I've always loved how the anti-choice crowd embraced the rhetoric that the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade changed her mind and was sorry she wanted an abortion. Yeah, they loved their alternative facts which they twisted to their own benefit. But you never heard them bring up the part that she was lesbian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

she was lesbian for at least a while until she said she wasn't. at least according to the wikipedia link. Read the full contents of it.

What is to be believed here? was she? was she not? maybe the answer is for a period in her life she was.

Didn't she become a born again Christian?

From her bio, it sounds like she had a really, really hard life.

May she R.I.P.

According to the questionable news article, she was 22 when she won the "constitutional right" I'm not aware that the "constitution" says anyone can have an abortion paid for by you, me, and tax payers. The courts ruled in her favor, but it's not in the constitution. This is the trouble with the left they think everyone owes them something not by their merit or because they accomplished something honorable, but because of their perceived victim-hood, or stupid mistakes.

All I can say is that it's great that we finally have a president that put a nix on funding oversees abortions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/24/donald-trump-signs-executive-order-defunding-inter/

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the questionable news article, she
> was 22 when she won the "constitutional right" I'm
> not aware that the "constitution" says anyone can
> have an abortion paid for by you, me, and tax
> payers.

Nobody's claiming it does. Nice straw-man.

> The courts ruled in her favor, but it's
> not in the constitution.

The ruling determined that, in effect, it was "in the constitution." The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

> This is the trouble with
> the left they think everyone owes them something
> not by their merit or because they accomplished
> something honorable, but because of their
> perceived victim-hood, or stupid mistakes.

A more false statement I can't imagine.

> All I can say is that it's great that we finally
> have a president that put a nix on funding
> oversees abortions.

Did you mean overseas?
Yes, let's give countries health care aid, but let's not pay for *women's* health care (which sometimes includes abortions). Because it's better to let them die, the promiscuous vixens. Right?
Oh, wait...never mind.

I was going to tear him a new one but you beat me to it.

Poopstone has apparently never hear of Alexander Hamilton, enumerated powers- giving the government power to create more amendments when necessary- implied powers, and as hie pointed out, the 14th Amendment and the right to due process. I'm not sure I got that all a hundred percent right, I think so.

Poopstone never articulates an opinion unless it is adamantly right wing and offensive to some particular group of people. Also, he never articulates an opinion that is not unbelievably ignorant and idiotic, in addition to unfounded.

Why he posts here, I don't know

1.You need to look up the Hyde Amendment and read it carefully.

2. Funding is being denied if overseas healthcare workers tell women of their options, like terminating a pregnancy. It doesn't mean the abortions are paid for necessarily.

Yeah, and *conservatives* never get abortions. Never. Ever.

And of course you don't know or care, but your red states are net recipients of federal money. They're TAKERS. Those righties, always thinking someone owes them something.

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-more-dependent-on-federal-government-2015-7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

Stick to your Bigfoot hunting. You'll have more success.

when it was totally illegal and contraception was still thirty years in the future.

He saw active service in WW I and many of his patients were the daughters of wealthy families from all over the state.

By 1940 he had enough money to start his own small hospital for needy patients in the community. He also had a mansion with an eight car garage.

Not bad for the depression era.

As long as there are inconvenient or unwanted pregnancies there will be a demand for abortion. Wealthy women have always had this option -- legal or illegal. Not so wealthy women have not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2017 02:53AM by anybody.

Oh wait. Maybe not.


poopstone said:

They think "everyone owes them something not by their merit or because they accomplished something honorable, but because of their perceived victim-hood, or stupid mistakes."

I guess you're including her in "the left". Does that mean you are saying she had "perceived victim-hood or stupid mistakes"?

Because every woman who has an abortion thinks of herself as a victim? Because every one made a "stupid mistake"?

I guess you've never come across the idea that some women require an abortion as a medical necessity. Some don't want to bear the child of their rapist. In both these cases the women can indeed be viewed as "victims" if you want to use that word (although a good number of them don't want to apply it to themselves).

On another note, if all women in our wealthy Western world were given access to appropriate "family planning" advice and assistance maybe fewer would be in a position where they need to consider abortion at all.

When I worked in surgical day care and had patients who were having an abortion, not a single one of them ever went into it lightly, or happily, or choosing to use it as a "birth control method". None of them thought it was a walk in the park that they'd like to repeat. Many cried before and after their surgery, silently, tears coursing down their cheeks, and who knows how many more to come.

A lot of people can be very judgemental and harsh about this and they make a lot of incorrect assumptions about women.

I've always found that a loving approach is so much more appropriate and helpful and fruitful than the deep freeze of righteous anger that some exhibit.

I value life, all life, too. But I don't think I'm the arbiter of The Right Way that others should live their lives.

and work very hard and are not recognised for it.

You seem to think that if someone stands up for themselves or someone else and demands fair and equal treatment that means they want something for nothing. Not true at all.

How would you like it if someone told you that no matter how much talent you had or how hard you were willing to work or how much in demand your skills were you would never be allowed to work?

Before you start screaming about "victimhood" you need to know what you are talking about.

This man kept pushing when everyone told him to quit. He lost everything -- including his family -- but didn't give up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlon_Green
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/aviations-jackie-robinson-16161631/

Abortion should not be regulated by the government or any religion. It is a woman's choice. A very personal one. I have never had one but I believe the woman should make up her own mind, I believe it is stupid for some religious groups to practice monogomy and have 12 or more children by 7 or more wives but the government says nothing about that. It you use birth control you would not need abortions. why I left the damn church LSD

1) May Ms. McCorvey rest in peace. She won a great right for women that still lingers only by a thread in the U.S.

2) With regard to the abortion issue, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints appears to talk out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, it sides with both the Roman Catholics and evangelicals in condemning both the act and the women involved. On the other hand, I have heard LDS talk show host Jack Stockwell say in the past that LDS women can get church approvals for their abortions if they talk meet privately with their bishops (with the bishops actually making the decision).

3) As to my personal views, while I was involved in the anti-abortion movement in the past (late 1970s and early 1980s while in high school), age and wisdom have led me to the conclusion that the act should be legal and easy for all women to get. I now reject the argument that abortion is murder (often argued by people who support the death penalty) in favor of the argument made by sociologist Kristin Luker back in the 1970s that the abortion argument is really more about women's roles in society than anything else.

If I remember right, the actual ruling was interesting and has been misinterpreted by both sides these days.

If I recall, it wasn't actually a ruling that says a woman has a right to choose (which is how it is advertised today), but that a doctor cannot be restricted in the treatments that they decide are essential for the health and well being of their patient (and in this case, it was the well being and healthy mental and emotional state of the patient).

I believe that has been one of the angles the right has realized in some states recently, and hence tried to attack the abortion rights on that front, by restricting the access via medical means specifically due to which doctors they feel have the right to ensure the health and well being of their patients on that front.

What does the LDS church feel in the case where the abortion is needed in the instance of the health or life of the mother?

I know there are Baptists that feel abortion is wrong unless the health or life of the potential mother is in danger. Others, only if the life is in danger.

When one includes the health of the mother, it expands on that to basically stating, is it only physical health, or is it their entire health...and then, is that not the realm of the doctor who has been trained in that rather than that of the religious Leader?

It's a complicated issue, it would be interesting if the LDS church opposed an abortion only to have a doctor come back and state it was for the health and well being of the patient. What would the LDS church's response to that be?

I think with a doctor stating that, in many instances that would be the end of it? Or would it even matter to the LDS faith?

I know that they feel strongly about abortion and I think I've read it is something that they can either kick people out for or not allow them to be baptized over?

And yet JS reportedly procured abortion for his unfortunate ladies. In the days before modern medicine, when the procedures were gruesome and often painfully fatal.