Right to Contraception Under Attack

[Ben Kenobi]

It's religious and cultural. Look at the Promise Keepers, who believe that husbands/fathers should reclaim their "rightful place" as the head of the home. Look at the conservative Xians who've been arguing for thirty years that women should be in the home and not the work place. Who was it who fought the ERA?

And there are no female prolifers? What's in it for them?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Shepards of the Lamb, I think is the name of one such group. They don't come right out and say violence is okay, but they publish the addresses and photos of doctors and their families, where they work, where they attend school,

Shame can be an effective deterrent.

If the abortion doctors really are proud of what they do, why don't they advertise?

I agree, that one should not publicise the address and photos of the doctors and their families, because you don't really need any of that to oppose abortion. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I also agree that this is suspicious, but there is still a leap from this to what the prochoice folks have already done, and advocated violence against the prolife folks who come out to this march.

All that does is energize the prolife folks. We say, bring it on! If you want to beat us up in public for just showing signs, then go right ahead.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is the responsibility of the state to ensure the well-being of the public, especially when a viable option exists... or at least that's what the socialists tell me... despite moral implications.

And how does abortion help people? Does it heal them from a disease? Does it relieve pain and suffering? No. There are better alternatives to abortion for every situation except for an ectopic pregnancy. Therefore, the common welfare does not come into play.

Secondly, if we see the unborn child as a person, then what does it say about the society, that we are more comfortable with killing people for the common good, then dealing with the real social problems?

[Ben Kenobi]

Officially, the anti-women's groups condemn violence, but it frequently seems to be with a nod and a wink.

Nod and wink? Why then do some of the groups constantly refer to the methods of non-violent direct action presented by Dr. King? Why do they admonish any occasion of violence done to an abortion provider? Go look. I can find plenty of examples of both cases, where prolifers extol the virtues of non-violence, and abhor those who insist upon violence.

I'll be honest with you. Folks like Joseph Kopp frighten me. Not so much because I would be the target, or the damage he does to the reputation of other people, but rather, that he may encourage others to follow this route. Those people who are frusterated by the lack of voice that they have in society, by the slowness of change, will face the same question that troubled Malcolm X.

Rather than tarring the prolife organisations with the same brush, you ought to differentiate between the peaceful folks, and the violent ones, for your own interests in keeping the peace.

[MrFun]

You can't take the rhetoric of some anti-choice advocates at face value.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just like we are supposed to dismiss all these threats made by the pro-choicers as just rhetoric, eh?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah -- let's hear it for denying women the right to autonomy over their own bodies.

As an aside, can you legally sell your own organs? Can you legally sell yourself into slavery or prostitution? Do you believe we should... after all, autonomy over our own bodies.

[MrFun]

Threats? There seems to be more anti-choice advocates resorting to physical violence and/or property violence than there are those who are pro-choice.

And note that the operative word in my last post was "some." SOME anti-choice advocates use the rhetoric of human life as sacred as a facade to their real agenda in dehumanizing women by denying them the right to autonomy over their own body.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah -- let's hear it for denying women the right to autonomy over their own bodies.

As an aside, can you legally sell your own organs? Can you legally sell yourself into slavery or prostitution? Do you believe we should... after all, autonomy over our own bodies.

Nice distortion by using an absolution -- an all or nothing position, which was not the implication of that statement of mine.

[Dis]

women shouldn't be in the workplace.

but I disagree about restricting contraception. That is just plain stupid. we still need to restrict the birthrate even more.

[MrFun]

I am anxiously waiting for Imran's apology, so we can hug and make amends.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nice distortion by using an absolution -- an all or nothing position, which was not the implication of that statement of mine.

Nice try, but you said "let's hear it for denying women the right to autonomy over their own bodies." Obviously you are implying an all or nothing position, ie, a RIGHT to autonomy over your own body.

[MrFun]

Note the topic of the thread -- it relates to abortion and contraceptives and whether or not women should have the right to decide for themselves on these personal issues.

In this topic context, my statement still does not imply an absolute all or nothing position. Don't you read people's posts in the context of the thread's topic??

[aneeshm]

One thing I have found (and I'm pro-choice) is that if you want someone to stop , give them a worse alternative than the one they're tring to stop . A simple solution could be that the women's and pro-choice groups threaten to simply disown any children produced by lack of contraception or unavailibility of abortion , and leave them at the doorsteps of the leaders of the anti-choice movement . Let them handle the mess they might make . Even if we know that such stupid laws for banning contraception shall not be passed , this is one of the effective deterrents not only for the fanatics but also for the state .

Even though the above may be impractical , it is still an effective threat . The group could even "sponsor" a disownment , and help out someone who could not get an abortion in time . Because the disownment and forsaking of these children will cause much more severe repurcussions than the ban on abortion .

[Elok]

It's also PR death, genius. "The pro-choice movement knowingly abandons children, and unfairly stigmatizes them for the circumstances of their birth!" Go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot.

Anyway, nobody answered my question, and there are far dumber ones out there: tiger-fetus medicine, OK or not?