"the Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion"

[Ouroboros]

CurrentChristian,

 

Maybe the Bill of Rights should have said "freedom of hypocrisy" instead.

 

On a more serious note, just to save space on the server, do you think you can edit the quotes from the other posters and just keep the essential parts you're responding to? It would make your posts smaller and easier to read. And on the top of the quote there's always the link to the original post you're responding to, so there's no need to include the whole quote each time. Thanks.

[currentchristian]

CurrentChristian,

 

Maybe the Bill of Rights should have said "freedom of hypocrisy" instead.

 

On a more serious note, just to save space on the server, do you think you can edit the quotes from the other posters and just keep the essential parts you're responding to? It would make your posts smaller and easier to read. And on the top of the quote there's always the link to the original post you're responding to, so there's no need to include the whole quote each time. Thanks.

 

 

Sure thing....

 

I'll be more conscious of that, as soon as this response is done!!

 

Thanks.

 

-CC in MA

[Unknowing1]

Thanks for the reply and apology CC, it is accepted.

 

And just to clarify, I too have stated a person may choose to be a hypocrite. People can be whomever they want to be and I do not have a right nor a want to limit that ability nor change them in anyway. But by the same token I have a right to choose not to associate with them just as you have the right to associate with them or not associate with them as you deem appropriate.

[currentchristian]

Thanks for the reply and apology CC, it is accepted.

....

 

Glad that is cleared up. Thanks.

 

-CC in MA

[trashy]

I was seeking to know if the poster who was so enraged about the hypocrisy (or double standard) of the pro-life protester seeking an abortion is pro-choice or anti-choice on the right to choose to be a hypocrite. If the poster is not pro-choice on the right to choose hypocrisy, then fine. If the poster is pro-choice on the right to choose to be a hypocrite, then isn't the choice of hypocrisy and the choice to terminate a pregnancy both matters outside of discussions of morality? How can we be enraged by the latter and not enraged about the former, if we are pro-choice on both issues?

 

Maybe I was clearer this time?

 

-CC in MA

Yes, you were clearer, or at least I understand your position now. There still seems to me to be a fundamental flaw of logic here, but I'll be damned if I can determine it. Perhaps another cup of coffee......

[xild]

I think at issue here is you don't choose to be a hypocrite, you just ARE one, either by your actions, choices or behavior, or in a single instance. It's not like it's a conscious choice.

 

From the article, a quote,

A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)

 

These are the very young women who need to be hearing about birth control and they don't. Now who is responsible for the abortions? See above.

[Unknowing1]

These are the very young women who need to be hearing about birth control and they don't. Now who is responsible for the abortions? See above.

 

 

And that is one reason I don't mind birth control being taught in the public schools. Some parents have deluded themselves into thinking "not my child" and don't address it in the home.

[currentchristian]

These are the very young women who need to be hearing about birth control and they don't. Now who is responsible for the abortions? See above.

 

And that is one reason I don't mind birth control being taught in the public schools. Some parents have deluded themselves into thinking "not my child" and don't address it in the home.

 

We definitely have to get this unwanted pregnancy and teen pregnancy thing under control. My goodness. I work daily with individuals who have three kids or four kids or five kids, and they have no job, no education, no plans, they are in and out of jail, addicted to this or that. What a burden on the entire socieity they are. They contribute little or nothing, and take so much. (Not judging them, just stating some economic facts.)

 

I absolutely do not understand it. One can pick up a condom anywhere! One can get the pill easily. I can't imagine having sex with anyone who is not the person with whom one shares a monogamous committed life and NOT using a condom. So risky in so many ways!

 

We are a stiffnecked species and very slow to learn anything.

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

CC, didn't you know? The "Abstinence Only" is telling everyone that condoms don't work for protection, only being completely abstinent from sex is completely safe. So now, kids hold back for one or two years, and then go completely crazy and have not learned about condoms. And I heard that this is taught in Africa too, as "protection" against AIDS, "abstinence works, condoms don't." And one of the strong names behind this movement is (from what I understand) Pat Robertson, with money from the feds (the religious initiative program Bush implemented). So we're paying with our tax money to make sure kids both here and in other underdeveloped countries know that condoms "don't work". I agree, humans are stifnecked and stubborn, and too stupid to be smart.

[currentchristian]

CC, didn't you know? The "Abstinence Only" is telling everyone that condoms don't work for protection, only being completely abstinent from sex is completely safe. So now, kids hold back for one or two years, and then go completely crazy and have not learned about condoms. And I heard that this is taught in Africa too, as "protection" against AIDS, "abstinence works, condoms don't." And one of the strong names behind this movement is (from what I understand) Pat Robertson, with money from the feds (the religious initiative program Bush implemented). So we're paying with our tax money to make sure kids both here and in other underdeveloped countries know that condoms "don't work". I agree, humans are stifnecked and stubborn, and too stupid to be smart.

 

It is undeniably true that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's. That is true in every sense of the word. And I'm find with this truth being spread far and wide.

 

However, and it's a big however, the sexual impulse is strong, mightily strong. Therefore, when a man no longer can abstain and no longer is able to expend his built up sexual energy by means of masturbation, he must, please, please, please, grab a condom! And if the person seeking sexual release is a woman, she must make sure that she has taken that little pill that month, every day, and that she insists that her male partner place a condom tightly around his protruding member.

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

Sure abstinence is the only safe protection, but the Abstinence Only program also teach that condoms do no work, and they even use (from what I've heard) false information and false facts about condoms to stop the usage of them. IMO the Abstinence Only program doesn't have the purpose of making people safe against STD's or pregnancy but to preach a religious morality that no one should have sex before marriage, and in the process make sure that no one will use condoms anymore. This is how I puzzled it together with bits-n-pieces of information over the years, I could be wrong, but that's I understand the tax supported Pat Robertson's program. In the end the programs motto becomes "don't have sex, but if you do, don't use condom."

[Taphophilia]

The Pro-Life side has done a good job demonizing abortion to the point where they psychologically torture women who have had them or need them. I didn't have an abortion when I should have because of the lies and the psycological tools they use.

 

I did get my daughter out of it and she is fine, but I will contnue to suffer physically for the rest of my life. I am in pain quite a bit since I don't have a tailbone. My pelvis was fractured because of her birth and that's often a dull ache, and I am slowly going deaf because of an auto immune issue that was triggered by the complications of her birth.

 

I'm not the only woman who has suffered from Pro-Life's tactics. There are many, many women who have gone through tremendous physical and emotional suffering. Christians and the Pro-Life side don't care about us and pretend we don't exist. That's a fact!

 

The other thing is that they demonize birth control for women, because there is a chance that an egg will be fertalised and not be able to implant in the uterus. A blastocyte is the same as a baby. Consequently, you murder your baby and don't even know it.

[Unknowing1]

Oh Taphophilia, I am so sorry for what you have gone through. How utterly f'ing awful.

 

CC, you stated: I absolutely do not understand it. One can pick up a condom anywhere! One can get the pill easily.

 

I do agree with you to a point but for a teenager girl to go to a doctor to get the little pill takes in most cases the knowledge and consent of a parent, not to mention the cost of the office visit and the cost of the pills. To buy a condom means in some cases embarrassment. While I agree that the consequences of not talking to your parent in order to get an appointment to obtain that little pill and dealing with embarrassment to buy that condem is much greater, teens too have a sense of it won't happen to me, not just doing it one time. That's where sex education in the schools come in. Too me they can't stress enough that it can happen and it can happen during your first time and I'm not talking just pregnancy either but STD's as well. Unless the pill is more easily assessible to teenage girls and unless kids can get over the embarrassment of buying condems it's always going to be a problem. Then to add those folks such as Pat Robertson into the mix only makes it much more difficult to do anything about it. Could you imagine being a teenage girl going to planned parenthood and having to walk through a group of protestors and taking the chance that your parents would find out? I personally wouldn't have had the guts to do so as a teen and would have and did take my chances.

[currentchristian]

Sure abstinence is the only safe protection, but the Abstinence Only program also teach that condoms do no work, and they even use (from what I've heard) false information and false facts about condoms to stop the usage of them. IMO the Abstinence Only program doesn't have the purpose of making people safe against STD's or pregnancy but to preach a religious morality that no one should have sex before marriage, and in the process make sure that no one will use condoms anymore. This is how I puzzled it together with bits-n-pieces of information over the years, I could be wrong, but that's I understand the tax supported Pat Robertson's program. In the end the programs motto becomes "don't have sex, but if you do, don't use condom."

 

Likely you have summed this up very correctly.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

My sister's policy on this was very wise, IMO. When her daughters turned 17, they had their first gynecological appointments and were started on the pill. We in no way, shape, or form are encouraging that they become sexually active, but if they do, godforbid a pregnancy result.

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

Unless the pill is more easily assessible to teenage girls and unless kids can get over the embarrassment of buying condems it's always going to be a problem.

And the kids can only get over their embarrassment if we, the adults, the grownups, can get over it first. If we (not me though, I dont' have a single fibre of shame in my body ) feel ashamed and shy away talking to our kids about these subjects, they will too.

[white_raven23]

The Pro-Life side has done a good job demonizing abortion to the point where they psychologically torture women who have had them or need them. I didn't have an abortion when I should have because of the lies and the psycological tools they use.

 

I did get my daughter out of it and she is fine, but I will contnue to suffer physically for the rest of my life. I am in pain quite a bit since I don't have a tailbone. My pelvis was fractured because of her birth and that's often a dull ache, and I am slowly going deaf because of an auto immune issue that was triggered by the complications of her birth.

 

I'm not the only woman who has suffered from Pro-Life's tactics. There are many, many women who have gone through tremendous physical and emotional suffering. Christians and the Pro-Life side don't care about us and pretend we don't exist. That's a fact!

 

The other thing is that they demonize birth control for women, because there is a chance that an egg will be fertalised and not be able to implant in the uterus. A blastocyte is the same as a baby. Consequently, you murder your baby and don't even know it.

 

I know it sucks bandwidth, but this post deserved it!

 

Taph, I applaud you!

 

No question you love your daughter, but you have not absorbed the modern child cult mentality seen so frequently that demands a total cognitive dissonace "all is worth it for my sacred offspring" mindwipe that seems to be so prevalent in this day and age.

 

You are realistic. You are not blinded by emotion to ignore the physical realities resulting from the consequences of giving birth.

 

In an age where parents scurry to put their spawn in designer clothes they will grow out of in a few months, your realism deserves to be recognized.

 

Pretty damn brave too. That takes some courage.

[Taphophilia]

Wow, thanks White Raven.

 

I had a tumor that was detected in a routine ultra sound when I was eight weeks pregnant. The radiologists, who were called in to look at the ultra sound, told me that I shouldn't continue with the pregnancy.

 

I had an asshole fundy Catholic OB/GYN, so you know how that went over with him.

 

The tumor ruptured during her birth like cantalope in a vice and did most of the damage. Pulling her out with foreceps before I was completely dialated, so my doctor could make his 9 o'clock appointment, did the rest.

[xild]

Twas lovely for women back in the day, wasn't it? Seems to me Fundi CAtholics shouldn't be practicing Obstetrics unless they can do a complete job and perform all the duties of a physician. Grrr....

[Unknowing1]

And the kids can only get over their embarrassment if we, the adults, the grownups, can get over it first. If we (not me though, I dont' have a single fibre of shame in my body ) feel ashamed and shy away talking to our kids about these subjects, they will too.

 

Believe me I know what you are saying. It's tough to talk to a teenager about things like birth control but I look at it as a "necessary evil". I don't want to bury them at a young age because they died from Aids. And I certainly do not want my sons to be partly responsible for a teenage girl becoming prenant and having to chose between having the baby or an abortion.

 

Currentchristian, I like how your sister handles it although for some families 17 may be a little too old considering children are becoming pregnant at much earlier ages. And besides, to me an unwanted pregancy is the least of their worries, the infection of an STD IMO is much worse as the end result can be death.

[Unknowing1]

And the kids can only get over their embarrassment if we, the adults, the grownups, can get over it first. If we (not me though, I dont' have a single fibre of shame in my body ) feel ashamed and shy away talking to our kids about these subjects, they will too.

 

Believe me I know what you are saying. It's tough to talk to a teenager about things like birth control but I look at it as a "necessary evil". I don't want to bury them at a young age because they died from Aids. And I certainly do not want my sons to be partly responsible for a teenage girl becoming prenant and having to chose between having the baby or an abortion.

 

Currentchristian, I like how your sister handles it although for some families 17 may be a little too old considering children are becoming pregnant at much earlier ages. And besides, to me an unwanted pregancy is the least of their worries, the infection of an STD IMO is much worse as the end result can be death.

 

I'd like to clarify what I mean "for some families" so that there is no mistake in what I was saying. For some families children are more socially active at a younger age. 13 and 14 year olds maybe allowed to hang out with friends, go to the movies, to the mall or even parties without parental involvement. Therefore the opportunity is there. And before I am accused, no I'm not passing judgement on whether it is right or wrong to allow children of that age to do so.

[currentchristian]

...

Currentchristian, I like how your sister handles it although for some families 17 may be a little too old considering children are becoming pregnant at much earlier ages. And besides, to me an unwanted pregancy is the least of their worries, the infection of an STD IMO is much worse as the end result can be death.

 

Each parent must determine the appropriate age for their family and their children. Fortunately, my sister and her children have a very open and affirming relationship, as the kids have with me as well. We talk about anything and they know they have our love and dedication unconditionally. We tell them this, so often I'm sure they are sick of it. There are exceptions, of course, but generally children raised with unconditional love and acceptance and with a clear (but not oppressive) set of expectations rise to that higher level. We acknowledge the fortunate outcome with the three kids.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

...

 

I'd like to clarify what I mean "for some families" so that there is no mistake in what I was saying. For some families children are more socially active at a younger age. 13 and 14 year olds maybe allowed to hang out with friends, go to the movies, to the mall or even parties without parental involvement. Therefore the opportunity is there. And before I am accused, no I'm not passing judgement on whether it is right or wrong to allow children of that age to do so.

 

Each family must make these decisions for their family. My mother did not allow my sister or me to date outside the home prior to age 16. (Of course, being gay in a gay-unfriendly time there was no one for me to date, anyway!!)

 

My sister followed this tradition with her kids. From day one it was known that there was no dating outside the home until the age of 16. I don't think they ever had a single argument about this condition since it was set from the beginning and, therefore, seemed quite natural to them.

 

-CC in MA