Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Friday, April 12, 2019

ACTION - Born Alive Bills - NCGA S359



I wrote our governor today about the born alive bill. I did use two paragraphs from a NARAL post, but I added the first and last paragraphs.

So this is one of those ALEC copy/paste things - frequently referred to as the "born alive bill".

See here and here for how they keep popping up, why we don't need them, and how they push an anti-choice agenda through seemingly innocuous means.

Online: https://governor.nc.gov/contact/contact-governor-cooper

Please veto these extreme anti-woman, anti-abortion bills. This is a religious/healthcare/moral issue for pregnant individuals. The simple fact is this is a human rights issue. By denying women abortion as healthcare, lawmakers assume women lack the capacity to make health and moral decisions for themselves. What's next? Taking away our bank accounts or forcing our husbands to co-sign loans?

S359 (H602 in the house) is an extreme anti-abortion bill written by politicians, not doctors, that has no basis in medicine or science. The sole purpose of this bill is to intimidate patients and criminalize doctors and healthcare practitioners.

It's yet another effort by the anti-abortion majority to push extreme and inflammatory rhetoric in order to achieve their ultimate goal: banning abortion altogether.

Please veto all anti-abortion legislation and don't let the religious right take away our right to healthcare, autonomy, privacy, and religion.

***********************

*PACK THE GALLERY--#StopS359!*  MONDAY, APRIL 15th, 2pm

North Carolina General Assembly
16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh

Bring all your friends and come pack the NCGA Senate gallery Monday, 4/15, at 2pm.  The Senate will be voting on the extreme anti-abortion bill S359--Come fight for reproductive rights and abortion access and to #Stop359!

The North Carolina General Assembly is again trying to restrict abortion access and use our bodies for political stunts. S359 (H602 in the house) is an extreme anti-abortion bill written by politicians, not doctors, that has no basis in medicine or science.  The sole purpose of this bill is to intimidate patients and criminalize doctors and healthcare practitioners.

It's yet another effort by the anti-abortion majority to push extreme and inflammatory rhetoric in order to achieve their ultimate goal: banning abortion altogether.

Help us pack the Senate gallery of the NCGA

Please also keep calling and emailing your members of the NCGA and tell them to vote against S359 and its companion bill H602! Find your NC House and NC Senate members here: https://www.ncleg.gov/RnR/Representation

And, keep contacting Governor Cooper to tell him to veto S359, to veto H602, and to veto all other anti-abortion bills that reach his desk.
Phone: (919) 814-2000
Online: https://governor.nc.gov/contact/contact-governor-cooper





Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Fetus Moves Ahead of Women in Fight For Personhood.

Madison County recognized a fetus as a person with legal rights.


If you want some creative writing to read, take a look at this legal document.

Father? Six week old baby? So if personhood passes, we're all going to have to change our legal documents and have new ages.

I wonder if they are together or if this is an abusive tactic. Suing your gf doesn't sound like you have a great relationship. Sounds a bit controlling, like they could be divorced or splitting up and some more aggressive than passive aggressive retaliation is involved.

If a fetus is a person with rights that supercede a women's, I wonder what the State and public and abusive partners could sue for - missing a prenatal vitamin? Eating sushi? Having a glass of wine? Smoking a cigarette? Not getting the recommended amount of exercise in a week? Imagine the policing. You could turn your previously inconsequential judgmental attitudes into cold hard cash. How about that.

The personhood debate is about nothing more than control of women's bodies. Men left feeling a bit impotent about equality and loss of a bit of supremacy can reclaim it by controlling women's education, earning, employment, physical and mental health, safety and general autonomy with this nonsense and still come off looking so very moral, religious, and family oriented.

You can have it all, men!

If fetuses and "Fathers" can deny women's rights, I wonder what other rights will be denied us. I mean if the fetus is the person with rights in that scenario, maybe the woman shouldn't vote. Or drive. Or watch or listen or ingest certain things. I wonder what rights we'll be allowed when viewed legally solely as the "host" for a sweet precious little baby life?

I know some men will say this is too far, don't worry, it won't go that far. But they have absolutely nothing to lose if this becomes precedent. Nothing. Zero. Nada. So I don't apologize for saying your opinion doesn't matter here.

Some say PP v. Casey will stop this. I hope something will. I don't want to live in a world without autonomy.


Friday, March 1, 2019

Executing Babies and More Anti-Choice Lies


Lots of abortion news this week. So this is something I've thought a lot about. I used to be religious. I was fed the anti-choice rhetoric and I learned to spout it. I learned Bible verses, I learned to be repulsed, I even listened to a few sermons in which special anti-choice slides were employed in the service of showing everyone how poor little babies are dismembered and aren't those sinners not just sinners but awful, horrible people. I even believed the stuff about the Bible saying it is a sin. I tried to navigate gracefully around the gore and scare tactics because I felt even then that that was too much. I thought let the Bible convict them of sin, but leave the other judgments to God. As time went on, and I obeyed the admonition to study the Bible (Acts 17:11) and test all things (1 Thes 5:21), I started to see some cracks in the logic. Once you realize this is a political campaign, things fall apart and you see the subjectivity of what you formerly believed was impenetrable logic. It requires no political action to either not get an abortion or not have sex before marriage (which is what they wish they could regulate). None. Zero. These are religious tenants you can follow or not follow. When the church ties this to voting, implying that voting anything but Republican is sin - or voting Democrat is sin, their logic falls far short. They violate the first amendment should an abortion ban pass - they do not have the right to require all of us to follow their religious strictures. They violate the rules tax exempt status, if Trump hasn't tossed that already. And they violate their own assertion that all sins are more or less equal except blasphemy, that's supposed to be especially bad, but the rest are supposed to be equal. Clearly, if you've ever attended an evangelical (or evangelical adjacent) church, there is a special focus on anti-choice and anti-LGBTQIA+ marriage/rights, most especially in election years. Those are near and dear to their hearts and those are most definitely politicized. 

All that to say, I've thought about and considered just about every angle in my journey from anti-choice by default, anti-choice by choice to pro-choice. I still think about it. And there have been troubling things coming from state governments and the SCOTUS and everywhere really.

To this day I think why do they do that? They pick abortion and gay marriage, two things they'd never ever be tempted to do to rail against and outright ban for everyone. If you choose sinners to demonize, you'll be sure pick ones you don't risk committing so as to avoid hypocrisy. Or maybe these acts are chosen because they can't or can choose not to empathize with the "sinners" like they can with lying or gossip. Those are easy to forgive because even the elderly church lady everyone loves is guilty there. They've been known to magnanimously forgive a Jeffery Dahmer every now and then, so murder wouldn't be a good political tool. Plus most everyone agrees on punishing murderers, so that's really not crusade material.

Anti-choicers will complain about having to pay for abortions with federal money, their money. Never mind that we have to pay for war even if we are morally opposed. Forget that. Also forget that the "fathers" of all these babies CPCs and anti-choicers are trying to adopt are never punished like the women or made to pay anything toward hospital costs or exposed to equal health risks. It's not about doing right by women. Or babies. If they were actually concerned about these babies, as has been said before, they'd support SNAP and Medicaid expansion and all other programs to assist low income people instead of trying to block every effort. I'd go further and say evidence that they don't really care about women or babies unless to control them is a refusal to pay for women's hospital stays to have babies and c-sections, especially if they intend to force them. They should be for free birth control (which benefits men too btw) if they don't hate women, but do want to prevent pregnancy. They want to control when and how women have sex. That's the bottom line. They don't love babies or mothers or women. It's not about tax money going to something they don't believe in. The goal is to bind their religion on everyone and control women. Period.

On a more whimsical note, why can't women withhold treatment for erectile dysfunction and prostate cancer? Then women could feel powerful just like anti choice men! I mean a religion could theoretically dictate that cancer, especially of the prostate, is a gift form God and how dare you try and reverse it. Pain? Ill effects? You have the wrong mindset! The cancer must be preserved even at your expense. God said so. The end. Yeah, that sounds crazy.


Some articles this week that inspired the thoughts: 


‘Executing Babies’: Here Are the Facts Behind Trump’s Misleading Abortion Tweet
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/health/abortion-bill-trump.html

How Abortion Law in New York Will Change, and How It Won't
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-abortion-law-in-new-york-will-change-and-how-it-wont

Girl, 11, forced to give birth to her rapist's baby
https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/girl-11-forced-to-give-birth-to-her-rapists-baby-19576473
https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/11-year-old-rape-victim-given-c-section-argentina.html

Scott Walker Compares Abortion To Taking A Baby Home And Killing It, Gets Applause
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scott-walker-abortion-cpac_n_5c77fb3de4b0d3a48b576224

Scott Walker's a gem, though, right?
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/the_quiet_vicious_racism_of_scott_walkers_wisconsin/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-tax-tweet-twitter-slam_us_5c534ccee4b0bdf0e7d946a8



Friday, November 9, 2018

The problem with fertilized eggs as people


This is the news that sparked these thoughts - that fertilized eggs are people in Alabama:
https://rewire.news/ablc/2018/11/07/in-alabama-fertilized-eggs-are-now-people/

As long as Roe stays, we have a chance at being okay - with some more work to protect/provide birth control and clinics, but if that goes, Alabama's 'fertilized eggs are people' rule could get rid of not only abortion, but also contraception and IVF and put all women at risk for jail time (and risk tacking on more charges for doing x while pregnant and "endangering" the fertilized egg or fetus).

Far be it from ME to tell a man or religious nut how science works, but eggs are generally fertilized before implantation and women expel tons of these unknowingly. So basically if you criminalize "aborting" a fertilized egg, you can go on and put ALL women in prison. 


'Life begins at conception' has always been a way to criminalize women's bodies and also kind of a big lie. I have never heard people say 'life begins at implantation,' which would make more sense to argue without you sounding a bit nutty, but still would endanger ectopically pregnant women who must "abort" to save their lives. In Alabama, they could go to jail. Yay ignorance and patriarchy! Nope.

~~~~~~~~~
Finally, some science -

"Once the embryo reaches the blastocyst stage, approximately five to six days after fertilization, it hatches out of its zona pellucida and begins the process of implantation in the uterus. In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses."

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception_how_it_works/


~~~~~~~~~

The percentage is subject to debate and hard to measure, but it happens likely to all women that we have expelled a number of fertilized eggs, or killed people, as Alabama says. This position, like a fertilized egg that doesn't implant, is not viable. 

Anti-choice is anti-science and anti-logic. (And pro-life is a misnomer.) Banning abortion puts women's lives at risk. Christian ideologues want to argue that their right to impose their religion on the entire population trumps the right of women to life and constitutional rights. What the religious right is doing with ALEC and local government to subvert Roe is not covered by freedom of speech or religion or any sort of moral or scientific standard. 

No one is pro-abortion. Strike that. I'm not going there to apologize for my belief in equality. It doesn't matter if you're "for" or "against" when we're talking about human rights. 

What I'm saying is that is not the issue here - abortion or no abortion. The issue is that fight against abortion is used to normalize the policing of women's sexuality, autonomy and health. When abortion is criminalized, women's health is endangered. Not only with the obvious self harm and "back alley" abortions - but we're already seeing it with the targeted closing of clinics (TRAP laws) that provide cancer screening and other vital services. The anti-choice laws could extend to women's behavior - driving and eating or any normal activity someone deems reckless endangerment. But these are probably the same folks who are concerned that someone's buying a steak with food stamps and wish they could ensure they only ate out of dumpsters to "save us money" - that we're using to give tax cuts to the rich...

And what of embryos IVF patients have stored in the case of criminalization of "aborting" a fertilized egg, which is considered a person when a decision is made that these are not needed? Is the doctor going to prison? The tech? The patient? All of the above? If not, then it's not really a crime and we can back off this tossing women in jail for their biology/healthcare idea.


Other troubling reproductive news:

Abortion clinic bomber released:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/convicted-abortion-clinic-bomber-shooter-released-from-prison

Birth control rule subverted by our theocracy:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/health/birth-control-exemption-trump-bn/index.html

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Forced pregnancy and religious freedom

Over the course of a day last week, I saw this article about a 12 year old forced to carry her rapists' baby to term and a CPC was quoted, it was #ExposeFakeClinic (CPC) week as well, then I saw one about anti-abortionists violating the law to block the door to the only clinic in Kentucky. Either Trump's incompetence is opening the door for religious extremists to bring us closer to state religion or they're able to move us backwards regardless. Some say that after history is made - electing our first African American president - that it's normal to move backwards a bit before continuing forward as with desegregation, among other events. I hope, as the saying goes, that the arc bends toward justice, but it sure does look dismal sometimes.

Alabama lawyers say a 12-year-old rape victim shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion
http://www.salon.com/2017/07/21/alabama-lawyers-say-a-12-year-old-rape-victim-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-have-an-abortion/

From this article about the 12 year old girl:
---
"Mullins, the executive director of COPE Pregnancy Center in Montgomery, which provides counseling but not abortions, said that the girl likely had trouble deciding what clothes to wear to school, let alone determining whether or not an abortion was appropriate."
----

What is a CPC?



Keep in mind in this Alabama case- NO ACTUAL COUNSELING WAS INVOLVED- these CPCs peddle lies (abortions cause cancer!) and guilt and prey on women in general.


The girl can't decide what to wear to school, so yeah, the natural conclusion is she should be forced to carry her rapists' baby to term, causing more trauma and disrupting her schooling, thereby limiting her choices further! Brilliant! And by brilliant I mean you cruel lying manipulating authoritarian fundamentalist PsOS.


Your religious freedom allows YOU when you get raped to CHOOSE to carry your sweet precious reminder of that trauma to term, IT DOES NOT let you make that decision for others. That is outside of the bounds of your freedom; you are now infringing on someone else's. Like the misnamed Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Pence's home state and several others



The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Is Used to Discriminate. Let's Fix It.

_____

Here are two more references for those CPCs if you want to know more- one's an older investigative piece and the other is a recent update:

King County's "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" Can No Longer Say They're Health Clinics 7/20/2017

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/07/20/25302789/king-countys-crisis-pregnancy-centers-can-no-longer-say-theyre-health-clinics

Exposing Fake Women’s Health Clinics: My Visit to a Local Crisis Pregnancy Center from 2009
- - - - - - - - 

Seeing this last story made it a little harder to be optimistic about all the progress being made with regard to race, the glass ceiling, and marriage equality. There was a specific ruling made that you cannot block the door to clinics; women have to be able to walk in free of interference. A sea of people sat down in front as though they were protesting segregation or some real civil rights violation. Instead, they are angry they cannot yet control where you walk and what health decisions you make according to their religious preferences. It's not enough for them to freely practice their religion, they want the right to force you to make choices based on what they believe too.

Judge Says Protestors Can’t Block Door To Kentucky’s Last Abortion Clinic
http://huffp.st/ZbdvRP6


------------------------

And to top that week off, I'd forgotten to add this bit about a legislator trying to prevent doctors from even learning how to perform the procedure, so that even in an emergency, eventually there will be no one to help women. That is dangerous and irresponsible to even consider. Leave medicine to the doctors and women's heath decisions to them and their doctors.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/this-republican-wants-to-prevent-med-students-from-even-learning-how-to-perform-abortions/

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Fight to defund Planned Parenthood a la ACORN hoax






There is a new development in the abortion fight. If you remember the ACORN video during Obama's presidential campaign, you might feel a sense of deja vu.

Before we get into the controversy, let me say that this war on Planned Parenthood (as you know, this is not the first attempt to defund or shut it down) makes no sense to me. Besides the whole problem I have with others being involved in your choices affecting your family, sexuality, and body and NO ONE ELSE'S, there are other absurdities. Planned Parenthood offers many services to low income people as well as sex education, birth control, and treatment and aid when women are raped. Why would you want to block other people's access to these, in some cases, life saving services?? Sure, you may have a great health care plan and insurance, low co-pay, first rate doctors you can call as soon as you get the sniffles, but many people don't. Supporting movements to block access to that is heartless and hypocritical, especially since many who support this are SUPPOSED TO BE CHRISTIANS and should want to 'do unto others' and love their neighbors, love the adults as much as the fetuses.

The sources on the right, predictably led by Fox News, have cast this as 'OMG Planned Parenthood is selling babies!!!' But of course the truth is quite a bit less sensational. They want us to believe Planned Parenthood is either pressuring women to have abortions or pressuring women to sell fetal tissue so either they or the organization can make money. So instead of examining the sketchy video and submitting the rookie sting to any kind of scrutiny, Republicans want Planned Parenthood shut down (big shocker, as they have been trying to do this for ages) and a massive investigation be conducted. Makes sense, right? No.

Here is Planned Parenthood's statement:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-statement-hoax-campaign

So if you want to see the slant and the videos, you can probably find some here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/21/new-planned-parenthood-video-shows-top-doc-haggling-over-price-fetal-body-parts/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed-women-betrayed/article/2568758


There were highly edited clips released (making the employee sound cavalier, making it sound as though something illegal might be going on) then the full versions were released, where it was made clear there is no trafficking in fetal tissue and in which some jokes in bad taste were made. Probably not the best way to talk about it, but not illegal. Also, when you are talking about something difficult, you sometimes make jokes, so this could have been the case. Doctors and professionals who deal with these things on a daily basis have a much greater ease in talking about them than the general public and this could be interpreted as callousness to the uninitiated. And not to mention, if we broke down every medical procedure to this level, we can make any of it sound extremely gruesome.


So of course what follows is that there is a rally in a few days in support of defunding Planned Parenthood, a long fight, not specific to this new video hoax or all new.

http://studentsforlife.org/womenbetrayed-rallies-happening-july-28th/


Now here are some sources that can shed some light on the situation, or tell the other side of the story, if you want to look at it like that. Apparently, Planned Parenthood is reimbursed for travel and transport of the tissue donations and this was cast as "illegal sale" and trafficking, which would be quite the scandal. If it had any basis in fact.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/planned-parenthood-video_n_1552672.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/02/its_hard_out_here_for_a_pimp.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/16/what_the_planned_parenthood_hoax_really_proves_right_wing_extremists_have_no_qualms_about_destroying_peoples_lives/


Thursday, February 4, 2010

Church and State

The previous post on the Blackwater book talking about abortion as a "culture of death" and the whole political Christianity thing with The Family and Blackwater stirred up more (or the same?) thoughts on the topic I continually think about - politics in religion and religion in politics. Church and state.

I always think about the big 2 - abortion and gay marriage and wonder how these got to be political issues. Why not go after a divorce ban- except in the case of death or infidelity? Surely that's of equal moral concern as homosexual marriage? Why choose these 2 and claim them as "Republican values"?

There is a strong sentiment in the Church (less so in the greater religious world) that unless you vote Republican you are not doing everything you can to stop or oppose abortion and gay marriage. I, on the other hand, don’t know that that’s the most effective or best way to oppose it. Let’s say we banned abortion and gay marriage in this country. Would those sinners be any closer to knowing the gospel? Would we as a nation or individually?

I think in our zeal to oppose these things politically, we can lose sight of the real goal.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t preach and listen to sermons against abortion and homosexuality- not at all. I’m only saying I think we go too far when we say or imply that voting Republican (or supporting candidates and laws against these) is the only solution or only way to be faithful.

I know some will think I’m a sentence away from falling away from the church or supporting or condoning abortion and gay marriage, but I just think we need to be careful to preach what the Bible teaches and nothing more or less.

First, we are to spread the gospel, not necessarily to keep people from the physical acts of sin. The latter would be nice, but that alone won't save their soul. Just like we can get caught up in the head count of congregations or the number of baptisms per week rather than making sure we are active and faithful, I think we can get caught up in number of laws passed to gauge how Christian our nation is. Numbers won't tell you the group is faithful and a heap of 'moral legislation' won't tell you how Christian the nation is or how hard we have tried to spread the gospel.

Who is to say that teaching people about the gospel, when life begins and that abortionis murder is less effective than assaulting people with pictures (and gory details) of aborted fetuses and telling them to vote Republican. I agree that a picture can say a thousand words, having seen my share of pictures and videos of blown up and bleeding children and bloody stumps traded back and forth in discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I have reservations and issues with using this as a primary tool of persuasion. I think it appeals too much to emotion and can displace reason and logic. I also feel bad about using someone's child and pain in a campaign (albeit a worthy one) to end the conflict or abortion.

Second, voting for a candidate or party lumps a whole lot of other issues together that could have equal or different spiritual concerns.

Sometimes in the fight against abortion and gay marriage it appears we forget that Christ came teaching individual, not national responsibility and salvation.

Some will think me contrary, confrontational, wanting to sit on the fence, not having a desire to fight for right – I will respectfully disagree.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Denialism

I like NPR, but this segment bothered me:

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=122857703


The topic isn't a bad one. Denialism is apparently when popular opinion goes in the opposite direction from scientific evidence due to emotion or who know s what.

I'll start with what I agreed with. I did like the talk about the actual denialism - organic food, some homeopathic medicine (I did think he was too critical, but to put all your eggs in that basket I'll agree is gambling with your life), all herbs are good, vaccines are bad, etc.

I have been shocked by the number of people who have bought into weight loss gimicks, the idea that it's herbal, therefore it is safe and side-effect free, or all dietary supplements do something and things like that. There is so much evidence that says this stuff is garbage and in some cases harmful, but it still sells. If people listened to scientific evidence instead of emotion or whatever drives these trends, GNC (and many an infomercial product) would be out of business!

I can't really blame people for the herbal supplement thing. The research can be confusing or conflicting. More significantly, most people assume they are regulated by the FDA or under an obligation to tell the truth on product labeling. If you think that, you'd be wrong!



I liked where the guy was going with this:

“Mr. SPECTER: I believe this is an issue for moral debate, and I'm truly really trying to focus on clear-cut scientific lines in the sand about studies and why we use things and why we don't and why we trust things and why we don't. And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue. I wouldn’t actually call it denialism.”


I thought that was a good approach. It makes sense. … but what these two said and did next annoyed me big time. They didn't go off on creationsts, like I thought they were going to do. People that say they value science over religion have to be the denialists, there, though. The public seems to reject that scientific evidence can or might suggest a higher power at work because of a bias or closely held belief that religion/God is not scientific or not logical or that concepts are either faith based (a guess, a shot in the dark) or science based. I think the more we discover about the earth, the more we'll find evidence of Deity. Back to the abortion thing, though...


OK. Keep in mind what he said:

“And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue.”

But after this, they tried to get the caller to say that she was against abortion (which she obviously was) and wouldn’t change her opinion if the science stated the fetus definitely couldn’t feel or sense anything and that that would be denialism.

I thought she did a good job of avoiding the trap and moving back to her point which was to say how science could help us understand the debate better (not necessarily solve it)- which is a moral one ultimately (and as such as Specter said, doesn’t fall under denialism!).

***
ELIZABETH: I wanted to thank your guest for the issue. I think denialism is an issue that's pretty important in a lot of social issues, too. And I think in some social discussions where there's a lot of disparity of opinion, denialism kind of derails the discussion on things a lot of the time.

One of the specific examples I was thinking of was related to the discussion over abortion. And one of the examples, I guess, I was thinking of is for years and years, it was thought that the unborn fetus was not aware of the abortion procedure when it was happening. And ultrasounds are already debunking that and illustrating that these unborn children are aware of the abortion as it happens. And I think science is actually going to be pretty useful in the discussion as we learn much, much more about unborn life.

FLATOW: Michael?

Mr. SPECTER: I believe this is an issue for moral debate, and I'm truly really trying to focus on clear-cut scientific lines in the sand about studies and why we use things and why we don't and why we trust things and why we don't. And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue. I wouldnt actually call it denialism.

FLATOW: Elizabeth, if there was a research to show you that the unborn fetus at those age - at that time that you're speaking about it - was not in the state that you think it is, would you accept that?

ELIZABETH: I think that that - I was just bringing that up as one example of a discussion in which science could be helpful. (unintelligible)

FLATOW: Well, that's why I'm asking. If the science showed you that it was not like you thought it was, would you deny that?

ELIZABETH: I think that he is correct that it's a moral issue, also. But I think that if you bring science to the table, it at least helps to open the discussion and hopefully help people on both sides of the issue find some common discussion areas that could then move it beyond, you know...

Mr. SPECTER: Can I just ask one question?

ELIZABETH: ...whether or not, you know, the baby can feel it, too...

FLATOW: Yeah.

ELIZABETH: ...to the moral issue. But I think science could be very helpful in the discussion.

FLATOW: Good point. Go ahead. You wanted to jump in there, Mike?

Mr. SPECTER: I just wanted to ask a question. If science showed conclusively that an unborn fetus at a particular time couldn't feel anything, would you then change your mind? Because if you wouldn't, you are exactly what I'm talking about.

ELIZABETH: Well, I - what my point - that is an interesting point of view, and I do understand that. I think you're probably right that in moral discussions, people on both sides believe that either the viability of the baby or the rights of a woman would make the decision beyond science. But my point was just that you could bring science to the table to help find some common ground and discuss this as best as possible and lead to some progress.

I think that she was a good example, Michael, of bringing science - she made a point about bringing science to the table, and even bringing science to table didn't sway her one way or the other.

Mr. SPECTER: I mean, you know, I don't want to be rude because I do believe that that is a moral issue and it's very complex. But that really makes that's the example of what I'm talking about.

***

He was rude, though, and contradicted himself!

To be fair, (if I understand this made up term) denialism probably doesn't cover moral or social issues, so the caller really didn't have a point. But- I don't like how they went beyond the first statement on how it doesn't apply to have a conversation in which they tried to get her to say something so they could call her a denialist.



Thursday, May 8, 2008

Election

I have been holding onto this post, so I'll just go ahead and post it. I guess it kinda defeats the purpose of a blog, huh?

Well, this post comes from a discussion at work about why people support one candidate versus another- I thought I should justify to myself my choice for Obama. Is he just more charismatic or do I like his policies? Another issue that plagues every election is Roe v. Wade. Should I vote on this issue alone? Some hard core Republicans I know and love would say yes. While I do think it is a life and death issue as well as a moral issue, there are other moral issues. Actually, a lot of Democrats I know are voting solely to uphold this court decision as well (the next president will have to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices most likely). They see it as too much church in the state.

The only quotes about what all the fuss is about with Jeremiah Wright is something about the US policies being partially responsible for 9/11 (which I agree with) and the US lying about HIV not being invented for genocide of black people (kind of crazy IMO). Maybe the fuss is about Obama’s reaction. I think a general distancing was bad, especially if he agrees with some of Wright’s ideas, as do I. He should have come forward to tell which things that were said that he does and doesn’t agree with to clarify, rather than clarifying that he renounces the statements, but not the man. I think and even hope that was the wrong distinction, but would be disappointed to find that he didn’t stand up for hard, yet truthful, statements. Overall, this "issue" is silly. As Bill Moyers has said, how would you like your long career of speaking to be summed up in 16-20 seconds of soundbytes from your work? Maybe we aren't getting the whole picture...

Clinton, on the other hand, is talking about attacking Iran if Israel is threatened. That should be more worrisome to people (especially people who opposed our action in Iraq at any point) that the Obama-Wright “controversy”. We should be worried that Hilary is showing the same tendencies as Bush, though she will not admit it. I do hope this won’t turn into a fight about who loves Israel more, though. Reading Congressional transcripts about the Middle East peace issue, even when criticizing Israel, the session turns into an Israel love fest or contest, with each comment being preceded by how much they love Israel or what their state does for Israel/Israelis.

Another silly thing Obama is being criticized for is not wearing a flag pin. I read some articles about that while I was Googling for something else. I heard a snippet on the radio last week about what I think was this very “issue”. They lady said something like “Why can’t he just say he loves the flag?”. She quoted him as saying he revered it, which I think is more descriptive and correct to say. Why is this even an issue. He’s had to refute the false accusations that he doesn’t say the Pledge and other assorted things as well as the fact that he’s Christian rather than Muslim. I think there was a recent Jerusalem Post article proving (or trying to prove) that he is Muslim. Silly. If the man says he’s Christian, he’s Christian. If he was Muslim, why not say it? What would that matter? It wouldn’t to me, but I guess there are those ignorant folks who say all Muslims and Arabs are terrorists (such as those at JPost…)… The facts on the ground just don’t support him being Muslim or lying about being Christian. Sorry, JPost. They’ll have to find a new way to slander the guy who’d rather use diplomacy first and who doesn’t want to automatically bomb Iran and Israel’s neighbors into oblivion if he becomes President.

I like that Obama has lived in another country and has exposure to Islam. I think this will help with diplomacy and foreign policy decisions in the region that has become a focal point for us. I think the fact that he is a minority could have given him different experiences from the typical white male we’ve always had and will influence him in a positive way, even in a position of power. On the cynical side, he is male and wealthy, though, so that similarity with his predecessors could cancel out the good, there.

Freedom to Unionize, protect striking workers, raise minimum wage, open internet

I like the (somewhat unavoidable) emphasis on mortgage fraud crackdowns. I guess he has to address it. I’m not sure he’s got a good plan, though. The fund for “innocent” homeowners could become abused. I’m not sure how many are innocent. Many, many people live beyond their means on credit cards and fall to peer pressure to get more, buy big, etc. People I know tell about their friends/acquaintances who put rims on their SUV’s and buy/rent flat screen TV’s or the latest gadget, yet have trouble making the rent or mortgage. These people aren’t innocent. They are living beyond their means. It is a problem in our culture for sure, but individuals have to take responsibility and sell some stuff or do something before everything gets repo’d and they are left with nothing to show. There are tons of things I’d like to have, sure, but you have to be realistic. You have to be content with what you have. If you buy it, your income won’t magically increase to cover it. And if it goes on a credit card, on the contrary, you will have less money to work with because of those insane and often “sneaky” interest rates. And then there are those sketchy check cashing and rental places that have unbelievably high interest. These places should get some attention, but the individual should take responsibility for these decisions. I don’t know that it’s the government’s place to bail people like this out and I don’t know how to distinguish between the “innocent” and who shouldn’t be helped.

I like the fact that he wants to expand FMLA, but I think he needs to go further. Other countries have up to a year of paid leave and more weeks per year of paid vacation time as the standard. We generally get 2 weeks per year starting out, and other places get 3 or 4. Happy, rested employees make for a more productive work force. Talk about reducing the work day or week and that will be the day change is accomplished.

Some crackdown on lobbyists, but not enough to free us of AIPAC control (foreign interests ahead of ours)

More transparency.

On the hot button issues of abortion and gay marriage, which will no doubt come into play when one of them is battling McCain, I’m more conservative. I am pro-life for sure and would even say I’d like to see abortion banned. I do have reservations about a total ban when the life of the baby and mother are endangered (ectopic pregnancy). I believe homosexuality is wrong, but unlike conservatives, I don’t think the government should be involved since it is not a matter of life and death. I have heard the abortion ban being called too much church in the state, but that’s a life/death issue- one that civil societies need to legislate, much like murder or theft. Life begins at conception and I just don’t see how you can argue differently. I mean, is it suddenly life in the 2nd trimester, the 3rd, at birth, when it gets fingernails, when it first cries or takes the first breath? If it is called alive at any point other than conception, then why is infanticide wrong? Not a bit of difference really, except culturally (Americans accept aborting a fetus if it is inconvenient for the mother). Gay marriage (giving the “right” or prohibiting it) legislation is more like no separation of church and state. I don’t know that I’m against civil unions. I need to think about that more.

Since I have delayed this post so long that my state's primary has come and gone this week, I will comment on that, too. Looks like Obama is gaining ground. Can't say I hate it, given the options. Of course, I would much prefer to do away with the electoral college and these party conventions and free it up for more than 2 parties to truly, viably be involved. I'd like more of a democracy, I guess. Call me crazy.

Also, Clinton said she broke the tie with Indiana?! She's taking a page out of Bush's playbook, here. Say what you wish happened, not what actually is happening. It's over, Hillary. Give it up. You're a drain on your party, now.