ForumGarden

" just suppose, of knowing a young woman who had not wished to become pregnant and was considering an abortion, I would do about anything including getting down on my knees and begging, that she would reconsider and fulfill the pregnancy, making the newborn available to loving foster-parents."

That's so sick, Mark, I wouldn't know where to begin.............available new borns. Brood mares. Supply & Fulfill the needs of some fictional foster-parents..............on your knees & begging............So Wrong, hope in Real Life you mind your own business.

The concept of an illegitimate child is a religious one - what a perversion it is to bring a child in to theb world and then decide it is of lesser worth than one born in wedlock.

gmc;1494344 wrote: The concept of an illegitimate child is a religious one - what a perversion it is to bring a child in to theb world and then decide it is of lesser worth than one born in wedlock.


I don't think it's about religion, but the inheritance aspect & begun by the higher classes & drifted down. Religion may have figured in, but I think it is property & possession that are at the core.

AnneBoleyn;1494346 wrote: I don't think it's about religion, but the inheritance aspect & begun by the higher classes & drifted down. Religion may have figured in, but I think it is property & possession that are at the core.


true it's all about inheritance of property religion was used to keep women in their place and take away their property rights by making them and their children property. Depends whether you think religion is man made or comes from god, - No prizes for guessing where I stand. Think about it you could only be certain who the mother was making the claims of women who had children by wealthy individual (whether by choice or not) illegitimate makes a lot of sense, whether it's right or not is another question.

Warrior queens were quite common in ancient and not so ancient times you should do some digging you'd think women were always bystanders. The christian right can't seem to get beyond seeing women as possessions not able to make their own choices. Eve's curse is still working.

It's actually Adam's curse. He was in charge of her & shouldn't have left her alone.

AnneBoleyn;1494363 wrote: It's actually Adam's curse. He was in charge of her & shouldn't have left her alone.


That's the trouble with women, they need constant attention

AnneBoleyn;1494363 wrote: It's actually Adam's curse. He was in charge of her & shouldn't have left her alone.


So women learned and I now pay the penalty.

Thanks dude.

I love this talk about the "Religious Right", whatever that is.



Meanwhile the federal government works to crush religious freedom.

Beware of a Supreme Court ‘Solution’ for the Little Sisters

Not that it matters. The HHS mandate always has been about political symbolism. The Obama administration beliefs objecting to the provision of free contraception is an illegitimate position: That is why the accommodation it has offered is no accommodation at all. The Court would do great harm to religious liberty if it tried to extricate itself from the controversy of this case by imposing a “solution intended to create the perception of a compromise but which — in reality — produces the outcome the administration has been seeking all along.


Just crush the [url=http://www.littlesistersofthepoor.org/]Little Sisters of the Poor

How dare the Little Sisters expect to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

tude dog;1494376 wrote: So women learned and I now pay the penalty.

Thanks dude.


You're only paying the penalty if you suffer during childbirth. Willing?

tude dog;1494377 wrote: I love this talk about the "Religious Right", whatever that is.



Meanwhile the federal government works to crush religious freedom.

Beware of a Supreme Court ‘Solution’ for the Little Sisters



Just crush the [url=http://www.littlesistersofthepoor.org/]Little Sisters of the Poor

How dare the Little Sisters expect to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.


I'm sorry, but I have to jump in here.

Corporations are not "people" They are not "Citizens"

A corporation may have the right to follow specific beliefs if they are a private corporation, existing on their own income. However, the corporation does not own their employees, and cannot enforce their political and religious views upon their employees.

Contraception, and other health issues are strictly the right of the individual, who is not subject to his/her employers philosophical bent.

Why have employers providing healthcare anyway? It's something that's always seemed a bot odd about america. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the state provide healthcare with acces for all? It must make taking on an employee quite expensive if they have to pay for pensions, healthcare etc as well as gining the employer more power over the employee who has to worry about losing health benefits if wanting to leave.

gmc;1494390 wrote: Why have employers providing healthcare anyway? It's something that's always seemed a bot odd about america. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the state provide healthcare with acces for all? It must make taking on an employee quite expensive if they have to pay for pensions, healthcare etc as well as gining the employer more power over the employee who has to worry about losing health benefits if wanting to leave.


In the US, health care has never been provided by the State. We can't have that. That would be "Socialism" which is just a step away from the BIG evil, "Communism" If we let THAT happen the we will collapse into a big hole that will open up underneath Wall Street and swallow the entire world, like a Giant Galactic Cookie Monster. Oh, dear me, NO. We can't allow that to happen.

Who would be left to make Beer?

LarsMac;1494379 wrote: I'm sorry, but I have to jump in here.


Oh come on, it's all just for fun.



LarsMac;1494379 wrote: Corporations are not "people" They are not "Citizens"

A corporation may have the right to follow specific beliefs if they are a private corporation, existing on their own income. However, the corporation does not own their employees, and cannot enforce their political and religious views upon their employees.


From what I can find out the Little Sisters of the Poor is a tax-exempt non-profit organization. Little Sisters has a well-defined mission and religious beliefs which are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. Or one would think.



LarsMac;1494379 wrote: Contraception, and other health issues are strictly the right of the individual, who is not subject to his/her employers philosophical bent.


No argument there. Nobody said differently. The problem comes when they want somebody else to pay for their preferences.

The Supreme Court, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. found a for-profit business does have the right to exercise their religious beliefs.

The Little Sisters may not be so lucky and simply pushed aside by the all powerful ever expanding power of the Federal Government.

The ACA seems more about power than healthcare.

I think the problem is that Little Sisters of the Poor, being a non-profit, and relying on donations from the general public, falls into another category, altogether. Particularly if they also receive federal funds. This whole healthcare issue has a long way to go before it gets sorted out.

Would be nice if the congress-critters would spend the time and effort to work out the kinks, rather than waste all their resources trying to torpedo the advances that have been made.

LarsMac;1494394 wrote: In the US, health care has never been provided by the State. We can't have that. That would be "Socialism" which is just a step away from the BIG evil, "Communism" If we let THAT happen the we will collapse into a big hole that will open up underneath Wall Street and swallow the entire world, like a Giant Galactic Cookie Monster. Oh, dear me, NO. We can't allow that to happen.

Who would be left to make Beer?


You see, you answered your own desires for your Bernie, when that will never happen. Plus, he's a Jew, and is no Zionist, so he doesn't even have Israel's popularity in America to save him. His candidacy reminds me of those years of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Carter. You're not a Democrat Lars, I consider you a spoiler. He will bring doom to Progressives for years to come & they are too young or too dumb to see the mistake coming. I've been there. Too many times.

LarsMac;1494398 wrote: I think the problem is that Little Sisters of the Poor, being a non-profit, and relying on donations from the general public, falls into another category, altogether. Particularly if they also receive federal funds. This whole healthcare issue has a long way to go before it gets sorted out.

Would be nice if the congress-critters would spend the time and effort to work out the kinks, rather than waste all their resources trying to torpedo the advances that have been made.


Maybe if the ACA was presented before congress for open debate. The attitude of you gotta pass it to find out what's in it hardly serves us well. The convenience of not being open has consequences.

U.S. Supreme Court Asks Parties for Paths to Settling Religious Contraception Case

Move suggests high court may be seeking to avoid 4-4 tie on a ruling

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court in an unexpected move Tuesday ordered a fresh round of briefs in a hot-button case examining an Obama administration arrangement for providing contraception coverage to women employed by religiously affiliated organizations.

The order, from the current eight-member high court, suggests the justices are looking for a compromise way to resolve the case without a 4-4 tie. The move is also the latest evidence of how Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death last month is affecting a short-handed court. Earlier Tuesday, the court split evenly in a case over the ability of states to allow public-sector unions to collect mandatory dues from all workers.

The Supreme Court in a two-page order asked religious organizations challenging the contraception arrangement and the government to file briefs addressing whether and how female employees could obtain contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act from religious employers’ insurance companies in a way that doesn’t require any involvement from the employer.

RELATED

Supreme Court Could Split in Contraceptive Case (March 23)

Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments in Contraception Case (March 23)

Timeline: Catholics and White House Battle on Health Law Contraception Rules (March 18)

Supreme Court to Consider Compromise to Health-Law’s Contraception Rules (March 17)

Birth Control Coverage Rules Announced by Obama Administration (July 10, 2015)

Supreme Court Makes Religious Exception to Health-Care Law (June 30, 2014)

The court’s request will require plaintiffs to review their legal and theological positions. To date, Catholic bishops, in particular, have said they object to any system that uses their health plan as a vehicle for providing something they believe to be immoral, even if they are not directly involved in handling or paying for contraception. But some critics have said the bishops have much to lose from an adverse ruling and that they may be better off claiming a victory if the opportunity presents itself.


The Obama administration could face a similar dilemma. Federal officials have worked for years to refine a system that they believe could address religious objections—while simultaneously responding to calls from women’s groups that they hold firm on keeping contraception covered for everyone through the Affordable Care Act.

AnneBoleyn;1494400 wrote: You see, you answered your own desires for your Bernie, when that will never happen. Plus, he's a Jew, and is no Zionist, so he doesn't even have Israel's popularity in America to save him. His candidacy reminds me of those years of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Carter. You're not a Democrat Lars, I consider you a spoiler. He will bring doom to Progressives for years to come & they are too young or too dumb to see the mistake coming. I've been there. Too many times.


No, I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican, either. The two-party system has betrayed the nation.



I like Bernie because he is not a party dog.

Bernie, alone, will do little damage. He will have to have advisers and cabinet members who can make policy work. He will need a Congress that can find a working relationship with him.

At this point, whether I like it or not, I plan to support whichever candidate the Dems come up with, unless the Republicans boot the Three Stooges, and come up with a platform I can support.

I am more interested in cleaning up the House and Senate, and getting rid of some of the do-nothing-to-cooperate fools that have jammed up congress for the last few years.

Posted by tude dog

From what I can find out the Little Sisters of the Poor is a tax-exempt non-profit organization. Little Sisters has a well-defined mission and religious beliefs which are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. Or one would think.


But do they have the right to force employees (assuming they don't share the same belief I presume am orghanisation, like hat wouldn't have employees who are non believers) ) to also comply with those beliefs? What if their religiouis belief was against vaccination for instance ( I assume there must be some employers that are christian scioentists) should they have the right to make that kind of decision on behalf of their employess.

If they are paying for the health care how come they have the right to override and interfere in something between the individual and his or her medfcal practitioner?

Posted by Larsmac

In the US, health care has never been provided by the State. We can't have that. That would be "Socialism" which is just a step away from the BIG evil, "Communism" If we let THAT happen the we will collapse into a big hole that will open up underneath Wall Street and swallow the entire world, like a Giant Galactic Cookie Monster. Oh, dear me, NO. We can't allow that to happen.

Who would be left to make Beer?


In the Uk post ww2 it was more a case of right you bastards we're not gouig back to the way trhings were we're having a welfare state. The christian socialist section of the labour party recently changed their name to christians on the left, not sure that will help their numbers.

tude dog;1494402 wrote: Maybe if the ACA was presented before congress for open debate. The attitude of you gotta pass it to find out what's in it hardly serves us well. The convenience of not being open has consequences.




That is kind of a tired line.

The entire ACA bill, like any other bill ever presented to Congress for a vote, was on display for anyone to read, and discuss, long before they ever voted on it.

If I could read the thing, I am sure the esteemed members of Congress could have found the opportunity to do so.

We have proportional representation for scottish parliament elkection. Hasn't half made a difference you no longer end up with the least unpopular party holding the most seats and suffering from the delusion they have received a mandate to govern. In westminster elections you get one party getting 25-30% of the votes giving them a majority so they get the seat. Put another way despite pver 2/3rds of the voters actually voting agianst them they still get belected. That's why we've ended up with th sodding tories.

Don't know but I bet for congress it's much the same situation.

AnneBoleyn;1494340 wrote: " just suppose, of knowing a young woman who had not wished to become pregnant and was considering an abortion, I would do about anything including getting down on my knees and begging, that she would reconsider and fulfill the pregnancy, making the newborn available to loving foster-parents."

That's so sick, Mark, I wouldn't know where to begin.............available new borns. Brood mares. Supply & Fulfill the needs of some fictional foster-parents..............on your knees & begging............So Wrong, hope in Real Life you mind your own business.I pretty much abandoned the thread as my exchanges with gmc became more and more circular.

But why on earth do you think that that is sick? I know several families, including my own sister's, who adopted illegitimate infants that, under different circumstances, might have been aborted. There are probably many thousands of families that I don't know who have done likewise.

We are talking here about young, unmarried women who, for one reason or another, might or might not have considered ending an unwanted pregnancy. It happens all the time.

And I wasn't referring to newborns but to unwanted pregnancies. There isn't any question that there are women who conceive for commercial purposes. That's a completely different topic.

And in any case, it's way, WAY off the topic of the thread. I just don't follow your reasoning here.

who adopted illegitimate infants


What an appalling concept behind those words.

I was going tooffer a reply to that last one but actually better left to anne I think.

gmc;1494447 wrote: What an appalling concept behind those words.

It's a euphemism, g. Would "bastards" have been better?

It's not a matter of words but of how such situations are handled.

Why don't you describe the same situation, using your own vocabulary?

Anne seemed to imply that there was something wrong with the adoption of unwanted (by their mothers) newborns. Or maybe I misunderstood; if so, she can certainly reply.

But, one more time, it's OFF THE TOPIC. I'll gladly discuss it elsewhere.

Mark Aspam;1494449 wrote: It's a euphemism, g. Would "bastards" have been better?

It's not a matter of words but of how such situations are handled.

Why don't you describe the same situation, using your own vocabulary?

Anne seemed to imply that there was something wrong with the adoption of unwanted (by their mothers) newborns. Or maybe I misunderstood; if so, she can certainly reply.

But, one more time, it's OFF THE TOPIC. I'll gladly discuss it elsewhere.


Anne can speak for herself. illegitimate may be a euphanism for bastard but illegitimate and bastard are synonyms. it was not the use of the word I was commenting on.

What an appalling concept behind those words.

gmc;1494453 wrote: Anne can speak for herself.At least we agree on that.

By the way, it so happens that I have a copy of my birth certificate right here, dated November 21, 1940, and down on line 7 it asks "Legitimate? _X_Yes/No___."

You might want to check your own.

P.S. I don't know if modern US birth certificates ask that question. Does anyone here know?

Mark Aspam;1494456 wrote: At least we agree on that.

By the way, it so happens that I have a copy of my birth certificate right here, dated November 21, 1940, and down on line 7 it asks "Legitimate? _X_Yes/No___."

You might want to check your own.

P.S. I don't know if modern US birth certificates ask that question. Does anyone here know?


Mine, issued almost ten years later, does not have such a space.

LarsMac;1494458 wrote: Mine, issued almost ten years later, does not have such a space.Thanks! A college buddy of mine, same age, but born in Wisconsin (I'm from Illinois) also had that on his birth cert. and used to carry it around, saying "This way, if anybody calls me a bastard, I can whip this out and put him in his place!"

Don't know when they stopped doing it, nor did you mention your birth state, I suspect that it may have varied from state to state but would not be surprised if it is now outmoded, or nearly so.

Mark Aspam;1494464 wrote: Thanks! A college buddy of mine, same age, but born in Wisconsin (I'm from Illinois) also had that on his birth cert. and used to carry it around, saying "This way, if anybody calls me a bastard, I can whip this out and put him in his place!"

Don't know when they stopped doing it, nor did you mention your birth state, I suspect that it may have varied from state to state but would not be surprised if it is now outmoded, or nearly so.


Well, yeah. Mine was from The South. They knew better than to ask such a question, there.

There is, however, a box for "Color"

LarsMac;1494407 wrote: That is kind of a tired line.

The entire ACA bill, like any other bill ever presented to Congress for a vote, was on display for anyone to read, and discuss, long before they ever voted on it.

If I could read the thing, I am sure the esteemed members of Congress could have found the opportunity to do so.


Yea I got your point. I dwelled too long on Pelosi's comment about haveing to pass it to find out what's in it.

Well, Congress had to pass it to find out as written it was unconstitutional. No worries Chief Justice Roberts just assumed the position of an unelected legislator.

The individual mandate as a tax: what the Court said

Whatever the motives, Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act represents a stunning climax to the debate over the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality. The opinion holds that the penalty for violating the individual mandate is not a tax for the purpose of determining whether the Court could rule on its constitutionality before it is enforced (under the Anti-Injunction Act). But, far more important, it holds that the penalty is a tax when assessing its constitutionality. The opinion explains that the individual mandate cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause because to do so would impose no meaningful limits on federal power to require individuals to engage in specific activities. But the opinion’s validation of the individual mandate as a constitutional exercise of the federal government’s taxing power likewise entails no clear limiting principle.


The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. (p. 64)

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty. (p. 65)

The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.

For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent. (p. 65)


Forbes

Then for a second time Chief Roberts comes to the rescue.

Justice Scalia’s Dissent on Obamacare Subsidies: Key Excerpts

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Affordable Care Act health-insurance subsidies purchased by lower-income Americans across the country drew a scathing response from Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a 21-page dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Justice Scalia said the high court’s 6-3 ruling reinforces the “discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others.

Here are some key excerpts from his dissent:

Justice Scalia faults the majority for not focusing on the plain meaning of the words in the law (page 2):

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State. It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State. And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges¦Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case.


Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.[/url]

Wall Street Journal

Mark Aspam;1494440 wrote: I pretty much abandoned the thread as my exchanges with gmc became more and more circular.

But why on earth do you think that that is sick? I know several families, including my own sister's, who adopted illegitimate infants that, under different circumstances, might have been aborted. There are probably many thousands of families that I don't know who have done likewise.

We are talking here about young, unmarried women who, for one reason or another, might or might not have considered ending an unwanted pregnancy. It happens all the time.

And I wasn't referring to newborns but to unwanted pregnancies. There isn't any question that there are women who conceive for commercial purposes. That's a completely different topic.

And in any case, it's way, WAY off the topic of the thread. I just don't follow your reasoning here.


From your prior post: "" just suppose, of knowing a young woman who had not wished to become pregnant and was considering an abortion, I would do about anything including getting down on my knees and begging, that she would reconsider and fulfill the pregnancy, making the newborn available to loving foster-parents."

You see, Mark, you are not understanding that a pregnant woman who didn't want to be & wants to abort should not be harassed by anyone else's intentions or purposes with dramatics such as men throwing themselves on their knees begging to possess what is hers. You've never been pregnant or in labor. You don't know what you're begging for her to do.

AnneBoleyn;1494497 wrote: 1. You've never been pregnant [n]or in labor.

2. You don't know what you're begging for her to do.1. You got that right.

2. And yet thousands of young women do so every year - to loving foster parents such as my sister and her husband.

If the birth mother, who in this case chose not to be in her daughter's life, could see her now, she might be sorry that she chose to let her go. I seriously doubt that she would be sorry about not having had an abortion.

Mark Aspam;1494456 wrote: At least we agree on that.

By the way, it so happens that I have a copy of my birth certificate right here, dated November 21, 1940, and down on line 7 it asks "Legitimate? _X_Yes/No___."

You might want to check your own.

P.S. I don't know if modern US birth certificates ask that question. Does anyone here know?


Mine asks for name rank or prfession of father name maiden surname of mother and place of marriage. So if not married the father could still be on the birth certificate. An unmarried mother, has full parental responsibilities and rights over the child, unless these have been removed by a court. If the fathers name is on the birth certificate they acquire parental responsibilities and rights the mother’s consent or a court order declaring him to be the father is required for him to put his name on the birth certificate but if it was the child had rights to a share of the fathers estate. I'm not an american nor english come to that the legal systems are different - a child had legal i.e legitimate rights rights so long as the parentage was acknowledged by the father beimng bor4n out of wedlock did not and does not take away those rights

So what rights would an illegitimate child have when and where you were born? the differences are intriguing would be willing to bet its down to whgich particular religious sect held sway at the time the states were formed.

Mark Aspam;1494585 wrote: 1. You got that right.

2. And yet thousands of young women do so every year - to loving foster parents such as my sister and her husband.

If the birth mother, who in this case chose not to be in her daughter's life, could see her now, she might be sorry that she chose to let her go. I seriously doubt that she would be sorry about not having had an abortion.


You really have a lot of assumption going with that one. I find you a self-righteous know-it-all who should study the subject and know the statistics instead of emotional, wishful thinking babble.

Mark Aspam;1494585 wrote: 1. You got that right.

2. And yet thousands of young women do so every year - to loving foster parents such as my sister and her husband.

If the birth mother, who in this case chose not to be in her daughter's life, could see her now, she might be sorry that she chose to let her go. I seriously doubt that she would be sorry about not having had an abortion.


I am so glad that you see so many unwanted children finding good homes. I wish that I could see the same. I would love to see a world where there are never women that don't want the life growing inside of them, and a world where every child is born into a loving family, who truly seeks that child's best.

Until that world arrives, however, I see, every day, children existing in miserable environments where pain and abuse are the only thing they can count on, and I see parents who are in far too deep for their own good, and children waiting years to adopted by those loving families you speak of.

While I am no advocate of abortion, and am happy to say that we have helped many young people adjust to parenthood, and have nieces and nephews who are adopting and fostering as many as they are able, I have to concede that at this time there are circumstances which may dictate a decision we do not like. And for us to presume that we know better for every poor young woman and child in the galaxy borders on criminal.

"While I am no advocate of abortion" says Lars. Well I AM. I AM for a woman's decision to control her own person. That is eroding, but it is not up to me. That will never stop me from wanting abortion to be legal with no apologies or excuses to strangers ever to be necessary. Her reason(s) is(are) not my business. Control over one's very self causes crisis amongst others. Imagine, men, just imagine how YOU would feel if YOU were forced to continue a pregnancy and labor, or any procedure for that matter. Forced. Now shut up. The opinion of men re: a woman's Right to Choose is of no value or importance to me.

Well, I will try to reply to both of the previous posters and this will probably my last to this thread, because as so often happens, it's not going anywhere but around in circles.

Opponents of Planned Parenthood fail to recognize (or perhaps DO recognize but ignore it) that PP PREVENTS many more pregnancies than it helps abort. The opponents also refuse to admit the obvious - that if there are not safe legal abortions there will be unsafe illegal ones. Sad, but a fact of life that is not likely to change.

My (adopted) niece, mentioned earlier, had a wonderful childhood, graduated from college with honors, is now happily married and has children of her own. You can multiply that by thousands of similar adoptions annually, many of which might have been aborted had the unwed mother not provided for them through adoption. That's about it.

AnneBoleyn;1494597 wrote: "While I am no advocate of abortion" says Lars. Well I AM. I AM for a woman's decision to control her own person. That is eroding, but it is not up to me. That will never stop me from wanting abortion to be legal with no apologies or excuses to strangers ever to be necessary. Her reason(s) is(are) not my business. Control over one's very self causes crisis amongst others. Imagine, men, just imagine how YOU would feel if YOU were forced to continue a pregnancy and labor, or any procedure for that matter. Forced. Now shut up. The opinion of men re: a woman's Right to Choose is of no value or importance to me.


And there, in a nutshell is why I tend to avoid such discussions. It really is not, nor will it ever be up to me, what a woman decides on such things. No one but her, and possibly, her immediate family should have a say in the matter.

I wasn't going to join in this discussion but I decided to add something from a personal standpoint. I grew up with 5 brothers as the only girl of a father who thought females were inferior and a mother, who for the most part was subservient to him. I was very young when I realized that I was as smart as, if not smarter than, more creative, more ambitious, more diligent and more stubborn than my brothers were. As a young woman I experienced the inequality in the workplace. I was determined to fight for every right that a woman should have and did so.

My oldest daughter was 20 years old, living at home and unmarried when we went in for a checkup with our family doctor. He told her she was pregnant. I told her I would stand by her and any decision she made. The doctor said, "What decision? She doesn't have any choice!" I said "Oh, yes she does have a choice!"

I will be eternally grateful that she made the choice that she did because had she decided to abort, we never would have had our wonderful baby boy, Eric. She may never have married Eric's father who has been a marvelous husband to her and father to Eric. Their marriage is an ideal one.

On the other side of the coin, my youngest daughter suffered the heartbreak of 7 or 8 miscarriages before she found out there was a marker on a chromosome that meant the chances of ever having a healthy baby were very slim. She had married a man much older who already had grown children so it didn't matter to him but she would have given a lot to have one of those unwanted babies that other mothers had given up to abortion.

Well said Zap ! Yes it is entirely the woman's choice what she does with her body.