Do you think that the ‘pledge" taken by GOP presidential candidates Santorum and Gingrich to support a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions even in cases of rape and incest is a sell out to women and constitutes a dire threat to the principle of Women’s Reproductive Rights?
While I have faith that this, similar to many pledges and goals by candidates will fall by the wayside, I think if it were to become law that it would be a dire threat to Women's Reproductive Rights. In addition to rape and incest there are many medical reasons that could require an abortion. I further dislike the fact that so many men who are out of touch with all the complications of pregnancy feel they have the right to take away this right or heavily impede it.
Express10, I am appalled at the sheer gall of bringing the topic up in a public forum in the first place. If they are so brazen about publically making such a pledge would I not be surprised that if the opportunity presented itself, they wouldn't go through with it?
I don't plan on getting deep into this discussion as far as politics go because they just need it for a platform. I’m more interested in pure intellect and factual information free from political policy. As a general observer of this argument I've noticed a few things...
Yes I am a male, but I also happen to work in healthcare. In the past decade my recent work has become focused on a labor and delivery unit that specializes in high-risk pregnancy. As a well-educated employee of the medical field I do understand the complications involved in a pregnancy. In fact, I have developed a deep appreciation for such an amazing process; it’s a wonder than things do go wrong more often than not! One thing I’ve noticed the typical pro-choice defense (not that I’m saying I’m pro-choice or pro-life, or that you are either) seems to hinge upon concepts such as rape and incest.
The hospital I work for is a city-based hospital responsible for roughly 5,000 births annually. We see complex cases on a daily basis, and abortion is only permitted if it comes down to choosing the mother or babies’ life. Even with Roe vs. Wade, this is upheld as a standard among ALL hospital within the United States. In all my years of exposure to literally thousands upon thousands of cases I have yet to witness a single event where an OBGYN was unable to save both lives. On that same note, cases of rape resulting in pregnancy are rare due to items such as the morning after pill, and cases involving incest are almost unheard of. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m saying it’s so rare and infrequent that it is a weak argument to make. It’s almost like saying you should eat fast food hamburgers for nutritional value because they have lettuce and pickles.
I should also point out that several high-risk pregnancies are actually the result of the female having a history of abortions. Even one abortion can cause significant damage to a woman’s uterus to such the extent that when she does choose to keep a baby, she will miscarry. It seems that this information gets lost when covering such controversial topics.
The point I’m trying to make is that if you want choice, there’s nothing wrong with that but make sure you have all the facts. Just remember, you have to dig through a ton of coverage and crap to find them. Nobody will ever truly give you the facts as they are.
I want someone who stands on their convictions for office. Romney 8 years ago was pro choice. Which doesn't match with his religious beliefs. Many of you are for womans reproductive rights. Who stands up for the baby in a rape or incest? That baby didn't do anything wrong. I was at the Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago) in 1974. One of the exhibits was the stages of life. I found it fascinating.
Several of my friends had abortions by then. I think this whole abortion issue is more complicated than most of us will ever understand.
I am very much for the rights of the unborn baby. What will he or she remind his/her mother every moment he/she is alive? Of the most heinous crime against her body and soul, the moment of becoming socially stigmatized, psychologically traumatized, medically sick and many more negative emotions. So, then she is expected to hug her rape-born baby and say 'This is the son of God'! and 'I am so glad to have you baby'!? How can people be so oblivious of reality?
It would sound very harsh, but does one need to get raped to realize, that a child born out of rape is being cast for a lifetime of insecurity and chances of crime, not to say that medical problems are also very possible.
I don't believe for a second that Gingrich would go through with such a total ban, though he might chip away at freedom of choice in smaller ways. He's just one in the long tradition of Republican hypocrites who pander to the conservative religious sector of the base in an attempt to get their votes, and then ignore them as much as possible once elected. See: George W Bush.
Santorum, on the other hand, actually believes the crazy sh*t he spouts, and probably would go for it if elected. Fortunately, I think this is the very thing that makes him unelectable in the general election. The overwhelming majority of Americans, even Americans who identify as pro-life, want exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother. It's only the real fanatics who manage to convince themselves that "the only moral abortion is my abortion."
I am so surprised that Presidential Candidates can take such pledges- pledges that seem to imply that science is non-sense and crime against women (rape etc.) does not happen!
In my early days, I would have been a strong supporter of such a pledge. Heartaches and heartbreak later, my feelings have changed. So many times I see apparently unwanted or unloved children having to grow up in this sometimes cruel world. The grind of societies abuse mill goes on and on. I see now what the pro choice people are talking about. It took almost fifty years of living to see it. I went through a virtual hell in my life and still have to deal with it. As Steven King stated: Sometimes dead is better.
There it is houndcat, I do not propose abortion as a solution to unwanted children solely. My point is that the people that are so quick to determine your destiny in this area have no skin in the game. They play politics with the very lives of women. The fact that any politician believes that he or she has the right by edict to something that regardless of your ideology has deep personal implications for so many is the height of insensitivity.
OMG, even the discussion is setting women's rights back. I cannot believe that in 2012 anyone....and I do mean anyone.... can actually believe that such a thing is good for anyone.
I do not think it is fair when speaking on this thread to keep saying GOP, just like you do not mention the Dems who agree with these two guys. It is just bulking everyone in one bag. Your initial question was about Santorum and Gingrich. Stay on them, they said it. Beat them up, they deserve it for making those statements. Romney and many other GOPs have a different view. Romney's statement:
“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.”
Personally, I do not think the There should be an amendment, it is a personal choice. My view on abortion is irrelevant, your view is irrelevant, what is relevant is the people in the situation. It is their choice, they know their situation way better than we do. Who the hell am I to tell them what to do and not to do. Just like I do not anyone telling me what I can or cannot do.
But, I do not want to pay for it, it is their decision, they pay for it. Pay on their own, by going to a clinic that gets donations, just do not use taxpayers money. With children and elderly going to bed hungry in this country, I can think of better ways to spend out taxpayer dollars.
Why did I think that this thread would smoke you out, AV?
I think that it is fair, AV, the Dems are not those that are representing the anti-choice position, overwhelimingly. Right now, there are no Dems running to replace obama in the White House. If any Democrat dare make such a pledge or proposal, I would be all over he or she as well.
AV, I failed to mention that Ron Paul signed the pledge as well, so much for the principles of Libertarianism, huh?
These three men are vying for the most powerful office in the land, is it not fair to link those opened ended pledges to the direction of the party that they are to represent? We are not talking about a State rep or two, this is serious business. The stamp of the GOP is clearly all over whatever it is that the candidates represent.
As for Romney, his view, like so many of his position can change like the weather when politically expedient. I did not include him as part of the group taking the pledge. But perhaps because he did not commit to the pledge is why the 'true believers' say he is not conservative enough?
Is your attitude about abortion a moral one? How many other medical procedures necessary or just desirable would you feel that way about?
I knew that I could count on you to drop by and stimulate the discussion!
Well I did not include Paul because he is meaningless. The position of Romney on this issue has not changed since 2008, I cannot answer to earlier times.
While the 4 candidate are campaigning for President, not all their ideals jive with the Party, Same can be said about the Dems. Like on on the economy, hence why some get called Blue dog Dems And of course there is Paul whos view is not either Repub or Dem, who knows where his thoughts come from.
I know there are more but just off the top of my head James Langevin of Rhode Island and Senator Ben Nelson Are two Democrats for it. If I remember correctly, Nelson took a lot of grief for it and is not running for reelection, Not sure. Regurdless, my point is there are those on both sides, To just blanket all Repubs on an issue, or all Dems on one issue is not fair. However, when one says something as Gingrich and Santorum did, take them to task. But again, not every Repub feels that way and there are some Dems who agree with it.
By the way, no flushing out needed, you know you can email me anytime and I will respond. Take care my friend
The difference is it is IN the Republican platform to be anti-abortion.
Democratic platform is pro-choice.
I guess someone should tell those pro life democrats that LMC said they should be pro choice
Nope---just that they are in the minority, and pro-choice will always be the rule.
Same way pro-choice are in the minority in the Repub Party, and must live by the rule.
You rub it in well, but does the message get across?!
This is exactly my view on the Catholic church.
If they want to discriminate in hospitals and universities....don't you dare take tax money to do it!
Oh, and I personally don't like tax money for viagra, war, oil coal and gas subsidies. Money going to Bachmann and Perry, big pharma, churches etc etc getting tax breaks....
But it seems the only ones discriminated against are women.
"Oh, and I personally don't like tax money for viagra, war, oil coal and gas subsidies. Money going to Bachmann and Perry, big pharma, churches etc etc getting tax breaks....
But it seems the only ones discriminated against are women"
A very powerful observation, and a point well taken. I can think of virtually anything that I have to pay for, for which I do not approve, what about those things?.
Hmmm, You should have read my article on Bill Nelson (D) before you criticize Bachmann again, And of course you continue on Perry despite the fact he did not get any subsidies. You have to OWN the property to get them, and his FATHER is a land tenant not owner. Cite your sources as to exactly where those hospitals get tax money.
Aren't they tax-exempt? So all those billions go untaxed?? And others must make up for it!
And don't they take medicare and SS patients?
Grants, special progams, research and development? all that good stuff that gvt does?
I have read that if Catholic hospitals and universities did without tax money--they would go bankrupt.
So--they want their cake and cupcakes too.
Again cite the source, and not a bloggers opinion
It's common knowledge! Churches are tax-exempt.....ergo, a Catholic organization pays no taxes.
Ergo--women support them through their taxes, whether they believe they should have birth control or not.
Ergo, it's discrimination that they are paying for.
"It's common knowledge! Churches are tax-exempt.....ergo, a Catholic organization pays no taxes".
See, this is how you get in trouble, repeating what you heard in a blog or "it is common knowledge".
In fact your answer is not even close. Churches tax exempt status does not apply to a business owned by the church. They can qualify for a property exemption if and only if the hospital is a non profit and the majority of what they do is charitable work. This applies to ALL non profit hospitals, not just Catholic hospitals.(see the link below) There is an Illinios Supreme Court ruling that upholds that (see link below)
The day to day operations of a Catholic controlled hospital are indeed subject to being taxed since the business of a hospital is "not related to the church’s primary exempt purposes".
And if you do not believe me, I have included the IRS code for you on it(see link below)
What a difference the facts make.
http://churchexecutive.com/archives/doe … mpt-status
http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness. … y-tax.html
Well, that's good to know.
I'm glad businesses pay taxes no matter what their religious affiliation.
But I know for sure that Catholic universities and hospitals take payment from people on gvt programs such as SS or medicare. That is indirectly a payment from the tax-payers to them.
And those people they have working for them pay taxes...women as well as men...and may not be Catholic.
It's disturbing to me that a place of business can have control over your private life like that.
If preventing abortion is the goal...why have Viagra, which promotes sex?
Why do they say to women...you can't prevent birth, but men can promote sex?
"But I know for sure that Catholic universities and hospitals take payment from people on gvt programs such as SS or medicare. That is indirectly a payment from the tax-payers to them".
Are you for real? You have got to be kidding me? So does EVERY dam hospital in the country accept those payments!! But you want to single out Catholic Hospitals.
So you are saying it is OK what Nelson did, yet you are upset about those who own legitimate operating farms,
I'm saying these anti BIRTH CONTROL for gods sakes-- are discriminating against women.
And it started when they began offering Viagra as part of insurance. Women said "Viagra?? Why not birth control?"
I so agree. Again I do not understand how it needs to be explained to any educated (with school education and sex education), rational person as to which is essential for humanity's well-being and which is not, in choosing between birth control and Viagra?!
Why do you keep saying:
" And it started when they began offering Viagra as part of insurance. Women said "Viagra?? Why not birth control?"
Nothing is further from the truth. Health insurance has been paying for Birth Control all along, Just as with any prescription plan, all you have to pay is the copay.
Not in a Catholic setting. They offer Viagra, NOT birth control!
We are not talking about settings, do not change the subject. You were the one that said birth control was not covered. Typical when shown to be incorrect, try to change the subject.
Well--you know, you're right! Because birth control HAS been covered, and Catholic Bishops haven't had a real problem with it......at least not under Bush....
For crying out loud!! The Catholic churches views on contraception has been the same for decades. There view of abortion is the same under Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, But you want to make it a Bush only issue. Knew that was coming sometime from you.
Let me ask you this, do you understand the difference between health insurance pre-Obamacare and after it became law? Before the Faith based organizations, and any other company for that matter, had options on what kind of policy the chose from what was offered and some companies were able to customize their policies. But after Obamacare took effect, now it is mandated what you will include. So before the faith base charities had the option of not offering prescription coverage, or request certain things not be covered. That can no longer happen. It is like the equivalent of say you do not drink coffee. But Obama passes a law that says you have to drink 3 cups a day. Would you be OK with being forced to do something against you will? Well maybe because Obama said so you would, then say Bush passed that law. I Know you would never do anything Bush told you to do.
It's forcing them to cover it, not pay for it....
And churches themselves are exempt from even covering it.
I think it's a perfectly fair idea in the secular world of school and hospital care.
They can offer it without paying for it....thereby removing themselves from the monetary part of their discrimination.
Or they can get out of the education and care business, and keep their religious beliefs to the church, where they belong.
"They can offer it without paying for it"
You totally do not understand the issue, this is not about money. It is about a persons faith and being forced into doing something against their faith. The point is they cannot offer it at all it goes against their faith PERIOD
By the way, the obvious, churches have employees to so the issue still exists
"Faith has no business overlording in schools and hospitals, which are the public domains."
Do you feel the same about PP?
You just do not get it, there is no "exemption" It is in every policy written and covered, all a woman has to to, according to Obama, is ask. Saying they are exempt because no one is paying for the coverage, but yet it is there is not being exempt from anything.
And do you really think that insurer will eat hundreds of millions of dollars in free pills? They will raise the price of the policy for everyone across the board and everyone will be paying.
Everyone will be paying for the Catholic Church overlording.
Don't blame Obama on this. Women have as much right to birth control as you do to Viagra....which engenders sex, and isn't that bad unless you are married and want to have kids??
Planned Parenthood offers health services for women who can't afford it otherwise...at least they did. Thanks to the Godly people...now they have nowhere to go.
I think LMC's info is more outdated then actually wrong. My aunt is one of the lawyers who took employers to court to force them to cover birth control as well as Viagra in employee insurance plans. At that time, more than half of all employer provided plans did not cover birth control. The fact that she won her case is part of the reason you can tell LMC she's wrong.
Thank you! I knew it had been a discrimination problem before.
No, her info is incorrect. She is stating in the present. She is claiming it is not covered now which is not accurate. Health insurers started to cover the pill in the late 70s.
These are the same fine gentlemen who want to ban porn and execute marijuana users - not to be taken seriously.
Hay guys, it will never happen. That reminds me all the "shovel ready" programs and wealth distribution that Obama promised. For pressure reasons, those candidates make some weird statements (if that's what they had said), but as long as our supreme court has ruled that the woman has the right for the abortion, there is nothing that President can do about it. I call myself a kind of conservative. The conservative ideas have made this country successful. That doesn't mean that I agree with what the extreme conservatives blurt out. I firmly believe that it is ultimately the woman has the right to choose. I still prefer the Republican President, because the road that we are heading down now is totally wrong.
We are extremely close to overturning Roe v Wade..all they need is one more conservative on the SC.
Which is another reason why voting Obama back in is so important. A couple of those Justices are getting up there in age.
This has been a stealth campaign since 1973....they mean business.
And they are getting cocky now because a lot of them have been elected into office.
And what is the FIRST thing they do? Go after women's reproductive rights!
Dzephaniah, I couldn't agree with you more! This is nothing more than a side step to distract the general public from more pressing matters. It seems to be working...
I hardly think that the issue of Women's reproductive rights are a mere 'distraction'. In whose interest is it the minimize the importance and significance of what it the conservatives advocate in this matter?
Credence2, I did not say women's rights were a distraction, please do not put words in my mouth. I was talking about this forum. Everyone in here seems to be hell bent on this as if it were something new, and it's not. "WHAT?! A republican who is against abortion? This is unheard of! Alert the press!" How many other times did republicans have majority power and attempt to over rule Roe. Vs. Wade and failed? A donzen times. This is an issue because "re-puke-ans" and "demon-rats" want it to be. Everyone else is just caught in the middle.
Well, actually it's the Cult of Baggers in the House. They immediately started in on women's issues...as if that is why they were elected.
And you KNOW I'm a believer in conspiracies. Maybe that was their agenda all along:
Dismantle hard-won Rights.
All non judeo-christo bagger ideologies.
Keep em barefoot and pregnant, and hands off corporate money!
and it will continue to be discussed until proper policy is in place. I don't want a policitcal party in power that is clearly stated as its goal to deny women a choice, it will be said this time and thousand more in the future as a constant reminder as to what is at stake.
The point is that the GOP keeps trying and if progressives become inattentive to these efforts, while we are asleep they just might succeed. We must not leave the rightwinger any opportunity.
"if at first you don;t succeed try, try again?'
There is plenty a potential president can do from the conservative side, pack the SC with rightwing jurors, watering down and virtually making insignificant the Roe vs Wade ruling, whenever reproductive rights cases reach them for a decision.
Then there is the Constitutional Amendment route, while I see this as less likely, it is always a possiblility, remember the 18th Amendment, Prohibition?
Here's a good fact I go by: I'm single, broke and unready to be a mom.
Now--we can either have a society that's going to have abortion as a choice, or we are not.
I opt for choice.
You should try this for a fact.
I'm single, broke and not ready to be a mom, I can keep my legs crossed and not screw around.
See what I did there?
You didn't have to be an ass in your response. I wasn't attacking you but you seem to be all defensive. Judging by your previous posts maybe you'd like to respond with something more original in a more, oh I don't know, polished manner. Right now you sound like a ranting lunatic using the same the same reasons as everyone else. You've presented your case that is is a complex matter to be handled, yet the solutions you provide are simple and straight forward showing a lack of deep thought.
What's deep about it?
It's my life you are messing around with....leave it alone!
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
Take care of the kids that are already here and unwanted!
I think you completely missed the point of my post! Did you not read the whole thing? I blatantly said I could care less about the politicians because it's a platform. Your right, they shouldn't tell you what to do, and I'm not either. The point I'm trying to make is that a huge responsibility falls on choices of all matters in life, not just matters about abortion. And I completely agree with you about taking care of unwanted kids.
But as fare as I know (I apologize for assuming) you haven't had to be there to console a woman who could no longer have children because she's had previous abortions, I have. Some end up with therapists, some end up committing suicide because "if I knew then what I know now". I'm not saying the GOP's views are good (they're not) but exactly how is depression and suicide due to abortions become any more benficial for women's rights? They don't.
The point I'm going to stress again is that facts are hidden, BECAUSE of political agenda, propaganda, and marketing from both Republicans AND Democrats. You shouldn't take things for surface value. Again, you want to have an abortion, go ahead, but seriously make sure you've wrapped your head around everything. You can deny it now, and I've seen it a million times, but when it comes to that moment, crap hits the fan, and it hits it hard.
Of course it does. And I hate the assumption that woman don't know this, or don't care.
That's wonderful if you help women...but if the choice is taken away, they are doomed to the Dark Ages.
And..don't kid yourself, IMO. These people have ended abortion in many states. This latest Virginia probe law is one way of getting around to it. They have been at it since Roe v Wade was made into law.
I seem to remember you telling me in another thread that you had kids and were living with someone. We were talking about the Bush tax cuts and how they ruin your life.
Regardless, Have all the abortions you want, it is truly your choice and no one has the right to tell you different. But do not ask me to pay for it.
Answer me this, since you fell so discriminated against even though the pill was covered by insurance previously, only now there will now longer be a copay and all of the woman contraception is 100% covered, how come the men are not covered? I mean it's all about contraception, not having kids right? So why not cover condoms and vasectomies?
They will, I'm sure, when men ask for it....and there will probly be no moral finger-pointing at them.
They'll probly be praised to high heaven for taking responsibility.
No heck and dangnation for them.
No heck and dangnation for them.
Not really since the Catholic church has made there views very clear on that as well.
By the way, A woman can get her tubes tied and it is covered, a Vasectomy is considered elected surgery and not covered. Which side is being discriminated on again?
Vasectomy should be forced! That way they would ensure no abortions. IF that's what they really want...which I don't think it is.
Maybe we should start a forced vasectomy pledge?
Vasectomy should be forced!
Now that was a hell of a statement. So much for your view of pro choice.
Let me see, how do I like she asks. I like it the same as I said earlier, no one has the right to tell anyone what to do, but you just did.
The other difference is that Abortion is a choice, have one or not, but your statement was not a choice. Not the same thing.
Right....but this is where they are leading.
Overturning Roe v Wade, and outlawing abortion.
It has happened so much already. And that dink santy-bum doesn't even want to allow them for rape.
And HE wants to be President. Of MY DAUGHTERS!
It is force they are after...and degradation of the female IMO.
Vasectomies are much, much cheaper than tugal ligations (as little as a few hundred bucks, and rarely more than $1000) so that may account for the difference in coverage - they'd almost always fall into copay category.
For the record, though, I do think vasectomies should be covered 100% too.
I think there should be no doubt that abortion is necessary for medical reasons. Other than that, if it is being misused, that is a bane, as we have attached with so many other blessings of science. Life saving drugs have side effects- but the doctor will disclose those to patient and then prescribe the drug to save a life.
In India, where there is much gender discrimination, the female fetus is aborted ever so often, so that many states have now got a lop-sided gender equation, raising the eye-brow of concern for sociologists. However, that requires vigilant legislation to prevent misuse, stop misuse of sex determination examinations of fetus etc. and not making abortion illegal.
I am a patient suffering from a genetic disorder, that requires me to be regularly on a very expensive medical rigor. Life is so wonderful, yet I wish, had my parents known about my condition and aborted, before I was born, I would appreciate that action (if possibly I could, lol). Offcourse, the best would be to not conceive in such cases, but accidents do happen.
Man, I bet we can solve the abortion issue on a forum!!
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
liberalization and the broadening of women's reprodutive freedoms, especially in terms of a woman's right to choose and the issue of contraception? What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
There are women who do not believe that women should have equal rights as men do. They are strong proponents that the main roles and goals of women are to be housewives and mothers. They further believe that women...
by Amber Musselman8 years ago
OKAY... SO I WROTE A HUB ON ABORTION AND TIMOTHY LEFT A COMMENT (BELOW)AFTER THAT COMMENT IS MY RESPONSE----- TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK AND WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH!! timothy Carpenter says:I...
by Kastle4 years ago
What is everyone's opinion on abortion? Should it be legalized that abortion is OK? Or in only certain circumstances? What do YOU think?
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
Though this is still in the religion forum, it is also a political issue and a spiritual issue (which to me has some additional/different attributes than as a religious issue)As a spiritual issue, for me, believing what...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
Prompted by a CNN "The Sixties" segment,I admit I was unaware...That in the 60s women made 59 cents for the same work a man was paid a dollar.That access to birth control. was generally illegal - a long...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.