Skip to main content

View Diary: Dred Scott, Explained: It's About Abortion (338 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I Would Make An Exception... (none)
    ...for funding under those circumstances
    •  aoeu (none)
      And other non elective abortions I presume?  "Life of the mother" ones.  The problem is that now even if you think abortion is murder you've ceded the moral argument.

      Should the military stop funding of all elective medical procedures?

      My turtles laughter
      was loud when the Yankees lost
      22 to zilch

      by TealVeal on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 09:36:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Thought it Would Be Obvious to You... (none)
        ...that "medically necessary" would include saving the life of the mother.   No one advocates forcing a woman to die as a result of preganancy.  Even though I'm pro-life, I would "cede" on funding for military rape victims, as the woman is a crime victim.  As Sen. Kerry said last night, forming policy on the issue "is not that simple" and playing "gotcha" on either side is disingenuous.

        As for funding other elective procedures, it would depend on the operation.  I could see how elective vision correction surgery could have benefits to military.  However, there are a LOT of elective procedures that would have no benefit.  I'm sure you don't need me to list.

        •  Terminating a pregnacy (4.00)
          would also have benefits to the military.

          If a woman is not prepared to parent a child that would take a toll on her performance as soldier.

          I agree with Kerry he has no right to enforce his morality on other persons...that alone is why I think pro-life is a farce. How can a person who has never met me, make that descion for me to keep a pregnancy and to raise a human being for the rest on my is absurd.

          BTW I read somewhere that the US military has one of the highest incidence of single mothers than any other branch of government.

          This is why Rove didn't want to run against Dean in the first place. Dean/Obama 2008/12

          by Genf on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 10:50:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  so... (none)
'd be okay with your tax dollars going to an elisted female if she is raped, yet you would not support your tax dollars going to any other woman's abortion?

          "Democrats: Always standing up for what they later realise they should have believed in." -Jon Stewart, the Daily Show

          by anna on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 03:00:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ceding the moral argument (none)
        This has always been my position: Either it's murder or it's not. If it is, then you can only abort for the life of the mother. If it's not, anything goes.

        If a woman is raped or the victim of incest, and becomes pregnant, and we accept that abortion is murder (and quite frankly, past 6-7 weeks I believe it is), then we cannot allow abortion for rape or incest. It's not the unborn child's fault it came into being in the way it did.

        Making exceptions is basically saying, well, it's murder, but it's acceptable murder in these situations. Making murder acceptable under any situation is a pretty horrifying prospect.

        (And before you jump me, please bear in mind that while I hold this strong belief I do not support legislating it--in fact I'm strongly opposed to legislating it. It's my personal feeling, and legislating based on personal feeling isn't a very good idea.

        (I saw my oldest daughter for the first time when she was a little 8-week-old fetus. She was waving her little arm and leg buds like mad and the tech said, that baby's doing jumping jacks. The whole time I carried her she jumped and bumped; my tummy looked like JiffyPop. Josie is now a funny, adorable, smart, gap-toothed, overly energetic 7 year old girl and has never stopped jumping up and down from that day to this except to sleep. She has always been who she is, from the moment I first saw her on that screen.)

        •  That is not morality but your opinion (none)
          I just watched a BBC documentary about preemies...and how doctors are beginning to think twice about saving 23, 24 and 25 week old births.

          The Netherlands have decided not to use intensive care to save these babies...they have found that the majority will have moderate to profound learning and physical disabilities. The quality of life is not worth afterwards is not worth saving them. They also note that these children are abandon by the state once they are out of hospital and no one is willing to enact provisions where they are cared for for the rest of their lives.

          Here is a situation where they are letting die late term fetouses...they feel that this is the moral thing to do.

          I am happy that you are happy with your choice and I am happy that other women are happy to have the choice.

          This is why Rove didn't want to run against Dean in the first place. Dean/Obama 2008/12

          by Genf on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 01:12:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again (none)
            It's absolutely my personal feelings, I've said so already. Personal feelings should not be legislated. I know my feelings are very unpopular on both sides of the debate (very pro-life and very pro-choice at the same time) and I accept that I'll take a lot of criticism for it.

            But I'm talking about abortion, not preemies. There comes a point when extreme heroic measures to save a very very premature child are not in anyone's best interests including the child's. We have a pretty good idea what's in store for babies born at the edge of viability (and whether to take heroic measures is between the parents and the medical team). When a fetus is aborted electively we don't know what its outcome would have been otherwise.

            Despite my own feelings on the matter I have given friends and family members my unconditional support and love regardless what choice they've made; universally they've chosen differently than I would have, and we are still friends and family. Any time I have been asked for advice--asked, mind you, otherwise I say nothing--I have said my piece, offered to take the child myself and then said no more on it but offered all the help I could give regardless of the choice.

            I have never condemned another woman for an abortion and never would. I feel what I feel, and I know what I know, and that's all I know. I don't know anything about being anyone else.

        •  Either murder or not . . . (4.00)
          Posing an either-or about this is not helpful. Because, maybe it's neither. An embryo, a fetus, is alive, but is it a human being? It is a potential human being. An acorn is not a tree. You don't say you cut down an oak when you stepped on an acorn. Everyone would recognize that as an absurdity or a grandiosity.  But we can't seem to keep the complexity when abortion is the issue. It's not murder, it's abortion, and there's a difference, the difference between a baby that is viable (that is, has all organs and brain fully formed) and the embryonic or fetal stage of human development. This isn't  "splitting hairs"; it's science. Unfortunately, the moral issues of abortion can not be reduced to a simple "either-or." You can't just go on automatic and say, "X is the truth, ergo this is the moral decision." (As in, "it's murder, hence no abortion," or "it's not murder, therefore abort at any time." Once we understand, as we once did in this country, that the fetus only gradually becomes a functioning human, it becomes a truly difficult decision as to when abortion is acceptable, but a decision that can be made.
          •  I actually agree with this more than not (none)
            Where I fall on the side of not aborting is the issue of viability. For me the issue is not whether the baby can survive outside the mother as a test of its humanity. An acorn is not an oak, but a seedling is. A 15-week-old fetus is more than potential even though it cannot survive on its own.

            Honestly, I don't advocate restrictions on abortion. I like the saying "legal and rare." I prefer to focus on more proactive measures that make the rare part more likely, such as political, financial and social support for single mothers, open adoption,  birth control initiatives, prenatal care and the like. The more we focus on that, the lower the abortion rates go. And everyone wants that.

        •  Well when your daughter is raped, (none)
          and she wants an abortion, because she doesn't have to deal with the psychological damage that will happen to both her and her child by the trauma of knowing that the man who raped her is the father, and you watch both of them develop depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and maybe commit suicide...

          ...just remember that you are not pro-life.  You are just delaying death until such a time as you won't feel responsible for it.

          It is an American value to care for each other.
          Vote Kerry/Edwards on November 2nd, to bring our soldiers home safely.

          by Daemmern on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:16:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  IF one of my daughters is raped... (none)
            ...and surely you're not advocating such a thing because I am personally anti-abortion...and surely you might see what a completely horrible thing that is to say...

   would be HER CHOICE what to do about it. Not mine. I would be here for her to talk to, offer advice IF ASKED, and support her through whatever decision she made.

            And I would hope that if she chose to terminate it would happen very early. I don't believe life starts at conception (and never said that). But I do believe that it starts before birth. And my beliefs + $3.25 = 1 large mocha.

            Right now my daughters are 3.5 and 7. I haven't even broached the subject of abortion with them, though they both have a general idea where babies come from with information appropriate to their age (Lou, the little one, knows babies grow inside the mama. Josie, the older one, knows the daddy is involved somehow but hasn't quite figured out the specifics.) When they ask me questions, I answer them matter-of-factly and with as much detail as they've asked for. I'm about as sex-positive a person as I know.

            When we get to the whole abortion discussion, I will tell them what I believe and let them decide for themselves; by that time they'll be old enough to do that.

            My personal stand has always been: Don't approve of abortion? Don't get one. That's a bumper sticker I took to heart. What others decide is up to them.

    •  Does she have to PROVE (4.00)
      that it was rape?

      Or will a simple affirmation do?

      (Think about it...)

      O it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant--Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II

      by ogre on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 10:01:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not Too Complicated (none)
        If the rape allegations are disproven after the military paid for an abortion, then the woman should have to repay the expenses.  Such a policy would prevent false charges for purposes of getting funding.
        •  Investigating (none)
          Would cost more than the procedure.

          O it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant--Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II

          by ogre on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 10:38:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Any Allegation That Serious... (none)
            ...would have to get investigated anyway.  If a woman steps forward and brings charges which is traumatic enough, no need to require "proof" just for purposes of forwarding relatively small amount for costs.
            •  Dude... (4.00)
              the way you are dancing around all these complexities is almost farcical. You're trying to find a justification for maintaining your so-called "pro-life" stance AND retaining your right to think of yourself as compassionate and liberal and reasonable.

              It WON'T WASH. The ramifications of what you are suggesting put an UNDUE BURDEN on the woman. Not only is she raped, but she has to go through another rape at the hands of a system that has now put a monetary price on her being able to prove the rape.

              WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT.

              Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

              by Maryscott OConnor on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 10:57:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're not thinking this through (none)
              A woman comes forward, pregnant.  

              She affirms that she was raped.  She admits she didn't report it, she was just so freaked out that she didn't.

              A friend affirms that she was told about the rape at the time, but couldn't persuade her friend to report it....

              She's 6 weeks pregnant.  She says she missed her period and just kept praying that she was late...

              There will be no physical evidence.  She says she didn't recognize her attacker.

              Your investigation will look at what?

              It's an absurd system that you're proposing.  It would be a snap to game it.  And people would.  Why create systems that beg people to lie and cheat?

              O it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant--Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II

              by ogre on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 01:56:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This post is obviously being made by someone... (none)
              ...who has neither experience with rape on a personal level nor experience with dealing with rape cases in any legal capacity.  Try not to be too hard on them.
        •  Now you are sounding like the mullahs (4.00)
          Rape is only prosecuted in Ilam when there are FOUR witnesses (male of course).

          This is why Rove didn't want to run against Dean in the first place. Dean/Obama 2008/12

          by Genf on Sat Oct 09, 2004 at 10:52:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  funding abortion? (4.00)
            tell you what:

            when health insurance plans stop paying for Viagra, they can stop paying for abortions.

            If you think the Rethugs care about actual living people, consider that they OPPOSE funding planned parenthood programs (except when planning = abstinence).  Their motto:  keep 'em ignorant, pregnant, barefoot and under control.

          •  Actually you don't need 4 MALE witnesses (none)
            That's some American made-up crap.

            In Islam, you need 3 witnesess.  Now as far as their gender is concerned, 2 women = 1 man.  As an American AND as a opinionated woman, that smarts.  I asked in Sunday school why is that and it all boils down to menstruation.  This is also why women don't pray or fast while on their periods.  Oddly enough, this is also why you don't see many female sushi chefs, but that's another subject.  

            Basically, there are ony 2 weeks out of a month that a woman is hormonally balanced.  Those other 2 weeks, her perception of what was said/done and what was meant by those actions may be affected by these hormones.  That is why 2 women are needed.  It's kinda like a back-up system.  

            Now, not just any old man will do.  If there was a male witness, but he was known to be a drugged up, pedophile thief, he's not going to be taken at face value.

            Now, I'll probably get some crap for this, but this is what the Qu'ran and Hadiths say.  What is actually practiced is different depending on what country you're in.  I just feel that everyone deserves the right to know the facts.


            If you repeat a lie, it becomes your truth. And if you repeat a lie often enough, you become a Republican. - Betty Bowers

            by fabooj on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 12:23:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The facts (4.00)

              The Hudud Bill drafted by the Terengganu state government constitutes a gross violation of the principles of justice and equality in Islam.

              Under this Bill, a woman who reports she has been raped will be charged for qazaf (slanderous accusation) and flogged 80 lashes if she is unable to prove the rape.

              An unmarried woman who is pregnant is assumed to have committed zina, even if she has been raped.

              A woman cannot be a witness.

              It is perverse that the drafters of this bill should regard rape as a woman's defence against prosecution for zina rather than as a violent and serious crime against women. It is even more unjust that the bill places the burden of proof of rape squarely on the woman's shoulders and will flog her 80 lashes if she does not provide clear proof of the rape.

              The victim's police report of rape is then taken as a confession of illicit sex in these countries. Judges have concluded that the intercourse therefore had the consent of the victim and found the rape victim guilty of zina, while the alleged rapist is released for lack of evidence. In some cases, the rape victim is also found guilty of qazaf because she could not produce the four male witnesses to prove rape and therefore has slandered the alleged rapist's good name. The only way a rapist can be convicted under this so-called Hudud law is through a confession, which, in any case, he can withdraw at any time later.

              These irrational provisions that discriminate against women are man-made innovations; there are no such provisions in the Qur'an and authentic hadith. On the contrary, the Qur'anic provisions are very protective of women.

              The requirement of (at least) four witnesses that is provided for in the literal meaning of Surah An-Nur 24 : 4 was specially revealed to protect women from slander and casual accusations of zina, not to protect men from charges of rape :

              And those [masculine plural] who launch a charge against chaste women [muhsanat-feminine plural], and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations) - flog them [masculine plural] with eighty stripes and reject their [masculine plural] evidence ever after; for such men are wicked transgressors

              This is why Rove didn't want to run against Dean in the first place. Dean/Obama 2008/12

              by Genf on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 12:56:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you. (none)
                My point still remains that these laws are made by the state.

                If you repeat a lie, it becomes your truth. And if you repeat a lie often enough, you become a Republican. - Betty Bowers

                by fabooj on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 03:11:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  My instant response to that... (4.00)
              Oh yeah? Well, with all that testosterone, men are hormonally unbalanced every day of the year.

              What a load of... excuse me. I was about to use language I just don't use. (Hanging out on these here internets sure is corrupting me.)

              If a landslide falls in the bit bucket... was there an election?

              by Canadian Reader on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:04:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, I don't make the rules... (none)
                I'm just saying what I was taught growing up and what I read.

                I've never thought that ALL men were balanced.  You should have seen the overly hormonal guys I went to school with.  LOL!  

                If you repeat a lie, it becomes your truth. And if you repeat a lie often enough, you become a Republican. - Betty Bowers

                by fabooj on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 07:38:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know you don't make the rules. (none)
                  My indignation was not directed at you, but rather, at the infuriating male assumption that because of our reproductive apparatus, women are flighty and unbalanced, thus not to be trusted.

                  So. Does a post-menopausal woman count equal to a man as a witness, then? Surely we ought to count for double, compared to those hormone-tortured young men, who are thinking of nothing but their intense desire to get laid.

                  I'm kidding. Point is, men and women are in fact equally reliable, and equally unreliable, as witnesses.

                  If a landslide falls in the bit bucket... was there an election?

                  by Canadian Reader on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 08:06:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site