Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Finally!!!! A great day for reproductive rights!!

www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/431180

University of Wisconsin Hospital, its doctor group and Meriter Hospital are proposing to open an abortion clinic at their jointly owned Madison Surgery Center near Meriter, which anti-abortion groups say could violate state laws.

The clinic, which could open next month, at 1 S. Park St., would primarily offer second-trimester abortions, said UW Hospital spokeswoman Lisa Brunette.

Madison's only existing abortion clinic, at a Planned Parenthood facility on the East Side, will continue to provide first-trimester abortions and some early second-trimester abortions, said Chris Taylor, public policy director for Planned Parenthood.

Hurrah for woman!!!!

"When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." -- Susan B. Anthony (1869)

One wonders how the feminist movement, dedicated once to the outlawing of abortion as a grievous crime against women, became so distorted?

Voices of Our Feminist Forerunners

JoltinJoe wrote:"When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." -- Susan B. Anthony (1869)

One wonders how the feminist movement, dedicated once to the outlawing of abortion as a grievous crime against women, became so distorted?

Voices of Our Feminist Forerunners

Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe ... that such a law would have the desired effect. It seems to me to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil, and destroy it.

To my certain knowledge this crime is not confined to those whose love of ease, amusement and fashionable life leads them to desire immunity from the cares of children: but is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed, and in whose hearts the maternal feeling is pure and undying. What, then has driven these women to the desperation necessary to force them to commit such a deed? This question being answered, I believe, we shall have such an insight into the matter as to be able to talk more clearly of a remedy.

Susan B. Anthony

In her writings, Susan B. Anthony occasionally mentioned abortion. Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion which at the time was an unsafe medical procedure for women, endangering their health and life. She blamed men, laws and the "double standard" for driving women to abortion because they had no other options. ("When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." 1869) She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion.
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/ ... nthony.htm

"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."

-- Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment.

"The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief...So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies."

Emma Goldman, "Mother Earth"

Antoher view on this, especially the co-opting of quotes (some out of context, some not necessarily attributable to the person FFL claims to have said it...
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/10/06/anthony/

Of course, using quotes from 160 years, when conditions were far different to justify a position today makes as much sense as using a few quotes from 2000-3000 years ago to justify discrimination and hatred towards a group of Americans.

and good to see ya, JJ!!

JoltinJoe wrote:"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."

-- Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment.

"The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief...So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies."

Emma Goldman, "Mother Earth"

Stop Joe, for each one of these I can find ten regarding childbearing being the ultimate means of subjection for women.

Your point is taken, now let us sit back and enjoy this momentous occasion.

dbackjon wrote:Of course, using quotes from 160 years, when conditions were far different to justify a position today makes as much sense as using a few quotes from 2000-3000 years ago to justify discrimination and hatred towards a group of Americans.

Hey jon!!!

Well, I agree on the latter point ...

But I think the quotes from 160 years ago are relevant on the modern question of abortion.

It is one thing to debate whether it is outlawing abortion would be effective ...

It is quite another to celebrate abortion as a "women's right."

(BTW, I don't think I am co-opting quotes out-of-context. I think it is clear that the first feminists saw abortion as an act of violence against a woman and her child ... regardless of whether some of them questioned whether laws prohibiting abortion would be effective or practical).

It seems that they were more concerned about forced abortions, and how risky it is.

Question - do you think outlawing abortions would ever be practical? How many abortions would it really stop? Or would the rich just go out of country, the poor to the back-alley provider?

JoltinJoe wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Of course, using quotes from 160 years, when conditions were far different to justify a position today makes as much sense as using a few quotes from 2000-3000 years ago to justify discrimination and hatred towards a group of Americans.

Hey jon!!!

Well, I agree on the latter point ...

But I think the quotes from 160 years ago are relevant on the modern question of abortion.

It is one thing to debate whether it is outlawing abortion would be effective ...

It is quite another to celebrate abortion as a "women's right."

(BTW, I don't think I am co-opting quotes out-of-context. I think it is clear that the first feminists saw abortion as an act of violence against a woman and her child ... regardless of whether some of them questioned whether laws prohibiting abortion would be effective or practical).

Damn right it was violence against a women. Abortions in those days were performed by a blacksmith with a mace and a bucket!

It's much safe now. In fact, in highschool, my girlfriend and I snuck out at lunch, got her an abortion and got back in time for the pep rally.

dbackjon wrote:It seems that they were more concerned about forced abortions, and how risky it is.

Question - do you think outlawing abortions would ever be practical? How many abortions would it really stop? Or would the rich just go out of country, the poor to the back-alley provider?

I disagree. If this were so, and the original feminists were only concerned about the danger and risk of abortion for the woman, then why do the original feminists talk about the "murder" of the child?

The point is, groups want to make the practice illegal, and therefore those who participate criminals. That allows the most rabid proponents to punish those who do not comply with their morals, gratifying themselves and earning their stairway to heaven, even if they were lousy tithers.

After all, what we really need in this country right now, is more people behind bars for morality crimes.

JoltinJoe wrote:

dbackjon wrote:It seems that they were more concerned about forced abortions, and how risky it is.

Question - do you think outlawing abortions would ever be practical? How many abortions would it really stop? Or would the rich just go out of country, the poor to the back-alley provider?

I disagree. If this were so, and the original feminists were only concerned about the danger and risk of abortion for the woman, then why do the original feminists talk about the "murder" of the child?

Good point - but again, I believe the main focus was the health of the mother.

And answer my question, please...

JoltinJoe wrote:

dbackjon wrote:It seems that they were more concerned about forced abortions, and how risky it is.

Question - do you think outlawing abortions would ever be practical? How many abortions would it really stop? Or would the rich just go out of country, the poor to the back-alley provider?

I disagree. If this were so, and the original feminists were only concerned about the danger and risk of abortion for the woman, then why do the original feminists talk about the "murder" of the child?

Shit was a long time ago Joe. Weak argument. Cant really judge what their mindset would be today. If they're so fukcing smart why aint we still blood letting to cure the tremors?

dbackjon wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote: I disagree. If this were so, and the original feminists were only concerned about the danger and risk of abortion for the woman, then why do the original feminists talk about the "murder" of the child?

Good point - but again, I believe the main focus was the health of the mother.

And answer my question, please...

I was avoiding your question because it's too tough to answer.

What do you mean by practical?

To reflect a state's viewpoint of the unacceptability of the practice? In that sense, yes, outlawing abortion is practical.

Will it prevent some women from obtaining an illegal and potentially more dangerous abortion? No, so in that sense, it is not practical.

JoltinJoe wrote:

dbackjon wrote: Good point - but again, I believe the main focus was the health of the mother.

And answer my question, please...

I was avoiding your question because it's too tough to answer.

What do you mean by practical?

To reflect a state's viewpoint of the unacceptability of the practice? In that sense, yes, outlawing abortion is practical.

Will it prevent some women from obtaining an illegal and potentially more dangerous abortion? No, so in that sense, it is not practical.

The latter. So is spending all this time and money trying to ban open abortions worthwhile?

dbackjon wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote: I was avoiding your question because it's too tough to answer.

What do you mean by practical?

To reflect a state's viewpoint of the unacceptability of the practice? In that sense, yes, outlawing abortion is practical.

Will it prevent some women from obtaining an illegal and potentially more dangerous abortion? No, so in that sense, it is not practical.

The latter. So is spending all this time and money trying to ban open abortions worthwhile?

Taking that logic train to the last station...

We've banned murder for centuries...and it still happens...

Are you suggesting we make open murder legal???

Colonel - I knew I left myself open for that, and I would argue that you are trying to compare apples and oranges. A person (murder victim) has legal rights. A fetus does not.

As much as we can argue as to when life begin, when a person is a person, etc, the reality is that until the fetus is delivered, an abortion will not be looked upon the same way as a we look upon a murder.

Is that right?

I wish there was some compromise points, but when one side thinks that contraception is wrong, and the other wants abortion up to the last minute to be legal, not sure if there is any.

I can't tell a woman they have to carry a fetus to term, but I would be comfortable in giving them a timeframe to make a decision (first 4 months, etc).

dbackjon wrote:Colonel - I knew I left myself open for that, and I would argue that you are trying to compare apples and oranges. A person (murder victim) has legal rights. A fetus does not.

As much as we can argue as to when life begin, when a person is a person, etc, the reality is that until the fetus is delivered, an abortion will not be looked upon the same way as a we look upon a murder.

Is that right?

I wish there was some compromise points, but when one side thinks that contraception is wrong, and the other wants abortion up to the last minute to be legal, not sure if there is any.

I can't tell a woman they have to carry a fetus to term, but I would be comfortable in giving them a timeframe to make a decision (first 4 months, etc).

I only tried to show that some things are worth fighting for...you have issues I know you are extremely passionate about and would not back down one iota on...agreed???

I believe that you have a right to life no matter what you believe...everyone has that "inalienable right"...the crux of this discussion comes down to when life begins...I will not concede to anything short of at conception...therefore, I must argue to all life, be it a convict on death row or a child in the uterus...

I can no more change that position than you can change your positions on gay rights...thus, the conudrum...

I understand what you are trying to compare, and there are comparisons, some valid, some not.

I find it ironic that many (Not singling you out) are for full rights for a fetus, but once that fetus is born, are not for full rights for it if it happens to be gay or lesbian... They are making a mass of cells more important than American Citizens.

And yes, the crux is where does life begin. I try to look at this more from a practical sense. What happens to the woman who, finding herself pregnant, does not want to carry to term the fetus? Is she locked up until delivery? I can't say that we can do that.

Do we take it the logical step further, and ban any woman of child-bearing years from drinking, smoking, or engaging in any behavior that could be harmful to a potentially developing fetus?

D1B wrote:Hurrah for woman!!!!

yeah, Hurrah for woman and Tears for baby. They should make the woman hear the heartbeat before they proceed.