November 07, 2003
 
Is it ironic...

...that it's a bunch of men signing the bill to take away a woman's right to make a choice about her own body?

I'm sure this may be old news to you, I'm just a little behind, having been out yesterday.

A News post by kim at 09:49 AM | Comments (9)
 
Comments

was it not also a man who blocked it in the courts already? quit bashing us! we rule you, accept it!

Posted by: doug at November 7, 2003 10:03 AM

*smile* i just thought it was funny. i'm not really male-bashing as much as bush-bashing.

Posted by: kim at November 7, 2003 01:51 PM

The theoretical woman whose choice we're discussing already had a choice to have protected sex, preventing the pregnancy. Or take birth control. Assuming that choice was made in the negative (that an accident hadn't instead occurred, since it is true rubbers break and whatnot, or the person wasn't unable to take b.c.), she then chose to carry until the bitter end.

Looks like a lot of choice is already being protected!

I'm not against abortion per se. They should seriously sell the "morning-after" pill in 7-11's next to the gum. But partial-birth abortion for non-medical reasons, to me, is the action of an extremely irresponsible person, who can't even muster up the fortitude to end the pregnancy at a better time. There are so many people who would love to adopt that kid, but her right to her body prevents her from sacrificing an extra few moments of pushing so that the baby may rather live than die. We don't need laws for this stuff, we need public scorn of these people.

Posted by: Jeffe at November 7, 2003 05:11 PM

Regarding for "medical reasons" -- in no medical circumstance is the suggestion solution partial-birth abortion.

Posted by: PK at November 7, 2003 06:39 PM

The concept of Partial Birth Abortion may be horrific, but I think in most cases realistically it would be used if the mother's life were in danger; now if this law stands it makes it more difficult and less safe for the procedure to be done. See, making laws that say things are illegal will not stop them; it only makes them more difficult to obtain, and less safe, as abortions were in general prior to 1973. I would concur that ideally adoption is better than abortion, but this world is not always ideal and if the mother's life were in danger, there is no question in my mind that partial birth abortion would have to be done. Fortunately I don't think this law has a chance of standing. At the most we'll have to wait until this country is not ruled by a sociopathic religious zealot...but it may not take that long. Bottom line : A Woman's body is her own, and nobody, especially not men, have any right whatsoever telling her how to handle her own body and her own life. If her soul ends up in trouble, ( something which no one can prove ) that is her responsibility as well. People, especially politicians, need to learn how to mind their own business.

Posted by: Joshua Aaron Day at November 7, 2003 08:23 PM

Its a shame about that whole murder thing. It is much more dangerous for me to kill other people thanks to that whole legal snafu.

Come on, please give me one example of partial birth abortion "saving a woman's life". This I've got to hear. I'd love to hear your statistics backing up that it is used "in most cases realistically" in such hypothetical cases.

The beauty of a representative republic is that, it isn't one person that makes laws, as a monarchy. It is the will of the populace, embodied in elected representatives that approve laws.

Oops, I forgot -- Bush was s"elected", right?

Posted by: PK at November 7, 2003 10:13 PM

I think things went downhill when we started letting women out of the house.

Posted by: FeRReT at November 8, 2003 02:00 AM

*bad* jason. i did not just hear you say that. *spank*

Posted by: kim at November 8, 2003 03:12 PM