Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Perilous Position of Choice- news & updates
The BUST Lounge > Forums > The F-Word
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
girltrouble
tsk. i feel sorry for the one in the middle. he's ashy. kid needs lotion.
faerietails
LOL, gt! funny girl.

I must say, if you're gonna post pics, you could at least stick to ones from this century. That one by the cross is from 1987, steve. You can do better than that.
girltrouble
he's a lazy sunnuva beeotch. same pix, same tired cut and paste bs... he really is tiresome. i don't think i would mind if he jazzed it up.
he needs to do glitter babies. he could put those on my space!


i'd make some for him, but he'd run them into the ground.
faerietails
glitter babies?!! hahahaaaaaa! now that i would love to see. smile.gif
girltrouble







the funnest is saying "glitta babies!" in an al pachino hoo-ha voice...
they're bloody, they're cute, and they shine!
LoungeLady
... unsure.gif

What's going on in here? There's a baby having a seizure.

~ LL Lysa
girltrouble
hee hee... sigh. L3... you are definately a BUSTie! <3
humanist77
how repulsive is it of me that every time i see those photos, i get a little peckish?
*runs off to make pizza with extra tomato sauce*
deschatsrouge
hee hee laugh.gif me too Humanist. I see those pics and I crave lasagna.
candycane_girl
Ah, well I came in here to post about Dr. Morgentaler but doodlebug beat me to it! Anyway, I think it's great that he has received the Order of Canada.
doodlebug
****ACTION ALERT****

Please distribute widely

Dear pro-choice supporters,

The Governor General is getting a flood of mail and calls from anti-choice forces. Please tell her how much you appreciate the courageous decision by her and the Advisory Council of the Order of Canada to award Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada. Here is the contact information:

E-mail: info@gg.ca
Phone: 613-993-8200
Toll-free: 1-800-465-6890
Fax: 613-998-8760

Mail: Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean
Governor General of Canada
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A1

Thank you very much!

Joyce Arthur
Coordinator
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
Vancouver, BC
joycearthur@shaw.ca
www.arcc-cdac.ca
pollystyrene
Hmmm.
Kpasa
First abstinence only and now this crap! ugh mad.gif
olivarria
I just discovered that my 16-year old cousin is pregnant. I don't think she even considered abortion, or that her mom even taught her what abortion or contraception is. (Her father is in prison, for molesting her older sister, so that leaves mom. Yeah.) I wonder if she has the slightest idea what raising this kid will be like, or how motherhood (at 16!) will affect her future? I doubt she learned about abortion or contraception in school, and we live in Texas, so you have an idea of what our sex-education quality is like: nill. I'm upset about this. I wouldn't have pressured my cousin to have an abortion, but I would have at least presented that option to her. And now her life is changed forever, and I don't think she has the slightest clue to what extent. She probably doesn't think motherhood is a time-consuming job, considering how her mother raised her (not very well). Her older sister, who is 19, is fresh out of prison, on parole. (Yes, thank you for helping our family conform EVEN MORE to the un-educated, backwoods redneck Texan stereotype.) I will have to spill my guts over the rest of our family drama over in the "Friends and Family" thread cuz I'm getting off-track.

My family has a long history of teen pregnancy. I am the product of one. My grandmother never taught my mom about condoms or birth control pills, and so here I am (complaining about lack of quality pro-choice education, no less!) There have been 4 teen pregnancies in my family (2 from the same cousin) in the last few years, and not one of them ever considered abortion as an option. I just wanted to rant about this because I'm pissed. Thanks for listening.
anarch
(((olivarria)))

I just came in here to post what I just heard on NPR: Bruce Ivins, the anthrax suspect who killed himself last week, "may have targeted Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy with anthrax-laced letters in 2001 because he saw them as bad Catholics owing to their votes in favor of abortion rights".
anarch
“Pro-choice is often referred to as if it were synonymous with pro-abortion. It isn’t.”

This guy argues very well and brings key points together: if abortion is "murder" then how should the "criminals" be punished, the kidney donation analogy, why adoption isn't a universal option, how a "punish the sluts" idea underlies so much of anti-choice rhetoric...
anarch
"How would you feel if you called a federally-funded family planning clinic and the person who answered the phone refused to make an appointment for you until you prove that you’re married? How do you feel about asking for emergency contraception at a public health clinic and being told by the public health nurse that you have to go somewhere else because Plan B is the same as having an abortion? What if these employees were protected by federal regulations so they couldn’t be fired, transferred, or disciplined?"
vesicapisces
A state legislator here recently introduced a bill that (language from Planned Parenthood) "would require a woman to have the written informed consent of the prospective father of her fetus before being allowed to have an abortion.

HB 287 also requires that, if the identity of the prospective father is unknown, a paternity test must be performed to determine his identity so that his consent could be obtained prior to performing the abortion.

What is left unsaid is that prenatal paternity testing:
  • cannot be performed until at least the 10th week of pregnancy, near the end of the first trimester,
  • is an invasive procedure using a long needle through the abdomen to collect fetal cells,
  • is expensive – up to $2,000 per test, and
  • poses a potential medical risk.
The practical effect of the paternity test requirement would prevent some women from obtaining an abortion during the first trimester.

Once paternity is established, if the man says 'No,' there will be no abortion."


Sickening. How about these issues: what's to stop a woman from having just some random guy sign the consent? Why don't we just require prenatal paternity testing for every pregnancy? Since we've had lawsuits now for wrongful birth, how about suing a guy for wrongful impregnation? Or sign away your parental rights at birth and force the guy to raise the kid alone?

I would hope and pray that this piece of crap doesn't even get a hearing, but I've been surprised before by what has been heard, voted on, and even passed.
pollystyrene
Wow, that's sickening? Any idea what state it's in?
vesicapisces
Yeah - it's Ohio, where I was born and raised. I don't know when so many of our legislators became reactionary wingnuts.
olivarria
I can't believe this: Dept. of Health & Human Services apparently drafted a rule that categorizes oral contraceptive use as abortion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

Queen Bull
oh my god. olivarria, that is a total crock. I cant believe that people are so set on stopping abortion that they would take away the rights of a woman concerning her body immediately after sex. isnt possession nine tenths of the law anyway? Pretty soon, we will need a prescription for condoms and spermacide....
culturehandy
what next, banning menstruation?? What about all the sperm that a man releases, all those millions of potential little lives.
olivarria
Yeah, then guys will be arrested everytime they have a wet dream! I really don't see how this rule could be considered for legislation, it is too outrageous!

I wonder how many abortions I've had this year, according to the DHHS? Seven? That's some kind of record.
Queen Bull
honestly, with the intelligence some politicians have, i wouldnt put it past them to propose a tax on menstruation and wet dreams. some things jsut dont have a place in the halls of government. People are all for separation of church and state but how about separation what they can and cannot tell people to do with their bodies? or their cast off cells for that matter. its just getting ridiculous. brave new world, here we come.


Queen Bull
QUOTE(Femicist Nemesis @ Aug 26 2008, 07:43 PM) *
HOLY BIBLE Isaiah 49:14-16

ahem... dont even fucking go there. Is that supposed to warn us against having that opinion? You CAN never and WILL never have to worry about your 'sucking child' or having to make any sort of decision like that. So hows about going and fucking yourself as far as thats concerned.
girltrouble
.
anarch
yay GT!!!

/claps, cheers, whistles
girltrouble
oh, and steve? FUCK YOU!
anarch
Former "pro-lifers" talk about what it was like to grow up in the movement, and what persuaded them that they were wrong (this info might come in handy if trying to persuade political fence-sitters troubled by abortion, considering Palin's strong "pro-life" views):
(also, sorry for not hiding the html, I'm in a rush)

A number of protesters failed to comprehend that clinics offered any services besides abortions.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2215211

I remember not just hearing these things but believing them, with the same certainty that some folks believe Iraq sponsored the 9/11 attacks, or that Hillary 'really' won the primary. Once you've made the decision that The Other Side is evil, and fighting for something so monstrous that one could not possibly support it in good faith, it's easy to interpret even the good things they do as nothing more than a "cover" for their evil.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2215279

This was another strange belief that persisted: the belief that a pro-choice woman hated children so much that she would always choose to abort a pregnancy.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2215308

"only God has the right to decide" . . . The problem is not so much that a baby died, it's that a person, rather than God, decided it should die.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2215347


eliminating extramarital sex is more important than reducing the number of abortions.
I'm not making this up. I'm not projecting it, or waving around a silly stereotype. I have had this conversation with friends, relatives, fellow churchgoers, and fellow pro-life activists from around the country. I worked with the American Life League and I interviewed pro-life congressional lobbyists for magazines. This is how it works. Solutions to the 'abortion' problem are dismissed as unacceptable if they might encourage the unmarried to have sex.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2216021

I read this phrase:

willingness-to-deceive that defines the movement

which absolutely sums up how "right-to-life" lost me, and in fact my discomfort with the entire conservative/republican movement. They are willing to twist facts, isolate statements, overblow trivialities, tamper with voting machines, and rig polls in order to win converts.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2216059

It is important to actually listen to what anti-abortion activists are saying, because when you mischaracterize their arguments, they immediately dismiss you as being stupid, and from that moment on, every point you make is invalid in their minds. Once that happens, further discourse becomes impossible. If you really want to engage these people, do research on their positions. Learn what you can about their beliefs. Try to understand the cultural context in which these beliefs exist. Then, as much as you can, explore the weaknesses and inconsistencies in their argument as it actually stands.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2216158

Barrier methods are not interference. Sterilization is not interference. Those are effectively mechanical processes that prevent sperm from getting from point A to point B. Hormonal birth control does invisible things, and modifies the way a woman's body works at some invisible level. That's disrespectful to nature, and is tantamount to abortion regardless of the actual medical distinctions between hormone regulators and abortifacients.
It's also worth noting that inside the pro-life movement there are varying degrees of belief on these matters. . .
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2216211

here's another thing the mainstream might not know about: anti-abortion activists consider words like "zygote," "embryo," and "fetus" to be propaganda, not legitimate scientific terms. They're looked upon as an excuse to avoid saying the word "baby."
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2216422

From my own experience, the only way to convince someone pro-life to reconsider their views - the only thing that convinced me - is to grant that abortion is a great evil - even grant that the zygote may be human - but demonstrate that the consequences of criminalizing it would be a greater evil.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2216647

they believe that pro-choice people understand full well that "abortion kills babies," but that the sacredness of human life is so contemptible to them that they just don't care. See also: their unshakable conviction that a pro-choice woman will always choose abortion. See also: the label "pro-abortion," which applies to virtually no-one, but which they consider to be the only accurate description of pro-choice views--besides the term "pro-death," of course. . . .
I tend to address other issues, such as the prevalent pro-life attitude that once abortion is finally made illegal, everyone can draw a breath and rest easy and never worry about the issue again. I point out that the root causes of abortion will continue to exist if abortion is made illegal. I ask, "What will happen to women who risk their lives by seeking illegal abortions?" If they answer something along the lines of, "They're on their own--they made their choice," I state that that view is not consistent with a belief in the sacredness of all human life.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2216696

the best you can hope for in most situations is that pro-life activists not distort the truth when arguing their points. Acknowledge that they have the right to argue vigorously for their beliefs about the moral an ethical implications of abortion, but insist that they not distort legitimate differences (like implantation vs. fertilization) when they argue their points. They are very fond of slippery slope arguments so explain the implications of their own reasoning if the same standards are applied. (For example, "Infanticide is just around the corner" is no more less silly than, "Masturbation is murder" -- they are just pushing the extremes in opposite directions.)

Rather than saying, "You're a liar," point out that the specific arguments being used are distortions, and note that that legitimate beliefs should NOT require distortions and lies. Rigorous intellectual honesty, and a willingness to extend those who disagreed with me the same graciousness that I demanded of them, is really one of the things that began putting cracks in my own ideological certainty. Simply the act of being honest forced me to consider whether I should hold onto the convictions I had never previously questioned.
http://www.metafilter.com/74005/Will-no-on...zygotes#2216827

vesicapisces
Anarch, that's some good stuff. Thanks smile.gif
i_am_jan
I love the discussion in this thread. Just spent 45 mins poring over the last several pages, glad I did.

I’d like to mention one thing that I feel is really important in this battle, and that is a commitment to referring to anti-choice people as "anti-choice" and NOT "pro-life." I’d love to see it if we could all get together on this one. I know all of us are aware of this whole mislabeling mess already, but it just peeves me to hear people refer to the anti-choice as "pro-life", I know it does all of you as well, and I believe it helps their cause, each and every time this angelic, innocent, misleading label of "pro-life," is handed to them...it is probably actually their BEST strategy, simply having that label).
olivarria
I agree 100% i_am_jan, because if someone is truly "pro-life," they would be committed to fostering the human life that's already present, concerning themselves with their education, food, shelter, health; saving lives of those in danger, being against the death penalty, etc.

Here is an awesome quote from George Carlin concerning the anti-choicers:

QUOTE
Pro life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no Headstart, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born — you’re fine. If you’re pre-school, you’re fucked. Conservatives don’t give a shit about you until … you reach military age…Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life. These people are killing doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? They’ll do anything to save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they must just have to kill it? They’re not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman.


I go to school at UT San Antonio, and there has already been talk of starting a pro-choice group on campus; I am totally on board. The anti-choicers had a display of large aborted fetus pictures last year in the courtyard, along with communicating tons of false inormation. Blech. We have work to do.

anarch
yeah, thanks for the reminder, i_am_jan. I was putting it in scare quotes to indicate the irony, but that doesn't really get the point across. Actually I've been trying to figure out an alternative term based on that "forced pregnancy" piece I linked to a while back. "Forced pregnancy" gets at dimensions that "anti-choice" doesn't.

Haven't figured one out yet that rolls off the tongue though. "Forced pregnancy-ers" doesn't cut it.
olivarria
New rules proposed to protect anti-abortion (anti-choice) doctors

QUOTE
But Leavitt said the regulation was intended to protect practitioners who have moral objections to abortion and sterilization, and would not interfere with patients' ability to get birth control or any legal medical procedure.

"Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

"This regulation is not about contraception," Leavitt added. "It's about abortion and conscience. It is very closely focused on abortion and physician's conscience."


I am getting really tired of this shit. Now they want stronger regulations making it easier for them to refuse to perform abortions (and fill morning after-pill RX). So if I need an abortion/Plan B Rx, and the doctor or pharmacist refuses to perform these services, can i tell them they need to get someone who will? Or do I have to drive across town to another pharmacy/clinic, or possibly another state, since sometimes women have to travel quite a long way to get abortions in the first place? Last time i checked, in Mississippi, one abortion clinic services the entire state (up to 16 weeks)! If this is the case, there needs to always be an alternative doctor or pharmacist present or on-call, in case there's one person who refuses to do their job. What if several pharmacies in a row refuse to fill a RX? That's not an unlikely scenario if you live in the bible-belt or a small town in which there are few (or one) pharmacies. And why would a practitioner be morally opposed to performing sterilization, since that most likely would prevent abortions in the first place....much like birth control? And forgive my ignorance, but why does this regulation not need congressional approval? isn't that what checks and balances are for?

The regulation faces a 30-day “public comment period,” which means the public has 30 days to fight it. You can send a letter via:
ACLU
Planned Parenthood
NARAL
llamas
Aaargh! The proposed protection pisses me off to absolutely no end, among other things because it is specifically addressed according to Title VII as not being reasonable religious accomodation past a certain point. If you scroll down to examples 43 and 44 in the EEOC compliance manual on religious discrimination, it actually addresses this. But really, why do we expect this administration to care about, oh, laws and shit?
anarch
From Feministing: Many of you undoubtedly saw Jennifer Baumgardner and Gillian Aldrich's awesome documentary film, Speak Out: I Had an Abortion. I am a huge fan and have written about it in the past.

Well, now Jen has taken her radical work from the screen to the page, with lots of additional analysis and framing. Abortion & Life, written by Jen and containing gorgeous photographs by Tara Todras-Whitehill, just came out on Akashic Books.


I think I'll ask my library to get both documentary and book.
olivarria
Guess what - I am the new secretary of my campus Voices for Planned Parenthood branch! I have never held an official membership position before - I am so excited!
llamas
Yaaay olivarria!
I was treasurer, then VP for our campus pro-choice group, and it was pretty darn awesome.
vesicapisces
QUOTE(llamas @ Sep 22 2008, 05:52 PM) *
Aaargh! The proposed protection pisses me off to absolutely no end, among other things because it is specifically addressed according to Title VII as not being reasonable religious accomodation past a certain point. If you scroll down to examples 43 and 44 in the EEOC compliance manual on religious discrimination, it actually addresses this. But really, why do we expect this administration to care about, oh, laws and shit?


I think the bottom line is their agenda's all about shoving their religious biases in everyone's face, like "this is the NORM" rather than the fringe element it really is. If they keep their issues in the news this way - it's the old propaganda method, "if you say something often enough it becomes true." Ordinary people, absent opinions of their own to start with, start thinking that this kind of behavior is acceptable and that "right-thinking people" all think that way - until and unless it becomes their own obstacle. It makes me sick how many people seem to see issues as a problem only if they are impacted directly. Your insurance won't pay for birth control, and now you're outraged? Talk to your congressional rep. Your daughter can't get Medicaid to cover an abortion without a police report documenting her rape? That's the direct outcome of your repeatedly electing anti-choice state officials. You don't talk to your own kid about sex, you don't insist on the public school system offering sex ed in its health classes, you are pissed at the idea of public family planning providers giving your kid birth control, and yet you're shocked when your kid or one of her friends turns up pregnant at 15? And now the really sucky part - even if you lobby for prescription equity, vote pro-choice, educate yourself, educate your family, educate your friends - some jackass with a jesus stick up his ass can decide to overrule the FDA, the state pharmacy board, and sometimes even his own employer, and deny my kid the right to have him fill a legal prescription?

Sorry. Soapbox. Stopping now.
culturehandy
oh lovely. This man is the MP of the riding I live ine.
tommynomad
I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, culturehandy. I've written Bruinooge (whose name is a euphemism for asshole--hee, hee) on several matters, knowing it would fall on deaf ears. But here's the thing:

It's always better when the cockroaches are exposed to the light.

No way the legislation gets anywhere. And the people of Canada get a stark reminder of the fact that the Tories have been hijacked by Reform. Which is a surefire way to get the Liberals (not that I'm a fan, but better corrupt, eastern, old money than nouveau-riche, western-separatist, bible-thumping neocons) re-elected.

culturehandy
I'm going to agree with you Tommy, the man is such a fucking useless douchebag, I've also written to him, to no avail, about abortion issues, for a man who is so into talking to his constituants *snorts* he sure doesn't do a whole hell of a lot.
anarch
Nurse Olona took it upon herself to remove the troublesome device. Why? Simple, Nurse Olona told her patient:

"Having the IUD come out was a good thing [because] I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. ...What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus."

???

!!!!
culturehandy
Did this nurse go to school with Dr. Nick of The Simpsons?? Where on earth...no CH don't think about it or else your ears will bleed.

Wow.
.eilleen.
QUOTE(anarch @ Jan 20 2009, 10:49 PM) *
Nurse Olona took it upon herself to remove the troublesome device. Why? Simple, Nurse Olona told her patient:

"Having the IUD come out was a good thing [because] I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. ...What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus."

???

!!!!



What the Eff?!?
alluna
There's nothing like explaining abortion to my 7 year old because of some loud-mouthed kid at school.

During the inauguration yesterday, my daughter had a little boy in her class openly sobbing and telling everyone that Obama enjoys killing babies. I thought that this was incredibly horrific that a little 2nd grade boy was so terrified of the President coming after babies that he would cry while watching the guy swear in. What are his parents telling him??

A little Googling revealed that lots of kids are being told that Obama is a baby killer:
http://rain-blanken.blogspot.com/2009/01/d...bama-kills.html

I always thought that pro-choice was a very adult topic. How disgusting for people to have elementary school children arguing a point that kids can't even begin to understand. Adults are entitled to opinions and free speech, but I don't think it's at all appropriate that children should be in any sex/abortion discussion.

Was it regular practice during the election to tell children that Obama kills babies?
anarch
QUOTE(alluna @ Jan 21 2009, 03:11 PM) *
Was it regular practice during the election to tell children that Obama kills babies?


That's certainly the impression I got. Pro-choice = baby killer in these folks' minds, you know, and as for telling children, brainwashing's better the earlier it starts. Too bad you weren't able to choose when to introduce your 7-year-old to the topic, but since the fundies' kids obviously have no inhibitions about evangelizing, at least forewarned is forearmed.


On the Global Gag Rule reversal (yay!), there was a good comment on the timing of this over at feministe.
girltrouble

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.