The Right to Choose

On a less controversial note:
Maybe someone more sophisticated than me could explain something. Here the Democratic Party leader in NH (Kathy Sullivan)seems to be aspousing a woman's right to choose what she should do when it involves her body. Her take on banning partial birth abortions
Kathy Sullivan, the Democratic Party chairwoman in New Hampshire, told news sources: "It certainly solidifies the position of George Bush and the majority in Congress as being anti-choice."


Here it would seem that same person is advocating something quite different. Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan accused Free Staters of harboring "a radical, antifamily agenda," and charged the group with wanting to "legalize prostitution, legalize drugs and eliminate public schools."
She is outraged that a woman might be given the legal right to use her body to make money or put heretofore illegal drugs into it if she so desires. What happened to that right of free choice?

Can you say blatant hypocrisy?

I love poking the bee's nest.

 

I'm pro-choice... the whole abortion issue is ticking time bomb, don't go there!! :down:

 

too tired and too busy to spend the time to evaluate of my take on it, much less launch a valid discussion. Actually not interested enuf right now to thoroughly read both articles.

HOWEVER (1)...

On the surface her stances seem contradictory, but your sources are not valid comparisons. One is an article giving Sullivan's stance on pro choice, the other is about the libertarian movement in Sullivan's state, from which you seem to be pulling one statement out of context, which is NOT the gist of the article.

I can visualize situations where supporting both issues could be hypocritical OR NOT. Evaluating a person's true stance requires a lot more digging than two unrelated articles. Objective research entails sifting through all the available evidence and arriving at a reasoned conclusion, subjective research is looking for info to support your position

HOWEVER (2)... a commendable effort at poking the nest

 

Re: Re: The Right to Choose

I have a little edge here as I read a lot concerning what Ms Sullivan has to say. I live in NH, after all. She constantly interjects the abortion issue into political discussions, her basic litmus test for politicians is their stand on abortion. This is always touted as supporting or denying a woman's right to choose. It is therefore interesting that she speaks out so vehemently against the Free Stater Libertarians who are moving here. They are champions of free choice. Strangely, our Republican conservatives issued public welcomes to them. The thrust of the articles are different, I used the first to pick out her quote which I was very familiar with. It isn't difficult to pick out her position here. I am pointing-out her position, not mine, and using her own unedited words.

 

Re: Re: Re: The Right to Choose

but they ARE edited words as they only give a partial view of her full statement.

living there you have lots of exposure to her, but we don't, so you ARE showing your position on her via the info you linked, xasting her in an unfavorable light (esy to do with any politician

 

chuck, you ARE aware of what partial birth abortion is aren't you?

(it's fucking murder) and i am prochoice too by the way. just make your "choice" a lot fucking sooner.

 

100% agree, xcept where the mother's health is seriously at risk.

 

well shit?!?!

 

Its the sleep deprivation!!!

 

I must of just stepped on a rake in the back yard....

Brad your right.... I was unaware how late in term these where.

 

Damn, you just admitted Brad was right! That musta hurt!

Abortion: mother's life/health in serious jeopardy, yep. rape or incest, yep. Serious (and known, that can be the tricky part) likelihood that the kid has a serious prob (no organ development, etc) yep. A kid is not part of my plan right now, nope.

This is a big can o' worms!

 

I totally agree.

It just blows my mind that one could even consider partial birth abortion.

I am a pro-choice conservative too.

 

Since I addressed this a little in another thread I thought I would go back and tickle this one a little more. My original point of discussion was conveniently side-stepped and then we got into partial-birth abortion.

My original point was that the term "pro-choice" is misleading.
It is often explained as "a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body". It is my proposition here that most people who use these expressions don't really take the position that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases.

Would not that right to choose include the right to sell her body to make a living, or shoot it full of heroin if she wants to?

Wouldn't these actions be her Constitutional right under the same terms that abortion is? How can our government justify outlawing prostitution or interfering with a woman's access to heroin?

And by the way, the greater good to society argument doesn't hold here, as no such reasoning is applied concerning abortion.

I'm just interested to see how those who declare themselves pro-choice feel about legalized drug use and legalised prostitution. Certainly both practices have existed as long as civilisation has, and will always exist.

Logic would seem to dictate that if you are really pro-choice then you should be against outlawing prostitution and drugs.
Both are just choices concerning use of a human body by that body's owner.

 

Nice spin... (Heard that lately?)

I'm not a Pro-Choicer per-say, so I don't really know what all they are trying to infer with their moto. I rather doubt they are trying to use that platform or moto to legalize drug use or prostitution. Implying that they are is spin doctoring at it's finest... Following that same logic a Pro-Lifer should be against bombing and killing Doctors (and their wives and bodyguards) that perform legal abortations. So I guess you can say (using that logic) "show me a Pro-Life advicate that smokes around others and I'll show you a hypocrit..."

 

i definitely have no problem with a person choosing to be a prostitute, or doing heroin. but, if they can't pull their weight, i have no sympathy either.

 

I wasn't implying that they were advocating those positions, just pointing out that they would be consistent to do so and inconsistent not to given the basis from which they are arguing their point. That's not spinning, just logic.

And you would have a tough time making the point that more than a few twisted individuals would advocate killing abortion providers or bombing clinics. I hope you don't really believe that most pro-lifers are sympathetic or agreeable with the very few who have engaged in such behaviour (which has happened very few times, btw). I've never met anyone who thought those people were anything other than misguided crazies.

There is also a vast difference between smoking around others which only might affect someone's health and taking direct action to end a life. And I would also point out that in many places smoking around others IS against the law.
Applying the same logic would be more akin to making the argument that if you are pro-life you should be against drunk driving. That is an action which has the possibility to immediately and directly end a life.

 

The health argument for partial birth abortion is horseshit and no reasonable Dr. will argue with that. The woman goes through the difficult part of the delivery... hell the baby is pretty much out when they kill it so the birth is viable with a live mother. If she is going to die then it would have already happened or at least went past the point of no return.

 

I'll bet there are more people sympathetic to those crazies than are proposing that Pro-Choice is for legalizing Prostution or drug use. That is one reason it was tough to find that crazy in the mountains. He had help hiding because the local Pro-Lifers regarded him as a hero. Not logic or spin, fact....

Smoking around your kids is not against the law anywhere I am aware of. And it is proven that second-hand smoke is bad for young kids (and adults for that matter). Drunk driving is not guarenteed to kill anyone either, yes directly if it happens, but now you are arguing sematics. Instant death or asthma, birth defects, and lung cancer all due to smoking...

 

So a week or so ago here in New Orleans, a young woman (24ish) denied that she was pregnant and later started wearing loose fitting clothes. While at a friend's house with a few people present including the boyfriend, the young women goes into the bath room, asks for a change a clothes (her's are bloody), and carries the clothes outside the apartment to the dumpster in a gym bag. Hours later she reports to the hospital with medical problems and diagnosed as post childbirth difficulties. She admitted to having the child and it was breathing when she stuffed it into the gym bag.

The father was quite capable of rearing the child and would have done so if given the chance.

A couple of questions here.

When does it cease to become abortion and become murder?

Had someone shot or stabbed the woman and the child died as a result, they could be charged with infanticide (sp?).

What if your wife or girlfriend was pregnant and you dearly wanted them to have the baby, you are perfectly capable of raising the child and caring for it, and they go out and kill it, because they can. What about your choice, the child is part yours?

I am appalled by the hipocracy of all concerned, by the people that choose such a path out of selfishness, the doctors that perform the act (what the hell kind of doctor would do this and how the hell could they call themselves doctors), and government that allows this as if it's some kind of if it feels good do it thing.

Pro choice? How can anyone rationalize that sort of thinking. How can anyone that lives deny another a right to that same life?

I'm just trying to understand what sort of thinking gets us to this point. The logic is skewed to me.

Ride Safe,

 

Here's the Rub

Less than an hour after Bush lifted his pen in a steathy attempt to roll back Roe vs Wade via the Partial birth abortion act of 2003 a Nebraska judge blocked its enforcement, why? because the new law failed to give exception to preserve the health of pregnant women.

No doubt, this is a long way from over, however, Bush should have known better, the 2003 act was very similar to a Nebraska law struck down by the Supreme court 3 or 4 years ago.

Like that rejected state law, the new law lacks the exception tp protect women, according to what I've read, the imprecise wording inserted into the bill to describe medical procedures to regulate the third trimester would outlaw common methods that are used well before fetal viabilty.

The new law was a slightly revised rehash of the Nebraska law that counts on people not reading the fine print.

I'm not trying to change anybody mind, but if Bush wants to get something passed that will stand up in court he will have to go back to the drawing board.