Is the US exporting an abortion war?

[pinkpops]

On Jan. 22, 2001 — his second day in office — President Bush issued an executive order denying U.S. aid money to any foreign nongovernmental organization offering women abortion counseling, services, or campaigning to liberalize their country's abortion laws.
.....
Critics Say United States Is Exporting a Vitriolic Battle; Supporters Disagree — and the Squabble Continues

......

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/World/Living/abortion_global_war_040122-1.html

[Jane Roe]

1. No, they are increasing freedom of choice

specifically the choice of whether the salary you make at work goes to pay for abortions in foreign countries. This is one area where Bush actually seems to be prochoice.

If this is how you choose to spend your money, then this option is open to you. If you need a link of where to send your money to fund foreign abortions, then I can probably find you one. Let me know.

[BlueJazz]

2. I don't choose to spend part of my money...

....chasing non-existent WMD all over the sands of Iraq.
Do you have a number where I can opt-out of that program?

[Jane Roe]

3. Well, I opted out by moving to Canada.

Perhaps you can follow my example. It is mighty cold and snowy up here though, so I will warn you that a substantial level of courage in your convictions is required.

[Bridget Burke]

4. Do you pay taxes in Canada?

Is abortion illegal there?

[Jane Roe]

9. Answers

My tax situation is rapidly evolving in Canada because I recently moved here.

I moved here to escape Bush, not to escape US abortion law and abortion funding law.

I do not know for certain what Canada's abortion policies are, but have have heard that at least most abortions are legal here and tax money does fund at least Canadian abortions. I have no idea whether Canadian tax money pays for abortion related services outside the borders of Canada.

I would certainly reserve any judgment on Canadian abortion law until I am much more acculturated here (it will probably take years). So far, I will note that I have met more prostitutes here than I did in the US and more parents who have given up children to be wards of the state than I did in the US. So perhaps, if this tiny slice of life experience is indicative of the larger picture here in Canada, then Canada's culture may call some somewhat different abortion law than the culture of the US does. On the other hand, I may just be living in a particularly poverty-ridden area. Time will tell -- years of time -- at the end of which I will have some firmer conclusions about Canada ready for all of you.

[rockymountaindem]

16. Will you move back if Bush loses?

[Jane Roe]

21. Don't know

I may get settled here.

I may be forced to move back for economic reasons, even if he wins.

All I can say is that I am glad I made the move and I am glad I am here now.

[Bridget Burke]

If you pay taxes in Canada....

You ARE funding abortions. Abortions done in a hospital setting are paid for as part of their health services; therefore, fewer are done in a clinic setting.

Since your tax situation is "rapidly evolving" one wonders if you are working. Are you going to school? Obviously, you can't afford to live in a very good area--write home for more money!

I'm sure your "firmer conclusions about Canada" will be just as worthwile as your opinions about the USA.

[Jane Roe]

27. Your speculations about my personal situation are way off

Furthermore, I think my personal circumstances are becoming an irrelevant distraction to the real issues here on this thread.

This is supposed to be a discussion about who should be forced to pay for pregnancy terminations.

This is not The Mr. Jane Roe Show

[Bridget Burke]

33. You brought up your "personal situation"!

You stated: "Perhaps you can follow my example. It is mighty cold and snowy up here though, so I will warn you that a substantial level of courage in your convictions is required."

If you are paying taxes in Canada, you are paying for pregnancy terminations. Of course, perhaps you're not working for a living; or are you working but dodging the taxman?

Terminating a pregnancy is a highly "personal" decision yet you have no problem offering your opinion.

[Jane Roe]

34. I wasn't talking about *your* pregnancy(ies)

I was talking about the law. The law reaches deeply into our pocketbooks and all kinds of other personal areas of our lives. Some examples of this include, education of children, informed consent law, child pornography law, anti-slavery law and anti-prostitution law.

In a democracy, I think pretty much all adults should be free to discuss and vote on all of these issues, whether they are directly affected or not.

To me, it is not enough to say: "You don't like child pornography, then just don't take dirty pictures of children." I want more say than this and I think, at least in a democracy, I deserve more say than this.

[Bridget Burke]

37. Just need a bit of clarification!

You've claimed the moral high ground, leaving the USA because YOUR tax dollars were going to pay for abortions.

Canadian tax dollars are, in fact, more likely to pay for pregnancy termination. If you're working up there, you really need to make your opinion felt. Up there, not here.

Of course, perhaps you're not working! Good for you.

[Jane Roe]

39. You seriously mischaracterize my actions

Please re-read my posts on this thread regarding my reasons for leaving the USA.

I'll give a hint: You have mis-identified my reason for leaving.

[Malva Zebrina]

67. It seems to me that

It would seem to me that this person is'paying" via their taxations, for choice and not for anything else.

If you think that an eight celled gelatinous blob is nothing more than that and have no compulsion about aborting that gelatinous, non human blob, which is in no way a "human being" then it is just fine that you can take control over your family and your life in that way. If you think otherwise, then you do have that choice according to American law.

There is nothing anywhere that says that a woman is oblighated to do otherwise than what she believes is the best for herself, her health, and her family. It has been that way for thousanes of years.

She protecte herself because she values herself and her life. and possibly that life of her family that is already existant.

[earthman dave]

51. A discussion about what?

About "who should be forced to pay for pregnancy terminations"? Way to frame the issue! You work for a think-tank or PR firm, by any chance?

[Jane Roe]

54. should I have said:

"whether each individual should be given the choice as to whether she wants to help pay for other people's abortions in foreign countries"?

Does that frame the issue more fairly?

[earthman dave]

71. LOL

[iverglas]

83. sure

should I have said:
"whether each individual should be given the choice as to whether she wants to help pay for other people's abortions in foreign countries"?

I mean, if the question had been relevant to the discussion at hand.

Which it wasn't, of course.

The Global Gag Rule, which was the subject of the initial post, has absolutely nothing to do with "pay<ing> for other people's abortions in foreign countries". Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

The US has not funded abortions in other countries for very many years. The US has not provided funding to NGOs for performing abortions for very many years. The US has not paid for anyone's abortion outside the US for very many years. And the people who object to the Global Gag Rule, the people quoted in the article linked in the initial post, were not suggesting that the US should pay for anyone outside the US to have an abortion. So, one wonders, why would someone bring the question of the US funding abortions outside the US into the discussion?

The Global Gag Rule prohibits organizations that receive US funding for services other than abortion from mentioning abortion in the course of providing those services, or from advocating decriminalization of abortion in political speech in their own countries.

If you didn't know what the issue was when you wrote your initial post, and this reframing of it, clearly you do now.

I (and I'm sure many others) are still waiting with bated breath for you to actually comment on the topic of this thread.

That would be the Global Gag Rule, NOT "pay<ing> for other people's abortions in foreign countries".

But heck, I suppose it was fun to appeal to emotion and prejudice and derail the discussion from the actual issue, was it?

.

[BlueJazz]

5. Every Woman in the world should have choice.....

as to how they govern their own body.....wheather they're next door or 12,000 miles away. (I feel) It's the duty of every citizen of the
earth to try to make that choice viable. Abortion IS going to continue, no matter how much the right wing tries to stifle it.

[Jane Roe]

7. "It is the duty of every citizen to make that choice viable"

Is this a duty to be privately observed on an individual basis -- or is this a duty that the government is supposed to force its citizens into observing en masse?

[BlueJazz]

11. Well, Yes.

NT

[Jane Roe]

13. Yes private or yes government enforced? nt

[LeahMira]

25. It's for the government...

Is this a duty to be privately observed on an individual basis -- or is this a duty that the government is supposed to force its citizens into observing en masse?

The government must protect and preserve individual rights. It must protect the individual's right to vote in honest elections, even while a significant percentage of the population chooses not to exercise that right. It must protect an individual woman's (and a man's) right to make medical decisions for themselves, even if some choose not to exercise that right. And yes, we all pay taxes in order to fund the mechanisms that ensure that our rights are maintained, even if each of us personally may choose or choose not to take advantage of the rights we have.

IMO, it's wrong to use foreign aid to force other nations to conform to the wishes of the U.S. administration and some of its citizens. We must give and share what we have because it is the right thing to do, not because we expect something in return. If our aid is conditional, we have no business offering it because with conditions it becomes a bribe.

[earthman dave]

52. "Force"?

So, if Your Glorious Leader sits back and doesn't interfere with other countries, that counts as forcing you to be complicit in abortions?

[Jane Roe]

85. No

1. I am forced to pay taxes.

2. Some people want to then forward my tax money to pay for things that help more abortions happen in foreign countries. These abortion-helping things may include include, for example: publicity, lobbying, suction machine and knives.

3. When #1 and #2 happen, then I am forced to help pay for abortions in foreign countries. I can't root through the clinic's medical and specifically identify which fetal remains my particular tax dollars paid to extract -- it doesn't work like that. Nevertheless, I am still being forced to pay for pregnancy terminations with my tax money in a meaningful sense.

4. This being forced to pay for foreign abortions can be something of a vexation for taxpayers who have other preferences for the foreign aid that their labor and taxes make possible. For example, I personally would prefer paying for AIDS drugs for Africa.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. i'm confused...JaneRoe are you pro-choice or anti-abortion?

[Mandate My Ass]

10. Mr. Jane Roe

sounds like he's about as pro-choice as Bush. Defunding abortion and family-planning services expands choice? :hurts:

[Jane Roe]

19. Sort of agree

I think Bush and I both want to keep abortion law the way it is in the US, but for different reasons and through different tactics.

Please let me explain:

What I perceive as Bush's reasons:
Abortion is very economical in the sense that the economy benefits when poor children are aborted, rather than being born and raised as an economic burden on their parents and (more importantly to Bush and big business) on the social services system. This is why I think Bush really doesn't want the abortion laws to change one bit.

My reasons:
I think Roe v. Wade provides a reasonably humane and realistic balance between the rights and interests of pregnant women and the rights and interests of zygotes, embryo's and fetuses. Although I have some minor quibbles with the case on marginal issues of fetal development, it is the best accommodation I have yet seen. I really, especially like the part of Roe v. Wade where they say that abortion regulation (within Constitutional bounds) should be worked out at the state level. The current law of the US is Roe v. Wade and I support Roe v. Wade.

What I perceive as Bush's tactics:
While Bush wants abortion law to stay as it is, he still wants the antichoice vote. This requires deception on his part. Of course, he is up to the task because he is a dishonest person. So he makes a big thing about signing this late term abortion law that: (1) affects few pregnancies; and (2) is clearly unconstitutional. What do you know? 3 courts find the act unconstitutional as soon as it is signed and abortion law in the US stays just as it was -- just the way Bush and the businesspeople pulling his strings want.

As a further note on Bush's tactics: Of course, the test for Bush really comes when it is time to appoint a Supreme Court justice. We can't say for sure what Bush will do if and when the time comes. I will now make a bold prediction of what will happen if Bush makes an appointment: He will "try" to appoint an antichoice candidate and then blame it on the Democrats when the antichoice candidate somehow fails to make it through the confirmation hearings.

My tactics:
Roe v Wade says that the fetus gains rights as it develops and that it is up to states to recognize those rights and balance them against the rights of the pregnant woman. I like to discuss fetal development issues and balancing issues so that I can help fashion state laws that wisely and humanely balance the rights of the pregnant woman against the rights of the late term fetus. It has been suggested on another thread that fetuses can ague for their own political rights, but I think this premise is clearly mistaken. This is why I sometimes argue that late term fetal interests can be protected under state law more wisely and humanely than they are at present. I think the Democratic Party would be politically wise to join me in my tactics directed at implementing Roe v Wade.

[Jane Roe]

12. Not sure, maybe you can help me figure out . . .

"(Some people) argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this (I) do not agree."

What is the best label for me?


Side note: the quote above is not my own original words, but it does accurately reflect my feelings on pregnancy termination law.

[Lars39]

14. protagonist

:)

[0007]

17. "What is the best label for me?"

Sir, your freedom ends where my nose begins.

And I suggest when ever traveling to a foreign country to take a map and learn the laws of that country.

[Jane Roe]

26. Late term fetuses have noses too

Also, the quote I used to describe my position was taken from the case Roe v Wade.

Do you have some kind of problem with Roe v. Wade? If not, why do you have a problem with me when I use quotes from the case to describe my positions?

Who is really the one who needs to brush up on the law here?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jane Roe]

20. You have to be fertile to join this discussion?

If so, we will have to inquire as to whether each of the participants is fertile. Its personal, but if we gotta know, then we gotta know.

[Lars39]

22. When's the last time you had your feet in the stirrups?

[Jane Roe]

24. I am equally likely to get pregnant as an infertile woman.

I claim an equal right to participate in pregnancy termination discussions.

[Lars39]

28. Bah. You just want to meddle in what is none of your business.

A woman's medical health is between her and her doctor. Your right to engage in pregnancy termination discussions exists with you and your partner, not me and you. It's none of my business if you decide to have a sex change, it's none of my business if you take viagra, it's not of my business if you have prostate problems, it's none of my business if you have a vascectomy, it's none of my business if you have to have a colostomy, or any other procecure. Let women start trying to interfere with a man's ability to get medical procedures done and see how fast the men have a fit.

[Jane Roe]

30. It is true that only half of the abortions involve male subjects

But half is still a lot, I think.

[Jane Roe]

38. If a female fetus is somehow impacted by the medical procedure

then you can bet your bottom dollar that women will try to get involved.

For example, if we had to terminate a late term female fetus "test tube baby" to get an adult male the cells he needed for his testicular cancer treatment, I am sure that women would feel free speak out on both sides of the issues there involved. Would *you* shut women out of this hypothetical legal and ethical debate? I would not.

You don't see me trying to get involved in hysterectomies, breast augmentation or breast cancer surgeries -- why am I so deferential on the law governing these medical procedures, do ya think? Where did my propensities to control women go when these fetusless medical procedures are discussed?

Clarification: I believe that most states have informed consent laws involving at least hysterectomies and breast augmentation surgeries. I support these informed consent laws, but my attitude is pretty quiet and deferntial on these legal issues.

[Lars39]

40. To be honest, until you have your feet in the stirrups and your ass in

the light, it's all hypothetical.

[Jane Roe]

41. I have been a late term fetus

That is my ticket to participate.

If late term fetuses could talk, I would shup up in a second, but they can't.

I think that speaking out for the civil rights of politically under-represented groups is a big part of what being a progressive is all about. That's all I am doing on this thread.

[Lars39]

42. "he said with a straight face..."

You are still trying to inject yourself into medical matters between a woman and her doctor.

[Jane Roe]

44. Lets see if we can bring me around

To a better way of thinking. What is your thinking about my testicular cancer hypothetical of post #38. Why would you close women out of the legal discussion there?

When I know your reasons for closing women out of that debate, then hopefully I will better understand why men need to be closed out of pregnancy termination debate.

[Lars39]

45. You make the presumption that a fetus would be aborted specifically

for this procedure. There is a difference in using a fetus already terminated and terminating a fetus strictly for this procedure. I view it as organ donation. This is getting all hepped up in the hypothetical, though. Bottom line, what occurs in the exam room is none of the business of the population of the waiting room, so why is it any of your business?

[Jane Roe]

46. In my hypothetical,

the fetus is conceived and continued for 7 months for the express purpose of donating cells to the sick, dying man.

I think you are saying that women can't participate in the debate because termination of the 7 month female, test tube fetus is a mere organ donation. I don't think that characterization of my hypothetical is necessarily correct. I would want the input of many men and women to help me decide if mere organ donation was going on or, alternatively, whether more important values were at stake in this testicular cancer treatment.

[Lars39]

47. What you are talking about is a whole other ballgame.

Convoluted hypotheticals to justify invasion of a woman's medical privacy, with the woman being controlled being the end result.

[Jane Roe]

48. I respect your position

Not everybody has time, patience or inclinations for the convoluted hypotheticals that I find so helpful. There is no problem with that.

[outinforce]

23. I also am a MALE. Am I Entitled to Have An Opinion??

Are you suggesting, ElsewheresDaughter, that males are not entitled to have any opinion regarding the laws on abortion?

Or are you suggesting that the views of males count only when they agree with your own?

Hello!

[LeahMira]

29. What's for breakfast?

Are you suggesting, ElsewheresDaughter, that males are not entitled to have any opinion regarding the laws on abortion?

The chicken makes a donation to breakfast. The pig makes a personal commitment.

Sure, men are entitled to have opinions regarding abortion, but they are not entitled to claim personal commitment.

[outinforce]

31. Definition of Terms??

"Sure, men are entitled to have opinions regarding abortion, but they are not entitled to claim personal commitment."

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here, LeahMira. I understand you to be saying that it is perfectly OK for men to have opinions regarding the laws in the USA regarding abortion, and about policies concerning abortion.

What I don't understand is your statement that men are not entitled to claim a "personal commitment".

I also am having a bit of difficulty understanding how this relates to breakfast, chickens, and pigs.

Could you help me out here? Please??

[Jane Roe]

32. The chick makes a commitment too

Especially if it is far enough along to have developed a brain there in the shell.

It is true that only some chicks are male. Roosters must speak for those chicks because the eggshell prevents us from hearing their peeping.

on edit: If you knew that the chick had developed a brain and was moving around inside the eggshell would you still smash the egg against the side of the sink?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

35. strawman!...are you a rooster too?

[Jane Roe]

36. No

That is why I generally focus on late term male human fetuses.

Thanks for helping us not drift too far into extended metaphor land.

[iverglas]

55. in point of fact, of course

... and as I'm sure we really do all know ... THIS ban is a ban on funding to "any foreign nongovernmental organization offering women abortion counseling, services, or campaigning to liberalize their country's abortion laws" -- NOT MERELY to any foreign nongovernmental organization that performs abortions.

There was ALREADY a ban on US funding being used for the provision of abortins.

THIS ban is a ban on providing funding to such organizations so that they can provide OTHER services, if the organization also so much as mentions the word "abortion" to any of their clients. The clients of the organizations in question include thousands and thousands of people to whom no such information would ever be provided, and who will now be unable to obtain the services they do need unless the organizations that serve them agree to stop serving people who need information about abortion.

That is, THIS ban denies funding for ALL health care services for organizations that so much as mention the word "abortion" to clients.

The US government cannot impose this ban on USAmerican organizations working abroad, because it has been held that to do so VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which the US government may not do when the targets are USAmericans. USAmerican organizations ALREADY do not receive funding for providing abortions, but DO receive funding for providing OTHER services regardless of whether they also provide information or counselling about abortions, or referrals for abortions, to women who need it.

The people affected by THIS ban are largely women and children in need of basic health care, including non-abortion-related family planning services.

And in response to this denial of aid, we get a demagogic claim that the denial of aid equals greater freedom of choice ... for, obviously, the people who actually count, which isn't women and children in the developing world in need of healthcare services. And the snide offer:

If you need a link of where to send your money to fund foreign abortions, then I can probably find you one.

(perhaps there is another way of characterizing that offer; I'm open to suggestions and willing to change my own)

-- which offer requires, if it is to be relevant to this discussion, that it be true that THIS ban has anything to do with "fund<ing> foreign abortions". Since THIS ban has nothing to do with that, the premise is FALSE, and the offer made here is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Of course, it does do a fine job of muddying the waters and appealing to emotion and prejudice rather than reason. Kinda like demagogues do.

.

[iverglas]

56. update on the Global Gag Rule & action alert

First, more clarification of the policy, from the article linked in the initial post:

Commonly called the "Mexico City Policy," the order also prohibits aid to groups that use funding from other sources for these activities. It does, however, make exceptions for abortion-related services due to rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life.

Under the policy, US money may not be used for OTHER services by organizations that use funding from non-US government sources to provide abortion-related services.


I wasn't aware of this development: http://www.naral.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/pr20030709_sentategag.cfm
(a press release, i.e. quotable in full)

NARAL Pro-Choice America Praises Senate for Overturning Bush's Global Gag Rule

NARAL Pro-Choice America applauds all the Senators who courageously stood up for a women’s right to choose and right to contraception today. But pro-choice Americans will hold accountable those Senators who voted against the Boxer amendment and are now on record opposing contraception and a woman’s right to choose, " said Michelman.

"The Bush Administration’s global gag rule has made family-planning services -- which reduce the need for abortion -- harder for the world’s poorest women to access. This U.S. policy has forced some family-planning clinics to shut their doors; others are barely surviving without the USAID grants they received before.

"This gag rule limiting a woman’s right to choose and right to contraception has been President Bush’s top priority from the very first day of his Presidency. We fully expect him to fight for it as the legislation progresses but every action he and the anti-choice forces take will further expose their anti-privacy, anti-contraception agenda to the American people."

Does anybody know what has become of this US Senate action?


http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/globaldemopromoact__congress_12_03

Take Action!
Support the Global Democracy Promotion Act!

President Bush is standing between the world's poorest women and family planning services. Don't let him. On his first business day in office, Bush reinstated the global gag rule on international family planning funds, prioritizing his anti-choice ideology above women's health.

Representatives Nita Lowey and Jim Greenwood are working to put women's health first through legislation called the Global Democracy Protection Act (H.R. 2952). This bill would overturn the global gag rule. Tell your Representative to support this valuable legislation and a woman's right to access family-planning services!

There is a form to fill out for USAmericans to send the message to their legislators.


(duplication of part of quotation edited out)

.

[iverglas]

66. ^^^ for those who do care -- **please read** the above post

This isn't a matter of intellectual foolery for the people affected by the global gag rule -- it's a matter of life and death.

People all over the world are at risk of losing access to essential health care that has nothing to do with abortion as a result of Bush's pandering to the anti-choice crowd at home.

From the article linked in the initial post in this thread:

It was a decision Nirmal Bista never really wanted to make: a choice between money and principles, shutting up or sticking it out, and most harrowingly, one that involved the lives — and potential deaths — of millions of his countrywomen.

... As the director general of the Family Planning Association of Nepal, the leading reproductive health NGO in an impoverished country where an estimated six women die every day due unsafe abortions, Bista opted to forego U.S. government funding for his group.

... "By refusing to sign we have lost approximately $600,000 out of a core budget of $1.2 million," he said. "This may not sound like a lot of money in U.S terms, but here in Nepal, it has meant having to make decisions about closing clinics, laying off staff and medical professionals, and discontinuing critical services to thousands of needy women."

... The policy, they say, is not stopping abortions, but is hurting family-planning work across the developing world.

... First imposed by President Reagan at a 1984 Mexico City conference, the policy was suspended by President Clinton in one of his first acts after taking office, but then reinstated by Bush.

... But critics note that American tax dollars have not been funding abortion abroad since the 1973 Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act prohibited direct U.S. financing of abortion services.

Sounds like a pretty straight-out Republican policy to me. Don't know why a Democrat would be wanting to defend it.

And, like I said, it seems to me that only a demagogue would bring up funding of abortions in this discussion.

Call/write your legislators! I'm just a Canadian, so I wouldn't count.

Planned Parenthood Canada did send a letter of congratulations to Bush when he imposed the gag order immediately after taking office, explaining how it was joining in the campaign to celebrate his, um, election by inviting people to make donations in his name to organizations that would replace the funding he was denying. ;)

.

[sweetheart]

6. yes, and its despicable hatred of women

All birth control programmes the world over that include abortion as a potential option are being "de-funded" that is not choice... that is crap.. institutionalized repression of women and downright regressive.

Jane roe is a bit off on this, thought i respect the move to canada, as myself i've done similarly... voting with the feet and all... taking my contribution out of the tax base for what its worth.

[bleedingheart]

15. Overpopulated countries are great targets for capitalism

with loads of surplus labor they make for an outsourcing wet dream...

I am specifically referring to birth control to prevent pregnancies.

[Woodstock]

43. This article from The Nation tells the whole story

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030203&s=block
Christian Soldiers on the March

[outinforce]

49. I Have Some Issues With....

I happen to have some issues with the current laws on abortion in the USA.

But I must say that the groups mentioned in the "Nation" article do not speak for me.

So I'm not sure that it is quite correct to say that "This article from The Mation tells the whole story."

Concerns about the laws covering abortion in the USA are not confined to "Christian Soldiers".

Much could be gained, in my view, by having both sides on the abortion debate listen -- really listen -- to what the other side has to say, and leaving aside pre-conceived notions about what motivates the position of people with opinions which differ.

[Jane Roe]

50. Never!

Anybody who disagrees with me on political issues is pure evil and needs to shut up and stop voting.

[outinforce]

53. I'm Quite Sure....

Given posts you have made on this and other threads, Jane Roe, I must assume that your comments concerning anyone who disagrees with you were made in jest.

And yet......

And yet one of the results of robust (and sometimes passionate) discussion is often (at least in my case) is a feeling of frustration, combined with some anger.

You have demonstrated patience, graciousness, and civility -- often hard to do on threads which deal with topics about which people feel very passionately.

I admire your ability to take the time to understand what the other person is saying, even when the other person is mis-understanding, mis-representing, and even sometimes venting his or her emotions.

[LeahMira]

62. I have "issues" with people who refuse to listen...

Concerns about the laws covering abortion in the USA are not confined to "Christian Soldiers".

Of course individuals come to an opinion from many directions. Still, in general, those who oppose abortion and claim that a fetus has some sort of human rights that compete with the rights of a woman arrive at that view with some Christian influence coloring their opinion. The nation has a majority of people who are Christian, and so that influence pervades all thought in the country, directly or indirectly.

Christians begin with the premise that the fetus has human rights, or is in some way equal to an adult woman. Therefore, given that premise, the state feels some compelling interest in protecting the rights of the fetus.

Christians, however, are one of the few groups who teach that a fetus is in any way equal to a woman.

Those of us who do not espouse Christianity, as well as those of all beliefs or non-beliefs who defend the human rights of women, are quite familiar with the reasoning offered for the "compelling state interest" in protecting the developing fetus. I wonder if the anti-choice contingent has really taken the time to listen and ponder the pro-choice views on the matter.

Generally, I have found that when issues are framed in terms of two equal but competing sets of rights, closer inspection demonstrates that one "side" does not really have the alleged rights that it claims (or in this case, the alleged rights claimed for it.)

[Woodstock]

68. Christian in that title should have been in quotes (so-called Christians)

I'm Christian and do not believe these people on the "religious right" who are behind the coercive measures described in the article are behaving in a Christian manner - not at all.

Please do not lump all Christians in with that group of people who have decided to distort Jesus's message for their own advantage, whether it be social or political power. There is nothing less Christ-like.

I'm on your side 100% - so why push me away by assuming it's my religion that is the problem? The Jesus I believe in would have nothing but harsh words about the way these people are behaving.

I believe fully in separation of church and state, and fully in a woman's right to choose.

It's actually an excellent article that tells the story of what is going on with respect to the thread title (the thread that subsequently was hijacked from the original poster into a vanity thread.) There are a few here who are bothered that a woman has control of her body for reasons of their own, but I agree with you, the vast majority of those objecting to this are the so-called "Christians" on the religious right.

[outinforce]

81. I'm Listening

I really am doing my best to listen here. And I want to make sure that, as I listen, I do not misunderstand. So perhaps you can help me out a little here, LeahMira. You know such much, and I really do want to be educated on this issue.

"Still, in general, those who oppose abortion and claim that a fetus has some sort of human rights that compete with the rights of a woman arrive at that view with some Christian influence coloring their opinion."

I was completely unaware of this generalization. Silly me, I thought that several branches of Judaism, as well as most of the Islamic faithful, taught that abortion was wrong. And I even know of some atheists and agnostics who "oppose abortion". Are my facts incorrect? Or am I missing the connection between Judaism, Islam, atheism, and agnoticism on the on hand and Christianity on the other?

I think you are suggesting that most people who oppose abortion and claim that a fetus has some sort of human rights that compete with the rights of a woman formed their opinion as a result of being influenced by Christian thought. It would be helpful, I suppose, to define what exactly you mean by "oppose abortion". Does someone who wishes that abortion is safe, legal, and rare, oppose abortion because s/he wants abortions to be rare? Does a legislator who says that s/he is "privately opposed" but still votes against measures that would restrict access to abortion "opposed to abortion". And is someone who is not "opposed to abortion" in favor of abortion?

It might also be useful to define what you mean by a "fetus". Are you suggesting that a fetus at nine-months gestation, was it is coming down the birth canal, completely devoid of any human rights at all? Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court Justices who voted for Roe v. Wade, and who suggested, in the opinion in that case, that the State might have interests in preserving the life of a fetus during the last trimester of pregnancy, anti-woman?

"Christians begin with the premise that the fetus has human rights, or is in some way equal to an adult woman."

This also is news to me. In fact, I know of several mainline Protestant Denominations that do not teach this. Do you have any links you can point me to which spell out which branches of Christianity teach this? Are there any polls that you are aware of that show that Christians, if asked, would agree with the premise that you say they begin with?

"Christians, however, are one of the few groups who teach that a fetus is in any way equal to a woman."

Again, it might help to define your terms here. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that a group teaches that a fetus is in any way equal to an adult woman. I do know of several non-Christian biologists who wouls say that a fetus and an adult woman are equal in one very important way. And that is that they are both forms of human life. This is not the same thing as saying that both a fetus and an adult woman are human beings. Rather, absent a definition of what you mean when you say "equal to", it is possible to say that several non-Christian groups (including, I think, a great deal of the biological and medical communities) would agree that a fetus and an adult woman are both equal in terms of both being forms of human life.

"Those of us who do not espouse Christianity,"

You will excuse me for saying this, LeahMira, but it appears to me as though you are very badly misinformed concerning some of the basic tenets of Christianity. If you care to, I would welcome hearing how you came to your views of what Christianity teaches. Did you actually study the Bible and various commentaries on it? Or did you form your views of the teachings of Christianity based upon what others have told you..or upon the "teachings" of some televangelists?

"Generally, I have found that when issues are framed in terms of two equal but competing sets of rights..."

I do hope that you will agree with me that many pro-choice folks do not frame the issue thais way at all. They completely de-humanize the fetus. For many pro-choice folks, the fetus is simply not human life. I'm not exactly sure what these pro-choice folks call a fetus (other than sometimes a "parasite"), but for many, there is simply no issue concering competing rights at all, because for many, the fetus is lower than a bug -- a bug is a least a form of life, but many pro-choice folks have difficulty acknowledging that a fetus is even a form of "life".

And, just so you know, I know of very few pro-life folks who seriously argue that during the entire length of a pregnancy, a fetus has "equal" rights with its mother.

[Solly Mack]

57. Oh, now this is funny

Not you, pinkpops...unfortunately, your thread was hi-jacked.



But this has turned into a side show of epic proportions.

In Fact, portions of this thread should be saved as an example of fallacious arguments....or, how a poser poses poorly with polluting puddles of piss-poor logic.

[outinforce]

58. You Do Have A Way With Words, Solly Mack

"In Fact, portions of this thread should be saved as an example of fallacious arguments....or, how a poser poses poorly with polluting puddles of piss-poor logic."

Gee, I wish I had the ability to turn a phrase that you do, Solly Mack!

I wonder, though, would you mind sharing with the rest of us some exapmles of what you consider to be "a poser posing poorly with polluting puddles of piss-poor logic"?

Thanks in advance.......

[ElsewheresDaughter]

59. one........you think molly the fool?...hahaha

[outinforce]

60. What Gives You The Idea

What gives you the idea, ElsewheresDaughter, that I think that Solly Mack, or anyone else for that matter, is a fool?

Solly Mack posted an assertion about the logic used by some folks on this thread.

I merely asked for some examples.

No offense intended, Solly Mack (where ever you are).

[Solly Mack]

63. I took no offense

Abortion is an emotional issue....logic often jumps out the window when emotion burst through the door.

To be honest, I get downright emotional about the issue...but the original post was more the affect on the world (Bush's policy) and I felt that wasn't exactly dealt with...all manner of strawmen and hypotheticals detracted...as they are wont to do...and are meant to do.

So, this thread amused me...

[outinforce]

82. Thank You, Solly Mack

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Thanks also for your post, below, which replied to my question concerning what you found in this thread to be illogical.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond in a civil and thoughtful way.

on edit: The topic of abortion is a topic, I have discovered, about which people on both sides of the issue feel quite strongly. For many, the topic evokes strong emotions.

That is why, I think, people sometimes appear to be illogical when posting to threads such as this. For many people, it is very difficult to convey with onkly written words the passion and the deepth of feeling they have for an issue such as thiss --- and to do so in a civil and respectful manner. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that it is very easy to use a "hot-button" word unintentionally -- a word which evokes strong feelings in someone else.

And so, all too often, threads such as this become shouting matches where people -- instead of asking in polite and civil tones for clarification and giving others the opportunity to more fully explain and think through their positions -- start screaming at each other because of what they thihk the other person said or meant.

That is why I am very grateful to you for responding to my questions in the way in which you did.


Thanks again!

[Solly Mack]

61. I can't believe you've missed them but I'll play along....a few

Generalizations- "poor" people get the abortions(and everything that comment implied..and was actually implied by the author)...studies show it's the not so poor white women getting them.

Evading-the questions was asked "do you pay taxes in Canada"
was evaded like crazy ...and it was continued to be asked..and not answered. And the answers was pertinent to the point being made by the one refusing to answer...and each and every time the question was asked, the one answering belabored the minor point to avoid the actual issue.

Pure Bullshit- it takes years to figure out where Canadian tax dollars go? I think not...


Iverglas covered them in finer detail..which makes anything I say redundant...but as I stated, I'll play along.

Let's just conclude that the topic (by pinkpop) was debated around...never really touched on.

[Jane Roe]

64. Defending my responses

1. Two reasons I didn't answer the tax question: (1) my income taxes are none of DU's business; and (2) I don't know the answer yet. To be more specific about point (2): I had a substantial amount of money witheld in 2003, but I will probably get that back. Assuming I keep my job thru 2004, I will end up having a lot of taxes withheld that I will not get back in 2005. However, it is not clear whether I will indeed keep my job long enough to owe a net tax burden in 2004. So, long story short, I don't know.

As far as whether I pay GST and PST when I buy products and services in Canada: yes, the shopkeeper's are quite insistent that I pay those taxes. I am fully aware that those taxes help pay for Canadian abortions -- what on Earth made you think I wasn't aware of this fact? I also made it clear that abortion funding was not the reason I left the US. Now get out of my business and stop comparing my attempts at having a private life to "piss."

2. I was not trying to suggest that only poor people have abortions. However, I do think that abortion access is more critical for poor people than for rich people. Therefore, if there are more poor people in Canada, it might sense to have the abortion laws be somewhat different at the margins to better accomodate the extra problems caused by the extra margin of poverty. However, I made it perfectly clear that I was reserving judgement on all this and would continue to reserve judgement on Canada's laws and economic situation for years to come, until I had a lot more experience here. Again, I don't see why this amounts to logic as smelly and dirty as a puddle of urine.

[Solly Mack]

65. lolol

1- No one asked you your tax-rate (moot point)
2- Your not knowing your tax rate has nothing to do with the topic (moot point)
3- You still never answered if you paid taxes..which, naturally, is Yes. No one assumed otherwise. (Belaboring the minor point..again)
4- I never commented on why you left America (moot point)

LMAO 5- No one compared your ah "attempts" to have a private life to piss (tsk tsk-out and out lie....can't get more fallacious than that)
(boohoo, someone attacked my private life-let's divert the debate to that - NOT) lolololol

[iverglas]

69. "more poor people in Canada"

Ah yes, nothing like a little anecdotal evidence. (More prostitutes allegedly seen by an individual, more children relinquished to the state according to said individual -- who happens to be living in the largest city in Canada. "More" as compared to what, NYC?)

And nothing like a little hypothesizing based on the false premise that said silly anecdotal evidence was offered for -- that there are "more poor people in Canada":

if there are more poor people in Canada, it might sense to have the abortion laws be somewhat different at the margins to better accomodate the extra problems caused by the extra margin of poverty.

What utter and abject nonsense.

As only the most uninformed observer would not know:

(a) there are no laws to control access to abortion in Canada on any basis different from access to any other medical care;

(b) the provincial health plans cover abortions provided in both hospitals and free-standing clinics (which are allowed to exist, as exceptions to the prohibition on privately-owned facilities, because in some areas, hospitals are unable/unwilling to meet demand), with the possible exception of a couple of backwaters like PEI (total population less than your average medium-sized city) which continue to flout the law.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/mergers.html

In Canada, abortions are deemed a medically necessary service, but access to abortions is decreasing. Some provincial health insurance programs refuse to pay for abortions unless they are performed in a hospital. This gets to be a problem when no hospital in the province will perform them. New Brunswick, PEI, Quebec, and Manitoba do not currently cover the full cost of abortions performed in free-standing clinics. Health Minister Alan Rock is threatening to withhold transfer payments to these provinces unless they start complying with the Canada Health Act and start to fully fund abortions, regardless of where they are performed.

The decision to fund abortions under public health care plans in Canada has zero to do with the prevalence of poverty, and everything to do with the fact that abortion is a medically necessary service and that Canadians have adopted the position that access to medically necessary services will not be based on financial means.

Let us hope that things are clearer now.

.

[Jane Roe]

70. Do you have any idea what the phrase "reserving judgement" means

Can you articulate why I used the phrase "reserving judgement" in my reply?

based onm your message, it appears that you do not have any idea what "reserving judgement" means. I will not continue this line of discussion with you until you show me that you know what "reserving judgement" means. I do not like to discuss things with people are not able to figure out the meaning of simple phrases like "reserving judgement."

[iverglas]

72. well hmm

I was not trying to suggest that only poor people have abortions. However, I do think that abortion access is more critical for poor people than for rich people. Therefore, if there are more poor people in Canada, it might sense to have the abortion laws be somewhat different at the margins to better accomodate the extra problems caused by the extra margin of poverty. However, I made it perfectly clear that I was reserving judgement on all this and would continue to reserve judgement on Canada's laws and economic situation for years to come, until I had a lot more experience here.

If I were to take what you wrote as an example of "reserving judgment" (assuming that I actually don't have any idea what it means), and were then asked to give my own example, perhaps I would say something like:

I was not trying to suggest that you are an anti-choice demagogue. However, I do think that analytical thought is more critical when dealing with anti-choice demagogues than when dealing with sincere interlocutors speaking in good faith. Therefore, if you are an anti-choice demagogue, it might make sense to ignore everything you say except to sneer at it. However, I (let us assume) made it perfectly clear that I was reserving judgement about whether you are an anti-choice demagogue and would continue to reserve judgement on whether you are an anti-choice demagogue for years to come, until I had a lot more experience here.

Goodness. Then you might almost suspect that I suspected you of being an anti-choice demagogue, mightn't you? Heavens to betsy, what an idea. Although damned if I can think of any other reason why I might have said such a thing as all that, if I'd said it. Which of course I didn't.

And I'm just damned if I can think why anyone would say anything as utterly bizarre and completely unprovable as "there are more poor people in Canada" even as a completely hypothetical premise for anything at all.

If pigs could fly, then it might make sense to equip them with crash helmets, right?

.

[Bridget Burke]

74. Why so stingy with your judgement all of a sudden?

Previously, you've been quite liberal in judging others. It's all just a word game to you, isn't it?

[Jane Roe]

75. I feel qualified to judge the situation in the US

because: (1) its a democracy; (2) I am an adult; (3) I am a US citizen; and (4) I lived there a long time.

I reserve judgement on things in Canada because I am new here and not a citizen. Also, I am not sure that Canada has the same free speech protections that I used to enjoy in the US.

On edit: I also want to make it clear that I have not judged any individuals -- I have only made statements about what I think the laws should be.

[iverglas]

80. really??

Also, I am not sure that Canada has the same free speech protections that I used to enjoy in the US.

Would it be reasonable for someone to think -- because only a complete dunderhead would choose to flee George W. Bush by moving to a country where he did not have at least equivalent freedom of speech -- that someone who said this was a complete dunderhead?

Or should one reserve judgment on that one too?

Or might one suspect that, while the person in question might have been quite correct even if he had actually asserted that Canada did *not* have the same free speech protections as he enjoyed in the US (and therefore not dissembling when he says that he is "not sure" that he has the same free speech protections) -- since the free speech protections are indeed somewhat different, given that Canada has not instituted "free speech zones" for dissenters, just for starters -- he wouldn't have been conveying quite the message he might reasonably have intended to convey? He might have in fact have been intending to convey the message that there are some lesser free speech guarantees in Canada that would somehow negatively affect his entitlement to express opinions about abortion law and policy? Even though that message would have been a complete falsehood?

I also want to make it clear that I have not judged any individuals -- I have only made statements about what I think the laws should be.

Lordy ... I wonder where that might have been. It -- not just what the statements were, but what laws they were about (tossing caution to the winds, given all that unsureness about free speech guarantees?) -- seems to have passed quite over my head.

.

[iverglas]

76. oh and btw -- do *you* have any idea ...

... what the Global Gag Rule is actually all about, and are you at some point going to acknowledge that your initial post in this thread had nothing to do with the subject at hand, now that you do have an idea, even if you had somehow managed not to have it before you wrote that?

You may have missed my three posts on that subject, in which case you will of course be wanting to read them now, to see how sadly misinformed you must have been when you wrote that stuff about offering to suggest "where to send your money to fund foreign abortions", since Bush's gag rule (which was Reagan's and Bush Sr.'s before him, but not Clinton's) has absolutely nothing to do with foreign abortion funding, and retract that insulting bit of ... well, um, prose.


I will not continue this line of discussion with you until you show me that you know what "reserving judgement" means. I do not like to discuss things with people are not able to figure out the meaning of simple phrases like "reserving judgement."

And you say this as if I care! But I do hope I have set your mind to rest on that stuff now, so you will perhaps continue to entertain me with your, um, prose.

.

[Jane Roe]

77. Nope, you haven't shown that you understand what . . .

"reserving judgement" means.

Therefore, no global gag rule discussion for you.

[iverglas]

79. oh, well then

Since you haven't shown that you understand what "civil discourse" means, no dinner for you.


no global gag rule discussion for you

It's odd, though, that since the global gag rule is what this thread is about, you should be so reticent about discussing it.

Tell ya what -- you just go ahead and discuss it with somebody else -- like maybe the person who wrote the initial thread, to which you responded with an appeal to emotion and prejudice in relation to some completely different thing instead of responding to the facts and arguments that had been presented. Howzat?

.

[Jane Roe]

73. there are no criminal laws against abortion in Canada

For all I know, it may be permissible to pass informed consent laws regarding abortion in Canada.

For all I know, it may be permissible to pass laws requiring viewing of an ultrasound image of the fetus prior to abortion in Canada.

For all I know, it might be permissible to pass parental consent laws in Canada.

For all I know, it may be permissible to pass waiting period statutes in Canada.

When I said abortion law at the margins -- these are some examples of the kinds of things I was contemplating. Pretty subtle, eh? The grounds upon which the criminal abortion law was overturned would not seem to apply to these kinds of abortion regulations because no prohibition of the abortion procedure is involved in any of these regulations.

Canada hasn't passed these regulations yet, but just wait til I stop reserving judgement -- things may very well change then.

[iverglas]

78. for all you know ...

... it may be possible for pigs to fly -- for all I know, eh?


For all I know, it may be permissible to pass informed consent laws regarding abortion in Canada.

For all I know, it may be permissible to pass laws requiring viewing of an ultrasound image of the fetus prior to abortion in Canada.

For all I know, it might be permissible to pass parental consent laws in Canada.

For all I know, it may be permissible to pass waiting period statutes in Canada.


Gosh, it sounds like it may be time for you to read the Canadian constitution, and specifically Part I thereof, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html

I mean, for all I know, you already have and you're just saying this silly stuff because ... well, I won't make guesses.


When I said abortion law at the margins -- these are some examples of the kinds of things I was contemplating.

Really?? And that would be why you actually said:

Therefore, if there are more poor people in Canada, it might sense to have the abortion laws be somewhat different at the margins to better accomodate the extra problems caused by the extra margin of poverty.

??

Damned if I can figure out how any of those "kinds of things" are examples of solutions to problems caused by the <NONEXISTENT> extra margin of poverty!

Pretty subtle, eh?

Uh ... no. Not very, at all.


The grounds upon which the criminal abortion law was overturned would not seem to apply to these kinds of abortion regulations because no prohibition of the abortion procedure is involved in any of these regulations.

You might want to try reading those grounds again. Allow me to assist:

Legal Rights

LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Equality Rights

EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

... and remember that the prohibition of abortion is just not the only unjustified interference with the exercise of those "legal rights".

Any more than it is in the US, of course.

And any more than a self-serving assertion of "reserved judgment" is justification for implying that there are grounds for believing that falsehoods could be truths.

.

[outinforce]

84. What's the Big Deal Here?

Goodness.

One might almost think, reading the article by the totally un-biased ABC reporter, with its talk of "abortion war", that the USA was just the meanest place on Earth.

I really fail to see what the big deal is here.

If anyone is denying money to certain health and population planning organizations around the world, it is those agencies themselves -- the agencies which would rather continue to provide or advocate for abortion (often as a means of contraception) rather than receive money from the USA.

By way of example, lets' say that the issue, rather than abortion, was destruction of the tropical rainforest.

And let's say that there were, around the world, several agencies whose stated purpose was to "assist women, men, and children, in the developing world, by providing information and services related to economic development".

And let's say that some of those agencies, as part of the information they provide and services they render, provide information on how to create arable land from undeveloped forests and that they also actually assist in the clearing of tropical rainforests.

Suppose the USA were to say, "We will provide money to organizations which provide information and services related to economic development to poor people in developing countries, but we will provide no money to any organization that advocates, counsels, or participates in the destruction of tropical rainforests". Now, if certain agencies were to say, "we feel so strongly that economic development of poor people must include providing them with information about, and lobbying governments around the globe for, the destruction of the trpoicla rainforests, that we will not accept your money if doing so means that we cannot engage in these activities", then wouldn't it be the organizations' choice that denies USA funds?

I don't see what the big deal is here.

[iverglas]

86. sigh, if only ...

... our outinforce would read the things I write, he would already have had the answer to his questions.

Except, of course, that I would never have anticipated his creation of an analogy in which women's exercise of their reproductive rights was represented as comparable to the destruction of the rainforest. No, not in a million years.

It's not comparable ... and not just because the likelihood of the US adopting a "consistent rainforest ethic" policy is, well, nil. There really is no analogy to be drawn between "real thing X" and "never in a million years Y".


"I don't see what the big deal is here."

Why of course not!

Why would anyone think it was a big deal that people outside the US who can't afford basic health care would cease to have access to the health care that they need, in many instances to stay alive, just because a series of Republican presidents of the US can't tolerate people talking about things that some of the people in the US who vote for them don't like?


edit:

How obvious is it that it is improper for Republicans to do things to non-US citizens that it has TRIED AND FAILED to do to US citizens?

Republicans have tried to deny federal funding to organizations in the US that provide counselling that includes information about abortion. They have failed.

Republicans have tried to prevent women in the US from exercising their reproductive rights by choosing abortion. They have failed.

That US constitution just doesn't apply outside the US. Not to prisoners in Guantanamo, and not to women and their health care providers in Nepal. No free speech for them. Not according to the Republicans.

Funny how Republican some Democrats manage to sound sometimes

.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.