PDA

View Full Version : Ladies Only



ARay11
09-13-2012, 04:48 PM
This is a request for REAL information.... no sucker punch, no "gotcha" moment.... no b.s.

Do any of you feel that there is a War on Women? Do you feel you are paid a lower wage than a man in an equal position?
I won't go into abortion, but do you feel you are somehow disenfranchised (or that you could be) by those who think abortion is wrong?


I am asking because I just don't see it here.... but it could VERY easily be the area of the country I am in...many things are different in the big city than they are here ;)

charly_t
09-13-2012, 08:46 PM
This is a request for REAL information.... no sucker punch, no "gotcha" moment.... no b.s.

Do any of you feel that there is a War on Women? Do you feel you are paid a lower wage than a man in an equal position?
I won't go into abortion, but do you feel you are somehow disenfranchised (or that you could be) by those who think abortion is wrong?


I am asking because I just don't see it here.... but it could VERY easily be the area of the country I am in...many things are different in the big city than they are here ;)

Not me but women that I know or have known have been paid less than the men doing the same work. One young lady that I know well at this time is being paid less than the men in the company that she works for. Those men probably work less time during the day than she does. More work has been put on her etc. She
is not like most young people hired today ( her work ethic is very good ). Same work not the same pay in that case.

Another woman that I know was paid less because "she was not the head of a household". She was divorced and her employer was well aware of this. Her husband had decided he wanted a younger woman. So, yes, I do see a war on women in some places in this country. She no longer works for those people.

Abortion does not figure into either of these cases of course.

N.E Oklahoma area.

Gerry Clinchy
09-13-2012, 09:17 PM
I don't see a "war on women", but there is inequity in workplace compensation. We also have to accept gender differences, since they are a fact. Only a small percentage of women would be capable of being firemen (sorry, fireperson sounds dumb). It takes a certain amount of physical strength that women don't generally have. For those who do, the opportunity should not be denied.

It is also a fact that women were "designed" to have the babies. If they don't want to have a baby, then they have great motivation to use birth control. Birth control was not always readily available, but the pill has now been around over 50 years. With the availability and acceptability of birth control, if you're too dumb to use it, maybe you shouldn't reproduce?

I don't see abortion as "birth control." I can accept early-stage abortion for rape, incest, and danger to the mother. I have mixed feelings about other reasons for abortion, when birth control is so available and inexpensive. Third trimester abortions? I don't think I can deal with that. There would have to be a very good reason, like life of the mother ... and if the baby survives the abortion there is no way I can accept not saving that baby.

IF (notice capitals) there is a "war on women", it is not partisan ... think about it ... it would be all men, regardless of party. Men will usually be more careful to use different language when women are present. Men have traditionally been the "hunters"; then the primary wage-earners; the partner with more physical strength.

Men view women differently than they do other men. Why not? They ARE different. Studies have proven than men and women have different operation physically in their brains; in the way they talk and hear. Some of this is probably related to different hormones.

I think God had a great idea when he made two sexes :-)

Jason Glavich
09-14-2012, 07:44 AM
After many conversations with my wife. She was unaware of the war on women. She is treated no different than her male coworkers. The war on women is just another grab at creating something that does not exist. BC is a choice, so is not having sex, so are annual exams. Same pay for same work, that is really hard to answer, Same degree,same experience,same everything then pay should be equal if it isnt then pay should be different regardless of sex.

gmhr1
09-14-2012, 10:29 AM
Theres no war on women under Obama there is a war on everyone.

WRL
09-14-2012, 11:29 AM
I don't see a "war on women", but there is inequity in workplace compensation. We also have to accept gender differences, since they are a fact. Only a small percentage of women would be capable of being firemen (sorry, fireperson sounds dumb). It takes a certain amount of physical strength that women don't generally have. For those who do, the opportunity should not be denied.

It is also a fact that women were "designed" to have the babies. If they don't want to have a baby, then they have great motivation to use birth control. Birth control was not always readily available, but the pill has now been around over 50 years. With the availability and acceptability of birth control, if you're too dumb to use it, maybe you shouldn't reproduce?

I don't see abortion as "birth control." I can accept early-stage abortion for rape, incest, and danger to the mother. I have mixed feelings about other reasons for abortion, when birth control is so available and inexpensive. Third trimester abortions? I don't think I can deal with that. There would have to be a very good reason, like life of the mother ... and if the baby survives the abortion there is no way I can accept not saving that baby.

IF (notice capitals) there is a "war on women", it is not partisan ... think about it ... it would be all men, regardless of party. Men will usually be more careful to use different language when women are present. Men have traditionally been the "hunters"; then the primary wage-earners; the partner with more physical strength.

Men view women differently than they do other men. Why not? They ARE different. Studies have proven than men and women have different operation physically in their brains; in the way they talk and hear. Some of this is probably related to different hormones.

I think God had a great idea when he made two sexes :-)

I agree mostly with Gerry.

Typically, women are not as assertive so that could be some of the wage differences (squeaky wheel gets the oil).

As far as abortion, while its not an option I would use or is right for me, its not my place to tell you what is right for you. I don't walk in your shoes and you don't walk in mine.

WRL

Lesa Cozens Dauphin
09-14-2012, 12:39 PM
I also mostly agree with Gerry.

I have always worked outside the home, but my focus was on my family, not my "career". I enjoy my job, always have, but it does not define me. I took care of payroll for years and quickly learned if you always worry about what the other guy is making you will never be happy. There is always going to be someone that you feel doesn't earn what they get.

As for women and their reproductive rights, I think to each their own. I will do what is right for me and expect others to do what is right for them, without each of us telling the other what to do.

lesa c

luvmylabs23139
09-14-2012, 01:57 PM
Having spent many years working in both payroll and HR I can't say that women are not in most cases given equal pay for equal work. I'm including experience, qualifications and performance.
If anything I think women with kids get away with a heck of alot in the workplace compared to those who don't.

1tulip
09-15-2012, 11:41 PM
I am repeating myself since I said this on another thread. But whenever a man (or organization) tries to sell a woman a line about how good it will be if she just surrenders her autonomy... the implicit promise is that he'll still "respect you in the morning."

There's no NEW war on women. It's the same old deal. Baby, you need me. It'll be so good for you. I'll take care of you.

Nothing new under the sun.

PamK
09-16-2012, 12:43 AM
I am not sure if I would call it a war, But I am aware of women who get less pay for the same job a man does.

I also have seen women with kids get away with much more than than other both men and women without kids.

And it really pisses me off that a bunch of men think it is OK to tell me and my doctor what medical procedures I have to have.

charly_t
09-16-2012, 12:44 AM
I am repeating myself since I said this on another thread. But whenever a man (or organization) tries to sell a woman a line about how good it will be if she just surrenders her autonomy... the implicit promise is that he'll still "respect you in the morning."

There's no NEW war on women. It's the same old deal. Baby, you need me. It'll be so good for you. I'll take care of you.

Nothing new under the sun.

You got it right. This is why I married my husband...........I never heard any of this stuff from him. And I told him........."Never raise your hand to me etc. because it will never be safe for you to eat or to sleep in this home again". We understood each other !!!!!!!! 55 years this month. No lies, no promises you can't keep.

1tulip
09-16-2012, 04:33 PM
Pam... it isn't right to tell a woman and her doctor what procedures (or meds) she can have. On the other hand, the notion of rationing health care seems hunky dory to progressives. So, no... you shouldn't have to wait for a D and C, but neither should I be told I can't have my hip replaced when I decide the chronic pain is too much to live with.

Progressives promise full autonomy between you and your Ob-Gyn, but promote the notion that a centralized bureaucracy can decide everything else. Do you remember anyone opining that old people should just take "the blue pill" and be made comfortable as they approach the (presumed) end? Did you know if you're a citizen of the UK and arthritic... tough nobs. No joint replacement for you.

Oh, and Pam... when I had my knees replaced, I didn't ask the taxpayer to take care of it. I got a job that had adequate health insurance and paid my deductible and co-pay.

Leslie B
09-18-2012, 09:29 AM
I don't see a "war on women" in the work place. Just the opposite. I see a good portion of women wanting all the perks, all the money, they want the family, the family leave (paid of course), the promotions, etc etc. But they also want the door held open for them when they leave the lunch that the man paid for and they don't want their own feet held to to the fire if the project at work blows up in their faces.

I also see it in social problems. There are no men's shelters and I know a number of men who have been beaten up by their partners. My girlfriends brother was routinely beaten up by his partner (female). When the police arrived he went to jail even though he was the one who was bleeding and bruised.

Equality means that - equal.


By the way, I make more money than a couple of men at my company that do the same job. I also make less than some of the men that do the same job. What does it mean? It has nothing to do with talent because one of the new guys is paid a fortune. It means the company got away with cheating some of the staff because they could. It also means that a number of us (men and women) are looking for a new employer.

Gerry Clinchy
09-18-2012, 12:01 PM
Very insightful post, Leslie. We do tend to forget the impact of affirmative action in this regard. In larger companies, who have "deep pockets", they can attempt to over-compensate lest they be sued over perceived discrimination.

GoldenSail
09-18-2012, 01:48 PM
One does raise the eyebrow when crazy abortion laws arise (i.e. you can't abort the baby based on gender or race....ummm, ok, or you are required to have a very invasive US first) and you watch all the male republicans vote for it and the female democrats vote against it.

Then you see on the news a male republican claiming that women who are legitimately raped cannot get pregnant.

In high school they made a show of sitting the girls in the front row for standardized testing and the boys in the back on the basis that girls get stressed out and perform poorly when they see the boys finish first. Well, I smoked them all in time and grades!

Had a guy tell me that he didn't think women could handle being president. Still that BS floating around.

Have personally felt discriminated at work based on gender. Thank goodness not working there anymore.

Know a girl who had a tubal pregnancy that would not be deliverable full term. Because of strict abortion laws had to drive out of state for an abortion. The baby could have killed her when it grew large enough.

Get sick and tired of people making comments about women who are 'too willing to open their legs' while forgetting that it takes two to tango. Also for people implying that people on birth control are just sleeping around. I know many people in committed, married relationships who are smart and waiting to be financially stable before having children or who just do not want. Good for them. If you don't want children, don't have them.

Cody Covey
09-18-2012, 03:26 PM
One does raise the eyebrow when crazy abortion laws arise (i.e. you can't abort the baby based on gender or race....ummm, ok, or you are required to have a very invasive US first) and you watch all the male republicans vote for it and the female democrats vote against it. Since when are ultrasounds invasive...I have heard the term invasive used with ultrasounds a lot lately and it is ridiculous. If can't abort a baby based on gender or race is crazy laws then I feel extremely sorry for you.

Then you see on the news a male republican claiming that women who are legitimately raped cannot get pregnant. This is not at all what he was saying. Many times the stress and trauma from being raped WILL cause the pregnancy to terminate. This is fact. He wasn't trying to say it was impossible or when it does happen it is somehow no longer sad.

In high school they made a show of sitting the girls in the front row for standardized testing and the boys in the back on the basis that girls get stressed out and perform poorly when they see the boys finish first. Well, I smoked them all in time and grades!

Had a guy tell me that he didn't think women could handle being president. Still that BS floating around.

Have personally felt discriminated at work based on gender. Thank goodness not working there anymore.

Know a girl who had a tubal pregnancy that would not be deliverable full term. Because of strict abortion laws had to drive out of state for an abortion. The baby could have killed her when it grew large enough. Thank god she went to a different state to murder her child?

Get sick and tired of people making comments about women who are 'too willing to open their legs' while forgetting that it takes two to tango. Also for people implying that people on birth control are just sleeping around. I know many people in committed, married relationships who are smart and waiting to be financially stable before having children or who just do not want. Good for them. If you don't want children, don't have them. It takes two to tango but then people only want to allow woman have a say on murdering children and let the fathers have no say at all. The murder of children should never be allowed but to then say that if the father wants the baby too bad is ridiculous.
My Comments in red above. I think if anything in America there is a war on white males not any of the so called discriminated minorities....

GoldenSail
09-18-2012, 04:04 PM
Sounds like you are lacking in your education. Because abortions are performed early it is not possible to see anything with a regular ultrasound. Many bills were supported recently for trans-vaginal ultra sounds where they insert a probe up womens' private parts in order to get a picture. And I do think it extremely ridiculous that our government is wasting its time writing meaningless law. The man who supported the race/gender abortion bill in my state admitted that it wasn't a problem. So while we have many things that are problems that need addressed people are spending their time and money on something that not only isn't a problem, but how are you seriously going to be able to prosecute someone for something like that? Seriously? At the same time all of these ridiculous abortion laws that are being written are making it difficult for women who legitimately need need an abortion.

And I guess you think it is a shame that this girl did not die along with that baby due to the ectopic pregnancy. The baby would not have lived either way, but by condemning the act you would allow both to die. Like that poor girl in the Dominican Republic who could not receive treatment for her cancer because she was pregnant. Guess what? They BOTH died. At least one of them might have lived...

And do you have any data to support your claim that most women will not get pregnant from rape or are you just blowing smoke?

Did you know Kansas passed law this past March requiring women be told if they have an abortion they are at increased risk of breast cancer...but there is NO medical evidence to support this claim?

My personal feeling is if you want to lower abortions effort is better spend educating people. JMO. I do think it is a terrible thing, but at the same time there are legit reasons and that is should be a personal, private decision between both partners. Passing oppressive/stupid laws wastes time and money that could be better spent on more important concerns like the economy, health care, etc. It also makes it more difficult for those who need it to obtain it.

helencalif
09-18-2012, 04:26 PM
I think that there are many women who still get paid less than men when doing the same job. Other than that, I see no "war on women".

I believe that this is a term coined by Democrats to woo votes from women.

Makes me think about the woman who likes getting Obama money from his stash.

Helen

Cody Covey
09-18-2012, 05:22 PM
Sounds like you are lacking in your education. Because abortions are performed early it is not possible to see anything with a regular ultrasound. Many bills were supported recently for trans-vaginal ultra sounds where they insert a probe up womens' private parts in order to get a picture. And I do think it extremely ridiculous that our government is wasting its time writing meaningless law. The man who supported the race/gender abortion bill in my state admitted that it wasn't a problem. So while we have many things that are problems that need addressed people are spending their time and money on something that not only isn't a problem, but how are you seriously going to be able to prosecute someone for something like that? Seriously? At the same time all of these ridiculous abortion laws that are being written are making it difficult for women who legitimately need need an abortion.

I would venture to say that a VERY small portion of the abortions that would fall outside of the "plan b" pill are in a period of time where you can see nothing considering you can see the baby at around 6 weeks. Supported trans-vaginal ultrasounds != required.

And I guess you think it is a shame that this girl did not die along with that baby due to the ectopic pregnancy. The baby would not have lived either way, but by condemning the act you would allow both to die. Like that poor girl in the Dominican Republic who could not receive treatment for her cancer because she was pregnant. Guess what? They BOTH died. At least one of them might have lived...
I find it very sad that you support someone selfish enough to kill their baby instead of risking all including their own life for their baby.

And do you have any data to support your claim that most women will not get pregnant from rape or are you just blowing smoke?

This was read in a biology book for college. I will look for it and give you page numbers when I get home tonight if you like. But again you either do not have sufficient reading comprehension or you twisting words to attempt to prove your point but I never once said that most women will not get pregnant from rape. I said many times the pregnancy will terminate on its own. Usually within the first few weeks. This is not most of the time and no one except you said so...

Did you know Kansas passed law this past March requiring women be told if they have an abortion they are at increased risk of breast cancer...but there is NO medical evidence to support this claim?

Both sides of this argument may be stretching. Breast feeding / having children reduces the risk of breast cancer which is where not having a baby would be an increased risk.

My personal feeling is if you want to lower abortions effort is better spend educating people. JMO. I do think it is a terrible thing, but at the same time there are legit reasons and that is should be a personal, private decision between both partners. Passing oppressive/stupid laws wastes time and money that could be better spent on more important concerns like the economy, health care, etc. It also makes it more difficult for those who need it to obtain it.

There is absolutely zero reason to kill your own child...period.




Again, in red.............

Franco
09-18-2012, 05:36 PM
Since this thread has turned into a debate about abortions, I'll add;

Abortions did not begin with Roe vs Wade. All Roe vs Wade did was end women dieing from abortions.

Prior to Roe Vs Wade, abortions were legal in some states and illegal in others. Libertarians would like to return to that status.

I don't see a Repub ever returning to the White House as long as anti-abortion wording is in the Repub Platform as 73% of the women support the right to choose even though they would never have one for themselves. Do you want liberal Presidents or continue a losing battle against abortions? That's because they won't be going away as this country will never return to pre1973 laws.

Don't like abortions? Then, don't get one!

Cody Covey
09-18-2012, 05:40 PM
Since this thread has turned into a debate about abortions, I'll add;

Abortions did not begin with Roe vs Wade. All Roe vs Wade did was end women dieing from abortions.

Prior to Roe Vs Wade, abortions were legal in some states and illegal in others. Libertarians would like to return to that status.

I don't see a Repub ever returning to the White House as long as anti-abortion wording is in the Repub Platform as 73% of the women support the right to choose even though they would never have one for themselves. Do you want liberal Presidents or continue a losing battle against abortions? That's because they won't be going away as this country will never return to pre1973 laws.

Don't like abortions? Then, don't get one!

I find it interesting you state this but also won't be voting for Mitt because you state you have to vote with your principles. It's okay for you to vote on principles and not repubs?

Franco
09-18-2012, 05:48 PM
I find it interesting you state this but also won't be voting for Mitt because you state you have to vote with your principles. It's okay for you to vote on principles and not repubs?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Mitt was for abortions before he was against them.

Take Mitt's comments about not caring for he 47% that don't pay taxes. yet, Mitt has made a fortune from Corporate Welfare which I call Crony Capitalism.

I really don't think Mitt or Obama is the answer to our problems and though I tend to lean a little more towards Mitt than Obama, my protest vote will speak louder than voting for the status quo that Mitt represents.

gmhr1
09-18-2012, 05:49 PM
Dont have one and dont expect me to pay for yours!

GoldenSail
09-18-2012, 05:49 PM
For those that do not know Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. It works the same as birth control pills. Same hormones. If you are already pregnant Plan B will not abort the baby. It will do nothing. Only prevents fertilization which is also why it is known as the Morning After Pill because if you do not take it soon it will not work. So you would not be doing an invasive ultra sound for this--there would be nothing to see. And these laws were requiring trans-vaginal US regardless of how far along.

At any rate I think there is enough crap going on that I can see why people are calling it a War on Women. Particularly when people (shoot men) think that a woman should DIE for something that doesn't have a chance to live. You value life so much, yet you value it so little that you would let two lives be lost instead of just one.

PS wasn't this just a ladies only thread to hear thoughts from other women?

huntinman
09-18-2012, 05:51 PM
I'm not sure I understand your question.

Mitt was for abortions before he was against them.

Take Mitt's comments about not caring for he 47% that don't pay taxes. yet, Mitt has made a fortune from Corporate Welfare which I call Crony Capitalism.

I really don't think Mitt or Obama is the answer to our problems and though I tend to lean a little more towards Mitt than Obama, my protest vote will speak louder than voting for the status quo that Mitt represents.

That's news to everyone who has been reading your posts since Ron Paul was sent packing...

Cody Covey
09-18-2012, 05:56 PM
I'm not sure I understand your question.

Mitt was for abortions before he was against them.

Take Mitt's comments about not caring for he 47% that don't pay taxes. yet, Mitt has made a fortune from Corporate Welfare which I call Crony Capitalism.

I really don't think Mitt or Obama is the answer to our problems and though I tend to lean a little more towards Mitt than Obama, my protest vote will speak louder than voting for the status quo that Mitt represents.

My question is not about Mitt's stance regarding abortion but rather the republicans as a whole. Republicans feel it is wrong for abortions to happen and as such it is in their core principles but you state that they should change this stance just because they will lose elections but you have no trouble voting for someone that will lose an election. Call voting for republicans our protest vote against abortions if that makes you feel better :)

Cody Covey
09-18-2012, 05:58 PM
For those that do not know Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. It works the same as birth control pills. Same hormones. If you are already pregnant Plan B will not abort the baby. It will do nothing. Only prevents fertilization which is also why it is known as the Morning After Pill because if you do not take it soon it will not work. So you would not be doing an invasive ultra sound for this--there would be nothing to see. And these laws were requiring trans-vaginal US regardless of how far along.

At any rate I think there is enough crap going on that I can see why people are calling it a War on Women. Particularly when people (shoot men) think that a woman should DIE for something that doesn't have a chance to live. You value life so much, yet you value it so little that you would let two lives be lost instead of just one.

PS wasn't this just a ladies only thread to hear thoughts from other women?

You seem to be new to POTUS so let me first say welcome. But further than that you will soon find out that nothing stays on topic here especially not a ladies only thread when there are only 10ish~ that post regularly here :)

Franco
09-18-2012, 06:08 PM
For those that do not know Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. It works the same as birth control pills. Same hormones. If you are already pregnant Plan B will not abort the baby. It will do nothing. Only prevents fertilization which is also why it is known as the Morning After Pill because if you do not take it soon it will not work. So you would not be doing an invasive ultra sound for this--there would be nothing to see. And these laws were requiring trans-vaginal US regardless of how far along.

At any rate I think there is enough crap going on that I can see why people are calling it a War on Women. Particularly when people (shoot men) think that a woman should DIE for something that doesn't have a chance to live. You value life so much, yet you value it so little that you would let two lives be lost instead of just one.

PS wasn't this just a ladies only thread to hear thoughts from other women?

Sorry, I'll stay out of this debate.

Franco
09-18-2012, 06:13 PM
That's news to everyone who has been reading your posts since Ron Paul was sent packing...

You should read, "Government Bullies" by Rand Paul, forward by Ron Paul. The apple did NOT fall far from the tree.;) Rand Paul 2016!

GoldenSail
09-18-2012, 06:19 PM
Sorry, I'll stay out of this debate.

This just goes along with the idea about this supposed War on Women. Women are under-represented in politics and it gets irritating to see how many policies affecting women but not men are written and sponsored by men.

The OP was looking for input from women and I think this is part of why. Let's hear if women think there is a political war against them and why.

charly_t
09-18-2012, 08:43 PM
"Thank God she went to a different state to murder her child?" Cody Covey it is very clear that you have no idea what a tubal pregnancy is. This is one good reason that abortions should never be decided by anyone other than the woman and her doctor. It would not have been her taking a chance for the baby to live, it is a death sentence to a baby to be in the tube. When the tube bursts at a few weeks into the pregnancy the baby dies. If people wait for this to happen a bleed starts that oftens ends the mother's life also. There is no "if", no taking a chance that the baby will live it does not live, never has, never will.

Gerry Clinchy
09-18-2012, 09:10 PM
The OP was looking for input from women and I think this is part of why. Let's hear if women think there is a political war against them and why.
I don't particularly think there is a war on women politically. I don't think that R's are more inclined to that than D's. I think that there are probably individual men in both parties that may be so inclined.

Gore, Edwards and Clinton may both be D's, but their private actions do not lead me to believe that they treat women with respect. I'm sure there are similar examples among R's.

I don't think we can paint either party with the broad brush on that topic.

On abortion, when it comes to the endangerment of the life of a mother, I can come down in favor of aborting. If a human (and not God) is going to decide which life should be saved (mother or child), then we can only use our human faculties to make such a decision. On a personal level, I come down in favor of saving the mother. Others may equally feel it should be the child. Since, I do not have the wisdom of God, I cannot fault either opinion. I cannot believe as the RC's do that the Pope is infallible since he is still just as human as the rest of us.

I don't have a problem with abortion for rape and incest. I do have a problem with 3rd trimester abortions and killing babies who survive an attempted abortion. If I were present at such an abortion and saw a baby set aside to die, I don't think I could be a party to that. If that baby survived, against all odds, maybe a power greater than ourselves has a plan we cannot fathom?

I think of birth control as averting the beginning of a new life. Same for the morning-after pill. I cannot equate abortion with birth control. For me they are two separate topics. RC's do ... but not all of them. When discussing this with an RC friend, she indicated that in her local parish, the pastor took the position that use of birth control rested ultimately with the individual's conscience. That sounds more reasonable to me.
n't c
If someone could come up with a safe, foolproof form of birth control (either for men or women to use), then abortion would become a moot point! It would have to be something like a once-a-year pill, for either men or women, that didn't cause a significant health risk for the user.

JDogger
09-18-2012, 11:29 PM
I don't particularly think there is a war on women politically. I don't think that R's are more inclined to that than D's. I think that there are probably individual men in both parties that may be so inclined.

Gore, Edwards and Clinton may both be D's, but their private actions do not lead me to believe that they treat women with respect. I'm sure there are similar examples among R's.

I don't think we can paint either party with the broad brush on that topic.

On abortion, when it comes to the endangerment of the life of a mother, I can come down in favor of aborting. If a human (and not God) is going to decide which life should be saved (mother or child), then we can only use our human faculties to make such a decision. On a personal level, I come down in favor of saving the mother. Others may equally feel it should be the child. Since, I do not have the wisdom of God, I cannot fault either opinion. I cannot believe as the RC's do that the Pope is infallible since he is still just as human as the rest of us.

I don't have a problem with abortion for rape and incest. I do have a problem with 3rd trimester abortions and killing babies who survive an attempted abortion. If I were present at such an abortion and saw a baby set aside to die, I don't think I could be a party to that. If that baby survived, against all odds, maybe a power greater than ourselves has a plan we cannot fathom?

I think of birth control as averting the beginning of a new life. Same for the morning-after pill. I cannot equate abortion with birth control. For me they are two separate topics. RC's do ... but not all of them. When discussing this with an RC friend, she indicated that in her local parish, the pastor took the position that use of birth control rested ultimately with the individual's conscience. That sounds more reasonable to me.
n't c
If someone could come up with a safe, foolproof form of birth control (either for men or women to use), then abortion would become a moot point! It would have to be something like a once-a-year pill, for either men or women, that didn't cause a significant health risk for the user.

I think it's called tubal ligation and vasectomy, and it happens all the time.

And yes.. it should be gov. paid for. Pay for it now, or pay for it later. Simple choice. Do I think it should be elective? Of course. JD

Leslie B
09-18-2012, 11:36 PM
Gerry I agree with your view on abortion in theory only. The problem comes in the application. Are we going to ask women if they have been raped? Wasn’t the rape traumatic enough, now the medical staff has to ask? How about incest? If the victim was not able to ask for help to stop it – how is she going to confess now? Would she be required to confess to medical staff who are usually not trained at all in dealing with victims of violent assaults? What if the staff did not believe her? Would the procedure be denied?

For the women who wants an abortion but was not assaulted, the new requirement would encourage her to lie about it. Would we now prosecute her for perjury?

It is a slippery slope once we start down that path.

On a more personal side, I have two friends who were raped. One by a stranger and one as a young girl by her dad’s boss. Thru them, I have had a glimpse of the pain, the agony, the lifelong guilt and fear that these women have. I would never agree to making any victim of assult have to relive it, recite it, or justify it order to have an abortion.

Leslie B
09-18-2012, 11:43 PM
I think it's called tubal ligation and vasectomy, and it happens all the time.

And yes.. it should be gov. paid for. Pay for it now, or pay for it later. Simple choice. Do I think it should be elective? Of course. JD


There is no foolproof birth control. I know of a “sponge” baby, a “condom” baby, and 3 different “pill” babies. The best one was years ago when I had a care attendant in our home to take of my dad (he had dementia). She was about 60 and one day she had to leave early to pick up her daughter. I assumed her daughter was an adult and asked about her. No, she was only 15 years old. At the look on my face she said, yes, the girl was a “surprise” to everyone since she had had her tubes tied 5 years before she conceived.

Scared the crap out of me!!!

Gerry Clinchy
09-18-2012, 11:45 PM
I think it's called tubal ligation and vasectomy, and it happens all the time.

And yes.. it should be gov. paid for. Pay for it now, or pay for it later. Simple choice. Do I think it should be elective? Of course. JD

But tubals and vasectomies are not always reversible, and I believe there are some health risks associated with both. So for those who have not yet had children, but might wish to have them later, tubals and vasectomies may not work.

IUD's once seemed the answer ... but they didn't work out as planned either.

JDogger
09-19-2012, 12:00 AM
There is no foolproof birth control. I know of a “sponge” baby, a “condom” baby, and 3 different “pill” babies. The best one was years ago when I had a care attendant in our home to take of my dad (he had dementia). She was about 60 and one day she had to leave early to pick up her daughter. I assumed her daughter was an adult and asked about her. No, she was only 15 years old. At the look on my face she said, yes, the girl was a “surprise” to everyone since she had had her tubes tied 5 years before she conceived.

Scared the crap out of me!!!

Anecdotal and second-hand stories are frequently justifications for behavior not admitted..., Properly performed ligations and vasectomys are seldom reversed...why? You make a choice and you live with it. They are once and final. You always have other choices as well.
Sponges and condoms have failed. But surgicigal procedures rarely do if done properly. JD

charly_t
09-19-2012, 12:01 AM
There is no foolproof birth control. I know of a “sponge” baby, a “condom” baby, and 3 different “pill” babies. The best one was years ago when I had a care attendant in our home to take of my dad (he had dementia). She was about 60 and one day she had to leave early to pick up her daughter. I assumed her daughter was an adult and asked about her. No, she was only 15 years old. At the look on my face she said, yes, the girl was a “surprise” to everyone since she had had her tubes tied 5 years before she conceived.

Scared the crap out of me!!!

Have heard stories much like the last one a few times also. Bottom line I guess is......"it's not nice to fool with mother nature". And the doc told me he had a patient come up pregnant whoes husband had previously had a vasectomy. Seems he had more more than the usual pair of those little tubes. He had never gone back for the sperm count a few weeks later that would have warned him after the vasectomy, lol.

Gerry Clinchy
09-19-2012, 12:16 AM
Gerry I agree with your view on abortion in theory only. The problem comes in the application. Are we going to ask women if they have been raped? Wasn’t the rape traumatic enough, now the medical staff has to ask? How about incest? If the victim was not able to ask for help to stop it – how is she going to confess now? Would she be required to confess to medical staff who are usually not trained at all in dealing with victims of violent assaults? What if the staff did not believe her? Would the procedure be denied?

For the women who wants an abortion but was not assaulted, the new requirement would encourage her to lie about it. Would we now prosecute her for perjury?

It is a slippery slope once we start down that path.

On a more personal side, I have two friends who were raped. One by a stranger and one as a young girl by her dad’s boss. Thru them, I have had a glimpse of the pain, the agony, the lifelong guilt and fear that these women have. I would never agree to making any victim of assult have to relive it, recite it, or justify it order to have an abortion.

Leslie, you make very good points. I appreciate, too, that they are from personal experience, not just theorizing. They are things that I will think about. And, again, I can deal with the concept of the morning-after pill ... which "prevents" a pregnancy, rather than terminates it. I imagine it was likely that the women you mention were too much in shock from their experience to react quickly enough to use that option.

Maybe every woman should have access to the morning-after pill and be instructed on its use?

I still resist a total acceptance of "abortion on demand". A friend of mine, some years ago, accompanied on younger co-worker when the younger woman went for an abortion. She was empathetic to the young woman's dilemma, and (evidently) agreed that abortion was the right solution for this young woman. She was less empathetic when not long after, the same young woman was scheduling another abortion. She obviously had learned nothing from her earlier experience. My friend did not accompany her on the second trip. The only good thing I can say about the second abortion is that anyone that irresponsible (or dumb), probably should not reproduce ... though eventually she probably has done so.

I admit to having an emotional element to the issue of "abortion on demand." When I look at societies which place a low value on an individual human life, I see also societies that place low value on individual freedom. When we don't place a lot of value on an individual life, is it too easy to dismiss an individual life in favor of "the common good"? Then who gets to decide what "the common good" is, and how many individual lives are worth sacrificing on that altar? It's the basic mindset.

I know that doesn't sound pragmatic. It isn't. It's intuitive ... and may be incorrect.

So far there is no foolproof birth control ... though many of them are highly effective. There is always the chance of an "oops" even for those who think they are being careful. Yet ... if people were truly observant in using the birth control that is available, would we have as large an issue with abortion as we do?

On the pragmatic side, $7/mo. for pills seems a lot cheaper & less traumatic than the cost of an abortion ... whether the cost is paid by govt or the individual. Likewise for condoms. Likewise for the morning-after pill.

JDogger
09-19-2012, 12:34 AM
I can't believe it's not butter...:rolleyes: JD

charly_t
09-19-2012, 01:19 AM
I can't believe it's not butter...:rolleyes: JD

Yep. But I love that line because nature often does throw us a curve ball. Someone who wants a baby can't get pregnant and someone who does everything to keep from getting pregnant receives a surprise gift.

roseberry
09-19-2012, 07:32 AM
pregnant whoes husband had previously had a vasectomy. Seems he had more more than the usual pair of those little tubes. He had never gone back for the sperm count a few weeks later that would have warned him after the vasectomy, lol.

charly_t, you never know about these things unless you get tested. you also never know when one of your buddies comes by your house while you are at work! just kidding

my wife rec'd that i have my vasectomy reversed in order for us to have a fourth child in our late thirties. my response, "baby, if i had only known the peace a simple surgical procedure could give my mind........ i would have had it done in junior high!";)

sorry to jump on the ladies only thread.

Leslie B
09-20-2012, 09:44 AM
Thanks for your thoughts Gerry, I too dislike the idea of abortion. I keep wishing that we had the kind of society where no one requested one, except in extreme circumstances. I wish that the request was seldom enough to make it a non issue with our politicians.

I particularly dislike any abortion later than 16 weeks. Right now we are saving babies at 22 weeks gestation. Last I looked, it was about 30% survival at 22 weeks but that is huge when you see how tiny and frail these babies are. So, how can we abort some and then battle to save another? How is one garbage and the other a cherished life?

Like so many issues in this country, we approach it backward. We want to reduce/eliminate abortions so we start passing laws and making rules to stop them/not pay for them/make then difficult to obtain. What we should be doing is working to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Having access to the morning after pill would be great but I suspect that the FDA would never agree to it being on the pharmacy shelf. In our lawsuit happy society there would be too much risk, despite the benefits.

I believe that the vast majority of abortions are in the 15 to 24 year old age bracket and they not the result of failed birth control but because they failed to use ANY birth control, or they used the birth control they had inconsistently.

There is a sector of our society (usually religious) that believes that if we don’t tell our kids about sex they will never think of it on their own!! They also believe that if we allow them access to birth control we are giving them “permission”. Both of these ideas are just plain wrong. You only have to walk down the halls of any high school in the US to realize that these kids have figured out sex and they aren’t even the least bit concerned about asking anyone’s permission!!!

We need comprehensive sex ed in our schools starting at about 6th or 7th grade, and continue on every year. We need to quit with the sex ed that looks like a plumbing lesson on the male and female parts and start talking about what really happens. We need to find teachers that can say the words penis and vagina and not be embarrassed. We need to get our students to be able to talk about it, so they too can say the words penis and vagina and not stutter or turn red. If we as a society can’t talk about it, how do we expect anyone to make good decisions about sex in the heat of the moment?

When we can talk about it, can accept that it is a normal part of the human experience - then we can decide when, where, with whom. We would then have youth that can also talk to their partner and to their health care provider to find a birth control that works for them, knowing that nothing is 100% effective.

Gerry Clinchy
09-20-2012, 10:49 AM
Leslie, a real pleasure to "discuss" a topic like this without resorting to "absolutes", but truly sharing thoughts.


Like so many issues in this country, we approach it backward. We want to reduce/eliminate abortions so we start passing laws and making rules to stop them/not pay for them/make then difficult to obtain. What we should be doing is working to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Yes, I also agree that we ought to give much more emphasis to the prevention of pregnancy. If abortions became rare, then that entire issue would be much easier to resolve.

We may never be able to prevent an abortion in the case of tubal pregnancy, but there are plenty of abortions that we CAN prevent with adequate use of birth control and education in its use.

It occurs to me that the "mission" of Planned Parenthood was supposed to be about education first, and foremost. If they are (as is sometimes cited) the greatest source of abortions, then they have failed greatly in their primary mission. There can be both physical and psychological issues involved with abortion, and we are all remiss if we don't give enough attention to protecting (especially our young women) from those repercussions. So much better to prevent the need for the abortion.

I think that sex education should also include information about the whole concept of emotional intimacy, not just the physical aspects of it. That can be done in a secular way, without having to invoke any religious connotations that would offend any atheists.


Since it is well documented that teenagers are notoriously lacking in impulse control, we need to provide the access to birth control for their own protection in a physical way. I think that sex education needs to include discussion of emotional intimacy to protect them psychologically.

I did read somewhere that the morning after pill was to be available without prescription behind the pharmacy counter. I think there may still be some dispute with whether it should be available to a woman under 18 (or 16?).

Not to mention that discussions on birth control and abortions, often overlooks the issues of STDs which can also do much damage to both men and women physically.

Maybe we also need to give more attention to education for parents! Teenagers need to know that they have the support of their parents if they need to face something as traumatic as an abortion.

Maybe the original poster was correct ... if the world would just let rational women, with no political axe to grind, sort through some of these issues, more would be accomplished?

charly_t
09-20-2012, 03:21 PM
Leslie B and Gerry, good posts and very much my feelings in most cases.

ARay11
09-21-2012, 01:02 PM
thank you all for your heartfelt input. It means a lot to me..... I am trying to understand everyone's point of view regardless of whether you live on the hill, in the valley, or on the plains. It's what makes this country great. :p

I do believe if we took politics and religion out of these issues, we could make head way in solving them. A little less gov't, a little more personal action.

I used to believe that sex ed was best taught at home... no need bringing up dirty subjects in school, right? Well, as an adult, and having seen a bit more of the country now, I have certainly changed my mind. Sex ed (emotional and physical) is NOT being taught in the majority of homes! This is a tragedy. If Planned Parenthood is doing more abortions than education.... it's because no teenager is walking by PP saying, "Hey, those sex ed classes look like fun, let's go check em out." lol. No, they only go thru the doors after it's too late and someone is hurt or pregnant.

Let's figure out how to educate our future leaders.

To the original post, I do not see a "war on women". I see women (probably thru upbringing, social, historical, whatever you call it) who do not insist on better treatment. I wonder ... How many times do women actually go tell their boss, "Hey, I do the same job, in the same way, and do it better...I'm worth what Joe is making... Pay me". And how many times do women just keep quiet?

GoldenSail
11-14-2012, 05:42 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-woman-dies-after-abortion-refusal

This breaks my heart. A woman going through a miscarriage denied an abortion and dies. She had legitimate need as her life was in danger. I can't imagine the pain her husband must feel. Is it not enough that he lost his baby--he had to lose his wife to? To what end? This is not the first time something like this has been in the news too bad it probably won't be the last. I wonder how often this happens and doesn't make news.

Gerry Clinchy
11-14-2012, 06:12 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-woman-dies-after-abortion-refusal

This breaks my heart. A woman going through a miscarriage denied an abortion and dies. She had legitimate need as her life was in danger. I can't imagine the pain her husband must feel. Is it not enough that he lost his baby--he had to lose his wife to? To what end? This is not the first time something like this has been in the news too bad it probably won't be the last. I wonder how often this happens and doesn't make news.

It seems that the RC church is the only one left who would oppose an abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. I cannot fathom that position. That position has been formulated by the heirarchy of the church, not, as far as I know, from the teachings of Christ. So, if that rule has been made by humans, it is fallable. And that rule has been around for a long time; long before today's level of medical science was available.