Help the Choice Lobby in America (1 Viewer)

[stunning]

TO: Virtual Lobbyists
FROM: NARAL Pro-Choice America
RE: National Pro-Choice Lobby Day 2003
STATUS: URGENT

This Thursday, October 9, hundreds of leaders and activists from
NARAL Pro-Choice America's affiliates around the country will
converge on the U.S. Capitol for National Pro-Choice Lobby Day.
While they meet with legislators to explain why bills proposed
by President Bush could seriously jeopardize privacy and the
right to choose, we need you to be a virtual lobbyist to send
the message home. Click here to add your voice -- this will only
work with your help:
http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/virtual_lobby/busxesr078edwi

Here's what your state affiliate will be saying on Thursday:

:: Unborn Victims of Violence Act: This legislation -- which
inaccurately purports to protect women -- is a thinly veiled,
cynical attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose. Do not
pass this misleading bill.

:: Global "Gag" Rule: Vote NO on extending this harmful policy
that denies family planning funds to organizations around the
world that provide comprehensive reproductive health care or
speak in favor of the right to choose -- even if they use their
own money to do so.

:: Criminalization of safe medical procedures (so-called
"partial-birth" abortion ban): While Congress has already passed
this dangerous bill and President Bush is poised to sign it into
law, we still oppose it -- private medical decisions should be
kept between a woman and her doctor.

By the time our field lobbyists commence National Pro-Choice
Lobby Day on Thursday, your members of Congress will be flooded
with letters demonstrating a strong and united pro-choice
majority. Send your letter now:
http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/virtual_lobby/busxesr078edwi

And please tell your friends to join us:
http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/virtual_lobby/forward/busxesr078edwi

We've included a pre-drafted message for you to send to your
legislators -- please take a minute to include your own personal
reasons for opposing these dangerous bills and supporting a
woman's right to choose.

Thank you for your lobbying efforts!

The activists at
NARAL Pro-Choice America
--------------------------------------------------

Click here to spread the word to your friends and family:

http://prochoiceaction.org/join-forward.html?domain=can&r=1paYhy91iP-Z

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
NARAL Pro-Choice America's Choice Action Network at:

http://prochoiceaction.org/can/join.html?r=1paYhy91iP-ZE

 

[kstop]

If said members of Congress received loads of pro-choice letters from outside the US, wouldn't it make them view the legitimate ones with scepticism? We should have about as much say in US politics as we'd like the US to have in ours, surely.

Not that I'm against the above lobbyists' postion. Quite the opposite.

 

[stunning]

If said members of Congress received loads of pro-choice letters from outside the US, wouldn't it make them view the legitimate ones with scepticism? We should have about as much say in US politics as we'd like the US to have in ours, surely.

Not that I'm against the above lobbyists' postion. Quite the opposite.

Well, yeah.

I just got excited is all.

T

 

[ElderLemon]

While they meet with legislators to explain why bills proposed
by President Bush could seriously jeopardize privacy and the
right to choose, we need you to be a virtual lobbyist to send
the message home.

The "Right To Choose" what precisely? Perhaps the pro-abortion lobby might indulge in a bit of truth instead of dressing up a practice which has everything to do with the denial of human rights at the most fundamental level (i.e. the right to life) rather than trying to pretend that the act of abortion is somehow an affirmation of freedom or liberty.

If said members of Congress received loads of pro-choice letters from outside the US, wouldn't it make them view the legitimate ones with scepticism? We should have about as much say in US politics as we'd like the US to have in ours, surely.

Now there'a thought....

 

[stunning]

The "Right To Choose" what precisely? Perhaps the pro-abortion lobby might indulge in a bit of truth instead of dressing up a practice which has everything to do with the denial of human rights at the most fundamental level (i.e. the right to life) rather than trying to pretend that the act of abortion is somehow an affirmation of freedom or liberty.

We aren't pretending, it IS an affirmation of a woman's freedom of oppression from a male dominated society that thinks it has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with HER OWN BODY. Precisely, the right to choose whether she wants to be pregnant anymore or not and the right to choose what to do with ones own body. There's no dressing it up. Laws against masturbation, cutting your hair, and laws that force you to stay pregnant are nothing shy of bizarre.

Of course, laws that limit a woman's right to control her own repoductivity have been PROVEN to be life threatening to women. But, you wouldn't really care about that now would you.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like a dick up your ass? You don't have to have one up there either. See, being able to choose what to do with your own body is a good thing. An individual owns their arm, their heart, their penis, their womb. Its not for anyone to say anything about. How dare anyone say they don't?

Freedom Now!,

Cunty Cuntington

 

[snakybus]

How dare anyone say they don't?

folk can say what they want Tom, that's freedom

 

[Keeror]

An individual owns their arm, their heart, their penis, their womb

But the anti-abortion argument is that the occupant of a pregnant woman's womb is another individual, with their own rights.

Did anyone see the Panorama program about the Catholic Church's policies regarding contraception and abortion and the effects they have worldwide?
It was harrowing stuff - raped children giving birth, aids sufferers, families of nine kids in tiny shacks, living on a dollar a day, etc. In fact, I turned it off halfway through. There's only so much human misery I can take on a Sunday evening. But while it's obvious the church isn't doing much to help, I don't think it's fair to blame them solely for the problems of poverty. And I once met a person who was the product of incest who, while being pretty fucked up in some ways, is a lovely person and a wonderful musician, anbd I tihkn the world is richer for their being in it. Which is not to say I'm anti-abortion, but that I don't think it's standardisation is going to put the world to rights.

As for interfering in the business of other countries, mostly the idea pisses me off, but then one thinks of South Africa and the role of ordinary people from outside in bringing down apartheid - the Dunnes Stores strikes, etc. And how international pressure can prevent countries using the death penalty and so on.

 

[broken arm]

We aren't pretending, it IS an affirmation of a woman's freedom of oppression from a male dominated society that thinks it has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with HER OWN BODY.

i really get tired of the bullshit assertion that anti-abortionism has anything to with perceptions of a 'male-dominated' society etc. As if the aversion to abortion is only coming from the male perspective. Its only recently that the procedures can be even deemed safe for women to undergo and many women are opposed to abortion for many reasons. I am pro-choice but probably for different reasons than you.

When you talk of rights you also have to talk about responsibility. How would you feel about a women who gets pregnant for the prescribed function of having an abortion, maybe for 'art' or something. Maybe she will do it every year to build up a collection. Sounds crazy but then she could say its her right because its her body and no-one can say anything about that. Would you stand by that. Is that right. The foundations for rights are more complex than you let on.

does the man have any say during the pregnancy. If not, when does the male responsibility/rights engine kick in. The day of the birth, a week later, never. If your interpretation of male rights is vague could it not be argued that they have no rights and therfore no responsibility.

this could go on but Id recommend that you think about a bit more rationally.

 

[stunning]

folk can say what they want Tom, that's freedom

Hear, hear! Absolutely! I'm just saying I think its bold. Just as if someone said we should reintroduce formalized slavery or that Hitler was a hero. Sure, they're free to say it, and I'm free to be shocked and say "How dare they?"

T

 

[stunning]

i really get tired of the bullshit assertion that anti-abortionism has anything to with perceptions of a 'male-dominated' society etc. As if the aversion to abortion is only coming from the male perspective.

Oh, come on! Are you really saying that it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it???? I'm not saying that women who are anti-choice can't think for themselves. I am saying, however, that the historical/current role that men play in women's health has been one that at best can be described as adversarial(sp?) and at worst, dictatorial. It's not bullshit. It's what we've all been living with.

T

 

[stunning]

When you talk of rights you also have to talk about responsibility. How would you feel about a women who gets pregnant for the prescribed function of having an abortion, maybe for 'art' or something. Maybe she will do it every year to build up a collection. Sounds crazy but then she could say its her right because its her body and no-one can say anything about that. Would you stand by that. Is that right.

While acknowledging that pregnancy and the termination of a pregnancy is not a simple issue , I would certainly stand by that. If its in her body, its hers. I wouldn't encourage that artwork by purchasing it or even going to see it at a gallery, but I would certainly defend her right to use her body any way she sees fit.

I just thought of something...in the US, and I don't know about Ireland, suicide is illegal. Does that make any sense? Does that not reek of church influenced law making?

 

[stunning]

does the man have any say during the pregnancy. If not, when does the male responsibility/rights engine kick in. The day of the birth, a week later, never. If your interpretation of male rights is vague could it not be argued that they have no rights and therfore no responsibility.

Ideally, and if the woman is coupled, perhaps the man or if the other partner is a woman, would be on hand to offer support during a pregnancy or a termination. Otherwise, no, he has no say during the pregnancy. Not his body. Not his say. So, yeah, no responsibility during pregnancy. I've no problem with that.

If I were king, I'd say the day of the birth with a 3-7 day post-natal grace period depending on the mother's wishes. But I'm not king...yet.

 

[broken arm]

Ideally, and if the woman is coupled, perhaps the man or if the other partner is a woman, would be on hand to offer support during a pregnancy or a termination. Otherwise, no, he has no say during the pregnancy. Not his body. Not his say. So, yeah, no responsibility during pregnancy. I've no problem with that.

so what is it that spurs the need for responsibility? if im reading you correctly you are saying that there is no place for a man in the pregnancy - no need to supply financial or emotional support. because right and responsibility are linked. Have you ever had a child? can you really stand by what you are saying?

the issue of suicide intervention and a states responsibility is important because the debate rolls out on whether a state has any responsibility for its citizens, what those responibilities are and how they are administered. For example, if the woman is the only one responsible for her child should the state be bothered in providing health-care, financial assistance (social-welfare etc.) etc. Even on a micrio level - should companies provide paid leave to women who are pregnant? Because if what you are saying is true then women have no right to ask for assistance, financial or otherwise.

 

[ElderLemon]

We aren't pretending, it IS an affirmation of a woman's freedom of oppression from a male dominated society that thinks it has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with HER OWN BODY. Precisely, the right to choose whether she wants to be pregnant anymore or not and the right to choose what to do with ones own body.

That's deliberately skirting the issue that there's another life involved. Of course every woman's got a right to determine whether she wants to become pregnant or not. The way you grant those choices is through contraception and education - not abortion. (And When I'm talking about education, I'm not talking about the type of sex education we got in secondary school, which was basically ye-stick-your-mickey-in-here-lads in Biology and a diabtribe about where-not-to-stick-your-mickey in Religious Education) If you want to go out and have sex - fine. If you want to use contraception - fine. But if you get pregnant - if you create a life, you - and the lad who made you pregnant - have to deal with the consequences. I know it's a hackneyed phrase, but with rights come responsibilities.

There's no dressing it up. Laws against masturbation, cutting your hair, and laws that force you to stay pregnant are nothing shy of bizarre.

I think the first two are crimes of a far less magnitude than the third. Unless of course you think David Beckham is a brand leader in men's grooming.

Of course, laws that limit a woman's right to control her own repoductivity have been PROVEN to be life threatening to women. But, you wouldn't really care about that now would you.

Oh have they? Where's the PROOF? Why is it then that Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world? Lower for instance than Britain's?

Don't like a dick up your ass? You don't have to have one up there either.

That's very reassuring...

 

[ElderLemon]

Did anyone see the Panorama program about the Catholic Church's policies regarding contraception and abortion and the effects they have worldwide?
It was harrowing stuff - raped children giving birth, aids sufferers, families of nine kids in tiny shacks, living on a dollar a day, etc. In fact, I turned it off halfway through. There's only so much human misery I can take on a Sunday evening. But while it's obvious the church isn't doing much to help, I don't think it's fair to blame them solely for the problems of poverty.

I didn't see that program - but I don't think a ban on contraception is right. I suppose in fairness to the church though, they can't exactly change their policies at the drop of a hat. But if I were a practising Catholic, it would be something I'd have a conscientious objection to.

 

[kstop]

While acknowledging that pregnancy and the termination of a pregnancy is not a simple issue , I would certainly stand by that. If its in her body, its hers.

Your body tissues are not necessarily your own property. Your corpse isn't part of your estate, for example. I doubt very much that an aborted foetus
would remain the property of the mother, especially since it's not even her tissue. People only get custody of the bodies of their relatives for appropriate and respectful disposal within acceptable societal norms.

(This is a good thing, IMHO, as otherwise it could lead to less savoury things than dull hypothetical performance art, such as wholesale harvesting of corpses and foetuses for organs and other tissue. The idea of the body as property, even the property of the person residing it, is very dicy territory in this day and age, when the parts of the human body have acquired a real medical and commercial value.)

Quite apart from that, such an artist would probably find herself under psychiatric evaluation before long. An abortion is after all an invasive surgical procedure, and deliberately subjecting yourself to them repeatedly could be viewed as self-harm. (Not to mention a waste of medical resources.)

 

[kstop]

I didn't see that program - but I don't think a ban on contraception is right. I suppose in fairness to the church though, they can't exactly change their policies at the drop of a hat. But if I were a practising Catholic, it would be something I'd have a conscientious objection to.

Considering they're currently enforcing said policy with out and out lies, thereby helping to infect the world's poorest people with AIDS, if I were a practising Catholic with a conscience, I'd be seriously considering not being a Catholic anymore.

 

[broken arm]

Your body tissues are not necessarily your own property. Your corpse isn't part of your estate, for example. I doubt very much that an aborted foetus
would remain the property of the mother, especially since it's not even her tissue. People only get custody of the bodies of their relatives for appropriate and respectful disposal within acceptable societal norms.

when you say your tissues are not your property - who do they belong to? who do you have to get custody of a corpse from?

in fairness the church do disagree with contraception but they disagree with unmarital sex and 'frivilous' sex etc. i.e. if you abide by their rules you shouldnt be worried about getting pregnant. Although they are in a tight spot regarding AIDS. Although they secretly might blame that on the breaking of their rules. who knows..

 

[broken arm]

last post shudda said

Quote:



Originally Posted by kstop
Your body tissues are not necessarily your own property. Your corpse isn't part of your estate, for example. I doubt very much that an aborted foetus
would remain the property of the mother, especially since it's not even her tissue. People only get custody of the bodies of their relatives for appropriate and respectful disposal within acceptable societal norms.


when you say your tissues are not your property - who do they belong to? who do you have to get custody of a corpse from?

in fairness the church do disagree with contraception but they disagree with unmarital sex and 'frivilous' sex etc. i.e. if you abide by their rules you shouldnt be worried about getting pregnant. Although they are in a tight spot regarding AIDS. Although they secretly might blame that on the breaking of their rules. who

​

 

[Keeror]

Re: last post shudda said

in fairness the church do disagree with contraception but they disagree with unmarital sex and 'frivilous' sex etc.

Ya, but they also spread lies about condoms not being effective against stds and so on. And the abstinance thing is patently bollocks - not even churchmen keep to it.

I suppose it could be argued that the church is all about lies - virgin births and resurrections and other such nonsense. But I couldn't possibly say that.