Simple question: Do we, as DUers and liberals, believe in a woman's right to do

[Redstone]

whatever she wants to do with her body, or not?

Do we believe that it's her right to have an abortion, or to have a lot of kids, if that's what she chooses to do with her body?

No hemming and hawing, here, folks. No "yeah, but..."

Yes or no?

Simple question. Give me a simple answer, please.

Redstone

[Beaverhausen]

1. Its not a simple question

but I'm glad you are able to see it as one. Must be nice.

[Redstone]

3. It IS a simple question. Who controls a woman's body? Her or someone else?

Damn simple, as a matter of fact.

Redstone

[Fridays Child]

60. It is a simple question and the answer is an unqualified...

...yes. Women have the absolute right to make every single decision about their own bodies, including whether to be pregnant and what to do about it, if we are.

I will settle for nothing less.

[Phx_Dem]

254. do women have the right to take illegal drugs?

how about the right to end their life?

In reality NONE of us have absolute control of our bodies.

[Fridays Child]

297. The government prohibits everybody from doing those things.

Whether or not I think those prohibitions are fair, they are distinct from female reproductive issues, which is what this thread is about.

[Warren DeMontague]

299. Actually, I think you can make an across the board, consistent philosophical point

that the government should get the fuck out of everyone's private business- be that what reproductive choices they make, what chemicals they choose to ingest, what end-of-life decisions they make, etc. etc.

[Fridays Child]

300. Yes, you could but women as a sexual/reproductive resource...

...also stands alone as a distinct issue.

[Phx_Dem]

304. The point is that there are community interests to consider

which applies to womens reproductive rights as well.

[Fridays Child]

319. Wrong. My uterus is my business--not yours or any community's.

[Warren DeMontague]

298. And that's wrong, too.

Insofar as a consenting adult isn't endangering anyone else, what he or she does with his or her body should NOT be the government's business. The idea that "we" belong to the state is a direct outgrowth of the idea that "we" belong to the Church- it's a crock of shit, and if one thinks about it long enough, one realizes how fundamentally fucked up it is. And if you take it to its logical conclusion, you get prohibition (didn't work) "wars" on consenting adult porn or prostitution (don't work) the "war" on drugs (doesn't work, but costs us $40 Billion a year -primarily fighting pot- and keeps us busy as the #1 per capita incarcerator of non-violent offenders in the industrialized world) and the way things are going, soon a police presence in 100 million American womens' uterii and (if the GOP gets their way) criminalization of the birth control pill and other contraceptive options that "might" harm a post-conception fertilized egg.

That sort of thinking is nanny AND daddy state bullshit, and this planet is fucking LOUSY with it.

People should have a right to make their OWN DAMN choices. Period.

[Warren Stupidity]

312. Yes and yes.

The government's abbrogation of our rights of personal autonomy does not mean we do not have those rights, it means we have a tyrannical government.

[LostinVA]

226. Agreed -- it IS a simple question

[tbyg52]

253. If it is in your body, it is *you*

That doesn't mean I approve of all abortions, or that I would have one myself. It means exactly what it says in the subject. Anything else is a slippery slope. It's the woman's decision. Period.

[LostinVA]

272. Exactly -- I agree with your post completely

[tbyg52]

287. Thanks--pass the word! nt

[flpoljunkie]

229. From Planned Parenthood. Roe does not protect the right to abortion in the 3rd trimester.

What about Partial Birth Abortion?

From a medical perspective, there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion." "Partial birth" is a misleading, inaccurate, and intentionally inflammatory term chosen by anti-choice extremists. It suggests narrowly focused legislation that prohibits a single late-term abortion procedure, but the measure's wording adds up to a sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used to preserve the woman's health and life after the first trimester, but well before fetal viability.

It is important to note that Roe does not protect the right to an abortion in the third trimester; more than forty states have already banned abortion after 24 weeks. The only instances in which late-term abortions are performed, then, are out of necessity, and in immediate protection of the health and life of the woman. This ban, however, fails to provide a health exception, an omission already deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in similar state enacted bans.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/centralnc/community-outreach.htm

[Warren DeMontague]

283. Seems pretty friggin simple and straightforward, to me.

Either PEOPLE -and I would include both genders in that- should have the right to make their own damn decisions about their bodies and lives, or they shouldn't.

It's VERY simple.

[dogday]

305. Must be nice to not even answer the

question, and yet somehow get your dig in on the OP... I will say an affirmative YES, a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body....

[Crandor]

2. Should she have the right to have the public subsidize her brood through tax deductions? nt

[Redstone]

4. Utter ballocks. Tax deductions do NOT approach the cost of raising a kid. Nice strawman, though.

Redstone

[Crandor]

33. It's still a subsidy

and given the looming problem of overpopulation that is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Care to explain how we can have a forever expanding population in a world with limited energy? I've never, ever had the pro-birth crowd give me a satisfactory answer on this.

[dorktv]

39. we have sun and we have wind. Energy is not a problem.

Water is.

[Crandor]

47. Solar and wind are still finite.

We cannot forever have expanding population with limited energy, unless you think you can create energy out of nothing. Do that and you could probably win both both the physics and the peace Nobel Prize. But more likely, you're just another person who can't face up to physical reality.

[dorktv]

65. The sun is going to last for at least another 5 billion years.

The sun generates wind. Exactly how is that limited?

Water on the other hand...clean drinkable water, THAT is limited.

[Crandor]

72. The output for a given amount of time is limited.

Suppose someone agrees to give you $1 every day forever - that may be unlimited, but you aren't going to be buying many yachts.

[dorktv]

suppose I could use that dollar to buy all I needed in one year. Then it would be just fine

Energy use also has to be efficient and by making our products as efficient as possible we can use what we get from the Sun.

After all, humans managed to do just that for thousands of years.

[Crandor]

91. Efficiency can only go so far

just food itself means an absolute minimum of 2000 Calories per day per person. This puts an upper limit on population, but of course life would become quite hellish before we would get anywhere near it.

[dorktv]

99. Well luckily we are not going to be near that for a very long time.

I believe that one of my math classes in school had us at an insane number of people-like 300 billion before we had issues like that. :)

Now I know you just want someone to agree with you and go "yes of course we are totally screwed! No one should have more then 1 kid! Or any!" But really, we are not. Besides, there is no reason we cannot also colonize places with no actual people (like say Mars) and get rid of the excess population that way.

And if we have pressure on resources, that means we probably are going to reduce the waste that much faster. Necessity is the mother of invention.

[Crandor]

108. Like I said - standard of living will start dropping far before then.

And with oil running out, energy production is at about the highest level it's going to get. Reducing energy waste will soften the blow but not if population continues to increase.

[RetroLounge]

138. Apparently you've never heard of compound interest...

:eyes:

RL

[Matariki]

104. solar and wind might be finite - but...

the materials needed to harness that energy is NOT infinite. Nor is the space on the planet for wind farms and solar cells. And water - that too.

[dorktv]

115. Dinosaur pee is the big issue (one of my teachers once told the class

that is what water is.)

The chances we are going to have water shortages is way higher.

[Lost-in-FL]

42. At the rate we are killing people...

we shouldn't be so concerned with "overpopulation".

[Crandor]

51. What a joke

even World War II only killed around 60 million total. 2% of total population at the time - barely a dent.

[Lost-in-FL]

71. There's plenty of space for everyone in this world

But the fact that we are using the most resources and energy from all nation shouldn't be the reason why women in the US should be told what to do with their bodies.

[Crandor]

73. There won't be if population continues to increase.

Come on, answer the question. How can we have a constantly increasing population, in a world of finite resources?

[Lost-in-FL]

81. Are you putting the blame solely

on women for overpopulation?

[Crandor]

87. Of course not - men are to blame too.

Takes two to tango after all. Didn't mean to sound like it was all women's fault, that's just the way the OP phrased the question.

[Lost-in-FL]

94. I have the feeling

that the "end" of mankind won't be because of "overpopulation" or "lack of resources" but because of a very powerful suicidal asshole or a Bush on steroids with access to Nuclear Weapons.

[dorktv]

103. I agree with that view.

people killing other people is much more likely to destroy the human race then our using up natural resources.

[eridani]

203. What do you think they will be fighting about?

Access to resources, obviously.

[dorktv]

279. Religion, beliefs, whatever.

[eridani]

295. I think those things add fuel to the fire--

--the fire itself is competition over resources, though.

[dorktv]

317. there is no limit to God, but there is a limit to being able to worship

as one wishes though.

[Crandor]

110. The existence of one threat doesn't mean we should ignore all others. nt

[Lost-in-FL]

114. So many threats, so little time...

:sarcasm:

[Moochy]

157. So much to be concerned about

Concern is breaking out all over! :sarcasm:

[treestar]

162. It is true that technology allows the earth to support more and

more - with 15th century agriculture today's population never would make it, but today, it can.

But I see your point, even technology will eventually run out of ways of making the room we have more room.

Maybe we're all going to lose so much weight the people of the future will be smaller.

But it seems increasing wealth, ironically, cuts down the birth rate rather than raises it, so that we might be doing a good thing to help third world countries become more prosperous.

[Hippo_Tron]

207. Simple, colonize other planets

If the world has finite resources they will run out whether our population is increasing or decreasing. As long as there are people, the world's resources will run out. Oil aside, we still have a lot of resources left and it will be a long time before we have to start colonizing other planets. By then space travel will have advanced.

[Redstone]

46. "The pro-birth crowd?" That phrase tells me that discussing anything with you

is pointless.

Redstone

[Crandor]

61. Giving up so soon? nt

[Redstone]

67. Yes, indeed. I don't argue with people who use dogmatic phrases like that.

Not worth my time.

Redstone

[LittleClarkie]

97. As opposed to what? Pro-hatchling? Pro-cloning?

Spontaneous generation?

[nashville_brook]

149. you also subsidize war, roads, deforestation, torture, prisons

nice that you pick women having children to direct your anger at, tho.

[uppityperson]

198. "pro-birth crowd"? What is "the pro-birth crowd"?

[treestar]

161. The personal deduction does not cover the cost of

maintaining yourself. It really should. A person should be seen as akin to a business, pay the government on the excess over what it takes to maintain yourself. I guess that is the idea behind the exemptions but they are just too low.

So it's really a different issue.

[Moochy]

10. Sexist is as Sexist does

[wicket]

222. You got that right Moochy

:grr:

[LostinVA]

13. WTF???

What board am I on?

[Crandor]

20. Certainly not "Quiverfull Underground". nt

[Megahurtz]

133. LOL Perfect!

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

225. What does that have to do with a womand and reproductive rights?

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

152. Is the child with 12 siblings less deserving than the child with only 1?

Is the child responsible for the fact that their parents decided to have a number of children above whatever limit you personally feel is appropriate?

[Az]

175. Interesting statistic

18 years after the passage of Roe V Wade the crime rate dropped. Substantially. If money is your concern then subsidizing abortions is a serious savings for our society. Not the reason I would advise for getting an abortion but if you need to see the numbers thats how it works out.

[me b zola]

180. I hate it when threads are hijacked

...especially @ the beginning of a thread :thumbsdown:

[Moochy]

325. Thats why we need better intelligence

to stop the new and emerging threads of these hijackers! ;-)

[Quantess]

205. Your question is not a strawman.

It's a slippery slope.

[citizen snips]

276. good question

that is all I am going to add

[Book Lover]

5. I do

I can't speak for anyone else. Therein lies the trouble with "we."

[Redstone]

6. Just trying to take the temperature of the general DU population here.

Redstone

[Matariki]

105. Ha! More like *raise* the temperature

:evilgrin:

[badgerpup]

258. Yes. It's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body...UNLESS

And this is a very big and very valid unless...

She is not competent to make that decision for herself.

I will cite a personal example...a woman born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome of my acquaintance. Not a mean bone in her body, but the roundest heels in town (one of the affects of FES).
Two kids, different fathers, both in foster care because of neglect and endangerment.
She does love her kids, she just isn't mentally equipped to care for and raise them.
She finally ended up having her tubes tied. Not her idea.

Let me state for the record I take this stance with men too...if they are not competent to deal with the results of their actions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Yes

the only exception being a woman who is mentally incapable of making that decision. I know of a young girl who is mentally and physically challenged who was raped. She is mute and cannot walk or move well on her own. The only reason they know it is that she got pregnant. Her mother (who is Catholic, btw) had the fetus aborted. I hope she sued the girl's caregivers for allowing this to happen.

[jgraz]

8. because this issue BEGS for a simple answer

Thanks, I'll pass

[Redstone]

17. Be my guest.

Redstone

[gollygee]

9. Yes

The problem with taking away tax deduction is that it punishes the poor at the expense of the rich. Which is not what I thought liberals were about. How is that stance different than saying that we shouldn't pay welfare for people who aren't trying hard enough to find work?

[Crandor]

It wouldn't punish the poor - If they are living within their means, it would reward them. nt

[Redstone]

21. "Oh, if only THEY would be more RESPONSIBLE..." Listen to Rush much, do you?

Redstone

[gollygee]

36. And taking away food stamps wouldn't punish the poor -

if they are living within their means that is. :eyes:

[Crandor]

54. Straw man

Taking away food stamps would not actually decrease consumption. It would only increase crime.

[gollygee]

221. How would taking tax examptions away decrease

consumption?

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Do you want America to win in Iraq?

beware people who want to turn complex issues into simple yes/no questions.

[Redstone]

25. Simple question. Nobody's forcing you to participate.

Redstone

[MonkeyFunk]

29. and my point

is that not all complex issues can (rightly) be boiled down to simple yes or no questions.

We see this administration do it all the time.

Any Yes or No answer would very likely be qualified - so it's NOT a simple yes or no question. Posing it that way just tries to shut down discussion.

[Redstone]

35. A simple question. Is a woman in charge of what she does with her body, or not?

Doesn't have anything to do with Iraq or anything else.

Yes or no?

Redstone

[MonkeyFunk]

63. Nice

comprehension skills.

[uppityperson]

12. As you put it, no. I need a "but"

She cannot use her body to hurt other living born people. Otherwise, yes, including abortion.

[Trajan]

23. That would be doing something to someone else's body ...

Obviously not the same thing ...

[davsand]

14. It is mine I'll do what I think is right.

That, however, is not so much what I'd define as a LIBERAL perspective as it is a libertarian one. "T'ain't nobody's business" except mine.

If I want to have a kerjillion kids or have two dozen abortions that is my decision and mine ALONE to make.

_____

How'd I do, Redstone? Was that a straight enough answer?


Laura

[Redstone]

26. You betcha it was.

Redstone

[Alleycat]

15. I completely support a women's right to to do what ever she wants

as long as it is responsible. Women who "choose" to become pregnant over and over and do not choose to be responsible for those children are no better then the women who choose abortion as a birth control method.

[CTyankee]

37. As a former staffer for Planned Parenthood, I can tell you that

some women are repeat aborters because they do not wish to swallow the hormones in birth control pills and do not like to touch their own vaginas to install a diaphragm. That is their personal preference. You and I might think that a suction abortion procedure is a really bad alternative to the two former methods I have mentioned, but that is OUR interpretation.

First trimester abortion is the safest surgical procedure performed in this country. It is 10 times safer than pregnancy and childbirth for women. Yes, it is an expensive form of birth control. But for some women it is preferable. They just don't want those hormones in their systems and they have an aversion to putting their fingers inside their body cavities. I don't know how you can exactly argue with that, when the abortion option is legal and safe for them.

[BoneDaddy]

146. Let me get this straight

You are arguing from a point that women prefer to go under anesthesia, have a form of surgery over putting their fingers in their vaginas, taking birth control, making their partners wear condoms, etc. And that is ok? To promote, advocate and rubber stamp multiple abortions as a form of birth control?

I disagree, I think it is about sexual responsibility. If the mantra I hear over and over and over from people in here about men not being sexually responsible, yet in the same breath you are oking multiple abortions as a regular form of birth control for women?

I would hope that choice also means accountability for your body, love of body, respect for your body and not to use it and abuse it and to take precautions in the future.

Look, I support a women's right to choose, but you make a sleazy car salesman sound clean by promoting that point of view.

[nashville_brook]

153. mmm.... smell the sexism

[BoneDaddy]

210. Ok

explain to me how my concern about a woman who decides to have multiple abortions as her main form of birth control instead of acting sexually responsible is sexism?

[chefgirl]

197. Wait a minute here BoneDaddy

You said:

You are arguing from a point that women prefer to go under anesthesia, have a form of surgery over putting their fingers in their vaginas, taking birth control, making their partners wear condoms, etc. And that is ok?

Might not be OK for you, but who the hell are you to decide that for me or any woman?
I believe that was, after all, the spirit of the original question. Does a woman have the right to do with HER body what SHE chooses?

The answer is YES and, quite frankly, I'm not even sure what makes you, or any male, feel qualified to say otherwise.

To Redstone:
Yes, I, and every other woman, absolutely have that unequivocal right. I will always consider anyone, who disputes this simple truth, a potential oppressor of my personal liberties.

-chef-

[BoneDaddy]

209. You misunderstand

I do support her choice, I just think multiple abortions for the sake of birth control is sexual irresponsibility and people who promote that form of birth control are acting stupidly. Still support the choice though as I support people who although they may be acting stupid, are still allowed self determination.

[uppityperson]

199. couple questions: is "choice" choice?Do you know what 1st trimester abortion entails?

Yes, it is ok for women to make this decision. We try to educate people about their choices, and they get to make the choices. Promoting, advocating and rubber stamping multiple abortions? How about allowing CHOICE. Choice is choice. The chooser gets to choose. And who the hell are you to make the choice for someone else? To tell them their choice is wrong, that they are abusing themselves because it is not a choice YOU would do or be comfortable with?

Have you ever been involved with a first trimester abortion? Do you know what all it entails? "go under anesthesia"?

[BoneDaddy]

211. Yes,

I still support her choice, but also yes, I think having multiple abortions as the main form of birth control is sexual irresponsiblity and damn stupid.

So to clarify ...it is a stupid irresponsible choice that I still support.

That simple enough for you?

[CornField]

214. Well, ya lost me with your first sentence

"prefer to go under anesthesia" ???

There is no anesthesia involved.

Quite frankly, it does not bug me in the least to know there are women who use abortion as their primary form of birth control. Having lived through the other birth control options -- pregnancies with good outcomes -- pregnancies with horrible outcomes -- late abortion -- early abortion... I've truly come to understand that no one should be able to stand up and make a judgement for any other person who is capable of making her own. No one has walked in my shoes and I have walked in no one else's -- I cannot say what is right or that another woman should have to know both the joy and pain that I've known.

Pure ignorance is what leads to these arguments. Get yourself a group of 30-something women, 40-something women or older-something women and put them in a group. As a whole, they might spend 30 minutes on abortion before they move on to more important matters. In short, those women have had enough life experiences to know the argument about abortion isn't worth it. Just as we would prefer to make our own decisions in life, we must leave others to make theirs.

[BoneDaddy]

218. So you are telling me that

abortion does not involve anesthesia?
Ok
http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/preg/abortion.htm

You can use both local and general in the procedure.

Again if you read what I wrote I am not judging women who have had abortions. I support that. I think abortion needs to be the last option and not the first and that other forms of birth control need to be the first option due to the complications that can arrise from the procedure and that to PROMOTE it as a first option for birth control is irresponsible.

[CornField]

219. First trimester is done without

While I'm sure there are exceptions, most first trimester abortions are done without any local or general anesthesia.

I did have general for my late abortion, but it was a choice I made and not something typical.

I guess what I'm trying to explain is that it really isn't your business whether abortion is a first or last option. You cannot on one hand say a woman is within her right to have an abortion but then hold up your other hand and list the conditions under which it is right. Sure, you can offer an opinion about the different avenues of birth control; however, the final decision is the woman's.

Some women cannot take hormone therapy. Others are allergic to latex. Others are allergic to spermicides. For some women the most cost effective form of birth control is abortion.

[BoneDaddy]

220. Did you read what I wrote or just react?

I said I fully support a women's right to choose and have self-determination, but don't sell me crap that abortion as a regular form of birth control is a good healthy smart way to handle birth control. That is bullshit.

I support everyone's right to choose to live their life the way they want, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, nor should I think I have to because you tell me to. I have that choice as well.

[Danascot]

244. Stupid and Irresponsible?

A woman who feels things "down there" are dirty does so because that's what she's been taught in our culture.

There are many women and men who don't care to think about birth control before they go to bed. Responsible? no. Reality? yes.

Even getting pills or a diaphram is not as easy as you might think, especially for lower income women. ... and there are fundies out there right now working to limit access and information to any form of birth control.

Plus, most men are offended if asked to so much as put on a condom.

It's no wonder women find themselves pregnant. I think it is much smarter and more responsible for a woman to come in and have an abortion than to go to term and bring another unwanted child into the world. There are many who can't or won't make that choice.

[BoneDaddy]

250. You can't have it both ways

Inherent in the word "choice" is the implication of responsibility and accountability. When you choose something your are responsible for your choice.

I have NEVER said that I am against abortion, but to reiterate for the thousandth time (seems people see what they want to see) to USE abortion as a regular for of birth control, is STUPID and sexually irresponsible due to the myriad of physical problems that can result. Abortion does not protect you from sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS and therefore is sexually irresponsible. But god forbid you say anything that might be misconstrued as holding women accountable in this area. It is not, as I advocate sexual responsiblity with men as well.

[BoneDaddy]

302. Puh lease

no responsibility taken. See this is the game. Women are not responsible until they get power, and then they are not responsible because of men....how convenient.

[Name removed]

303. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTyankee]

259. Uh, I didn't promote anything. I was just telling you what we learned

from women who were repeat aborters in our PP clinics. I never said I agreed with that point of view. I don't. It just is something that exists. You may not like it, but there it is.

[BoneDaddy]

301. I understand

I do, but at some point someone has to say that this is not a viable form of birth control....no protecttion from STD's, Aids, repeated harm to the body etc. I certainly have compassion for the women who are so bereft that they cannot function. I do not have the same compassion for those pushing an agenda.

[CTyankee]

313. PP health workers always promote contraception and safe

sex practice, particularly with abortion patients. And they do it without blame or guilt. As a matter of fact, they are probably the most compassionate health professionals you would ever want to encounter. But with a certain small minority of women who are repeat aborters no amount of persuasion works. My guess is that they have had a heavy dose of guilt loaded on them as young people and are in a kind of denial about what they are doing. It makes sense to protect yourself from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, in my opinion.

One thing I have always stressed in my arguments with antichoicers is the element of choice itself. My argument is that women are moral agents and can therefore make moral choices in their lives. Unless the antichoicer really and truly believes that a first trimester abortion is the equivalent of first degree murder, my argument usually has some relevance to them.

[BoneDaddy]

322. If you are referring to me as anti choice

you havent read a single one of my posts. I can't stand people who talk out their ass if they haven't read anything anyone has posted. Like most of the people who gut responded to my posts.

[Moochy]

314. "for those pushing an agenda."

A DU'er shares their experience working at a clinic, providing a legal service, and you interpret that as "pushing an agenda" It seems like from your postings that this is a bit of projection on your part.

"I certainly have compassion for the women..."

I doubt many care where your paternalistic compassion is directed.

[BoneDaddy]

321. Your opnion

is missing the facts unfortunately. A DUer reported how she supports and justify's multiple abortions as a regular form of birth control. It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with common sense and pragmatism. Abortion has birth control needs to be the last choice, not the primary, for the reasons I mentioned. Try really reading next time. It helps.

[Moochy]

324. I did read, now you read

"Abortion has(as) birth control needs to be the last choice... for the reasons I mentioned"

So you assume we all accept your reasons? that it must be the last choice? We all accept at face value your version of common sense and pragmatism?

A Question,asked in all seriousness: Do you propose that there should be changes to the laws to somehow distinguish between these abortions of convenience and the ones of necessity?

Should there be a three strikes law that would relegate the repeat customer of a planned parenthood clinic to the back alleys because of her disastrously bad family planning skills? Or because of her disregard for the "common sense" of birth control and modern prophylactics. Should she lose the rights to control what goes on in her uterus because she is up for her fourth abortion in 2 years?

Because if your overriding concern is for the health of the woman, then the answer to all of my queries must be no. First trimester abortions must be safe and legal, regardless of the prior life choices made the woman. Otherwise it's illegal. I don't believe you disagree with that.

I saw nobody on this thread "promoting" abortion as an alternative. Pointing out that it in-fact occurs at clinics is not the same as promoting it. Ethically a surgeon can not compel a woman to take birth control, and thus the alternative is to not turn her away.

Surely Planned Parenhood staff counsel the women to use birth control, as you have pointed out birth control is a vastly safer alternative to all forms of medical abortion.

[BoneDaddy]

334. Agreed

But if you followed the post I originally responded to, the OP was talking about abortion as the PRIMARY source of birth control for women who did not like touching their vaginas or taking hormones.

I believe in a full and conscious choice and I would support whatever decision a woman would make.

Let me point out, ad nauseum, NO WHERE EVER DID I EVER suggest "three strikes", restricting a woman's choice or having some sort of artificial means of restricting their choices. That all came out of your fantastical reactionary mind. If you can find ANYWHERE where I suggested that, please point it out... Do your homework.

What I was suggesting is that education needs to be primary and that for women who decided to have multiple abortions, they have my support, but I think they are still acting very irresponsibly if they decide to go that route, not only for their health from the surgery but also due to the fact that it is not protection from STD's, AIDS and such and that any health practitioner that thinks that is an appropriate way to "educate" women are doing them a severe disservice.

What bothers me most about people like you is that you jump to conclusions, are so ready to make a point that wasn't even suggested. People make poor decisions everyday. My point is that women who opt for multiple abortions as their primary source of birth control HAVE that CHOICE, but that CHOICE is a poor one.

But God forbid you point that out otherwise you are demonized.

[Moochy]

335. Demonzed ?? rofl...

Wow someone put coal in your xmas stocking.

"People like you". "fantastical reactionary mind"

You have been demonized? Poor little you. Let me break out my fucking tiny violin. :cry:

And for the record I was hypothetically proposing the 3 strikes question. Apologies for using the "you" pronoun in my question. It was just a "fantastical reaction" a law-based remedy to a problem on which you were focusing.

[BoneDaddy]

340. Good

at least you are taking some responsibility...Good to see.

[Raksha]

330. I don't think she was saying this mindset is "okay."

Just that it's the reality for some women, and one that Planned Parenthood has to deal with. Personally, I can't understand a woman having such an aversion to inserting a diaphragm and yet be willing to undergo repeat abortions, but obviously I'm a different person and don't think that way. I used a diaphragm for years and have never had an abortion--never wanted or needed one.

[BlackVelvet04]

131. And YOU get to decide what is responsible?

So, it's conditional support based on your opinion as to what is and isn't responsible.

[CTyankee]

16. Of course the answer is yes.

Funny, isn't it, that we don't ask this question of men?

[Redstone]

30. Helluva good point, there. Even though not germane to the original post. I'd be happy if you

brought it up in another thread, though; it's absolutely something worth discussion.

Redstone

[CTyankee]

56. You know, Redstone, this is a great thread question.

It gets everything down to basics. People have to question their rock bottom beliefs in the status of women and the status of men.

Thanks for doing this.



P.S. Still looking for those damned replacement windows. Will this never end? AARGH.

[Redstone]

64. Did you get a quote from Castle? Were they competitive? That window business

is a helluva dogfight; I've NEVER seen a business where the salespeople are so willing to motherfuck their competitors up and down as with replacement windows.

Redstone

[CTyankee]

83. No, but I guess I 'd better. Oh god, this is absolute torture.

My husband is almost ready to strangle the next salesman who comes into the house. He'd had it after the first two and here we are on number 4. I think I'm nearly at the end of my rope.

One company wants our business so bad they have cut their prices in half. I'm confused.

[Redstone]

85. You think that's bad? Try getting quotes on siding. One siding sales guy (from Sears)

insulted us so much, by intimating over and over that because we have a big house, "you're in the income bracket where you want only the best, no matter the price, because you don't want people to think you'll settle for less than the best" that we told him to leave.

Redstone

[CTyankee]

100. well, no house in Greenwich has siding I can tell you.

I used to raise money there for Planned Parenthood. Those people had more money than God and not one of them had siding on their houses. How funny about that salesman! I would have made mincemeat of him. I'm glad you dismissed him.

It's funny when you think about it. But going through all this is kind of a grind. But really isn't it better than not having the choice of windows at all? And I'm thinking about people who are just glad to have a roof over their heads...

[Redstone]

106. Now THERE's some perspective. I like that.

Redstone

[rebel with a cause]

95. Shoot! You stepped on my answer.

I was getting ready to post that I believed a woman had the same rights to be over her body as a man had to be over his.

If birth control is the issue, A condom or a vasectomy are much easier methods than any used by a woman.

[CTyankee]

118. I have always contended that the equivalent of a woman's right to choose

is the rejection of the state being able to conscript only men into military service? What do you think?

[rebel with a cause]

201. If you are asking me if I think

giving a woman the advantage of birth control is equal to the end of the government being allowed to draft only men into the military, Then I would answer you this way.

First of all, I do not believe in the military draft. It has never been done fairly, with those from the elite or even friends on the draft boards, able to escape their number ever being called. Look at the men at the top of our government right now, none of them was forced to go to war, even though there was a draft then. If they objected to war, that would have been one thing, but it is clear that they have no problem with it as long as they are not the ones fighting and dying in it.

Second point, if there came a time when we were not the ones trying to dominate the world, and there was another Hitler out there causing genocide to millions and if during this time people did not volunteer for the military and it became necessary for a draft to be implemented: I would agree that men and women should both be drafted. I thought that when I was young and there was a draft. I would also expect women to have equal opportunities for promotion and leadership roles. I don't know if women with small children should ever be drafted, but then I don't know if men with families depending on them should be either. :shrug:

[Trajan]

18. Dont all humans have a de facto autonomy by nature ?

A woman has the ability, like a man, to do as she wills ...

It is only someone else who can attempt to STOP her, or him, from exercizing that will ...

You ask about a 'right' ... Rights are human constructs, and are therefore abstract and artificial ...

I believe that society should NOT create laws that restrict the ability of a human being to do as they wish with their own bodies .... woman or man ....

Anyone can do what they want to do, it is only a question of someone else interfering with the execution of that human ability ...

[rknryd]

19. YES!

[LeftyMom]

22. Of course we do.

That doesn't mean we can't say that we think some decisions are of questionable wisdom.

[Redstone]

34. Of course you can question people's wisdom. But I've seen an awful lot of condemnation

and selfishness here tonight.

You, of all people, should know EXACTLY what I meant by the original post. You know me. You know that I value other people's opinions. But you know as well, that when criticism or opinions turn into condemnation, that's something else.

Redstone

[Beaverhausen]

48. .

:rofl:

You value other people's opinions?

:rofl:

[Redstone]

59. If you've read more than one or two of my posts, you'd know that.

Redstone

[Beaverhausen]

66. You are arguing and ridiculing everyone here with a different opinion than yours

you don't value anything but your own opinion. Which is fine.

But don't pretend that you are being open-minded or understanding to others' views on the subject of huge families.

[Redstone]

69. I'm asking for a yes or a no. Only arguing with people who won't provide a yes or a no, or

those with an axe to grind, such as yourself.

Redstone

[Beaverhausen]

78. for some people the answer isn't a yes or no

but you ridicule them if they want to qualify it.

You also didn't bother to post the premise of your original question, so some of the people responding don't realize the issue here is large families and comes from that other thread. Pretty disingenuous if you ask me.

I bet most posters responding to you think you are talking about abortion.

That is why there isn't a simple answer to your OP.

[Redstone]

82. And almost EVERY reply in the negative is because of selfishness. Read it for yourself.

"Why whould I have to subsidize a tax deduction for people with kids?"

I'm not big on selfishness, and if that bothers you, so be it.

Redstone

[Beaverhausen]

84. there is more to it -it is a complex issue

but you refuse to listen to anyone who has a well-reasoned response. You just call them 'selfish'

and you are doing it in both threads.

[Redstone]

86. Oh, well. Life gets to be like that sometimes, doesn't it?

Redstone

[Crandor]

102. I said *the public*, not *me*. How is that selfish? nt

[mondo joe]

116. Isn't it selfish to expect others to subsidize your choices?

I'm 100% pro choice.

But I think with the right goes the responsibility.

[hfojvt]

196. so not wanting to give my money to support other people's kids

is selfishness, but their decision to have kids they cannot support because they 'can do whatever they want with their own body' is NOT selfishness?

Anybody who answers 'yes' to your question, must then support

the right of all women to commit suicide
the right of all women to do cocaine, heroin, meth, LSD, alcohol, oxycontin, etc. even when pregnant
the right of all women to drive without wearing seatbelts (unless you want to say that driving can be regulated, but reproduction, in spite of its far larger and long-term impact, cannot be.)

[pecwae]

57. Condemnation & selfishness

of late is the very reason I have stayed away from GD. It has gotten extremely ugly at too many times for no reason. Some get their jollies that way I suppose, but lots of good people get hurt in the process. Good luck with your thread, Redstone.

[LeftyMom]

58. I realize that.

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. Both extremes are wrong. Mom has a right to have as many or as few kids as she wants, provided she has a reasonable expectation birthing healthy kids and supporting them to adulthood. She also has every right to have none at all if she wishes.

However, others will be effected by either decision and have the right to say something about it if they feel they must.

My personal opinion is that having that many kids is financially and environmentally irresponsible, not to mention just plain unfair to kids who deserve more parental attention than they'll ever get in such a large mob of children. If asked, I'd tell her so. Since I wasn't asked, I'll say so in this discussion and of course I'll refrain from squirting out 8 kids myself. I still support her right to have 8 kids, or 18 for that matter. Even if I think doing so is blindingly stupid.

[Redstone]

76. Now THAT's the spirit! I like what you said.

Redstone

[Suich]

24. Yes!

Absolutely, definitely, certainly, without question!

:hi:

[pecwae]

27. Yes, she does.

Can't speak for anyone but myself and my daughter who believes the same.

[rodeodance]

31. as do men.

[pecwae]

38. No question about that either. nt

[Lost-in-FL]

28. Yes

[SharonRB]

32. Yes

[Lost-in-FL]

40. Lets just go back to the smoking threads

:silly:

[BlueJazz]

41. Yes... I think I've always felt that way.

[Bjornsdotter]

43. Yes n/t

[The Straight Story]

44. Yes indeedy :)

Now me, I have 5 kids via three different women. So I guess I went over my quota to some...can you just feel the evil oozing out of me??

[Redstone]

50. Bad boy. Bad, BAD boy! You're responsible for famines and plagues and

Global Warming, you know that, don't you?

Go to your room, right this minute! And then give us back all of our Tax Subsidies when you come out.

Redstone

[The Straight Story]

68. RW wants to stop abortion, LW caps on kids

One worries god will punish humans for abortions, the other that mother earth will punish us if we have too many.

Everything seems based on fear these days. Worry, fear, depression.

The end is near the RW fundies say, the end is near says the LW. Repent! There is but one way.

[Redstone]

74. I always get a laugh when I hear someone say "I don't want to bring a child into this awful world

that we have today."

I can't help it; I always ask them, "So what WOULD be a better time to bring kids into the world? 1620? 1830?"

Jesus. Good post; thank you.

Redstone

[Crandor]

77. The difference, of course, being that one is based on fact. nt

[The Straight Story]

88. Scientists are like preachers at times, you get difference answers

depending on which belief one is promoting...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. she can do with her body what she wants...and no one should be able to legislate on it

but that doesnt mean that its not irresponsible to have multiple children who drain the earth resources ...

i think theres a fine line between judging that something is environmentally unsafe and another between legislating ...

[CTyankee]

92. But there are women in 3rd world countries for whom a large family

is a safety net for their own survival, and sometimes it is a son or sons who will be able to provide for this woman when she is old and unable to provide for herself. We can't always judge by our own lives and our own standards.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

98. kids in the third world dont consume as many resources as kids in the first world

also womens rights in the third world is highly undeveloped

and its hardly like these women are making conscious decisions to have many children..contraceptives are not available or popular ...women are valued at how many male children they produce etc

lack of education is often the reason why women have large families

on edit: i am from india so i am very aware of why women in third world countries have large families

[CTyankee]

107. Yes, so true. I always say that where they CAN, women have fewer

children. They know the personal affect on their bodies and on their ability to care for the children they already have. I don't think women necessarily want to have MORE children, but that they feel they need the have enough to support them later in their lives. Also they want some of their children to survive childhood.

[eridani]

204. Not in Kerala they don't

$300 per year per capita income, first world birth and literacy rates. The keys are communist land reform and traditional higher status for women.

[Redneck Socialist]

49. Not a simple question

A woman having an abortion doesn't affect me. A couple having a huge family does.

[Redstone]

53. So by that logic, if you rent an apartment, the mortgage tax deduction is unfair to you?

Redstone

[Redneck Socialist]

112. That depends, is home ownership something...

that we should encourage and reward? Honestly I don't know, I haven't given it much thought.

Tax breaks for kids can be seen as rewarding large families even though those families use more resources and government services than small families.

I think we're into apples and oranges land here. The environmental effects of housing can be addressed through zoning and such. The environmental effects of overpopulation can be addressed by well, having fewer kids.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. not just you...the world at large is affected...also lets be honest here

very few highly educated, financially independent women choose to have large families

a lot of this has to do with not having enough education etc.

[caseycoon]

52. YES! n/t

[mondo joe]

62. Simple answer: YES. Beyond that, support or subsidies are not a given

and may not match the number of children anyone wants to have.

[Pithlet]

147. So, is the child with 12 siblings less deserving of food and clothing

than the child with only one?

[mondo joe]

159. No, which is precisely why you should bear the children you can afford to support

and not more than that.

[Pithlet]

163. Unless you support capping tax benefits after a certain amount of children

What difference does it make? If you do support such a cap, then you support punishing children for the mistakes their parents made. If you don't support such a thing, then what difference does it make to you how many children anyone else decides to have?

[mondo joe]

164. I think it's reasonable to cap benefits after a certain number of children.

That does not punish the children. It leaves the parents responsible for their choices.

Tax benefits have been, and arguably should be, used to encourage or discourage matters of societal benefit.

[Pithlet]

165. It absolutely does punish the children.

Why does child number 3 not get a tax subsidy, when child number 2 did? That's money that would have been there that no longer is, money that is meant to benefit that child. If you take away benefits after additional children, that means there is less money per child. This is math, and not even terribly difficult math. You can tell yourself all you want that this is about the responsibility of the parent, but what it's really doing is screwing over children to save a nickel.

[mondo joe]

166. Different parents have different incomes.

Limiting tax subsidies does not punish a child any more than paying people different wages punishes their children.

Yes, there is less money per child - that's the choice parents can make, just as they make choices about child care, going back to work, etc.

If the child is being screwed you'll need to take it up with the parent who decided to have another child.

[Pithlet]

167. So, yes, Punish the children for choices the parent made.

You denied it initially, but that is exactly what you're saying. The 3rd, 4th, 5th children do not deserve the breaks the first two are getting because of choices the parents made, and the first two deserve to miss out as well, now. Your parents decided to have you, kid, after they'd already had two others. Tough break for you and your siblings, kid. I want to save a few bucks.

Your premise is that it is for society to "encourage more children". Let's put aside for the moment the ridiculous notion that people decide to have more children for the relative pittance that you get in tax breaks for having a child. If you're really and truly concerned about the good of society, then you cannot honestly oppose tax subsidies for these children. Because the deficiencies that lack of money will cause for those children - less health care, less education, less supervision etc - will rebound a hundred fold back on society as they grow up. Your "solution" is not only based on a silly premise, it is the definition of penny wise and pound foolish. Of course this is punishing the children. You're just rationalizing that punishment because it's based on the choices the parent made. You are choosing to provide less for the children. It has nothing to do with the parents, and everything to do with YOUR choice to support a plan that provides less for the children. No amount of rationalization or outright denial is going to change that.

[mondo joe]

The children, first of all, don't get breaks - the parents do.

And if the parents CHOOSE to have 12 children on whatever their income is, that is THEIR choice.

I am 100% pro choice. Unlike you, I believe rights are commensurate with responsibilities.

[Pithlet]

169. Well, why on earth do you think the parents are getting that subsidy?

For the children! It's not a friggin prize. It's money to benefit the children. Therefore, it punishes the children when it is no longer there.

There is x amount of dollars available to help raise the children. You want to take away y amount of dollars from x. Therefore, there is x - y amount of dollars left to raise the same number of children. x is more than x - y. Since the number of children has not gone down, each child will have less resources available to help them. You have done nothing to the parents. Not a single, solitary thing. All you have done is make it harder for the children, more expensive for society at large, and again, nothing to the parents . This is math. You cannot change that.

ETA it's particularly egregious considering the people who will suffer the most from such a proposal are poor kids. Rich people who have more kids than you personally deem fit won't suffer. Isn't that swell?

[mondo joe]

170. I don't see why the state should subsidize anything that has a negative

impact, which it can be argued excessive numbers of children do.

If the parents had NO CHOICE about the number of children they have, you might have an argument. But who is opting to bring them into the world? THAT is the party deciding to raise children with fewer resources.

For that matter, you could eliminate the subsidy altogether, if you want to be more "even handed".

[Pithlet]

171. Look.

You're trying to make two different arguments, here. Your first argument is that this punishes the parents, not the children. The fact that you are now no longer addressing that argument proves that I've demonstrated how wrong you are there. Your other argument is that subsidizing children beyond a certain number is detrimental to society. To make that argument stick, you have to provide some evidence that having a certain number of children is bad for society AND you have to prove that removing those subsidies would contribute to people not having more than an acceptable amount of children AND you have to prove that removing the subsidies has an effect beneficial to society greater than the damage to society that unsubsidized children will inevitably cause. You haven't even begun to make anything approaching arguments that prove those points. You can't come into this argument with the assumption that the subsidies have any effect on people's decision to have or not have children, because there's no evidence it does.

[mondo joe]

172. Incorrect.

I don't think capping these breaks PUNISH the parents.

The parents are responsible for their own choices.

As to the detriment of excessive numbers of kids, I will leave that argument to those who have already made it.

And if the subsidies have no impact on whether people decide to have children or not, you should have no problem capping them.

[Pithlet]

173. If they have no impact, then why do you insist on removing them???

You're confusing two separate questions. Question 1: Do subsidies encourage people to have more children? Answer 1: There is no evidence that this is the case. Question 2: Does reducing the amount of resources available to raise a child negatively impact that child's life? Answer 2: *******Absofuckinglutely!*******. Do you see now why your post doesn't make any logical sense?

Since I added it as an edit, I'll reiterate this additional point: Your proposal is particularly egregious considering the people who will suffer the most from such a proposal are poor kids. Rich people who have more kids than you personally deem fit won't suffer. Isn't that swell? So, take away resources from children who particularly need them the most, for some supposed benefit that isn't even shown to exist! Not only is it about as opposite from progressive as you can get, but it is flat out dumb.

[mondo joe]

174. Let's first clear up some of the things you're confused about:

1. I have never argued in favor of punishing the parents, despite your claims that I did, and I do not believe being responsible for exercising your own rights is punishment.

2. I haven't said that subsidies do or don't encourage people to have more children. But I see no reason to subsidize things we don't want to encourage.

3. I didn't MAKE a proposal - but given your multiple failures in reading comprehension it shouldn't surprise me that you got that wrong too.

4. You may think "progressive" means subsidizing anything anyone cares to do, but that's not my definition.

[Pithlet]

181. Then you didn't say we shouldn't subsidize more than two children?

I'm really confused. Because that seemed to me what you were saying.

As to your point 2. You want to deny resources to children even though you admit that that denial will have no effect on the choices their parents make. In addition, you haven't even touched the question of whether or not the damage done by more children is greater than the damage done by increasing the number of children who have inadequate childhoods in some fashion.

You aren't making an argument, here. You aren't looking at the costs vs. the benefits of your proposed solution (Yes, your proposal. Why else state it on the internet if you don't feel it's the correct way to do things?). You're not even pretending that your actions will have any beneficial effect at all. You're making an appeal based on nothing more than your bias against having more than a certain amount of children. You haven't even gone so far as to provide any evidence that two is the appropriate number of children. You haven't done anything that would convince anyone to take it seriously. And yet you expect me to choose hurting children over doing things the way we're doing them now? Unless you provide some evidence, you have nothing more than your personal complaint that you don't like it when people have more than two children. Well, I don't like people who dress twins the same. By your standards, that's enough to cut off subsidies to parents with twins.

[mondo joe]

182. Go back and review my posts in this sub thread and see if you can find me

making that proposal.

Or save yourself some time: you can't because I didn't. But at least we agree, you are confused.

As to my point 2 - I did not "admit that the denial will have no effect". I admit it is not verified, but my suspicion is that it would have an impact.

Since I didn't make a proposal I don't have a proposed solution. Again, if you think I made a proposal please cite it. (Again, you will not find one.)

For that matter, find any post in which I mentioned "two children". That's just more shit you MADE UP.

[Pithlet]

183. Forget the actual number.

Are you claiming that there should be a cut off after a certain number of children? If so, then everything I said stands. I probably got my subthreads confused.

As for the proposal, what is the meaning of is? If you don't want the subsidies cut, then why are you arguing that the subsidies are bad? If you asked a hundred people whether you supported limiting those subsidies, and they read this thread, 99 of them would think you did. If you think the system is absolutely fine as is, then what the hell are you arguing with me for?

[mondo joe]

184. You don't need to ask what I'm claiming if you use your eyes to read what I wrote.

I think an argument can be made that overpopulation is detrimental.

I think an argument can be made that subsidies could be capped at some point to discourage excessive numbers of children.

I have not made a proposal to that effect, though I think it is an idea worth considering.

Why you can't understand what's written is a mystery to me.

[Pithlet]

185. That's absolutely what I thought you were saying.

I'm not confused. So, everything I said to you about applying a cap stands. Apply a cap to the benefits children receive, and the children suffer. Period. If you're willing to consider it, then I'm willing to tell you why it's absolutely a bad idea. It's a bad idea to reduce the resources that poor kids receive, population problems aside. Maybe an argument can be made that subsidy caps would discourage excessive numbers of children. But you haven't even begun to make it. Surely, if there's anything to that argument, it would be easy to point out what that argument is.

[mondo joe]

187. You're STILL confused.

But try to answer this: who decides if children will be born into whatever their economic situation is?

[Pithlet]

189. I'll tell you who doesn't decide. The children!

So, answer this: Why should they be the ones that have resources stripped from them?

[mondo joe]

190. Funny, you still didn't answer the question: who decides they will be born?

Who?

Do you know?

(Given that you don't know the difference between a proposal and saying something is worth considering, I would not be surprised that you don't know who makes this decision.)

[Pithlet]

191. I know who makes that decision. The parents. Are you happy I typed that out?

Good. Now. I'm telling you that it is irrelevant, because the subsidy ISN'T for the person who made the decision. The subsidy ISN'T FOR THE PARENTS. Therefore, what the parents do or don't want doesn't factor into it. It is for the children. Therefore, why would you CONSIDER taking it away from them? And why would I not CONSIDER telling you that taking it away from them is wrong, because they can't control what decisions their parents make?

[mondo joe]

192. The subsidy isn't for the parents? Who claims it? Who decides how the money

is spent? Who is responsible for all the finances of the child? Who pays the taxes to begin with?

THE PARENTS.

I knew you had a lot mixed up, but now you're beyond the pale.

[Pithlet]

193. Do you know why that is? (It's the Math, part II)

Because children aren't capable of managing their own finances or arranging for their own care. That's why the parents do it for them. But the money is for THEIR care! It's not a prize for the parents. It's an acknowledgment by us as a society that kids cost money. You have kids. Here's your money. FOR THE KIDS. Don't give them the money? No money for the kids. If the family is poor, that means the kids get less money for their upbringing. Math. Simple, basic math. Your consideration would make poor kids even poorer. Because of basic math. If the problem of overpopulation is an issue, by all means, let's address that. But not by making poor kids even poorer. That will costs us at least as much as the problems overpopulation will bring us.

[mondo joe]

217. Bullshit. If it's for the kids, why is it dependant on the parents taxes?

Every family doesn't get the child tax credit - they have to pay enough in taxes even to get it.

If it were FOR THE CHILD it would apply to all children equally.

But it doesn't, does it?

[Pithlet]

248. I think there may be limits for the very rich, but you're wrong. All families get

tax breaks for the children they have. And they get them because kids cost money to raise, not as some incentive. Removing those tax breaks would hurt poor people the most. A solution that will only really hurt the poor in an attempt to offset the growing population just doesn't make sense, especially when you consider that they're less likely to consume as much as people with more means.

[mondo joe]

262. Incorrect AGAIN.

The tax credit is limited to those who actually pay enough in taxes to get the credit.

And what you persist in failing to understand is that the responsibility for how many children to have rests with the parents.

[Pithlet]

270. Nope. I'm right. Link:

First of all, I wasn't even talking specifically about the EITC, but since you mentioned it, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit. Fully refundable means that if the credit is more than your taxes paid and/or owed, you get the difference back as a refund. As far as regular deductions go, it reduces your tax amount, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you do pay income taxes, the primary child deduction reduces those, and if you don't pay income taxes, the EITC will give you a refund anyway.

[mondo joe]

271. I said the CHILD TAX CREDIT.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106182,00.html

The Child Tax Credit program doesn't even cover more than a quarter of America’s children, because their parents (three-quarters of whom are working) earn too little to pay taxes, which makes them ineligible for the $1,000 tax credit.

So if the money were the children's it wouldn't matter who paid taxes or didn't -- but in fact it is a tax credit FOR the parents.

[ecstatic]

70. Or to give blow jobs to married men?

Yes!

:sarcasm:

[TahitiNut]

75. As long as she doesn't smoke, I guess ... at least according to some DUers.

:shrug:

[Redstone]

79. Or take those kids to dinner at The Olive Garden.

Redstone

[Gelliebeans]

202. I was wondering when

the Olive Garden topic would rear it's head? :hide:

I dare not mention poultry.

[zaj]

278. What did I miss?

I'm not sure what I missed here (that was deleted)...

[Rosemary2205]

80. NO - ABSOLUTELY NOT - I am a total hypocrite.

I don't support a woman's right to get wasted on Meth or suck down liquor the whole time she's pregnant. I don't support a woman's right to commit suicide. I don't support a woman's right to mutilate her body in a fashion that is actually life threatening.

I think all of these things require some sort of community or medical intervention. I would feel compelled to use whatever means necessary to stop a woman from doing what she wants to do to her body under these circumstances.

However, what a woman to chooses to do with her body while in her right mind in an informed way is none of my damn business.

[CTyankee]

121. Hopefully, you don't support a man's right to do any of this either, right?

I mean, it goes for both of them, doesn't it?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

213. It doesn't go for both of them ...

First of all "yes" to the original Redstone question.

But, having decided to carry the kid, it seems a woman owes some effort to keeping the kid's environment (her body) healthy. Smoking, meth, alcohol (well, maybe a little is ok), these affect the kid's environment and perhaps development.

If the father throws back a few shots of Jack Daniels, how does that affect the chemical content of the womb?

[Rosemary2205]

292. Well

I really was answering only the OP question about women but ....... I'd rather a man not load up on the meth but he's not carrying the baby. I'd also rather he get help instead of harming himself through destructive choices. I'd do whatever's necessary to keep a man from killing himself too if I though he was not in his right mind.

Considering the OP was about women I'm not quite sure why my post would be inferred to mean men could just fend for themselves but whatever.

[helderheid]

89. Yes. Period.

[Lurking Dem]

90. Yes.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

93. Yes, I believe in the rights to abortion and reproduction as a matter of law

The fact that I support that right in principle, and do not advocate the government stepping in to curtail those rights (there are always limits and even Roe v. Wade has its limits, but I won't go into that here) I reserve however the right to criticize how that right is exercised, the way I would do with any right. Just the fact that someone has a legal right does not mean they can expect to abuse it and not be open to criticism for that abuse.

I support the legal right to freedom of speech and do not advocate curtailing that right by the government, but reserve the right to criticize how that right is exercised by others. I support Rush Limbaugh's right to say anything he wants, and would oppose any government attempt to curtail his right to speech, but I will not support anything he says in exercising that right.

I support the right of a woman to have an abortion and, under the zone of privacy rights established in Roe v. Wade will not advocate that the law curtail that right, but I still reserve the right to vocally criticize the way that right is exercised. If a young woman thoughtlessly uses abortion in place of contraception, when birth control was easily available to her, then I will criticize her behavior as an abuse of a right. I will support her legal right to that abortion, but I will not give verbal support to how she uses that right or, as the small inconsequential person I am, give it my stamp of approval, especially if and when she had alternatives.

I support the right of families to have children without legal restraint as to number, as a matter of black letter law, but I will feel perfectly within my right as a citizen living on the same endangered planet to criticize what I perceive to be an abuse in how that right is exercised.

[lastliberalintexas]

266. DAMN STRAIGHT

Wonderfully said.

[jfkraus]

96. What about the father?

I agree-- ultimately a woman has the right to do what she will with her own body. But pregnancy takes two, and both parents need to take responsibility. With that responsibility comes the right for the father to have a say in the fate of the unborn child. Let's not ignore this point.

[LeftyMom]

111. Does he get a say? Hopefully.

However, he's not entitled to an equal say because it's not his body hosting the potentially unwanted guest, nor his house the kid is likely to reside in for the next two decades if the matter is disputed.

A decent guy would agree.

[Matariki]

101. I don't see the right to an abortion as the same as the right to have a lot of kids.

to make a crass analogy it's the difference between the right to eat junk food or smoke (the right to do what you want with your body) and the right to pollute - how your actions affect the rest of the world. Having tons of kids has more impact on the greater good than having an abortion.

However, in America a woman has the right to do both those things. But personally, I'd say "yeah, but..." to having lots of kids.

And as much as you are trying to corner people into a simple yes or no answer, it's not simple.

[Buzz Clik]

119. I agree, but in the same regard...

... using abortions as a form of birth control is irresponsible as well.

[CTyankee]

129. See my earlier posts on this thread about women who use abortion

as a form of birth control (which, of course, it is when you get right down to it). There are women who have reasons to use abortion as birth control. Maybe they are not YOUR reasons but since YOU are not the one pregnant, it doesn't matter.

And anyway, how many here know people for whom birth control failed and who used abortion as a back up birth control method? Hmmm?

[Buzz Clik]

109. Yes. Without question.

As the question is framed: yes. Hell yes. No exceptions.

[SemperEadem]

113. depends

"or to have a lot of kids, if that's what she chooses to do with her body"

on the particular woman in question.

If it's a white, married, christian American woman, why of course! If she's a non-white, or unmarried, or undocumented, or non christian, hell no!:sarcasm:

[Redstone]

123. Well, this is odd. Only when I clicked "reply" did I see the "sarcasm" tag. Though I already knew

you meant it to be there. Well-said on your part, indeed.

Redstone

[Swamp Rat]

117. yes

[Wonk]

120. ibtl

[Megahurtz]

122. Uh Oh.......

:popcorn:

[philosophie_en_rose]

124. Yes.

But you're really being unreasonable.

There are consequences to choice. Medical choices and family planning are important to discuss.

[some guy]

125. Yes. At least, I do, don't know about the rest of y'all. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

126. Absolutely, YES....

and having said that, I personally don't think it is wise to have lots of children. I wish people would voluntarily limit themselves but since they don't, oh well. There's nothing I can or would do about that as it is personal choice.

[JerseygirlCT]

127. Yes

[Megahurtz]

128. Okay, in all seriousness

say if a woman decides to have an Abortion, she isn't imposing on others in her surroundings.

On the other hand if a woman chooses to have umpteen children
she is imposing on those surrounding her,
and even imposing on the surroundings themselves.

:popcorn:

On Edit:
And don't worry, I'm not forgetting about the man who chooses
to have umpteen children with her! ;)

[havocmom]

130. Yep. And that includes prostitution. Legalize it. If that is how a PERSON wants to earn a living

Make it legal, keep it clean, license it, tax the incom, make it safe so we eliminate the need for vampire pimps.

Kids or no, choice of individual.
Sex or no, choice of individual.
Married or no, choice of individual.
Free love or pay to play, choice of individual.

Who should have any say over what a man does with his own body? Question is the same, only the noun is different.

[NC_Nurse]

132. Yes. AND....

We should fully fund reproductive education, contraceptives and healthcare for all young people so they truly have a choice. If people had the education and access they needed, there would be far fewer abortions and they would be performed earlier in the pregnancy.

Until everyone has access to reproductive education and healthcare - we are doomed to continue this destructive fight and abortion rates will increase. The same people who believe in abstinence education also believe they can stop abortion. Wake up - you're wrong. 95% of Americans are having sex outside of marriage and the abortion rate has gone up since your boy has been Preznit.

[sutz12]

134. Yes, I do. Forcing a woman to do anything she doesn't want is immoral. nt

[lastliberalintexas]

267. Even if it's forcing her to drive the speed limit?

Black and white absolutist statements are ridiculous, people.

[flvegan]

136. As simple as it gets: Yes.

[SmokingJacket]

137. She's not allowed to smoke drugs with her body.

Neither are men.

Women aren't allowed to shoot AK47s in a mall with her body, either.

But, you say, because that's endangering another person!

Well... some will argue that at a certain point a fetus becomes "another person."

(I happen not to agree -- I'm 100% pro-choice -- but I hate to see an argument oversimplified like this. If it were so simple, it wouldn't be an issue at all.)

[porphyrian]

139. Yes, unless doing so somehow violates the rights of others.

A woman can surgically alter herself into a Transformer while juggling bananas for all I care. She just can't do it in a daycare while on fire. Just like I can't stab someone through their head while piercing my tongue with a pike.

Yes, every person should have total control of their own bodies, but they must respect the rights of others while doing so, and this is what is really in dispute. For example, take abortion (which I assume is the basis of your post). Some people think it's a baby as soon as a man gets an erection. Others don't acknowledge the child as an individual until they are 40. If a pregnant woman does something to her body while her baby is considered an individual with rights, it would be a violation of the baby's rights to do something which hurts the baby.

Personally, I think the government has no place telling anyone what they can or cannot do to themselves (the average opinionated asshole even less so), and I think abortion should remain a safe and legal option for women. I'm just not sure the women's-body angle does anything more to this wedge issue than perpetuate it, as it doesn't address the real point of contention.

[rucky]

140. Yes, but we can still disagree with those decisions.

respect them, but respectfully disagree. that's part of the whole "free" thing, too. Not having to support every hare-brained act just because people are free to do them.

[nini]

150. exactly

:thumbsup:

[Skip Intro]

141. I believe everyone has a right to do with his/her body as he/she pleases.

Men, women - adults, yes.

This also applies to gambling, drug use, prostitution, etc.

It's not the business of the government. Our bodies are not properites of the state. Which is why I cringe when I hear the same people who scream "freedom" while waving their flags deem to tell others what they can do, who they can do it with, when, where, bla bla bla. We're either a nation of free people, or the whole thing is a sham.

[zaj]

142. If I'm allowed no qualification, then "no" (she's not completely unrestricted)

I hold the same view I've always held. Abortion should be legal right up until the fetus can scientifically maintain it's own life outside the womb.

My wife and I just had our first baby and he was born 5 weeks early. He was very healthy and a very good size for a preemie (5 pounds, 15 ounce) at birth.

The thought that he could have been either delivered or aborted legally (by choice, not medical necessity) really started to clarify my views. It didn't change them at all, but my conviction has increased.

The NICU that he stayed in after his birth has several babies that were born at 14+ weeks permature (late in the 2nd trimester)... and with the right care in the hospital survived and thrived to grow up healthy. That tells me that we need to respect both the freedom of the woman, but balance that with respect for the indpependant life of the baby.

That tipping point should be determined by medical technology and capablities.

[CTyankee]

260. You probably know that the Roe decision is in line with your thinking.

No restrictions in first trimester, some in second, fewer in 3rd are allowed to the states. But the exception is the life orhealth of the woman.

The RW has painted a picture of women traipsing off to have a 3rd trimester abortion after having their manicures, la de da. In reality, 3rd trimester abortions are tragedies for families. They have wanted these babies and looked forward to their births only to find out that something has gone horribly wrong. Sometimes the fetus would suffer even more if allowed to be born. The whole experience is pretty grim stuff.

The difference between fetal development at the beginning of the 2nd trimester and the end of the 2nd trimester is very different as I am sure you are aware. Yet the RW would treat it the same. Also, restrictive state laws have caused some 2nd trimester abortions, by putting obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion in the first trimester.

[RetroLounge]

143. Yes...

eom

RL

[Greybnk48]

144. Yes. No qualifications. Yes.

[HuffleClaw]

145. if she CHOOSES to have a dozen kids

all i can say is 'better her than me'. imo its a foolish decision, but if someone wants to make foolish decisions let 'em.

[nini]

148. Yes

I also believe you're on some high horse about other's opinions regarding what those folks are doing.

You're mixing two issues and trying to pin her 'rights' against 'opinions' regarding it - they're not the same thing and you know it. NO ONE is denying that family the rights to do what they want, they are questioning why would peoople do this with overpopulations affect on our planet etc.. But, admitting that seem to cross your mind.

The fact you accuse any of us for questioning why someone this day and age would have such huge families takes away our rights to free speech. If you want to talk about rights, let's throw that one in there too.

[pitohui]

151. life isn't simple

if you want cant, then you've already stated the position that is taken by those who speak cant, which is that individual liberties are always more important than any group interest ever

well, son, that's just bleeping insane, pardon my french, the rights of the individuals cannot and must not be allowed to destroy the entire planet that we all need to live on or there is no point to having any individual rights, none of us will have any rights when we are all dead

a woman's right to an abortion does not harm anyone and it helps her and it helps the planet

a woman's right to have 15 children is incredibly destructive to this earth which is already dying -- her right to breed like a rabbit simply should NOT be put ahead of the right of entire species to exist at all

it's two different questions and life is not about simple answers for simple minds

i notice the fundies promoting this bullcrap that a woman should be able to pop out all the brats she supposedly wants do NOT support the right to an abortion, that ought to tell you something right there, the women making these "choices" are not even bright enough to make "choices," they are totally brainwashed victims of a misogynist religion

this ain't about "choice," this is about fundies grabbing the opportunity to out breed and eventually out vote us, because decent people will not choose in this day and age to have so many children, by definition the people "choosing" to do this are not able to think for themselves, look around you and see who of our generation or younger is having so many children, it is always the losers and the no-hopers and the religious hysterics, it is not the people who need to be passing on their genes or their values

[Dora]

154. Of course. n/t

[Pithlet]

155. Yes. n/t

[bigwillq]

156. Yes

and a man does too but I get your point.
But I say a man because of the whole "gay" "gay marriage" "civil unions" thingy.
In a way, gay men are criticized for what they do with their bodies too.

We all should be able to choose to do whatever we want with our bodies.

[silverojo]

158. YES!

And it IS a simple question.

[treestar]

160. Yes, and she has the right to smoke and drink while pregnant

It's just that she's not going to avoid comment about it.

Who isn't? The single and childless put up with comments, too.

Nobody is immune in this blabby world.

[Zhade]

168. Yes. I do. As long as she's not harming another human being.

(Fetuses before the formation of a cerebral cortex and zygotes, of course, are NOT human beings.)

[Az]

176. No one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their body

The fact that there are laws on the books doing so is absolutely ridiculous.

[Vincardog]

177. Yes if that's what she chooses to do with her body Whatever she chooses

[ThomCat]

178. Yes, definitely.

As long as she's mentally capable of making her own informed choices then yes, absolutely.

[lastliberalintexas]

268. Aha! There's they key- INFORMED choices

[ThomCat]

269. The key word is Capable.

[rosesaylavee]

179. Yes.

[question everything]

186. Of course

And I am glad that you phrased it in a broad question of a woman's body. It is not just abortion. It is having children, when, and how many. And whether to raise them as a single parent or wait for the wedded bliss that may never arrive. It is interfering with the most private matter of an individual for weak reasons. It if, first, about women's sexuality. It is about men's helplessness when they realize that as powerful as they are, they do need a woman to carry their seeds.

I have no doubt in my mind that had pregnancy not resulted from sexual relations, abortion would not be such a hot issue.

[cynatnite]

188. Yes. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

194. I am going to have to go with "no" just to see what you might say if I said that. n/t

[Moochy]

326. Lol

Not much apparently :)

[BattyDem]

195. Will someone please explain how a question about ...

a woman having the right to control what happens to her own body became a debate about tax deductions, overpopulation, lack of natural resources, etc? :shrug:

You asked a very simple question: "Do we, as DUers and liberals, believe in a woman's right to do whatever she wants to do with her body, or not?"

Now ... we all may have different opinions about multiple abortions, late-term abortions, larger-than-average families and other matters of reproductive "morality," but the heart of the question remains the same: should the government, the church or some other "guardian of morality" have control over a woman's body or should the woman herself have that control?

The answer is a simple one: Yes, women have the right to control what happens to their bodies. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to consider this: would you want someone else making a decision about what happens to YOUR body? Do you want someone else deciding what's best for you or what your moral guidelines should be? Do you want the government forcing you to get sterilized because the world is overpopulated or you only make enough money to put one child through college?

We've become a nation of busybodies! Everyone is always judging someone else or trying to dictate how they live their lives. When it comes to the personal lives of other people, we need to sit down, shut up and mind our own business! :P

NOTE:
Of course, minding our own business does not apply when someone is being harmed or abused in some way (I didn't really need to clarify that, did I?)

[mondo joe]

227. Here's how: once children are born it stops being about a woman's right to

choose what to do with her own body, and becomes a topic about how we address the existence of more people.

[BattyDem]

232. But the OP's question was about a woman's right to control her own body.

Overpopulation, lack of natural resources, etc. are certainly issues, but they should NEVER be tied to a woman's fundamental right to control what happens to her OWN body because once those two issues become intertwined, we will be on the road to forced abortion and/or mandatory sterilization.

[mondo joe]

233. And the OP's question has implications beyond just that question.

I think if you look over the answers you'll see a lot of YES to that question, and then some discussion about the implications.

[BattyDem]

235. I saw the answers, but some seemed to imply "no" because of the implications ...

and I find that disturbing. :-(

[mondo joe]

236. I had a different reading. You may have the right to do whatever you like with

your own body - even things that others find offensive or stupid - but that right does not extend BEYOND your own body to every outcome of your choices.

For example, I believe you should be able to use whatever drug you like. But if, as a result, you harm someone else, you are liable. Or, if as a result you lose your job, you are not entitled to live on the dole so you can support your drug habit.

[BattyDem]

239. Oh come on

That right does not extend BEYOND your own body to every outcome of your choices.

No one condones behavior that hurts someone else. That's not what the original question is about and we all know it. This is not about the consequences of drug use, reckless behavior or living "on the dole" to support a drug habit. That's a strawman. The fact that the OP asked the question about "women" and not about "people" strongly implies that he was talking about reproductive choices.

[mondo joe]

240. Not a straw man at all. To me the principle is exactly the same - it's your body,

whether you want to put drugs into it, make babies with it, abort what's in it, decorate it, fatten it or whatever.

The OP may have asked about just one application but my answer is based on this overall principle.

So I say YES, have as many kids as you want. If you expect others to financially support your choice, that's another matter.

[BattyDem]

242. I see what you mean, now. Sorry ... I misunderstood you.

Sometimes a person's intent gets a bit lost when reading their post. Occasionally, I need some clarification in order to "get it." :crazy:

[mondo joe]

243. No problem - thanks for letting me clarify.

:-)

[Pithlet]

200. It goes like this:

Typing to a friend on-line, using a computer that takes electricity, which is derived mostly from finite earthly resources, sitting in their climate controlled room using yet more finite resources:

"I am pro choice. What a woman does with her own body is her own business ...OMG, did you hear about that cow in Duluth who just had her 15th baby. Like, hasn't she ever heard of overpopulation?! Her uterus is so going to fall out. The earth's resources are dwindling away! What is she thinking... Anyway, what was I saying? Oh, yeah. How judgmental and nosy do you have to be to care what a woman does with her body? Some people!"

[Jeffersons Ghost]

206. YES! but judging from all these post-titles, I'd say you didn't get "simple answers"

[Hippo_Tron]

208. I have another question, who is to say how many kids is too many?

I've seen a lot of people here say that they know the magic number for how many kids people should have. Yet, they can't seem to provide any statistics about how much longer the world's resources will last if we don't go over this limit.

Yup our resources are finite but people having less kids isn't going to make our resources infinite. Expanding or decreasing population, we're still going to run out eventually and nobody has shown me how much longer we are going to last if the families that have five or more kids had one or two instead.

For all I know we could have colonized new planets far before running out of resources on this one is a serious problem. The people arguing for population control haven't shown me any evidence to the contrary.

[babylonsister]

212. Yes. n/t

[ehrnst]

215. Yes - it's up to her, no one else.

[xultar]

216. Yes. Though I think women with like more than 6 kids are fuckin crazy.

I know a lady that has 16 kids. She and her husband are deeply Catholic. They have had a few miscarriages so they would have been up to 20 kids. I think they are both fucking nuts. I also think she's a little extra crazy for the effect all the pregnancies have on her body but I don't determine what they do with their bodies so...I keep my mouth shut. It isn't any of my business. All the kids are well cared for and healthy.

[wicket]

223. Hell YES!

:kick:

[BlooInBloo]

224. What a simple question.

[DixieBlue]

228. Yes.

nt.

[atommom]

230. Yes. nt

[FredStembottom]

231. Are YOU still beating your spouse!?!?!

Yes or no!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lurking Dem]

234. Fascinating.

The "replacement rate" is actually 2.1 children (due to infant mortality) and the current rate in this country is 2.03 which is below that.

Just because there are some people who have large families does not mean that they are taxing the environment in the aggregate.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

237. Woo-Wee - such a tempest

I think there is no way to put an absolute on this question. Theoretically I believe it is her right, to do as she wants, until there is a threat to the physical or mental safety of any children involved. Who decides what that is? That's another battle of wits.

My personal experience is this; I have 2 children - one is 6 the other is 7. I will be 50 in about 35 days. I was told by more than one person that I was selfish for having my children so late in life. They made a judgement that I was somehow unfit for motherhood due to being in my 40's! I waited because I could not see having children when I was in my 20's and trying to make a living and also.. Get this... Wasn't married. I wanted a traditional family. A dad for the kids... What a concept. I worked, graduated from college and travelled all over the globe... All of which, I believe, made me a better, more interesting person. If I tried to adopt a child now, I would be seen as unfit due to my age. If the government was in my bedroom (more than they are already..) I would have been forced to have an abortion!

Now I am a stay at home mom. It was hard when the kids were in diapers but now! It is priceless!!!! I have such joy being with my kids.

I've been called a "Breeder" by my less tolerant gay friends - they think it's funny. I think it's about as funny as if I called them "faggot!"

[Moochy]

327. Breeder vs Faggot

"I've been called a "Breeder" by my less tolerant gay friends - they think it's funny. I think it's about as funny as if I called them "faggot!""

When your gay friends called you "Breeder", Did you have the fear that they might get out their shotguns and tie you to the back of a truck and drag you across half of Texas? No? Oh gosh, I guess the word might not have the same venom ya think?

[NMDemDist2]

238. yes n/t

[Danascot]

241. I believe a woman has the right to abort

up to say, age 18

[Control-Z]

245. Yes

[slackmaster]

246. Of course she has that right

So do men.

I add one simple caveat, which I feel is self-explanatory:

With rights come responsibilities.

[in_cog_ni_to]

247. YES. It's HER body. NO ONE has the right to dictate what she does with it. n/t

[JacksonWest]

249. No.

Women have never had absolute freedom with abortion, and won't.(at least not for a few decades). Don't believe me, go ask NARAl.

And I have to say-I would support locking a women up who is abusing drugs while pregnant. I think abortion is morally repugnant- but I also feel the same way about horse racing. I don't think either should be illegal.

So, short answer, a women does not have the right to do what she want with her body. Neither does a man. But since this pertains to birth issues- I think a women should be allowed to abort or give birth to as many babies as she pleases.

[Fleshdancer]

251. I vote yes....

quite frankly, I don't trust DUers to decide what I can or cannot do with my own body so I KNOW there's no way in hell I want my govt to weigh in.

I swear if some people had their way, my body would be placed in in a Matrix like pod to keep me safe from pollution, red meat, alcohol, sun exposure, pollen, second hand cigarette smoke, perfume, trans fats, sex, reproduction and whatever else they can come up with to bitch about. It's amazing that the human race has survived so long since we all seem to believe we're delicate little snow flakes. :eyes:

[Feron]

252. As a woman,

Yes!!

My uterus is not public property for others to control as they see fit.

I don't want or need a third party making personal, intimate decisions for me.

If someone disagrees with how I choose to conduct my life, then tough shit.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Instead of regulating wombs, issues such as overpopulation can be addressed by education, sex ed, and contraception.

I don't have kids and will most likely adopt if I want them, however that's my choice.

If a woman is happy having a dozen children and can properly care for them, then good for her. I bear no ill will towards large families. It's not my cup of tea, but different strokes for different folks.

I figure when nature is sick of us, then mankind will go the way of the dinosaurs. That's not to say that we shouldn't be good stewards of the Earth, but that humans arrogantly make themselves out to be more important than they actually are.

[Pastiche423]

255. yes

You have serious control issues.

[Redstone]

284. "Control issues?" I guess you didn't read my post, did you?

Redstone

[Pastiche423]

286. Of course I read your post

How else would I know you have control issues?

[Redstone]

288. My point: NOBODY should have control over what a woman does. That's a CONTROL ISSUE?

If you think that's what it means, we're speaking different languages here.

Redstone

[Pastiche423]

291. So sorry

I left the "s" off of post.

And yes, we are speaking different languages, if you can not see your controlling nature throughout this thread.

[Redstone]

293. Thank you SO much for the free psychoanalysis.

Redstone

[Pastiche423]

294. You're welcome

[greenbriar]

256. yes

and MEN should stay out of the debate

[hwmnbn]

257. yes

[Cleita]

261. Yes.

You don't see men having to make choices or being forced to make choices or being prevented from making choices by the state that is. (I needed to qualify this.) There is no state law that says a man has to be circumcised although it is the custom within many groups. There is no law that says he has to have a vasectomy or that he can't have a vasectomy. That's an issue that is decided by the individual and maybe within a marriage. There is no law that says he has to use a condom although it's usually a wise thing to do so.

The state doesn't demand these things of men so why do they prevent women from getting surgical procedures or family planning help that she wants?

[Vox Acerbus]

263. Yes

As a woman, a DU'er and a liberal, a woman can do whatever she wants with her body.

She can abort what is in her womb. Although I would have a really tough time doing that myself, she has that right.

She can create life a dozen times over, if she can raise them. Although I would have a really tough time doing that myself, and I feel that women who do that are irresponsible, she has that right.

She can drink herself silly, so long as she doesn't drive and kill others.

She can slit her wrists or shoot herself.

A woman owns her own body. As a woman I believe that. As the priviledged holder of that body, as long as what she does with it does not hurt society with what she does with that body, I support her choices 100%.

[lastliberalintexas]

264. What a bullshit framework

Very few people on this board actually want the government to be able to either force people to bear children or prevent them from doing so. That really isn't the issue, and I don't think you're actually stupid enough to think that it is.

The issue is whether or not we have the right to criticize the behovior of others as it impacts us. The answer? DAMN STRAIGHT.

I can point out that it's highly irresponsible to bear 10 children in a country, day and age in which infant mortality and childhood deaths are staggeringly low (as compared to historical times). It smacks of utter ego, in fact, to produce such a family when the earth's resources are already threatened and when there are also so many already born people who need the help instead. Adoption is the option isn't just a saying for anti-choicers, I guess.

In saying those things, I've done nothing to try to physically and forcefully prohibit any woman from bearing 10 children or from having 10 abortions. Ultimately, each is her choice. But whoever thinks that each person's individual choices occur in a vacuum needs to pull their head out of their arse. Educating people on the way in their choices impact other humans, the earth and other species isn't in any way demeaning to the pro-choice movement. It is simply allowing people to make INFORMED choices instead.

[graywarrior]

265. Yep. It's her karma.

[LWolf]

273. I have no idea what "we" believe. I know what I believe.

First, I'll say that I'm a woman. I'm a woman who had an abortion, and gave birth and raised children as a single blue-collar working mom. I'm a woman raised by a woman who did the same, before Roe V Wade. I am not exactly unfamiliar with all sides of this question.

I'm also a human who has spent most of her life dealing personally and professionally with children born to emotionally unstable mothers, addicts, abusers, and the mentally ill. I have spent way too much time trying to "fix" the damage done to children by people who never should have had the "right" to bring children into their diseased, dysfunctional environment. Our system of laws and consequences do not prevent children from the life-long harm they sustain growing up like that.

If you love people, and love children, you can have empathy and compassion for the women who need help. You can also feel fury and a need to change things when you see what they do to their children.

Do I think that women have supreme reproductive rights? No. I don't know where and am not willing to draw that line in the sand, but I think that there are too many people having children who just plain shouldn't. I don't know what to do about it. For me, it goes beyond what the woman does with her reproductive system. It's irrevocably connected to what happens to the children she chooses to bear.

[ismnotwasm]

274. Yes n/t

[Unvanguard]

275. Not "whatever," no.

Do I believe that bodily autonomy trumps any right of the fetus to life? Yes, certainly - I am adamantly pro-choice.

Do I believe that bodily autonomy trumps everything else? Absolutely not. Were it a human being with full rights of personhood whose life was dependent on a violation of a person's bodily autonomy, I would put the first person's right to life over the second person's right to bodily autonomy, on broadly utilitarian grounds.

Woman, man, whatever - that part I don't care about.

[we can do it]

277. Simply YES

[robcon]

280. Simply NO.

A person has a right to live, and that puts constraints on another person's actions.

[SeattleGirl]

281. Yes, absolutely!

SG

[Dastard Stepchild]

282. I can't vouch for all liberals or DUers...nor would I want to....

But I believe that I have the final say on my body. Of course, with the issue of pregnancy, barring the use of alternative insemination, I would need a little assistance. So that one is not my sole decision, but the decision of myself and my partner. However, the use of the pill or the use of the female condom to prevent a pregnancy would be my decision. These things I can control since they involve my own corporal entity. Abortion is trickier because it involves the pairing of both a male and female partner, thus two people are involved no matter what. That said, if I were to become pregnant unexpectedly and was not in the position to have a child at that time, I would elect the abortion regardless of the position of the male partner. My body, my rules.

Since this is, in fact, such a sticky situation, I am unbearably cautious when it comes to birth control. I would not wish to find myself in such a situation - I imagine it would be profoundly difficult to maneuver, not matter what the eventual outcome. But then, I've never taken the issue of sex or parenthood at all lightly. I have worked incredibly hard to avoid a pregnancy until the time in which it would be most appropriate for me to be pregnant. I made that decision quite young, and have been very happy to walk away from relationships in which the male partner and I did not agree about what to do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. At this point in time, were an unplanned pregnancy to happen, I would welcome it, and would not see the need for an abortion. This has not always been the case in the past, and would refrain from dating individuals who found it a morally repugnant choice.

That's pretty much the best way I found to prevent the discrepancies in opinion. I laid it all out on the line right away with my partners. I think it's for the best.

[Warren DeMontague]

285. Yes. nt

[Maddy McCall]

289. Yep to abortion. No to a bunch of kids, if it's my tax dollar that's funding her huge family.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

290. Simple for me.

I do not believe in abortion. I also do not believe that it is my right to tell another woman what to do in that given situation.

What is the big deal?

[omega minimo]

296. Simplistic question. The law supports that right whether you "believe" it-- or not

That's what the question should be for DU. Do we support Women's Rights--






or not.

[dropkickpa]

306. Yes!!!

People have the right to criticize all they want, as loudly as they want, as often as they want, however they want (within legal bounds, of course), but the minute they start calling for state interference in MY right to govern my own body, they better watch out for a fight. Fuck anyone and everyone who thinks they have a right to make those decisions for me, and shame on anyone who calls for the government to do it for them.

I'm a single unwed mother, with NO paternal involvment in my child's life, financial or otherwise. I've been on welfare in the past, and now the gubment and others have decided that I make too much money for any sort of assistance (the difference is just $300 a year). I'm sick and tired of seeing people pull out the fucking "welfare queen" arguements. Liberals are so good at pretending to be open and non-racist, but the minute I start hearing the welfare queen arguments, I see their true colors. The whole "tax credit/subsidy" arguements are just the newest incarnation the right's welfare queen shit. How is that liberals have so embraced the Reagan propaganda??

[Son Of Spy]

307. Simple question: Do we, as DUers and liberals, believe in a woman's right to do

Of course YES

Son Of Spy

[Mad_Dem_X]

308. YES. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

309. Absolutely.

Choice implies more than one thing to choose from--for me, it implies reproductive freedom to do whatever she wants without any outside interference.

[Phentex]

310. Yes. n/t

n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

311. I support everyone's natural right to personal autonomy. nt.

[Moochy]

315. Yes

plain and simple. Should it be a litmus test whether someone can be called a liberal or not? In my opinion, no.

[hayu_lol]

316. YES

from puberty on.

[WindRavenX]

318. Of course

But no tax breaks after 2 kids.

And just because you technically CAN do something doesn't mean it should be supported, validated, or encouraged.

[Name removed]

320. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ellie]

323. Yes n/t

[dethl]

328. Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Anything we do with our bodies involves multiple factors. How those factors weigh out are at the discretion of each individual. As such we shouldn't be hampering that process. So yes, a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases.

[jody]

329. IMO, if a woman and man freely decide to have a child and pregnancy occurs, then both should agree

to an abortion. I support a woman's unilateral decision to an abortion under those circumstances only if her life is at risk.

Under most or perhaps all other circumstances I support a woman's unilateral decision to an abortion.

[gollygee]

331. How would that be enforced?

How would you prove whether they agreed or not? There isn't that much time for probate court.

[jody]

332. Some things that are morally correct cannot be enforced by society.

Nonetheless, what I stated is my opinion. :shrug:

[Scout]

333. yes. n/t

[mdmc]

336. YES

I do what I want with my wang. If I don't want a lady to abort my child, I can abstain from sex with her. Once I decided to play, I give up the right to protect my potential unborn child; my partner must do that.

YES

[piedmont]

337. No. I believe a full-term fetus has a right to be born, as long as it doesn't endanger the mother.

In general, I agree that a person has the right to do with their body as they please. In the case of pregnancy, I believe the fetus becomes a person with the basic rights of personhood at some time before leaving the womb, but well after conception. So I believe actions that endanger that person fall into the realm of "one person's rights end where another's begin." I realize that the problem with this viewpoint is that there is no sharp, clear line between "fetus" and "person."

[sweetheart]

338. Y E S

free will

[Violet_Crumble]

339. Yes...

When it comes to reproductive rights it's no-one elses business but the woman whose body's involved...

[shanti]

341. yes, I DO.

n/t

[lukasahero]

342. Only when we stop asking the question of what rights a woman has

will a woman be equal to a man.

No answer to your question OP, but I'm tired of women's "rights" being considered a poll everyone should weigh in on. If it's up to others to determine the rights of women, women are not, and will never be, truly equal.