Gloria Steinem on Sarah Palin

[Mama Lynx]

You are under the impression that the Dems are not operating under "Win At All Costs" as well?

 

Believe me, that's priority 1 for both sides. OF COURSE McCain picked someone he thought would help him win. Just like Obama picked someone to balance out the accusations of inexperience.

 

Both sides would, and will, do anything to win.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ah, so maybe she had a faulty assumption and that's why her post could be taken as contradictory.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

I know, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just explaining how I interpreted LG's post based on the flow of conversation just before hers. :)

 

I know :) I was just reiterating in hopes of avoiding more confusion.

[Brigitte]

Don't go to Europe.

 

Well, it's different over there. Yes, there is more nudity on magazine covers, ads, etc., but it is not sexy, it is the female body. Sure you go to the beach and women are topless, but, again, it is not sexual. The advertising and TV shows (targeted to the teen audience) here are much more sexual in nature and might not even have any nudity in them. I found a t-shirt in 4T at the Gap that said on the front "Must love walks on the beach, holding hands," etc. It was cleary a singles ad on a t-shirt for a 4 year old. The pants they sell in the little girls department are all low riders (at least the last time I went in - I won't give them another dime). Never have I found clothing like that in Europe.

 

Here is another question...What percentage of high school freshman girls are sexually active now compared to 20 years ago?

[LG Gone Wild]

Ah, so maybe she had a faulty assumption and that's why her post could be taken as contradictory :)

 

Well, no, I didn't know that 3rd action of some pills but I stand by my comments. I mean, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Yes, no?

[Brigitte]

Nope, I think that's backwards.

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html

 

 

 

It seems as if the more sexual messages they are exposed to, the LESS teen pregnancies there are!!!

 

We are talking about two different kinds of sexual messages. That article does not address the "sexing-up" of TV, print ads, music, clothing, etc. that I am talking about.

 

It was an interesting read, however. Thank you.

[lovemyboys]

Also the part about true feminism being less about the advancement of particular women than about bringing justice to women in general. That was good, too.

 

I posted this on another thread earlier.

 

....when the early feminists were demonstrating for our rights, they were telling us that it was for all women, that we all had choices, we all had our own minds, we all should have the freedom to have any job or career we wanted to, to be who we wanted to be. I was there. I've marched where she's organized. I've attended her speeches and read her books and magazine.

 

It really saddens me that what Ms. Steinem actually meant was that all those things apply to you as long as you believe exactly and only what she believes.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Well, it's different over there. Yes, there is more nudity on magazine covers, ads, etc., but it is not sexy, it is the female body. Sure you go to the beach and women are topless, but, again, it is not sexual. The advertising and TV shows (targeted to the teen audience) here are much more sexual in nature and might not even have any nudity in them. I found a t-shirt in 4T at the Gap that said on the front "Must love walks on the beach, holding hands," etc. It was cleary a singles ad on a t-shirt for a 4 year old. The pants they sell in the little girls department are all low riders (at least the last time I went in - I won't give them another dime). Never have I found clothing like that in Europe.

 

Here is another question...What percentage of high school freshman girls are sexually active now compared to 20 years ago?

 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/02trends/SD4.pdf

 

This only goes back to the 90's but it seems the rates are declining.

 

I love Gap Kids. My daughter doesn't like the way the low cut jeans fit her, so we don't buy those, but even if I did, the kind of jeans she wears is not what I feel is going to determine her attitudes about sex. I think the kinds of discussions we have at home, the fact she is involved in sports, and has an activity she is passionate about are much more likely to influence her choices.

 

I think you bring up something important- in Europe, walking by a nude woman on a beach is not sexual. In America it most certainly is considered so. It is all about the attitude.

 

I think it is the absence of logic, not the presence of sexuality that leads to bad decisions.

[nakitty]

Precisely!

 

And furthermore...I have to say...I am quite disgusted by a lot of what I am reading here.... seriously? If it weren't for Gloria Steinem and women like her.... we women wouldn't have the RIGHT to VOTE, the RIGHT to a COLLEGE EDUCATION, the RIGHT to OWN LAND, or the RIGHT to CONTROL OUR ABILITY TO REPRODUCE......and we are STILL fighting for EQUAL WAGES......... your lack of empathy to the women's movement is a slap in the faces of those that have lost much in order to attain freedoms for YOU! I have no patience for ignorant women (especially women) that complain about the women's movement while content to bask in the freedoms that the fight has entitled them.... I find it completely intolerable. :glare:

 

Just a quick FTR....using caps doesn't always indicate yelling...it is also used for emphasis...which is how I was using it in this post....I'm sorry if some thought the usage of caps here was rude...it was not my intention. :glare:

[SnowWhite]

Sex is something that a majority of people do, or at least want to do.

 

At the appropriate time, yes, but I failed to go on to say, the popular culture tends to glorify sex outside of marriage or a committed relationship as something that is unavoidable and even to be admired.

 

 

The notion that peer pressure related to sex is something new is totally false.

Oh, I never said that was new. The floodgates of media glorifying the practice of outside-of-a-committed relationship sex, however, those are new, and were not present when my grandparents were my age. Women could go days, years, even a lifetime without having that idea pounded at them day and night. (In American culture... I'm sure there have always been places in the world and cultures where that was expounded).

 

 

 

Men can have the idea all they want as to what choice a woman needs to make when discovering she is pregnant. However, it is up to that woman, not the man, and certainly not the government, what choice she makes.

As of this moment, you are correct. However, do you think for one moment that the man who was influential enough to get the woman to participate in unprotected intercourse does not exert a tremendous influence on her decision? How many young women are pushed to unprotected intercourse (because that is what people in a committed relationship do) and then pushed to an abortion as a result? By the same man?

[LisaNY]

You may not like her (I'm not a big fan either) but ladies like her made it possible for women like us to choose whether to stay home or work outside the house. They have fought for our rights to vote, to become more of an equal partner in all aspects of our lives. It was not long ago when women were only teachers and nurses.

 

Yeah, but you see, that is what I find so ironic about Steinhem's article. Instead of cheering for Palin, as a woman who has fought for equal rights for women, she denigrates her. Why? Because she doesn't agree w/her conservative politics. I daresay she would NOT have written that article if Obama had chosen a woman VP with similar credentials.

 

Gloria Steinhem may have had good beginnings in the fight for women's rights, but her agenda is different now.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Yeah, but you see, that is what I find so ironic about Steinhem's article. Instead of cheering for Palin, as a woman who has fought for equal rights for women, she denigrates her. Why? Because she doesn't agree w/her conservative politics. I daresay she would NOT have written that article if Obama had chosen a woman VP with similar credentials.

 

Gloria Steinhem may have had good beginnings in the fight for women's rights, but her agenda is different now.

 

If Sarah Palin wanted to go on a campaign to recruit volunteers from crisis pregnancy centers that offer support for choosing life, I do not think there would be an issue. The fact that she wants to take rights away from other women is the issue.

[LizzyBee]

As of this moment, you are correct. However, do you think for one moment that the man who was influential enough to get the woman to participate in unprotected intercourse does not exert a tremendous influence on her decision? How many young women are pushed to unprotected intercourse (because that is what people in a committed relationship do) and then pushed to an abortion as a result? By the same man?

 

When I volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center, these young girls would come in and they didn't want abortions - their boyfriends wanted them to have abortions. First it's if you love me you'll have s*x with me; then if you love me, you'll have an abortion. So much for empowering women.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

At the appropriate time, yes, but I failed to go on to say, the popular culture tends to glorify sex outside of marriage or a committed relationship as something that is unavoidable and even to be admired.

 

But who gets to decide what constitutes glorifying sex? Some people would want to ban Soap Operas. I've been watching Days of Our Lives since I was like 6 and didn't lose my virginity until college. You can bet your bottom dollar I wasn't pressured into it either.

 

Oh, I never said that was new. The floodgates of media glorifying the practice of outside-of-a-committed relationship sex, however, those are new, and were not present when my grandparents were my age. Women could go days, years, even a lifetime without having that idea pounded at them day and night. (In American culture... I'm sure there have always been places in the world and cultures where that was expounded).

 

This sounds very similar to things my MIL tells me were said here in the South when Rock and Roll came out.

 

 

 

As of this moment, you are correct. However, do you think for one moment that the man who was influential enough to get the woman to participate in unprotected intercourse does not exert a tremendous influence on her decision? How many young women are pushed to unprotected intercourse (because that is what people in a committed relationship do) and then pushed to an abortion as a result? By the same man?

 

I feel sorry for young girls who get pressured into making all kinds of decisions that aren't their own. Some young girls are pressured to give birth and even keep the baby by their parents, like the mother of that missing 3 year old in FL. Some young women feel scared to talk to their own parents about sex. I think being involved in sports and other activities is one way to strengthen our girls, but I don't have all the answers. I'm just trying to do my best to make sure my own dd will stand up for herself to anyone in any situation.

[Kate CA]

You may not like her (I'm not a big fan either) but ladies like her made it possible for women like us to choose whether to stay home or work outside the house. They have fought for our rights to vote, to become more of an equal partner in all aspects of our lives. It was not long ago when women were only teachers and nurses. Many of you are saying people aren't listening to Palin just because they don't like her, but aren't you doing the same?

 

Careful here - the above in bold is fiction. Steinem is as different from the women who *did* fight for our right to vote in the suffrage movement as women can possibly be. Not only was one of the big names in this movement, Susan B. Anthony, fighting for the women's right to vote she was adamantly prolife. Two of the main women who lead the movement were. Steinem is and never will be anything like these amazing women.

[Kate CA]

Ahhh....but you forget....while ITA that it IS a parents responsibility....we have to remember that not all parents are good ones....and, as a matter of ABSOLUTE fact....some parents are extremely HORRIBLE. And what if that 13 year old girl is pregnant because her Dad was horrible? Or what if her abusive Mom allowed a boyfriend access to her daughter....or what if Mom and/or Dad sold her to someone for drugs....or any number of other horrific scenarios we like to pretend are extremely rare.... they aren't all that rare...not even a little rare. No, such extreme situations aren't the #1 reason teenaged girls abort.... but it is a very real very valid reason. And *I* don't think it is right to make a young girl that has had to go through so much already....have to ask the very people that put her in such a situation to help her out of it.

 

But bad laws are made when we create them based on extreme circumstances. The heart of the issue is not the trauma a girl may have gone through. The heart of the issue is the value of life. Why is the girl's life more valuable than the baby growing within her? If life is valuable then it is valuable at all stages.

 

I knew a girl who was a product of rape. She was given up for adoption and was (obviously) terribly grateful that her birth mother understood that she too had value while still in her womb. Why does the mother - even the mother in a situation as awful as rape - get to decide the life of her baby is worthless? Who made her judge, jury, and executioner of an innocent life? That is really the issue.

[PineFarmMom]

I posted this on another thread earlier.

 

 

It really saddens me that what Ms. Steinem actually meant was that all those things apply to you as long as you believe exactly and only what she believes.

 

That's always the way I've seen her pov. That's why I usually disregard much of what she says. I've never seen the choices I have made, as a woman (staying home with my children to homeschool them, loving and serving my husband) to fall into her box of freedoms she wants for women. Ah, well, somehow I sleep at night.

 

Teresa

[PineFarmMom]

Careful here - the above in bold is fiction. Steinem is as different from the women who *did* fight for our right to vote in the suffrage movement as women can possibly be. Not only was one of the big names in this movement, Susan B. Anthony, fighting for the women's right to vote she was adamantly prolife. Two of the main women who lead the movement were. Steinem is and never will be anything like these amazing women.

 

Amen!! Steinem should feel very blessed to have even been placed in the same paragraph as Susan B. Anthony. Apples and oranges!!!

 

Teresa

[PineFarmMom]

If Sarah Palin wanted to go on a campaign to recruit volunteers from crisis pregnancy centers that offer support for choosing life, I do not think there would be an issue. The fact that she wants to take rights away from other women is the issue.

 

But really, she's giving rights TO future women, the 50% of the unborn who will (if allowed to live) grow up to be women in the future!! Now THAT!!! is fighting for women's rights!! :)

 

Teresa

[Aggie]

"....No, such extreme situations aren't the #1 reason teenaged girls abort.... "

 

Are there statistics reporting the reasons women/girls have abortions? It is my understanding that PP is not required, and therefore does not, keep track of demographics, reasons, etc.

 

Thanks,

Aggie

[PineFarmMom]

It's true that I have benefited from the work of feminists. So that means I'm not allowed to disagree with them?

 

Didn't you get the memo? As a female, in order to honor all those who may or may not have given you rights as a woman, you have to drink all their kool-aid and keep yer mouth shut. Get back in line!! ;)

 

Teresa

[nakitty]

But bad laws are made when we create them based on extreme circumstances. The heart of the issue is not the trauma a girl may have gone through. The heart of the issue is the value of life. Why is the girl's life more valuable than the baby growing within her? If life is valuable then it is valuable at all stages.

 

I knew a girl who was a product of rape. She was given up for adoption and was (obviously) terribly grateful that her birth mother understood that she too had value while still in her womb. Why does the mother - even the mother in a situation as awful as rape - get to decide the life of her baby is worthless? Who made her judge, jury, and executioner of an innocent life? That is really the issue.

 

Since I happen to believe that the life of the women outweighs the POTENTIAL life of the unborn...that really does not equate for me. I can not disagree more with your stance that life is not valuable unless it is valuable at every stage. Nope, just can't see it.

 

As for the second paragraph....I would suspect your friend feels the way she does because she is alive and cognizant....something she wasn't as a newly formed fetus. Which is when she would have been aborted had her birth mother chosen to do so.

[nakitty]

Didn't you get the memo? As a female, in order to honor all those who may or may not have given you rights as a woman, you have to drink all their kool-aid and keep yer mouth shut. Get back in line!! ;)

 

Teresa

 

Oh yes....that is right....we should all think with one mind.... that is precisely what I was trying to convey.:glare:

[PineFarmMom]

Oh yes....that is right....we should all think with one mind.... that is precisely what I was trying to convey.:glare:

 

Maybe you weren't trying to convey that, but frankly, I feel that that is the feminist message of late. If we don't agree, then somehow we are not grateful to those who have given us our rights. I disagree with a large percentage of the feminist povs I've seen over the past years. I don't think they reflect the truth of what was fought for in the first place. Just like any good thing can, I believe they've been perverted and warped into something that the early women wouldn't even recognize...or approve of!! I also see much hypocrisy in the Steinem-type feminism.

[nakitty]

Careful here - the above in bold is fiction. Steinem is as different from the women who *did* fight for our right to vote in the suffrage movement as women can possibly be. Not only was one of the big names in this movement, Susan B. Anthony, fighting for the women's right to vote she was adamantly prolife. Two of the main women who lead the movement were. Steinem is and never will be anything like these amazing women.

 

 

I don't really think that is a fair assumption.... since they do not live in OUR era...and the era THEY lived in was a very very different one. And the abortion procedure was a very very dangerous one. I would not even begin to assume what they would or would not believe today....but regardless of that....I don't think that THEIR beliefs on this ONE topic makes them any better than their predecessors.

[nakitty]

Maybe you weren't trying to convey that, but frankly, I feel that that is the feminist message of late. If we don't agree, then somehow we are not grateful to those who have given us our rights. I disagree with a large percentage of the feminist povs I've seen over the past years. I don't think they reflect the truth of what was fought for in the first place. Just like any good thing can, I believe they've been perverted and warped into something that the early women wouldn't even recognize...or approve of!! I also see much hypocrisy in the Steinem-type feminism.

 

 

Other than the abortion issue....what is it that you disagree with?

 

Is it the equal pay?

 

Is it the right to work without having to deal with sexual harassment?

 

Is it when girls want to play "boys" sports?

 

Is it the issues of women in the military?

 

Just a few off the top of my head.... I am genuinely curious as to what issues you have...

[PineFarmMom]

Since I happen to believe that the life of the women outweighs the POTENTIAL life of the unborn...that really does not equate for me. I can not disagree more with your stance that life is not valuable unless it is valuable at every stage. Nope, just can't see it.

 

As for the second paragraph....I would suspect your friend feels the way she does because she is alive and cognizant....something she wasn't as a newly formed fetus. Which is when she would have been aborted had her birth mother chosen to do so.

 

So if cognizance is the judge of the worth of a human, wow, that is really going to leave a lot of infants, children, adults, elderly people in a pretty dangerous situation, isn't it? That is a very slippery slope!

 

Teresa

[nakitty]

So if cognizance is the judge of the worth of a human, wow, that is really going to leave a lot of infants, children, adults, elderly people in a pretty dangerous situation, isn't it? That is a very slippery slope!

 

Teresa

 

How is that a slippery slope....do you really think that there is a possibility that we will start killing off these people? :001_huh: What an absurd notion...

 

ETA....I'm not calling YOU absurd....simply the notion that we would be offing those that are not fully cognizant....

[cathmom]

How is that a slippery slope....do you really think that there is a possibility that we will start killing off these people? :001_huh: What an absurd notion...

 

 

You haven't heard of Terri Schiavo?

[nakitty]

You haven't heard of Terri Schiavo?

 

 

She was not killed....she was allowed to die. I happen to be for assisted suicide too.

[PineFarmMom]

Other than the abortion issue....what is it that you disagree with?

 

Is it the equal pay?

 

Is it the right to work without having to deal with sexual harassment?

 

Is it when girls want to play "boys" sports?

 

Is it the issues of women in the military?

 

Just a few off the top of my head.... I am genuinely curious as to what issues you have...

 

Off the top of my head, a lot of it deals with the out-and-out male hatred I see. I think the issues with sexual harassment have become perverted and are a part of the problems with our legal system today. As a mom, I personally am not thrilled with the idea of women in the military. Mostly, I guess it has to do with how over the line much of it has become. I disagree with the whole vibe that is cast that if you choose your children and your husband then you have failed the whole feminist movement. I find that idea ludicrous. Those are my opinions, which I'm certain won't be liked, but that's life, I suppose.

 

What are a couple of things I disagree with from her article in particular? I like the NRA. I'm opposed to stem-cell research. I'm an advocate of sex education that encourages abstinance.

[cathmom]

And furthermore...I have to say...I am quite disgusted by a lot of what I am reading here.... seriously? If it weren't for Gloria Steinem and women like her.... we women wouldn't have the RIGHT to VOTE,

the RIGHT to a COLLEGE EDUCATION, the RIGHT to OWN LAND, or the RIGHT to CONTROL OUR ABILITY TO REPRODUCE......and we are STILL fighting for EQUAL WAGES......... your lack of empathy to the women's movement is a slap in the faces of those that have lost much in order to attain freedoms for YOU! I have no patience for ignorant women (especially women) that complain about the women's movement while content to bask in the freedoms that the fight has entitled them.... I find it completely intolerable. :glare:

 

Right to vote - before Steinem was born

Right to a college education - my aunt received one when Steinem was 6 years old

Right to own land - I don't know when this happened in the US, but I don't recall Steinem fighting for this

Right to control our ability to reproduce - I don't consider this a right in the way you mean it

Right to equal wages - every job my dh has ever worked paid women equally to men or they would risk serious lawsuits.

 

I have read many books and articles by feminists and I honestly don't feel that they have done a whole lot for the betterment of women's situations. I guess I am ignorant, but I am not sure what Steinem has lost to attain freedoms for me.

[PineFarmMom]

How is that a slippery slope....do you really think that there is a possibility that we will start killing off these people? :001_huh: What an absurd notion...

 

ETA....I'm not calling YOU absurd....simply the notion that we would be offing those that are not fully cognizant....

 

With you, I would hope that we would never off those who aren't cognizant, but the slippery slope is in allowing cognizance to be the standard we set for life. At some point, a standard has to be set or, IMO, we will slowly devalue human life more and more. I've seen society do it in many other areas, so I can't pretend it couldn't happen in this one!!

[Peek a Boo]

*big breath*

 

No... common sense is understanding that teenagers have raging hormones and tend to act upon them. Telling them not to have sex is all well and good but they still do it. And if all you do is tell them not to have sex then when they do have sex anyway they do it unprepared. We've tried it your way for eight years now... and it hasn't worked.

well, close:

common sense dictates that even teens are capable of learning to control their raging sex hormones, their anger hormones, and their ability to speak intelligently. To suggest otherwise paints teens as stupid. If they can't control the behavior then maybe that is evidence enough that they SHOULDn't be engaging in it in the first place. That's a lot of the reasoning behind statutory rape laws too.

 

i always found it ironic that our education system wants to teach teens to do something that might make them complicit in an illegal act. But that depends on the age of consent laws state by state.

 

I agree w/ your bolded statement: teens deserve full knowledge and actual support from adults on how to control themselves in a mature manner. Am i against two devoted, mature teens having sex in a committed relationship w/ their parents' approval? not necessarily [even tho i have to approve of only a Christian marriage relationship for that :D], but it would be a much better option than just accusing teens of not being able to control themselves. How utterly condescending.

 

Right, I disagree with that notion of "life." A blastocyst truly is a small collection of cells. You aren't killing anything by not allowing it to implant any more than you are killing the female egg or male sperm by not allowing them to meet and become life. Yes, that's just my opinion but there is no definite answer and I don't think the government should be making that decision for me.

 

WRONG.

You only have a blastocyst if you have a living, developing organism. In HUMAN reproduction that means the ORGANISM is a living, developing HUMAN --as opposed to an egg or sperm that WILL NOT continue to develop into an independent organism UNLESS they are fertilized.

This is biology 101, folks. Check any human embryology textbook on this.

Stem cell researchers know the HUGE difference between a blastocyst and an egg/sperm.

IVF experts know this.

The only people who refuse to acknowledge the basic fact are those who continue to support the right to kill on demand another human for convenience.

 

do y'all know how those who believe the theory of evolution get SO perturbed when people REFUSE to acknowledge basic, empirical, scientific facts about evolution? well THAT is how the OPINION of what a blastocyst is and is not comes across to human embryologists.

 

You are killing a developing human. Kinda in the same way that people kill a child when they know what's likely to happen but allow the situation to continue anyway.

It IS your opinion. And one not even made on facts that are readily observable and definable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryogenesis

There IS --and has been for decades- a definitive answer that can be seen by anyone in a basic microscope, and YES- the gvt has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens: the black ones, the female ones, and the ones in younger stages of development.

discrimination is discrimination.

 

Conservatives believe that preventing a blastocyst from implanting in the uterus is the same as an abortion. Combination birth control pills, IUDs and other types of birth control do in part (it is believed) prevent the implantation of a blastocyst in the uterus. I firmly believe if given an inch an this issue they will take a mile and we'll be limited in our birth control options.

 

"conservatives believe" that ALL humans should have the basic right to life regardless of color, sex, or stage of development. i do understand that many wish to withold that right to life from some humans based on a discrimination of their stage of development.

 

yes, you would be limited in your birth control options the same way many are limited in their "revenge control" options. This whole "murder/ assault" stuff is just SO limiting!! The gvt is not controlling or limiting your right to get pregnant or not get pregnant. But i do agree they have a right -a DUTY- to say that you may NOT exercise a "right" when it results in the infringement of ANOTHER human's right.

But as long as we don't recognize that human as a legal person then it's "OK" --we're not infringing on anyone's rights!

and we call this "civil rights"??

 

Now if you want to contain your argument to health/ hormone issues for reasons other than birth then i think you have a much stronger case. But even THAT falls under the "as needed basis, not by default" discussion a bit down further WRT minors and abortions.

 

 

True, probably nothing stopping you, nothing stopping me either. But what if you didn't have the money for birth control? Is protected sex only a right that belongs to those who can afford it?

 

Where is having sex whenever you want to a right that the gvt must protect?? Is the gvt STOPPING you from having sex, or do we make intelligent decisions about ways to act based on our particular circumstances at any given time?

What about eating organic foods? Is that only a right that belongs to those who can afford it? Maybe the gvt should step in and put price controls on THAT so more people can afford it?

What if i can't afford a newer, safer car? or what if I can't maintain it to maximize its safety?? Should only rich people have access to safe vehicles?

Or do we make the decision as reasoning individuals that we really don't need to travel that badly under such unsafe circumstances?

 

BUT....your daughter(s) and mine have the benefit of having loving mothers that will be able to teach them our values and be there for them to love and support them unconditionally....girls that are fortunate enough to have such supportive parents are not very likely to have the need to attain an abortion without parental consent. ....

 

.....Or should it be addressed on an as needed basis? People would be so much better off to just take care of their own business and to deal with ACTUAL problems as they come along....not create laws that inconvenience/punish everyone just to appease their own way of thinking.

 

 

YES!! If a 13yo girl thinks she needs an abortion, it should be determined on an AS NEEDED basis --not a DEFAULT basis!! I am all for homeschoolers or ANYONE abusing a child to be investigated by CPS. By all means, on a case by case basis take it before a judge on the grounds of ABUSE. i am NOT all for the Gvt taking away my right to make decisions for my child. Or the gvt giving amnesty/immunity to someone ELSE who makes those decisions or takes my dd across state lines w/o my knowledge. That's kidnapping. As Mrs. Mungo mentioned --allowing a minor to have a medical procedure done w/o parental consent is WRONG.

 

I was shocked when I read someone is hunting from helicopters, that is uncalled for. Although, I am anti hunting totally.

 

But, now I read someone is killing babies. Who, who?

 

 

Obama refused to offer more protections for babies that were born alive as the result of an induced abortion. The docs were using loopholes from the then-current law and letting babies born alive die. Even after language was added to a bill that would make it identical to the Federal law [that Obama said he would have supported], Obama refused to support it. He has quoted that he doesn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" if they have sex and don't WANT a baby. he has said that he doesn't want women to be burdened w/ the idea of the Born Alive infants bill. Has he killed any babies personally? I doubt it. Has his lack of action directly contributed to NOT protecting infants that were Born alive? yup.

 

not that i particularly like Jill Stanek, but she links to some pretty basic stuff:

 

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

 

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/baipaobamamp3.html

 

and we're worried about a deliberated, planned, killing of WOLVES that is designed to save OTHER animals???

but it's 'ok' to support letting HUMANS die.

I don't think it is "uncalled for" at all to point out the disconnect. I think I would have phrased it a bit more clearly though since Obama [to the best of my knowledge] hasn't personally killed any babies, while Palin has killed wolves to save other animals.

 

The fact that she wants to take rights away from other women is the issue.

 

yes it IS an issue --because many of us don't believe it should be a RIGHT to kill another human on demand for convenience. You have the freedom to reproduce or to not reproduce. You do NOT have a right to do so at the extent of killing another human. From this angle, it is pro-choice-to-kill-humans feminists who are continuing to deny rights to humans --not on color or sex anymore, but on stage of development.

[Peek a Boo]

*a few more that wouldn't fit on the first post above*

 

 

Right to vote - before Steinem was born

Right to a college education - my aunt received one when Steinem was 6 years old

Right to own land - I don't know when this happened in the US, but I don't recall Steinem fighting for this

Right to control our ability to reproduce - I don't consider this a right in the way you mean it

Right to equal wages - every job my dh has ever worked paid women equally to men or they would risk serious lawsuits.

 

I have read many books and articles by feminists and I honestly don't feel that they have done a whole lot for the betterment of women's situations. I guess I am ignorant, but I am not sure what Steinem has lost to attain freedoms for me.

 

well, she DOES work w/ others on stopping the involuntary sterilization of women, but even that isn't a one woman show.

 

 

*for me* Gloria Steinem's abortion stance is enough to part ways w/ her.

 

But as for a large percentage of the feminist povs I've seen over the past years I think you can point to the idiotic "all sex is rape" comments, the anti-homemaker stance STILL held by PLENTY of 'feminists', and the ones who accuse pro-lifers of not being "feminist" enough.

 

but this one is handy too:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem

In a March 22, 1998 Op/Ed piece in the New York Times, Steinem effectively gave support to the notion that a man may:

(1) uninvited, open-mouth kiss a woman;

(2) uninvited, fondle a woman's breast; and

(3) uninvited, take a woman's hand and place it on the man's genitals;

and as long as the man retreats once the woman says "no" that this does not constitute sexual harassment. [5]

 

This has become known in the popular culture as the "One Free Grope" Theory.[6]The Op/Ed piece was written in an attempt to defend then President Bill Clinton against allegations of sexual impropriety that had been made by White House volunteer Kathleen Willey.

 

One Free Grope, eh?

yeah... i feel so liberated.

 

 

How is that a slippery slope....do you really think that there is a possibility that we will start killing off these people? :001_huh: What an absurd notion....

 

Terri Schiavo was denied sustenance.

They removed a feeding tube.

She was starved to death. That's not "allowed to die."

I agree that starving people because they are not cognizant based on our limited technological ability to determine that cognizance is an absurd notion.

 

and the argument has already been made on this board that if someone shows no brainwaves we should be allowed to kill them.

There has already been made on this board the argument about QUALITY of life --that unless there's a subjective QUALITY to that life then it is OK to kill it before it is even born.

 

and that's just on THIS board.

 

not a "potential" life [which is an OPINION and flies in the face of basic biology], but an ACTUAL life.

 

I'd rather not have a human's VALUE determined by a subjective definition, but by an empirical scientific one.

[Kate CA]

I don't really think that is a fair assumption.... since they do not live in OUR era...and the era THEY lived in was a very very different one. And the abortion procedure was a very very dangerous one. I would not even begin to assume what they would or would not believe today....but regardless of that....I don't think that THEIR beliefs on this ONE topic makes them any better than their predecessors.

 

I could not disagree with you more. These women worked their whole lives for the betterment of women. Some without even seeing the results before they died! They encouraged women to be women and did not think killing their unborn children would enable them to be "reproductively free." Some of these ladies worked to allow birth control - and at the same time completely disagreed with abortion. Abortion has always been around - I could tell you today how to abort your baby with herbs. Abortion is just as dangerous today and still kills mothers--and kills an awful lot of babies.

 

Steinem will never be in the same category of women the suffragettes are. She does not represent me and does not represent almost every woman I know. In fact I would go so far as to say she has hurt the cause of women - especially women who choose to be at home. Joanne does an amazing job of elaborating on this further.

 

I will bow out of this discussion now because I don't think we are going to get anywhere. We are so completely opposite on the issue of abortion that there is really no middle ground here - for either of us. Have a nice evening.

[LG Gone Wild]

*a few more that wouldn't fit on the first post above*

 

 

 

 

well, she DOES work w/ others on stopping the involuntary sterilization of women, but even that isn't a one woman show.

 

 

*for me* Gloria Steinem's abortion stance is enough to part ways w/ her.

 

But as for a large percentage of the feminist povs I've seen over the past years I think you can point to the idiotic "all sex is rape" comments, the anti-homemaker stance STILL held by PLENTY of 'feminists', and the ones who accuse pro-lifers of not being "feminist" enough.

 

but this one is handy too:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem

In a March 22, 1998 Op/Ed piece in the New York Times, Steinem effectively gave support to the notion that a man may:

(1) uninvited, open-mouth kiss a woman;

(2) uninvited, fondle a woman's breast; and

(3) uninvited, take a woman's hand and place it on the man's genitals;

and as long as the man retreats once the woman says "no" that this does not constitute sexual harassment. [5]

 

This has become known in the popular culture as the "One Free Grope" Theory.[6]The Op/Ed piece was written in an attempt to defend then President Bill Clinton against allegations of sexual impropriety that had been made by White House volunteer Kathleen Willey.

 

One Free Grope, eh?

yeah... i feel so liberated.

 

 

 

 

Terri Schiavo was denied sustenance.

They removed a feeding tube.

She was starved to death. That's not "allowed to die."

I agree that starving people because they are not cognizant based on our limited technological ability to determine that cognizance is an absurd notion.

 

and the argument has already been made on this board that if someone shows no brainwaves we should be allowed to kill them.

There has already been made on this board the argument about QUALITY of life --that unless there's a subjective QUALITY to that life then it is OK to kill it before it is even born.

 

and that's just on THIS board.

 

not a "potential" life [which is an OPINION and flies in the face of basic biology], but an ACTUAL life.

 

I'd rather not have a human's VALUE determined by a subjective definition, but by an empirical scientific one.

 

ummmm :iagree: but I guess that's not a surprise. I need to go shower so that my dh can legally assault me. (I am allowed 1 cheap shot, right?) I will not be :lurk5:.

 

My BO awaits.:tongue_smilie:

[JennifersLost]

In a perfect world there would be no abortion.

 

My stance is that I'll go ahead and be "pro-life" the minute that legislation is put in place that any man that gets a woman pregnant who did not want to be pregnant:

 

a. loses access to his manhood for a minimum of 18 months - that's during the woman's 9 months of pregnancy and 9 months of nursing the child when heaven knows she won't be getting any.

 

b. must pay reasonable support until that child is 18. I figure reasonable support is about $2,000 per month.

 

c. is clapped in jail the FIRST time support does not appear at the proper time to be kept there until said child is 18.

 

d. doesn't get to sit on his butt in jail; gets to work as long as mothers work each day to earn his keep plus his support payments to the mother. Hmmm. I guess that's roughly 18 hours per day, right ladies?

 

e. gets shot the first time he slacks off in jail.

 

That's a start. But I'd also have to have:

 

a. guaranteed 100% coverage of all medical expenses for each child.

 

b. guaranteed places in recovery centers for several years for each mother addicted to alcohol or drugs when she got pregnant.

 

c. guaranteed services for a lifetime for all babies born addicted to drugs or affected by fetal alcohol syndrome.

 

d. guaranteed safety for every baby born into an abusive home and mother living in one.

 

And I'd also need a law requiring every person who preaches about how there shouldn't be abortions because of the waitlists for couples wanting to adopt to be forced to adopt at least three babies born to crack addicted single inner city mothers and provide college educations for at least three more before being allowed to have any children of their own.

 

Women do not abort babies for the fun of it. They abort babies because they have darn good reasons not to bring those children into the world at that time. And women who do abort babies for the fun of it (should there be any) are not the kind of women who should be mothers, anyway.

 

It takes a man roughly ten minutes to participate in an act that can wreak havoc in a woman's life for years and years. No matter what, that woman is forced to be held accountable. She can't escape from the predicament the way a man can. Until we develop some way to hold men accountable to the same degree we hold women in the equation of life, there can be no equality between men and women unless there is abortion. It's ugly. But it's true.

[Peek a Boo]

not a perfect world, but here's Amy's world ;) :

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53976

 

In a perfect world there would be no abortion.

 

My stance is that I'll go ahead and be "pro-life" the minute that legislation is put in place that any man that gets a woman pregnant who did not want to be pregnant:

 

a. loses access to his manhood for a minimum of 18 months - that's during the woman's 9 months of pregnancy and 9 months of nursing the child when heaven knows she won't be getting any.

 

nursing is optional. in most pregnancies, so is abstaining from sex.

your option a. isn't proportional to the majority of circumstances.

 

 

b. must pay reasonable support until that child is 18. I figure reasonable support is about $2,000 per month.

 

nah. as long as women have the option to not be mothers, men should have the option to not be fathers. If a woman has the right to back out of parenting w/o the consent of the father, that should go both ways. But i addressed that in the link above. There's still quite a few gals that trap their boyfriends into a pregnancy --who was the nutzoid that saved the semen from oral sex, inseminated herself at home, and pursued a paternity case? and WON? that is CRAZY!

 

c. is clapped in jail the FIRST time support does not appear at the proper time to be kept there until said child is 18.

 

If they agreed to pay, and abortion is NOT a legal option for the woman, then i agree.

 

d. doesn't get to sit on his butt in jail; gets to work as long as mothers work each day to earn his keep plus his support payments to the mother. Hmmm. I guess that's roughly 18 hours per day, right ladies?

 

sure! and the mothers need to actually STAY HOME and INTERACT with their children. right?

 

e. gets shot the first time he slacks off in jail.

and the mother should get shot the first time she slacks off in parenting her child?

 

 

That's a start. But I'd also have to have:

 

a. guaranteed 100% coverage of all medical expenses for each child.

 

until they are adopted to a family that is willing to be responsible for their care? absolutely.

 

b. guaranteed places in recovery centers for several years for each mother addicted to alcohol or drugs when she got pregnant.

 

absolutely. I think recovery centers --whether you are male/female/pregnant/not pregnant-- are ALWAYS a good idea and worth society's time and money. and if illegal drugs were in play, those recovery centers being behind bars would be a natural consequence.

 

c. guaranteed services for a lifetime for all babies born addicted to drugs or affected by fetal alcohol syndrome.

 

back to your a. above.

d. guaranteed safety for every baby born into an abusive home and mother living in one.

 

The gvt can't guarantee safety --not if they allow a person real freedom and individual choice. Do you want the gvt deciding where women can and can't live? I admit, it sounds pretty tempting to turn that over to the gvt, esp when women make STUPID, stupid, STUPID decisions to go BACK to an abusive situation. No, I don't want the gvt intruding like that --too subjective. But they CAN make sure that all HUMANS are afforded the BASIC right to a shot at life. unlike what we have now.

And I'd also need a law requiring every person who preaches about how there shouldn't be abortions because of the waitlists for couples wanting to adopt to be forced to adopt at least three babies born to crack addicted single inner city mothers and provide college educations for at least three more before being allowed to have any children of their own.

 

...topped w/ a rule stating that every person who wants an abortion be made to study human embryology for three weeks and watch dozens of videos of abortions? you mean legislation like THAT? sounds fair to me. personally, I'd prefer an overhaul of the adoption system --there are a LOT of people adopting overseas because of the adoption laws in the US. But since adoption isn't my reason for NOT KILLING HUMANS i guess this wouldn't apply to me, eh?

 

Women do not abort babies for the fun of it. They abort babies because they have darn good reasons not to bring those children into the world at that time. And women who do abort babies for the fun of it (should there be any) are not the kind of women who should be mothers, anyway.

 

well sure!! they do abort mostly for non-medical reasons, per Planned Parenthood's own figures. Financial Convenience is a big one. I mean, slave owners didn't own slaves for the fun of it either- it was Financially Convenient. They had darn good reasons economically, morally, and socially for keeping slaves. And yeah, there were some mean ones, but they were dogs to begin with.

oh, wait.... we didn't buy that excuse then either.

 

It takes a man roughly ten minutes to participate in an act that can wreak havoc in a woman's life for years and years. No matter what, that woman is forced to be held accountable. She can't escape from the predicament the way a man can. Until we develop some way to hold men accountable to the same degree we hold women in the equation of life, there can be no equality between men and women unless there is abortion. It's ugly. But it's true.

 

 

It takes a woman less than half an hour to kill a developing human.

Or she can walk out the door and "wreak havoc" on a man financially and emotionally for the next 18 years.

She can give birth to that child and turn it over for adoption immediately.

She can leave it anonymously at a police station, fire station, or hospital w/o fear of legal recourse.

 

Held accountable?

Now a human's life is dependent on whether we can hold some OTHER human accountable for it?

That's the determination of the worth of a human?

"If your parents don't care about you you don't deserve to live"????

"If there's nobody that wants to adopt you you don't deserve to live."???

Right now, women have the ability to kill a human w/o due process or legal consequence, and you're telling me that women want this ability to KILL all for the sake of some person's definition of EQUALITY with a man???

THAT is the WORST reason for feminism-- or abortion-- I have ever read or heard.

 

The entire point of feminism is that we don't NEED to be comparing ourselves with men all the time!!!!

As feminists, we should be capable of doing what is NOT ugly DESPITE what men --and other women!-- think and do.

 

Human lives are not some pawn in a game.

[tibbyl]

Teen veterans of abstinence only sex ed, comprehensive sex ed, and no sex ed all copulate at about the same rate.

[Mrs Mungo]

I knew a girl who was a product of rape. She was given up for adoption and was (obviously) terribly grateful that her birth mother understood that she too had value while still in her womb. Why does the mother - even the mother in a situation as awful as rape - get to decide the life of her baby is worthless? Who made her judge, jury, and executioner of an innocent life? That is really the issue.

 

But if a woman is given *options* like Plan B which works *exactly the same as combination BCPs* then it is less likely she will get pregnant and have to make that decision. But, people on the extreme side of this debate don't want Plan B, either. The fact that some phamacists *refused to dispense it* to a woman who *had* been raped is the reason some states passed laws making it illegal to refuse to dispense bcps and/or Plan B.

 

Originally Posted by LizzyBee

It's true that I have benefited from the work of feminists. So that means I'm not allowed to disagree with them?

 

I certainly would never say that. On the other hand, I don't agree with some posters saying I should drink the koolaid and be happy there is a person with a uterus on the presidential ticket.

 

I'm not touching the Terri Schiavo issue. That's definitely an issue where emotions run way too high. I have been far too emotionally wrapped up in a very similar situation and was so, so sad. I'll only say that my husband and I both have living wills as a result so that we can be allowed to die when it's our time. My family has been informed of my decision. I can't say the same of my husband's mom. I'm sure she'd paint me as a murdering whore of Babylon if I tried to carry out my husband's wishes.

 

LG-I would consider it a kindness and a personal favor if you would refrain from quoting Peekaboo.

[SnowWhite]

How is that a slippery slope....do you really think that there is a possibility that we will start killing off these people? :001_huh: What an absurd notion...

 

ETA....I'm not calling YOU absurd....simply the notion that we would be offing those that are not fully cognizant....

 

I don't think this notion is absurd at all- you can check the Netherlands and other countries which allow euthanasia if you wonder where this slippery slope leads.

 

I have worked in the special education field, and I remember clearly the family who had 5 children with severe special needs... each more needy than the last. "Fully cognizant" is definitely not a good way to determine whether someone deserves to live.

 

I better leave this thread, it makes me cry.

 

Terri Schiavo was denied sustenance.

They removed a feeding tube.

She was starved to death. That's not "allowed to die."

I agree that starving people because they are not cognizant based on our limited technological ability to determine that cognizance is an absurd notion.

<<snip>>

 

I'd rather not have a human's VALUE determined by a subjective definition, but by an empirical scientific one.

 

Terri S.'s death was not assisted suicide. It was a "mercy killing", which I oppose vehemently. Once we allow mercy killings, there are many many unsafe people alive. Very expensive people in terms of medical care, not necessarily "cognizant" people, but people nonetheless.

 

Again, I better leave this thread. It makes me cry.

[Erica in PA]

So it's your position that the right to kill a fetus is necessary, so that women don't have to bear more consequences than men do for an act they both participate in. Because it's unfair to women otherwise. So to make it completely fair, she needs to be able to kill that young life.

 

I'm not sure this logic holds up in any other area of life. There are many aspects of life that are not innately "fair," with equal consequences for everyone, in every situation-- and I can't think of any other where that unfairness allows for harming an innocent third party to even things out. :confused:

 

As a woman, I would *never* find it moral to force someone else to pay the price, just because the man in my life did not face the same circumstances as me.

 

Erica

[Elaine]

Right to vote - before Steinem was born

Right to a college education - my aunt received one when Steinem was 6 years old

Right to own land - I don't know when this happened in the US, but I don't recall Steinem fighting for this

Right to control our ability to reproduce - I don't consider this a right in the way you mean it

Right to equal wages - every job my dh has ever worked paid women equally to men or they would risk serious lawsuits.

 

I have read many books and articles by feminists and I honestly don't feel that they have done a whole lot for the betterment of women's situations. I guess I am ignorant, but I am not sure what Steinem has lost to attain freedoms for me.

 

It's too soon for me to rep you again so I will just give you a big :hurray:

[Jenn in Mo]

BUT....your daughter(s) and mine have the benefit of having loving mothers that will be able to teach them our values and be there for them to love and support them unconditionally.....girls that are fortunate enough to have such supportive parents are not very likely to have the need to attain an abortion without parental consent.

 

I wish it were so, but this is idealistic, imo. Girls that grow up in loving, supportive homes still have sex and still have abortions without consent. They don't want to disappoint their adoring parents. The law isn't written to say you can only have this abortion in secret if your parents don't love you.

 

 

Another example, albeit completely different (yet still pertinent)... would be the decision to homeschool... most homeschoolers desire the government to stay out of our business in regards to how we choose to educate our children.....yet HS opponents often argue that without gov't involvement too many children can/do slip through the cracks and don't receive a proper education. Yes, they are correct....and that DOES happen....statistically, I don't know how often it happens...but I do know, from seeing it personally, that it DOES happen. BUT, should we all have to be required to jump through a ton of hoops just for the right to HS? Or should it be addressed on an as needed basis? People would be so much better off to just take care of their own business and to deal with ACTUAL problems as they come along....not create laws that inconvenience/punish everyone just to appease their own way of thinking.

 

Exactly! An extreme few need intervention. The majority who are trying their best to raise happy, healthy children should not be made to suffer for those few extreme cases. We are in complete agreement here. This is also my argument for parental consent.

 

 

I hope that all made sense....I am in a rush...I have to go run errands...LOL So, *I* won't be on until later tonight either!:D

 

I spilled hot tea on my mouse last night! lol. I sat down to get comfy and settle in and then WHOOSH! my mouse was dead. Dry now.