Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
11.09.09 - 10:39 AM
Pro-Choice Forces Gather
While this weekend's House health reform vote included an amendment sharply restricting women's access to abortion coverage, pro-choice forces are vowing to strip the amendment. Colorado Rep. Diana Degette says she has collected over 40 signatures, enough to block passage, opposing any final bill that includes the amendment.
"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."
48 Comments so far
Show AllWhy can't people just back this gal and damn let it go at that?
AD
Hey, happyjon,
"...I just do not understand how in this day and age of plentiful birth controls that abortions abound in our society in such huge numbers."
We need FREE FAMILY PLANNING.....birth control is NOT cheap!!!!
OK, if women can't get reproductive care, men can't have their freakin' VIAGRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mother Nature aborts at least 30% of pregnancies, so let's put her ASS in jail, too????????????
I look at this and a very surreal feeling comes over me. It's almost like an out-of-body experience (whatever the hell that is supposed to be!) or perhaps like watching a real bad B-rated sci-fi movie and thinking, well, I can turn off the TV...only you can't.
WTF is all this about? A bunch of whack jobs whose one and only purpose in life is to ruin this world by following/believing/claiming belief in something invisible (which isn't even hot air). How utterly screwed up is this? Now, this should be good fodder for Hollywood, nothing they can come up with would ever equal this nightmare. Man, this is screwed up!
Hypocrisy, right and left.
Right- It is considered murder to abort a fetus. It is considered patriotic to let that fetus grow into a young adult and then train him or her to become a sanctioned killer in the military.
Left- It is considered acceptable under certain conditions to kill a fetus. It is considered murder to execute that grown fetus if he or she is convicted of murdering an adult fetus that was saved by the right.
Not so.
The big difference is that, to the anti-Choicers, the foetus and the actual living human have, or should have, the same civil status: human. But they nevertheless treat them completely differently. That's hypocrisy.
Whereas to the pro-Choicers, a foetus and a quasi-independent, thinking human have vastly different social and biological statuses, and therefore need not be accorded the same treatment. Their *only* similarity is in their chromosomes, and that's true of a mere egg or sperm as well as the foetus. We don't give human standing to a sperm or egg, so there's no hypocrisy in not giving it to a foetus either.
A foetus is not even humanoid until quite far along in the gestational process.
True this is the definition of life based on using object of observation as a means of coming to a conclusion about where life begins. Life is not limited or confined to relative objects [bodies], and life at it's core does not begin and end. life is presence as consciousness awake to itself ,without the need to be verified by observation of the parts that are appearing inside of this wakefulness.There are two forms of gaining knowledge, objective [ observer and objective of observation] and subjective[ self referral or subjective cognition]. Objective knowledge is dependent on a physical nervous system capable of observing objects taken in through the senses and arranged and ordered by the mind. because this process is limited and bound by observer and object necessity, it does not have a program or perceptual capability of realizing it's essence or source. The subjective form of gaining knowledge relies on a dominate background of wakefulness without object and then the introduction of a thought or idea that is then released back into this essence. The introduction of this 'stimulus' into this wakefulness pulls information that is in virtual form into the brain of the physical nervous system thus allowing it to be discernible. One advantage of this process besides saving a lot of time , is that it is possible to internally observe the most minute forms of objective life. There will never be a conformation or 'proof' of this wakefulness without object because as stated above the realization of this is beyond the programed capability of the mind. It is it's own conformation and it is more than possible to experience this stillness, and experience it AS life. One short experience of what i have just ineffectively described is enough to immediately upset the apple cart of reality , and adjust our ideas about what is murder.
sirios, to most the mental self, the ego, is all that exists or is all important. They neither 'know' what they do not know or what is possible to know or perceive. The conditioned self becomes the be all and end all of existence for them. Even with belief--or non-belief--in a god, they remain within the limitations of the 'programmed mind.' Thus, essence and consciousness are only words and someone else's illusion (or religion). Further, with regard to many new-agers, there is no such thing as 'objective consciousness,' meaning consciousness independent of mental relativism. Without self-observation, or as Tolle puts it 'watching the thinker,' it is impossible to apprehend a broader Reality outside of thought, and one's identity remains fixed within its narrow confines. And as you say, it only takes a tiny glimpse of a wakefulness without the 'me' to 'upset the apple cart.' We should all pray for that glimpse.
Very nice. was that an elaboration/addition? The initial phrasing appeared as a rebuttal, but as i continued to read it seemed to become an agreement. As to god i would have to place him,her or it as an object appearing inside of consciousness. It might be useful to relate that i have no formal education and have never read Tolle or any of his like, whatever that is. I can only speak on that which i have directly experienced. discussions on consciousness rapidly deteriorate into philosophical mish mosh. I generally don't reply after posting my failed attempts at describing awareness/consciousness. my motivations are to stimulate a desire to seek out the direct experience of what i cannot describe. If self , through luck or grace exposes it self to the individual then the conversation can turn to conformation and beyond.
It was definitely not a rebuttal, and I think you are again correct about philosophical conversations that only conjecture about consciousness without firsthand knowledge or experience. Formal education is overrated, as well, so maybe you are fortunate in that regard to have not been hindered by it. Seemingly, we are kindred spirits, as I put much more stock in awareness than belief and give very little credence to the 'cult' of personality. And sometimes shared insights can indeed go beyond confirmation. It is a pleasure to meet you in this forum.
You're getting into the realm of phenomenology and religion. That's fine for internal choices, but nobody's religion or internal experiences should ever be used to create a law that binds anyone else. That's too close to returning to pre-Enlightenment days when people were held legally responsible for what other people dreamed about them.
Address the issues of economic inequality and poverty, enact decent health care, education opportunities, housing, etc., and watch the demand for abortions decline. Also, abandon abstinence only education in schools.
As I near my 75th birthday and look back on my turbulent up and down life I give thanks that my mother did not abort me. It is wonderful to still be drawing breath and being able to participate in this debate.
I find it amazing that if a "wanted" foetus is killed or murdered it becomes a "baby" but if it is aborted it is really nothing.
I just do not understand how in this day and age of plentiful birth controls that abortions abound in our society in such huge numbers.
Interesting point, jon. For those of us who do have children, you cannot help but ask yourself: would your life have been richer had they not been born? As for myself, I'd have to answer with a resounding: "No!!" This does not mean I think abortion should be illegal, only sad if women are driven to it because of desperation. The present society we live in is exceedingly cruel and ugly. Though many would deny it, in one way or another, it's every man for himself, rather than for the harmony of the whole. Even civility where it exists if often only a cover for selfish motives. I agree with you that the wise use of birth control is a much better option than abortion--and cheaper too. As to the argument of it 'not always working,' I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule, unless, of course, it's the 'rhythm method.'
Y'know, Jon, you and I are virtually the same age, so I'm fairly sure your way of thinking as expressed here is not a function of declining cognitive ability.
So I really have to ask: you say you give thanks that your Mum didn't abort you. But if your Mum *had* aborted you, how would you have known? Where would 'you' be, now?
Those not born don't exist and therefore cannot suffer. Do you really not realise that?
Birth control doesn't always work. Chemical means are often contraindicated, medically. Physical means are often refused by men. All means sometimes fail. Abortions are stressful and expensive; women don't have them just to have them. They're a last resort, not a cup of coffee and a danish on the way to work. So there are probably not many more abortions being performed today than in the past. The 'huge numbers' almost certainly reflect a mix of flawed perception on your part and the fact that abortions are now nominally legal and therefore need not be performed with the aid of a coathanger or a 2x4.
In one word: IGNORANCE
A) Not everyone uses birth control pills, for various reasons. You have to put condoms on and rapists don't always use them.
B) Women don't have the choice of deciding when they are going to be raped, so they can take birth control for a month ahead of the moment.
C) Sometimes accidents happen in the heat of the moment.
D) No birth control is 100% effective ... not even the IGNORANT right-wing notion of "ABSTINENCE ONLY". Because we have been saddled with that STUPIDITY for the past eight years, the rate of unwanted pregnancies has gone UP, because our teens are NOT getting REAL information that they need in order to make intelligent decisions. (And the decision to abstain doesn't necessarily qualify as an intelligent choice.)
E) Most abortions occur BEFORE the zygote advances to the fetus stage. I once saw two photos placed side by side. One photo was of a human fetus and the other was a pig fetus. I'm thinking that the age was about five weeks, but can't really remember. Anyway, at that stage in development, you couldn't tell them apart.
Twenty-some years ago a doctor suggested a compromise between the occasional need to abort and the right-wing insistence that life starts at conception. What he proposed was, that since life is considered to end at the point at which brainwaves cease, we should consider that life begins when brainwaves are first detected ... at about three months, if I recall correctly. That still would leave a "window" of about three months during which an abortion could be performed, before life begins. Life would begin in the womb at three months, before the point of viability.
His idea was shot down by both sides.
You don't have to be right wing to believe that life starts at conception.
I'll assume that you wouldn't want to legalize extremely late term abortion or killing the child after birth even when a woman is raped. Sure, it is a terrible situation for the woman, but that just doesn't seem like justification for murdering the resultant baby. I personally think that the reason so many of us are against that and not early abortions is because we have a strong genetic inclination to be sympathetic to babies and want to care for them, thus killing them seems wrong. On the other hand, nature did not instill a nurturing instinct for a tiny unrecognizable fetus, so for us, intuitively it is less human. All of the arguments for abortion simply try to rationally justify this intuitive feeling (or rather lack thereof), yet they all are arbitrary. For example, "it's only a few cells", "it doesn't have brain waves", etc. At the end of the day, it is a baby--whether we emotionally sympathize with it or not.
I personally don't see a big difference pondering the possibility of my mom killing me as soon as I exited the birth canal or before I had my first brain wave, reached 10^5 cells, shed the useless layer of fur, etc. I would however be more understanding if I found out that I almost had to be terminated because the doctors believed my mom's life was at risk--and again, it wouldn't really matter if it was early or late. So there is where my nonreligious views lie.
Both sides in this issue are so adamant that _their_ viewpoint is the ONLY possible solution, that there is no opportunity to find compromise.
Women don't want people like you deciding when they should become mothers. That shouldn't be up to you or the government.
Good point! Going along this line of argument...who is the government to say that a woman can't abort at 8 months, or euthanize after exiting the birth canal. After all, it is not in the governments jurisdiction to decide when you should become a mother.
Ah the ridiculous slippery slope argument. Considering that 86% of all abortions take place in the first trimester--and that percentage would be higher if not for opponents like you who make it difficult and force women to wait even longer--your point is, well, pointless. Women are independent, rational beings. They generally know immediately whether they want to continue a pregnancy so you won't find hordes of mad-eyed women waiting to "murder" the extremely late term or newborn. They want to end the pregnancy as early as possible.
Don't bother yourself responding to this. I won't read it.
I may have a double post here because I posted a response but it didn't show up.
Anyway, my argument is not a slippery-slope argument. I claim that late-term abortions and early-tern abortions are, morally speaking, the same. It would be a slippery slope argument if I claimed that early-term abortions are okay, late-term are not, but early-term could lead to late-term so only indirectly is early-term bad. That isn't what I am saying. I just don't see a difference between the two. For every attempt to morally separate the two, there is an analogous line of reasoning that could be used to justify early-infant euthanasia but not late-infant euthanasia(not enough cells, not enough brain-activity, insufficient self-awareness, prevent a life of suffering for both child and mother, or whatever else).
This bill is worth less than nothing anyway. To Hell with the whole thing.
I'm in complete agreement with you. This bill is a sellout to the insurance industry. We'll know that for sure if Max Baucus backs it without any changes.
You said it.
It's a sad day when I have to be thankful that Republicans will vote like Republicans, but Boshama has brought things to that point.
This is just one more reason out of 1900 pages of reasons to oppose the bill.
May the senate stand with Bernie Sanders, who opposes this bill on reasonable grounds.
Kill it.
Start over.
Get single payer.
By contrast HR-676 is only about 90 pages.
Diane Degette you are drinking the kool ade of misdirection. The choice is not between this abortion of a legislative initiative with or without the amendment you oppose, it is between this bill and the chance to have a single payer option.
May the Senate reject Obamacare and flush it and everyone who voted for it down the legislative toilet.
Poet
There's a great pro-choice argument delivered by Grissom on C.S.I- The embryo doesn't produce blood 'til the third week. Christians believe that life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) so should have no objection to abortion prior to that time.
See my reply above to "Happyjon", about the proposal put forth to consider that life begins at the point that brain activity begins.
Po Thead November 9th, 2009 3:37 pm -- It may be an argument, but it's been effectively critiqued at http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10360/BLI/life/index.htm.
I've long held the view that if the individual (presumably a fetus) can make and recall memories, it deserves to be protected. This is because without memories, our individual identity doesn't exist. For the same reason, absence of brain activity signifies death, whereas cessation of heartbeats or breathing doesn't. And Alzheimer's victims die a slow death.
Many people claim to recall things from their time in the womb, but no one has been able to prove that such "memories" are more than illusions. To prove it one would have to recall something susceptible to independent verification. One possibility would be that a person might recall being injured in the womb; but such a recollection would be persuasive only if the person was never told about the injury or otherwise given clues concerning what to say about it.
I read that article before posting and I'm not sure how effective of a critique it is. In any case, it seems that other christians do believe it-
" That the blood actually possesses a {living principle}, and that the life of the whole body is derived from it, is a doctrine of revelation, and a doctrine which the experiments of the most accurate anatomists have served strongly to confirm." ( http://bible.cc/leviticus/17-11.htm ).
I am an atheist though and far from a biblical scholar.
One of the saddest things in politics today is the growing influence of the "life begins at conception" idea, which stands behind the anti-abortion amendment. The fundamental fact that there is no way to rationally conclude that early-term fetuses are equal to born individuals seems never mentioned in congressional debates, but should be.
Leaving aside the pregnant women who want an abortion, and the fathers who will have to be dragged into supporting their unwanted children -- think about the children who will be harmed by the birth of an unwanted child (including the unwanted child him/herself) and the people who are faced with having to figure out how to maintain their sanity with "murders" going on legally all around them every day. "Life begins at conception" is nothing but a toxic, sinister idea that masquerades as something pure and sacred. It's totally religious and should be removed as a governing principle from any law, including this one.
I am sure there are many clever ways to rationally justify the murder of an infant. After all, the fundamental fact that there is no way to rationally conclude that infants are equal to self-aware fully functioning adults is never mentioned in congressional debates. Is it not a toxic, sinister idea that forces parents to provide subsistence for unwanted infants? I am not an expert on infant cognitive development, but I am sure there is a period of time where they have exited the womb but have less cognitive ability(by some arbitrarily chosen, yet objective metric) than a dog. People are free to bring their dog to a shelter if they don't want to take care of it anymore, where it will more than likely be euthanized. Should I rationally conclude that we should be able to do something akin to this with our unwanted infants? I mean, think about the children!
If there was a common thought or a ravage of thought on the "act" prior to having to succumb to this kind of irrational. We wouldn't need time wasted by people (government) to discuss this ignorance in the first place. They have other agendas to not know what they are talking about, let alone the fact that people that have made a mistake in bedding down with someone have now considered it a mistake. Even having this kind of agenda proves people are constantly making mistakes. Who or why should people be allowed another voice when you are considering taking one before it is born. There are no answers that will make this choice right. Don't eat meat. Stop animal testing. Free the planet of indignance. Of course I could continue but people in a train don't control it. Only the engineers. You are not the engineers. I am alive and off topic but I am alive. Maybe only once, but breathe air while you can because people have turned to the darkside and I can witness it. Of course there method of being right includes premeditated murder that will be allowed by law but hey that's government. I am filled with the want to live seeing people that are like this. It makes me feel smarter than them. Abstinence must be outlawed to be incorporated in this country.
What a fraud!
So, Rep. DeGette (and almost all of the so-called progressives who had previously pledged to stand against what they then voted for) is playing the same OLD game. After they stab you in the back, they tell you to trust them next time and that they had to stab you in order to look strong. Besides, it was for your own good!
Good luck, Rep. DeGette!
"Separated at birth?" question: Has anyone ever told you that you look like Amy Goodman with makeup?
· Yr Obd't Servant
Now if your group can link up with single-payer advocates, you might have the clout to get a real bill passed. As this one stands, even if it did have abortion-friendly language, it's just not worth passing. If you don't put tight cost controls in the final bill--and the best is single payer--then just shove it.
matthew loughran
having this amendment is just another reason not to support this non reform crap.
when you have corporate dims and fanatic republicans in this congress its no wonder this non reform crap comes out and everyone is fooled into thinking its a government takeover of healthcare ahhhh!!!!! could not be further from the truth. this is a massive gift to the insurance and drug companies.
i hope the colorado rep is able to block this amendment or stop the bill altogether because preventing a woman from having the right to choose has no business being in this bill at all.
single payer is the only way to go.
matt loughran
harris county green party
houston tx
Thank you, Representative Diana Degette, for your strong stance on this issue!
This morning, Amy Goodman interviewed Jane Hamsher and also Dennis Kucinich.
www.democracynow.org
Dear Representative Degette, Hang in there. It is nice to hear about a representative who will do just that.
No man, in the Congress or not, has a damn thing to say about abortion. It is a subject for women, and women only, to decide.
Resist the Lions and Bulls who don't care about Women in the Democratic Party...
The Democratic Party as of right now are HOSTILE to WOMEN's RIGHTS and a Woman's Right to Have FULL CONTROL OF HER BODY....
MOREOVER, THE DEMS ARE PENALIZING POOR WOMEN WHO CANNOT AFFORD ADEQUATE HEALTHCARE AND THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES, UNDER THE LAW!!!!!
WHO NEEDS THE REPUBLICANS OR OPPOSING THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT PARTY WHEN THE DEMS HAVE CAVED IN AND BENT OVER FOR THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS.....
NANCY PELOSI WAS ON THE PHONE WITH THE VATICAN ON SATURDAY!!!! HOW CRAZY IS THAT!
"MOREOVER, THE DEMS ARE PENALIZING POOR WOMEN WHO CANNOT AFFORD ADEQUATE HEALTHCARE AND THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES, UNDER THE LAW!!!!!" -- EastCoastLefty101
I agree!
About three or four years ago, the film VERA DRAKE was released. The issues in the film are poor women and abortion. It's worth seeing.
The bill may be wrong. But a law can be challenged in court. If the bill fails to pass there is nothing to challenge in court. As entrenched as the right wing appears to be, we might wait another century before getting to where we are today.
We'll see. They do a lot of vowing and threatening before they capitulate and cave.
I disagree, and expect that in the end the female Democrats will not capitulate and cave, nor is it intended that they should do so.
To me it seems more likely that the intent is to divert the attention on this bill away from the single-payer argument by creating a rukus about a woman's right to chose and the inequality of access to abortion by the poor if the bill should pass as currently amended. Later, when the Democrats "see the light" and capitulate and cave to the popular (female) will, the revised bill will be held up as an example of the Democrats listening to the people. It will be used as evidence that the system works if you make sufficient noise. It will be used as evidence that we have a democracy where the will of the people counts because the legislators listened to the people and changed the bill. They may even try to use it to make the Democrats look somewhat progressive. There will be no time to discuss the single-payer option. Nothing like a good abortion debate brawl to keep people from hearing the discussion of other issues that you do not want discussed.
More concisely I think the Democratic party's current allowing of the amendment is a ruse that they are using in an attempt to shutdown discussion of the single-payer option.
Excellent insight!
I agree. Washington promises are as solid as a cookie dipped in coffee...