-choice violence would include not only doctors, but clinic staff, escorts, police and others.

Paul Hill had started the anti-choice group Defensive Action, which condoned the use of deadly force. Over two dozen anti-abortion leaders have signed the group's public statements.

Dr. Garson Romalis

Dr. Garson Romalis was shot by an unidentified assailant while eating breakfast at home in Vancouver, British Columbia in November, 1994. He suffered severe blood loss from leg wounds, but survived the attack.

Shannon Lowney, Anjana Agrawal, Antonio Hernandez, Brian Murray
Leanne Nichols, Jane Sauer, Richard J. Seron

Shannon Lowney, a receptionist at Planned Parenthood in Brookline, Massachusetts, was shot to death by John Salvi of New Hampshire in December, 1994. Anjana Agrawal, a medical assistant, Antonio Hernandez, who accompanied a patient to the clinic, and Brian Murray, who also accompanied a patient, were wounded in the attack.

Leanne Nichols, a receptionist at Pre-Term Health Services, also in Brookline, was shot and killed shortly after the Planned Parenthood attack, allegedly by John Salvi. Jane Sauer, an office worker, and Richard J. Seron, a security guard, were wounded in the attack.

John Salvi was captured after allegedly shooting at the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia the next day. He later committed suicide in prison.

Dr. Hugh Short

Dr. Hugh Short was shot by an unidentified assailant while sitting in his home in Ancaster, Ontario in November, 1995. The bullet, fired from a high-powered rifle a few dozen meters behind his home, struck and caused significant damage to his elbow.

Dr. Calvin Jackson

Dr. Calvin Jackson was stabbed, allegedly by Donald Cooper of Corpus Christi, Texas, outside the Orleans Women's Clinic in New Orleans, Louisiana in December, 1996. Cooper was arrested the same day inside another clinic in Baton Rouge, 50 miles away, shortly before that clinic's doctor was scheduled to arrive.

Unidentified Victims

Several people - reports range from four to seven - were injured in the second of two bomb blasts at the Northside Family Planning Services clinic, in a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia. Some of those injured, including at least one FBI agent, required hospitalization.

Name Undisclosed

A doctor in northern New York was shot in the shoulder while sitting in his home in October, 1997. His identity has not been revealed, but it is believed that this attack is related to three similar shootings in Canada.

Dr. Jack Fainman

Dr. Jack Fainman, like Dr. Romalis and Dr. Short before him, was shot by an unidentified sniper while in his home in Winnipeg, Canada in November, 1997. He was struck in the right shoulder. The wound was not life threatening.

Robert Sanderson, Emily Lyons

Robert Sanderson was an officer of the Birmingham, Alabama police department. He was killed in January, 1998 by a bomb that exploded outside New Woman, All Women Health Care Clinic in Birmingham, where he moonlighted as a security guard. Emily Lyons, a nurse at the clinic, was seriously wounded in the same blast.

Dr. Barnett Slepian

Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed in his home in Amherst, New York in October, 1998. He was shot by a sniper, in an attack similar to the previous shootings in Canada and New York. He was the first fatality among the five victims.

**past7** · February 7th, 2001, 12:59 PM

I was living in Brookline, Massachusetts at the time of those attacks and murders. I had previously utilized the services of Pre-Term Health Services and lived blocks from the Planned Parenthood clinic. I will never forget that horrific day in 1994.

**Më£ïñÐa** · February 8th, 2001, 01:42 AM

When all is said and done, IF it should ever become illegal!!
That link, that Past posted? is nothing, that pic is nothing close to what it would be like...
That pic would become the norm...
because theres NO WAY to force a woman to give birth, to something she does not want in her body....
might i say? its almost a natural instinct its so strong...
like a mother cat with kittens...
Female dogs do it too....
The instinct of knowing its not right...

Of all the women i've known, and experiences i've witnessed, I know of NO woman! NOT 1 woman!! ever having a second thought about if what she did was wrong, or guilt! maybe hardend a little...
But a woman is going to do what she has to do... Because its her body NOT yours!!

**Syrrah** · February 9th, 2001, 12:23 PM

<B>Hey Rant

<I>(Sorry everyone else as I know this has no bearing on current topic)

<B> Found an example of Rehabilitation for you *Impish Grin* Shows your point of view I think *Winks*

Kinda makes O/one wonder...

In September 1972, an entire panel of state-appointed psychiatrists interviewed Edmund Kemper to determine how well he had adjusted to life since his release from a mental hospital three years earlier. The doctors were unanimous in their judgement ? Kemper was no longer a threat to society. Kemper drove away from the interview free from any further psychiatric supervision. Inside the trunk of his car was the head of a fifteen-year-old girl he had decapitated the previous day.