Reproductive Justice Organizations Denounce Anti-Choice “Freedom Rides,” Plan Counter-Rally


See also this piece by Pamela Merritt, who wrote on the “Freedom Rides” in June.

Three Atlanta-based women of color organizations say that a billboard campaign in Atlanta lanched by anti-choice organizations, along with so-called “freedom rides” scheduled this summer are “no more than a ploy to turn back the clock on Black women’s right to reproductive freedom.”

The three groups have long-term roots in the reproductive justice and social justice movements, SisterSong, SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW!, and SisterLove, Inc.

In response to the billboard campaign, the groups plan a counter-protest at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center in Atlanta on July 24, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. 

Funded by Priests for Life of New York, coordinators of the billboard campaign have  organized a “Freedom Bus for the Unborn” to launch on July 23 in Birmingham, Alabama –using the historical site opposite the 16th Street Baptist Church where four Black girls were killed in a bombing by the Ku Klux Klan in 1963. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. King and an employee of Priests for Life, will lead the anti-abortion campaign disguising this thinly-veiled attack on Black women’s rights with a Black figurehead.

Leaders of the organizations representing women of color pointed to the hypocrisy they believe is inherent in the efforts by anti-choice organizations.

“We are offended by their cynicism, opportunism, and outright distortions of historical facts. Both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King firmly supported reproductive justice for women. Lies by anti-abortionists, no matter how often repeated, cannot change those historical facts,” said Loretta Ross, National Coordinator of SisterSong.

“It is important that we are reminded of the rich tradition of Black women Civil Rights leaders like Coretta Scott King, Ella Baker, and Fannie Lou Hamer, who not only believed but exercised their belief that we, as Black women, are capable of making critical, personal, and just choices about our bodies, our families, and our communities,” said Paris Hatcher, Executive Director, SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW!

Dazon Dixon Diallo, SisterLove, Inc. President/Chief Executive Officer, said:

“SisterLove denounces the so-called “Freedom Ride” proposed by anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-sexual health fanatics who have chosen to defile the original dream of our civil and human rights icons of the original Freedom Rides. The actions planned by Priests for Life are insulting, disrespectful, and completely antithetical to the struggle for women’s human rights. They should be ashamed of themselves, and it is our job as Black women and people of color to shame them!”

It is in the tradition of human rights movements that the reproductive justice movement is rooted, and it is in their legacy, said the organizational leaders, that they “denounce all attempts to vilify and shame the agency, power, and morality of Black women.”

The July 24th counter-rally will include a press conference with faith-based leaders, civil rights leaders, and women’s health supporters to take place in front of the King Center. Ross says the reproductive justice groups will “set the record straight about the anti-abortion campaign and call on the public to trust Black women to make their own decisions about what’s best for them and their families.”

“You cannot save Black babies by discriminating against Black women,” said Ross.

“Civil rights has always been about expanding freedoms for Black people, not rolling back the clock to the 19th century like these anti-abortionists want. Should Black women again become breeders for their cause?”

Ross says true freedom ensures human rights for all people, including reproductive rights and reproductive health care options for women. She says the anti-abortion Freedom Rides offer no concrete action to help communities to access comprehensive reproductive healthcare, sex education, economic justice through jobs, nor do they prevent the crib-to-prison pipeline for Black youth.

Dozens of rides may be scheduled across the country over the next year. Reproductive justice, health, and rights activists, nationally, will mobilize to educate women about their reproductive rights and announce a call to action to advocate for these human rights.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • toomanyaborted

    Pro-abortion advocates are adept at throwing out mantras and baseless accusations.  What are YOU doing to reduce poverty?  When is the last time YOU did neighborhood renovations or community center overhauls?  When is the last time YOU provided scholarships to children to pursue higher education?  When is the last time YOU mentored young fathers and taught them how to be responsible and loving parents? 

     

    It’s no surprise that those aligned with Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger despised charities, do not actually involve themselves in the betterment of their communities through actual action.  Your offering: more birth control and abortion. 

     

    True freedom results in life, liberty and happiness that is enjoyed by all.  Abortion offers none of these.

     

    Disingenuous, yet intentional, of you to inject race into this by implying that Dr. King is merely a Black figurehead (apparently her “lived experiences” are curiously invalid) among what must be white conservative prolifers.  Typical of pro-abortion zealotry is the lack of accessing the truth.  Leaders from across the country (of many races) are joining her in denouncing the destruction of life thinly veiled as “reproductive justice”.

     

    Ryan Bomberger

    The Radiance Foundation

    TooManyAborted.com

     

     

  • cc

    While you claim that “Pro-abortion advocates are adept at throwing out mantras and baseless accusations,” you launch straight into “mantras and baseless accusations” with Exhibit A: “It’s no surprise that those aligned with Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger despised charities, do not actually involve themselves in the betterment of their communities through actual action.” Got any actual data other than a baseless anti-choice meme? I guess you don’t realize that by providing comprehensive reproductive medical care, Planned Parenthood offers women (and their partners) a better quality of life.  For a woman living in poverty, availability of safe, legal abortion and contraception is a lifeline. Societies that do not provide women with autonomy over their bodies are poor socities. Those affiliated with PPFA are socially liberal; and as such, advocate for programs that assist poor women and their “post born” children – programs that anti-choice, conservaties often rail against as “welfare.” Many of those affiliated with PPFA also are involved with domestic violence and HIV/AIDS issues. In my community, those on the Board of the local Planned Parenthood are also connected with a number of charities that benefit lower income families. Inner city renovation projects, in my community, include pro-choice Christians from pro-choice churches.

     

    Your contention that those who support the “freedom” of reproductive choice are callow and selfish defies logic. But it supports your anti-choice meme, so I get it! Oh, and BTW, Sanger worked with African American communities, in the segregated South, who were building health facilities for African American women who were denied treatment at whites only hospitals.

     

    And your contention that there is a “holocaust” of black babies is as offensive to African American women as it is to Jews. The anti-choice narrative, that Planned Parenthood preys on black women, is truly offensive as it portrays black women as being too stupid or too childlike to use their free will to resist the “lure” of Planned Parenthood. As such, it insults the decision making capacity of black women who are quite able to think on their own. Talk about racist!

  • prochoiceferret

    It’s no surprise that those aligned with Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger despised charities, do not actually involve themselves in the betterment of their communities through actual action.  Your offering: more birth control and abortion.

    And to think… this man once used to be a productive member of society. Beware, folks! Don’t let anti-choice ideology do this to your loved ones!

  • jodi-jacobson

    How about

    • SCHIP
    • full funding of medicare
    • domestic violence legislation
    • Headstart
    • increased access to screening and treatment of breast and cervical cancer, HIV and other STIs
    • the paycheck fairness act
    • the Lily Ledbetter Act
    • Title IX
    • Title X
    • legislation and oversight to regulate
    • nutritional support for families in poverty
    • extension on unemployment 
    • efforts to promote environmental justice
    • funds that do indeed include outreach to men and boys….

    I could go on.  Every one of these are actions/laws/policies supported by the pro-choice community.  every one of these opposed by the so-called pro-life fundamentalists.

     

    Really, this is an argument on which you simply can not win. 

    What we are doing is fighting for a just society.  What you are doing is seeking to limit women’s choices.

    Bottom line is that we trust women–black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic caucasian, Asian, whatever color or ethnic background–to know what is best for them and their families, to understand when and how to make moral decisions.  You don’t.

    Bottom line.

     

     

     

  • lynphd

    I would be very surprised if Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been in support of the holocaust that is taking place in the black community.  I know and love Dr. Alveda King.  I’m sure that she would be surprised to learn that she is a “figurehead” for the pro-life movement among blacks.

    I don’t get it.  How is killing your children going to raise you out of poverty?  How is having indiscriminate sex with multiple partners that you aren’t married to going to raise you out of poverty?  How is partnering with the number one killer (PP) of black children in the US and abroad going to raise you out of poverty?  It is a poverty to kill your children.  It is a poverty to have so little respect for yourself that you will jump into bed with men who promise much and deliver little.  It is a poverty to believe the lies of the abortion industry who want to use your money to eliminate you from the face of the earth. 

    You tell me that you are smart women.  Doesn’t sound like it to me!

  • toomanyaborted

    @Jodi.  Actually, the argument is being won, more and more by passionate prolife people who are exposing the distortions and lies of those who, like you, have little factual substance beneath the veneer of vernacular.

     

    I was speaking of actual, on-the-ground, action to curb the conditions that influence and are further intensified by abortion (pro-abortion propaganda not withstanding).  I’m not sure why you feel your rather undefined, ambiguous, and (in some instances) irrelevant list of policies (et al) is damning in any way.  A number of these social policies/legislative efforts are often supported by people across the political spectrum.  Some of these, however, are the very social policies that detrimentally affect the urban community.  I am pro-welfare, as a temporary solution.  It’s perpetual welfare that empowers no one–a generational dependency that has done more to destroy the black family by driving away fathers.  The demonization of prolife “fundamentalists” is amusing, actually, as is the predictable accusation that those with a conservative ideology don’t support those policies that actually strengthen the individual and the community.  Killing one’s offspring isn’t a solution; it causes further problems.  Keeping a community dependent upon government for its sustenance isn’t a solution; it’s slavery.  Keeping people from seeing the whole picture, past and present, of abortion isn’t justice, it’s just wrong.  Your trust of women must have quite the limited scope to exercise such grand efforts to prevent so many in our society from knowing the whole truth in order to make, what you regard, as moral decisions.  Pardon me if I dare question any sense of morality coming from a staunch advocate of an industry that profits from the mutilation and death of a living, breathing human being.

     

    There’s nothing wrong, by the way, with being a fundamentalist.  You are a pro-abortion fundamentalist.  I am a prolife fundamentalist.  We have certain fundamentals, or basic principles, that our ideology is built upon.  So, I find it amusing that you use the word as a disparagement.  But my basic principles are predicated upon something simple yet so potent…Truth.  And, contrary, to your wishful thinking–prolife endeavors to expose the truth are winning by changing people’s hearts and minds.

     

    Ryan Bomberger

    The Radiance Foundation

    TooManyAborted.com

     

     

  • jodi-jacobson

    Mr. Bomberger:

    You have no truth. You have your own values or principles, yes, and I disagree strongly with them, but yours are not a “truth.” They do not represent either the realities or truths lived by women every day, nor do they represent the majority of women, anywhere.

    A fundamentalist is someone that believes things are only one way, his way. I do have values and principles, and among the highest values I hold are the freedom and the rights of people to make informed choices about their health and their lives. I do not proscribe what decision they should make.

    As for offspring, the definition of “offspring” is a born child. Women who choose to end an unwanted or an unintended pregnancy are making the right decision for themselves, much as I realize that women making decisions that don’t comport with your ideology bothers you.

    And on the ground? The best way to reduce the need for abortion is to offer people comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care, including contraception, information, and support; to reduce sexual violence and coercion; and to empower women economically and socially. There never has been and there never will be a time when there are no abortions. There can be a means for reducing the need for them. Unfortunately, you support none of the means proven by the evidence to work.

    I wonder however how it is that you purport to speak for the millions of women who struggle daily with caring for and feeding their families, and how you have the audacity to do so in the face of women’s groups with widespread legitimacy in their communities who outright reject your fundamentalist ideology.

    If you are so concerned about abortion, open a reputable family planning clinic, and help women who want to choose whether, when, and with whom to have children.

  • prochoiceferret

    @Jodi.  Actually, the argument is being won, more and more by passionate prolife people who are exposing the distortions and lies of those who, like you, have little factual substance beneath the veneer of vernacular.

     

    Oh dear. He’s withdrawn into his own little world. Next, he’ll be talking about the army of flying monkeys that attacks anyone who has non-procreative sex.

     

    Parents, don’t let this happen to your kids! If they start showing signs of anti-choice-ness, sit them down and teach them about the realities of reproduction and parenting in our society. Otherwise, they could end up like Mr. Bomb-Burger here, spouting nonsensical assertions and generally making idiots of themselves online and off!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Jodi, I second that.

  • rebellious-grrl

    LynPhd, who are you calling a slut?

  • rebellious-grrl

    ProChoiceFerret you make me giggle. Hehehehe. I love the flying monkeys image. I’ll think about that the next time I’m having really great non-procreative sex.

  • bornin1984

    There is one thing I have never understood. States in which the pro-choice presence is strongest have the highest abortion rates. Does that not fly in the face of everything pro-choicers have ever stated about reducing the abortion rate and need for abortion? If they were really committed to reducing the need for abortion, then one would expect states like California or New York or Maryland or New Jersey to have low abortion rates, instead of some of the highest in the nation.

  • arekushieru

    Nope, because that’s not what we want to reduce.  We want to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  Y’know the circumstances that are so difficult in the first place?  Gee, I think that needs improved access to and less expensive health services and comprehensive sex ed which is STILL lacking even in many of THOSE states.

  • bornin1984

    One would think that reducing unwanted pregnancies would reduce the abortion rate/need for abortion, as women generally do not abort wanted pregnancies.

  • cc

    “How is having indiscriminate sex with multiple partners that you aren’t married to going to raise you out of poverty?”

    It’s always about the sex – dirty girls having sex or, as I’ve seen on “pro-life” blogs, those darned women who can’t keep their legs together. Men, on the other hand, are obviously being led down the road to perdition by these dirty girls. If the sex thing isn’t about the basic misogynistic core of the anti choice movement, I don’t know what is! But here’s the thing, Lyn PhD. If women want to have sex with 1 or 100 partners that’s fine as long as they’re educated about safe sex, dangers of HIV/AIDS, and are using contraception. (Oh, noooooo, that’s evil, too) – the kind of thing that Planned Parenthood does and which the anti choice movement doesn’t believe in.  If non poor women can have multiple partners than why can’t poor women? As long as unplanned pregnancies are not an issue, what business is it of the “pro-life” movement? Your moniker suggests that you have an advanced degree; but I’ll try to express this as simply as I can. If you use contraception, regardless of the number of partners, you don’t have more babies. If you’re poor, that’s a good thing.

  • arekushieru

    And not all women abort unwanted pregnancies.  So, my point stands.  Reducing abortion is a byproduct, not the goal, of reducing unwanted pregnancies.

  • spidey

    I am grateful to RH Reality Check for providing a forum to discuss issues relating to Reproductive Health. However I am disappointed with the pro-choicers’ personal attacks against Mr. Bomberger. ProChoiceFerret: Please show some respect. If you want to be listened to, then I suggest avoiding personal attacks. Respect Mr. Bomberger. He is an individual human being and worthy of respect.

     

    My honest question is the following: At what point is an individual human being a person? Is the individual human being a person only AFTER it travels through and out of a woman’s birth canal?

     

    I believe the baby inside the womb is just as much a person as the baby outside of the womb. You have the right to disagree. However I ask that you please answer my above question. I actually want to understand the pro-choice position, not simply yell and argue on an online forum, which is (in my opinion) a very impersonal and often offensive way to communicate with people.

     

    The genetic information on the beginning of a human person is well summarized here: http://abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony. If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

     

    Kind regards,

    Spidey

  • arekushieru

    “Spidey”, you obviously haven’t been reading.  Human being and personhood are synonymous.  A fetus is not a human being, otherwise you have to classify cells, tumours, parasitic twins and fetus in fetu as persons.  “Spiderman” would have known that.

     

    No PERson has the right to coopt another’s organs against that person’s ongoing, explicit, informed consent, not EVen to save their lives.  “Spiderman” would have known that, as well, and so would have you, if you had bothered to read any of the comments other than the ones that attacked a ProLifer for a demonstrably similar lack, which is the ONLY reason they did.

     

    Abort73?  Are you serious?

  • bornin1984

    No, your point does not stand. If the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies is not to reduce the instance of abortion, then what is the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies?

    • jayn

      You say that like reducing unwanted pregnancies isn’t a worthy goal in and of itself.

  • bornin1984

    Please stop conflating definitions, as it weakens your argument.

  • julie-watkins

    I think of human biology as being sexist: men are not biologically forced to expend toward the next generation the way women are. Still, nature is also “sloppy” — there’s a lot of miscarriages because good outcomes are more important than attempting to bring every conception to term. (For instance, look how many acorns oaks make every year.) Stress or illness or hunger will cause miscarriage, so will bad gene combinations. Unfortunately, evolution hasn’t caught up with modern realities. Though, actually, as long as there has been societies there’s always been abortion. (And exposure.) Where’s the dividing line? It’s better to trust that to medical standards rather than legislation. I don’t know of any “problem” with late abortion that couldn’t be better handled with medical standards than legislation. Early abortion — if it’s not a woman’s choice, that’s making women and poor families 2nd class, since an unexpected pregnancy is less of a burden to men & families with more resources.

    .

    I realize that for people who think Things Happen For A Reason being born female instead of male is a pretty large sign of what Nature (or God) wants for you. It’s understandable why such people might have “traditional” expectations of how pregnant women should act if contraception fails. For people who think gender-at-birth is chance, then Nature’s Sexism is an ethical problem.

    .

    To me, abortion a conditional “problem” — so long as the greater ethical problem of women’s oppression and classist oppression of the poor exist, the circumstance of an unwanted fetus ethically has to be decided by the woman and her chosen advisors. Or it’s added injustice to women and poor families.

  • arekushieru

    I believe you just answered your own question, as I have many times.

  • arekushieru

    Please stop telling me that I don’t know definitions, PLers.  Look ‘em up first.  Human being and person/personhood are the same things.

     

    If that’s NOT what you are referring to but the second part of that post, how isn’t the right to life equal to the right to life?

  • squirrely-girl

    There is also a strong positive correlation between divorce rates and cities with professional sports teams. Why? Hint: it’s not because teh menz are too busy watching TV.

     

    Truly understanding statistics can be a difficult task for the uneducated. But to explain this in the simplest of ways, statistically you would see more abortions in places that have more people. 

  • crowepps

    what is the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies?

    To prevent children being unwanted after they are born, since children who are not wanted by their parents are more likely to be neglected, abused and have miserable lives both as children and as adults.

  • crowepps

    The statistics are also distorted by people traveling from places where obtaining an abortion is difficult to places where an abortion is easier to obtain. Statisically, you would see more abortions in places that have more clinics.

  • prochoiceferret

    ProChoiceFerret: Please show some respect. If you want to be listened to, then I suggest avoiding personal attacks.

    People here seem to listen to me just fine!

    Respect Mr. Bomberger. He is an individual human being and worthy of respect.

    Oh, I respect Mr. Burgerbomb. It’s not like I’m arguing against legal medical procedures that can free his body of immense physical strain and suffering and quite possibly save his life, after all.

    My honest question is the following: At what point is an individual human being a person? Is the individual human being a person only AFTER it travels through and out of a woman’s birth canal?

    I dunno. But it’s not really relevant, anyway—because even if the fetus were a person (and sentient, and intelligent, and personable, and would grow up to become the next Einstein who cures cancer and AIDS and bad breath), that doesn’t give it the right to life support from the body of an unwilling woman.

    I believe the baby inside the womb is just as much a person as the baby outside of the womb. You have the right to disagree. However I ask that you please answer my above question. I actually want to understand the pro-choice position, not simply yell and argue on an online forum, which is (in my opinion) a very impersonal and often offensive way to communicate with people.

    I don’t think of it as a person until it’s born. You have the right to disagree, too. But this has nothing to do with abortion.

    If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

    I’ll get right back to you as soon as I find scientific evidence against the right to free speech.

  • crowepps

    However I am disappointed with the pro-choicers’ personal attacks against Mr. Bomberger.

    Really?  Since Mr. Bomberger is promoting ideas that pregnant women should be allowed to die, and Mr. Bomberger actually makes a LIVING out of promoting those beliefs, some of us feel that Mr. Bomberger is making a personal attack on us.  While certainly I respect Mr. Bomberger’s right to his own opinion, the mere fact that he has an opinion doesn’t mean HE has a right to respect when his opinion is a nonsensical one.  His opinions show him to be a man lacking in both knowledge and compassion, and there’s nothing to respect there.

  • crowepps

    There’s nothing wrong, by the way, with being a fundamentalist. 

    Well, yeah, actually there is.  It’s an unAmerican system of beliefs that violates the religous freedom of others.

    Fundamentalism: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundamentalist

     

     

  • crowepps

    At what point is an individual human being a person? Is the individual human being a person only AFTER it travels through and out of a woman’s birth canal?

    Well, yeah, by definition it can’t be an “individual” human until it is “existing as a single, separate thing or being”, which is exactly what happens when it is disconnected from the woman’s biological system (born) and breathing on its own. 

    Individual:

    adjective

    1. Obsolete not divisible; not separable
    2. existing as a single, separate thing or being; single; separate; particular
    3. of, for, or by a single person or thing
    4. relating to or characteristic of a single person or thing

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/individual

    Many, many ZBEF’s are lost during pregnancy at each developmental  milestone because a particular genetic combination does not enable them to develop into an ‘individual human’ and then about 1 in 115 American births result in stillbirth. 

     

    Birth is equivalent to a final exam to see whether the genetic combination and development during gestation successfully made an ‘individual human’ that survive on its own as an individual.  From germ cells to surviving live birth, the failure rate is around 70%.

  • jrm83

    Though she probably feels the term applies equally to all women who do not adhere to her idea of acceptable sexual behavior, she seems to be singling out black women in particular.

  • goatini

    when you said “It’s not like I’m arguing against legal medical procedures that can free his body of immense physical strain and suffering and quite possibly save his life, after all.”

     

    My Irony Meter registered off the chart this morning, when I heard fetus fetishist and so-called “priest” Pervone on the radio, pimping this egregious insult to women and to the Civil Rights Movement.  When addressing Right To Die, this sanctimonious hypocrite of the first degree said, basically, that a person wishing to exercise his/her Right To Die was probably depressed and in pain… and that in the year 2010, medical science has all kinds of medications and treatments for pain and depression.

     

    So “Fr” Pervone argues FOR “legal medical procedures that can free (one’s) body of immense physical strain and suffering and quite possibly save (one’s) life” when it comes to Right To Die… but he argues AGAINST “legal medical procedures (etc)” when it comes to reproductive health care options.

     

    If it wasn’t 100% clear to me before today that forced birthers have one agenda, and one agenda only – Power, Control and Punishment – it is MORE than 100% clear to me now.  

  • bornin1984

    Before you try to tell me to learn statistics or call me uneducated, perhaps you should learn what rates are. We are not comparing the absolute number of abortions per year, as states with higher populations will invariably have more abortions per year then states with a lesser population. In this case, we are talking about the abortion rate, which is the number of induced abortions per 1,000 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth, stillbirth, or induced termination, and is unaffected by the size of the population. More people does not equal a higher abortion rate, as we are looking at the number of abortions that occur per a set amount of pregnancies. So, please, before you try to correct someone, make sure you understand what you are talking about. Truly understanding statistics can be a difficult task for the uneducated.

  • bornin1984

    When you play a game of basketball, you do not score a basket to score a basket. You score a basket to win the game. In the same vein, pro-choicers, in their own words, do not try to prevent unwanted pregnancies just to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They try to prevent unwanted pregnancies in order to achieve a goal, in this case that being fewer abortions. Do you not remember the whole common ground rhetoric?

  • crowepps

    When addressing Right To Die, this sanctimonious hypocrite of the first degree said, basically, that a person wishing to exercise his/her Right To Die was probably depressed and in pain… and that in the year 2010, medical science has all kinds of medications and treatments for pain and depression.

    That goes right along with “there’s never a reason abortion is medically necessary because they can always save them both” which is demonstrably false since about 600 women die every year now when abortion is legal.

     

    Aside from the amazing psychic powers that let them read the minds of those who want to exercise their right to die, and the amazing psychic powers that let them read the minds of women chosing abortion, they seem to have an unbounded faith in the ability of medical science to fix everything.

     

    My dad died from metastized prostate cancer after a lengthy illness and weeks on so much morphine he was knocked out cold most of the time.  He had the ‘choice’ of unconsciousness or excrutiating pain.  How nice for the Father that he feels entitled to decide what other people can bear but how sad for the people he is willing to condemn to that torment because he doesn’t see why they need other options.  Since, of course, he’s never been in that position and doesn’t actually have any idea what he’s talking about.

  • bornin1984

    No, Crowepps, the statistics are not distorted. Number one, the majority of women travel less then 50 miles to obtain an abortion. Even if you correct for out-of-state abortions, the disparity still holds true. Number two, of course you would see more abortions in places that have more clinics, as you would expect to see more clinics in areas with a higher pro-choice influence then an area with less of a pro-choice influence. That was kind of part of the point.

  • bornin1984

    That is funny, Crowepps, considering how I have never seen you nor anyone here advocate for abortion under the guise of it being in the best interest of the child, but because of what is best for the mother. Why now are you seemingly changing?

  • crowepps

    Your analogy seems to suggest that you think this issue is a game, and that the important thing is for your side to ‘win’ by restricting women’s options. Since the ‘win’ you are talking about is forcing women who are strangers to you to do something that they don’t want to do, at the risk of their health and lives, that’s pretty darn creepy. Frankly, asserting a right to control the bodies of female strangers sounds like the attitude of a rapist.

  • bornin1984

    Frankly, you need to stop reading so much into my responses. This will be the second time in as many days that you have done so, and it is rather annoying.

  • crowepps

    You are not including a statistic for how many women TRAVEL to urban clinics because they live in one of the 89% of American counties where abortions are not available.

  • crowepps

    Obviously, you are not familiar with all of the posts, since I have argued that point in a number of mine. It’s hard to keep up when you only drop by once in a while. Luckily, your ignorance of a fact does not mean it is untrue.

  • goatini

    We know you think that a movement of a disenfranchised group to seek equality is nothing more than “victimology”.  I find your opinion abhorrent, but as you are a naive young man who was never denied your rights as an American citizen, I will graciously attribute that to ignorance, rather than to malice.

     

    I will, however, contest your arrogance in asserting your forced-birth culture of Power, Control and Punishment to be “truth”.  

     

    Semantically, it’s an OPINION, not “truth”.

     

    MY opinion is that a woman cannot be a fully realized, autonomous human being and citizen, if CONTROL over her body is denied to her by law, by religion, and/or by culture.

     

    If CONTROL over her body is denied to her, she is no more than chattel or livestock.  

     

    And I also believe that if the crimes of incest or rape are committed upon a woman, if a woman is denied the right to terminate a resulting pregnancy, then THE CRIMINAL HAS WON.  He has passed on his gene pool, he has continued his lineage, he has imposed involuntary servitude upon her, and he has done it illegally and against her will and consent.  

     

     

    As you are an adopted child of rape, I expect you will take great umbrage at this comment.  But if an individual woman thinks there is some kind of nobility in bearing the rapist’s spawn, then far be it from me to try and talk her out of it.  I respect her choice though it would not be the one I would make.  

     

    This is one of the critical differences between the forced birth faction, and those who tirelessly work to preserve women’s right to privacy in health care choices.  Where those of us who work to support women’s rights wholeheartedly support a woman’s choice to keep an unwanted pregnancy and carry to term, forced birthers offer no such compassion and support of women who do NOT want to keep an unwanted pregnancy.  This, to me, is proof that forced birthers have a goal of wielding Power, Control, and Punishment on women.  If it WERE truly about “life”, you would respect the life, the choice, and the opinions, of the living, breathing woman, and not seek to imbue a product of gestation with rights above and beyond that of the woman.  

  • crowepps

    Sorry if you find that irritating. All I can respond to, however, is the language in your posts, which actually reveals your character pretty clearly. For women, this issue isn’t a game but a matter of life or death.

  • bornin1984

    That is not going to change what I wrote all, for we are not talking about counties, but states. And not only do, generally speaking, approximately 70% of all women obtaining an abortion travel less then fifty miles to do so, but out of state abortions account for a small fraction of total abortions performed in-state. Now, if you are so inclined, we can correct for out-of-state abortions but you will still see a disparity between states based on geographic region in the same manner that you see a pro-choice/pro-life disparity based on region.

  • bornin1984

    And where have you argued as much? I would like to read it.

  • bornin1984

    No, you read what you want to read, make something say what you want it to say and then proceed to respond to your version of what you think people have written out. As it is, I have a mind to ask you where I likened obtaining an abortion to basketball, but I already know that I did not do as much. What I said was that how somehow who plays basketball does not attempt to score a basket just to score a basket, but rather to achieve some stated goal (that being winning), pro-choicers do not, allegedly, work to reduce the abortion rate just to reduce the abortion, but rather to achieve some stated goal (to reduce the abortion rate). I do not know why I took the time to explain this, but I have.

  • crowepps

    Since I’m still at work, I don’t have a couple hours to sift through them myself.

  • bornin1984

    It is much easier for you to find your posts then it is me to find them. You have probably been here for years, and I am not going to waste a day meandering through your posts in hopes of finding a smoking gun, so to speak.

  • arekushieru

    AS I said, I already explained the goals of reducing unwanted pregnancies.  Because they are the circumstances that are so difficult.  Or did you miss that part?  Besides, who wants an unwanted pregnancy, whatever decision one makes as a result?  Isn’t that kind of contradictory?

     

    I don’t believe in that common ground, because I believe any abortion is a moral abortion as long as it isn’t forced.  And any continued pregnancy is a moral pregnancy as long as it isn’t forced.

     

    Why should a woman’s rights be any less moral than another group of humans’ similar rights? 

  • prochoiceferret

    In the same vein, pro-choicers, in their own words, do not try to prevent unwanted pregnancies just to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They try to prevent unwanted pregnancies in order to achieve a goal, in this case that being fewer abortions.

     

    We do? Gosh, and here I thought preventing unwanted pregnancies was kind of a nice thing on its own. But then, I guess being pregnant when you don’t want to be, with all the physical, mental, emotional, financial, and social costs that that imposes, really isn’t a big deal compared to having an abortion.

  • progo35

    “Mr. Bomberger:

    You have no truth. You have your own values or principles, yes, and I
    disagree strongly with them, but yours are not a “truth.” They do not
    represent either the realities or truths lived by women every day, nor
    do they represent the majority of women, anywhere.”

    Excuse me, but who are YOU to say that he “has no truth”? That seems to fly in the face of your protestations regarding allowing people to find thier own truth. Moreover, Ryan has a point. When was the last time YOU volunteered for Habitat for humanity, advocated for foster kids with special needs, helped a parenting student find resources, or adopted a child??? Have you done ANYTHING PERSONALLY to help people besides pushing contraception and abortion? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • crowepps

    And just take my word for it.

     

    Since I don’t archive them separately, I would find my posts in exactly the same way that you would, by searching this site and wasting a day meandering through.  Since I already know my opinions and am able to repeat them when asked, as I have already done for you, I can’t imagine why I would do that.  Actually, I can’t imagine why you would want to do that either, except, of course, in hopes of finding a smoking gun so you could ‘score a point’.  If there were a smoking gun there, why on Earth would I locate it and then hand it to you?

  • progo35

    “Mr. Bomberger: You have no truth. You have your own values or principles, yes, and I disagree strongly with them, but yours are not a “truth.” They do not represent either the realities or truths lived by women every day, nor do they represent the majority of women, anywhere.”

     

    Excuse me, but who are YOU to say that he “has no truth”? That seems to fly in the face of your protestations regarding allowing people to find thier own truth. Moreover, Ryan has a point. When was the last time YOU volunteered for Habitat for humanity, advocated for foster kids with special needs, helped a parenting student find resources, or adopted a child??? Have you done ANYTHING PERSONALLY to help people besides pushing contraception and abortion? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Moreover, you say that his comments don’t reflect turth for most women. Well, MOST women don’t have abortions. MOST women give birth. MOST women who support abortion rights wouldn’t do it themselves, because they KNOW a life when they see one. YOUR “truth” doesn’t reflect the reality of women, either.

  • progo35

    “No, you read what you want to read, make something say what you want it to say and then proceed to respond to your version of what you think people have written out.”

     

    Yes, you tend to do that, crowepps.

  • progo35

    “That is funny, Crowepps, considering how I have never seen you nor anyone here advocate for abortion under the guise of it being in the best interest of the child, but because of what is best for the mother. Why now are you seemingly changing?”

     

    I’ve seen her and other people on this site do it frequently, Born, and it isn’t pretty, despite one author’s protestations in an article about Ryan’s organization that “no pro choicer I know has ever tried to predict a fetus’ future.” I guess that person hadn’t bothered to read the comment section of this website in a while.

  • goatini

    And the sad reality is that the forced birthers really don’t care if the actual living, breathing adult woman dies in the process.  

     

    Here it is, in a nutshell:

     

    The fundamentalist types, who want to force women to bear to term all ZBEFs that manage to get a good enough grip on the uterus to last through nature’s culling process, or as we could call it here, “G-d’s Abortuary”, view women as livestock.  It’s Animal Husbandry 101.

     

    If the woman is healthy and the resulting baby at birth is healthy, that is good, the woman is able to perform her biological function.  

     

    If the woman is not so healthy and the resulting baby at birth is healthy, that is good too, at least for the time being.  There is now a question as to whether she can continue to perform her biological function.  

     

    If the woman is not so healthy and the health of the fetus is compromised:

     

    * If the woman lives and the fetus dies, then it’s “G-d’s Will”, and it’s man’s right to jump right back on and try again, regardless of any risk to the woman, as it is her sole job to perform her biological function.  

     

    * If the woman dies, whether or not the fetus lives, it’s man’s right, nay, obligation to obtain a new, younger, healthier woman that can be used for more successful breeding.

     

    * If the woman can’t manage to live through the performance of her biological function, then her gene pool is weak and a new woman should be obtained that might better serve woman’s biological function and man’s imperative.  

     

    Therefore, when women seek to exercise choice over their biological function when their health and/or the health of the fetus are compromised, they are actually going against good principles of animal husbandry.  Better for “nature” to take its course rather than for woman to have a hand in the determination of her own fate.  If she and/or the fetus are defective, then Survival Of The Fittest should be the rule, and the problem of the unfit will take care of itself when left to its own devices without interference.

     

    This is the only way I can handle the very idea that in 2010, anyone would think that a woman should die for an at-risk pregnancy.  If it were “right to life”, then the woman’s life would mean SOMETHING.  Since that is not the case, I can only rationalize it by understanding that anyone who would let a woman die, when she could be saved, believes women are livestock.   

     

    When I heard so-called “Fr” Pervone on the radio this morning, I could only think “We’re livestock to him.  Our only use is as breeding stock.  Our souls, spirits, dreams, intellects, talents and gifts are, to him, only sins of willfulness that require subjugation and reduction to the biological function, and the biological function ONLY.”

  • prochoiceferret

    Excuse me, but who are YOU to say that he “has no truth”? That seems to fly in the face of your protestations regarding allowing people to find thier own truth.

    Well, if it’s the same kind of “truth” that we allow people who believe the Earth is flat, then sure. I think Jodi was talking about the kind of “truth” that has at least some tenuous relation to reality, however.

     

    When was the last time YOU volunteered for Habitat for humanity, advocated for foster kids with special needs, helped a parenting student find resources, or adopted a child??? Have you done ANYTHING PERSONALLY to help people besides pushing contraception and abortion? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Oh, Progo, it’s good to see you still have your sense of humor.

     

    Moreover, you say that his comments don’t reflect turth for most women. Well, MOST women don’t have abortions. MOST women give birth. MOST women who support abortion rights wouldn’t do it themselves, because they KNOW a life when they see one. YOUR “truth” doesn’t reflect the reality of women, either.

    Gosh, I didn’t know you had to have an abortion in order to support abortion rights. Makes you wonder how all those abortion-supporting males got into the movement….

  • progo35
    Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
    Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌli-zəm\
    Function: noun
    Date: 1922

    1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
    2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

    fun·da·men·tal·ist \-tə-list\ noun

    fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic \-ˌmen-tə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

     

    http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

     

    Crowepps-according to the second definition provided by Merriam Webster, you and your ilk on this website are, or tend to be, political fundamentalists, in that you subscribe to a basic set of principles regarding politics. If fundamentalism is un-American, than you are un-American too. Let’s also not forget your support for pulling the plug on patients who want their medical care to continue, also an un-American act.

  • progo35

    Goatinatini

    If you researched the subject you would find that the entire disability rights community opposeses assisted suicide because it victimizes the handicapped. Perhaps you should take a look at NotDeadYet, ADAPT, or some other disability rights material before assigning opposition to AS to the pro life community alone.

  • progo35

    Goatinatini

    If you researched the subject you would find that the entire disability rights community opposeses assisted suicide because it victimizes the handicapped. Perhaps you should take a look at NotDeadYet, ADAPT, or some other disability rights material before assigning opposition to AS to the pro life community alone.

  • progo35

    Goatinatini

    If you researched the subject you would find that the entire disability rights community opposeses assisted suicide because it victimizes the handicapped. Perhaps you should take a look at NotDeadYet, ADAPT, or some other disability rights material before assigning opposition to AS to the pro life community alone.

  • progo35

    “Really?  Since Mr. Bomberger is promoting ideas that pregnant women should be allowed to die, and Mr. Bomberger actually makes a LIVING out of promoting those beliefs,”

     

    Really, when did he say that, Crowepps?? Please provide an example.

  • arekushieru

    A ‘holocaust’ (and I use that term loosely and only because I want to make sure you understand to what I am referring to, here) occurs when one is denied choices.  Much like Hitler denied choices to German women and Jewish women on how to continue their pregnancies.  He forced German women to continue their pregnancies and Jewish women to terminate, BOTH of which are ANTI-choice.  There is an excellent film on this very subject based on the life and times of one Gisella Perl.  I suggest you watch it, and, if you have, I suggest you RE-watch it.  She saved many Jewish women’s lives by performing abortions, otherwise Hitler would have had THEM killed.  Of course, only a ProChoicer would have had the compassion to perform these abortions.  ProLifers would have forced these woman to continue their pregnancies, telling them ‘it would all work out in the end’, if we are to believe your logic that having an abortion will not raise anyone out of the circumstances they were born in.  But, of course, only if working out meant that BOTH lives would be terminated.  The lack of demonstrated intelligence on the ProLife side never ceases to amaze me. 

     

    How is continuing a pregnancy, that is ALways far more expensive than abortion, going to raise one out of poverty?  Yeah, of course, you didn’t think of the other side of the coin, even though it is something most ‘smart’ people would do.

     

    How is limiting a woman’s sexual freedoms (yeah, that’s right, I didn’t include men in there.  For a REAson.  Because, if you insist that I do, I insist that you tell me, what equally enforceable corollary to pregnancy on women IS there on men?  None?  That’s what I thought….  You guys never can answer that question any other way, fyi.  Most ‘smart’ people would at least think of that, though, or just not bring up the issue in the first place…), due to a biological function that is grown and developed within her body, aGAINST her volition, NOT sexist?

     

    How is partnering with the number one life-bringer of black children in the US and abroad NOT going to raise you out of poverty?  Yet, again, didn’t think of the other side of the coin.  Not typical of ‘smart’ people.  PP’s abortion services…?  Are only 3% of the total number of services they provide.  So, if they ‘kill’ so many black *fetuses* (NOT children), they bring to term so many more black fetuses. 

     

    I think it is a poverty to think that a woman has so little respect for herself if she has mulitple sexual partners, because it assumes that EVery woman is interested in monogamy, while men are never tarred with the same brush.

     

    It is a poverty to believe the lies of the pregnancy industry (CPC’s, ProLifers, etc… because, as I stated earlier, pregnancy is FAR more lucrative than abortion) who want to use your money to oppress you until you disappear from the face of the earth.

     

    You are not a ‘smart’ woman.  So, how can you tell if we are ‘smart’?

     

  • progo35

    “Please stop telling me that I don’t know definitions, PLers.  Look ‘em up first.  Human being and person/personhood are the same things.”

     

    Are-you assume that people don’t know definitions all the time. It’s practically a staple of your commentary.

    And, actually, “human being” and “personhood” are NOT the same things in all intellectual circles.  People like Peter Singer, for instance, make a living off asserting that personhood is conditional upon the ability to reason, and that therefore some human beings and some, such as disabled individuals, are not. Nasty stuff, but that hasn’t stopped RH from looking to him for guidance on reproductive issues.

  • goatini

    of “Father” Frank in his comments this morning on the Catholic Connection radio show.  I by no means made a blanket statement on my own opinions on the Right To Die movement.  My intent was to expose the man’s blatant hypocrisy in defending modern medical science in the case of a person who wished to exercise Right To Die rights, and during the same segment condemn modern medical science in reproductive health care options.  

     

    Of course, someone with a forced-birth agenda might have the tendency to conflate my statement on Mister Pavone’s opinion, into a full-fledged commentary on the disability rights community.  

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, now, doesn’t that sound exactly like what we’ve been saying…?  NOT.  I do believe we are saying that the woman is the best determinant of a fetuses future, not WE, as in ProCHOICERS, ourselves?  Ziiiiinnngg…?

  • arekushieru

    And they would be wrong.  I suggest you read up on Sue Rodriguez.  So, everyone else gets the right to die with dignity, exCEPT the disabled?  Because, of course, someone will find a way to do so, if they are able-bodied enough for it.  And the fearmongering of these individuals has NOT born out in countries that DO have assisted suicide laws.  Unlike here, in Canada, where we do not, and a man was convicted of something that he would very likely have been able to do legally and without such groups setting themselves up in opposition to him, if his daughter hadn’t been disabled, but in a similar amount of pain. Their pain is not equal to that of one who is NOT diagnosed with a disability? Gee, doesn’t that sound like discrimination, everyone?

  • ack

    It’s so adorable when anti-choicers try to claim that progressives don’t care about kids or women. But when you live in reality, where the champions of legislation seeking to restrict access to safe, legal abortion are simultaneously axing programs designed to help young women, pregnant women, single mothers, and kids in general, it drops in adorability and falls somewhere under “lies” and “pathetic.”

     

    I watched my legislature cut every program that helps women raise and care for the kids they have, from health care to education to domestic violence shelters to child abuse prevention while they concurrently passed a bill requiring abortion providers to tell their patients that state programs are available to help them.

  • crowepps

    Crowepps-according to the second definition provided by Merriam Webster, you and your ilk on this website are, or tend to be, political fundamentalists, in that you subscribe to a basic set of principles regarding politics.

    The difference being, of course, that we aren’t trying to force everybody to do it our way, as in “intolerant of the beliefs of others”

    If fundamentalism is un-American, than you are un-American too.

    And again, the whole point of ‘choice’ is that other people are allowed to live by their own beliefs and not mine.

    Let’s also not forget your support for pulling the plug on patients who want their medical care to continue, also an un-American act.

    What?  I certainly can’t ever remember advocating that the plug be pulled on UNWILLING patients who want their care to continue.  I think you may have misunderstood one of my posts.  I have said, and will repeat, that sometimes people demand that care be continued long past the point where there is any logic or reason to doing so, but that isn’t that same thing as saying the plug should be pulled.

  • arekushieru

    Uh, yeah, I do, IF they say something that runs counter to the definition in the DICTionary, which is where one usually finds, y’know, definitions…?  Intellectual circles are not dictionaries, last time I looked.  

     

    So?  I have never heard of Peter Singer until this moment.  So your point is… that some people agree 100% with RHReality, some people don’t and some people disagree with them 100%?  I already knew that.  Thanks.

  • ack

    Don’t bother taking any anti-racism workshops. You’re too far gone. I’m assuming you’re white because of the racist overtones (you didn’t even succeed at undertones) of your post. I’m considering sending this to Feministe. I can think of at least one guest blogger who would have a field day with your assumptions, accusations, and ability to combine facets of kyriarchy in one rhetoric-laden comment.

     

    Then again, she might just say yours is just like a lot of comments she reads.

  • rebellious-grrl

    ack, this is what I was trying to explain to BornIn1984 earlier. Hope you don”t mind if I quote you. Thanks.

  • ack

    I find it interesting that western culture oscillates between the following: a. viewing women as sexual gatekeepers and men as out-of-control hornballs and b. viewing women as out-of-control hornballs and men as general gatekeepers.

  • ack

    You’re comparing legislation and policy to community volunteer work? Seriously? There is a huge gap between the effects of policy and that of volunteerism.

     

    I believe strongly in community building work, but if you’re working against laws and policies that restrict people’s choices and limit assistance, then your work will only affect a limited number of people. Supporting strong policies like the list that Jodi provided helps protect people in your city, your county, your state, and your country. It has to happen hand-in-hand with grassroots work, and I’ve seen nothing but passing the buck among the anti-choice in my state. The legislature expects non-profits to fill the gaps left by decreased state funding, even when the agencies are telling them that donations and volunteering are down. Either you’re completely in support of women continuing pregnancies by supporting them at every step of the way, even 17.99 years down the road, or you’re not. 

     

    Of course, I personally believe that abortion should be available whether help is there or not. No matter what policies are in place, there will always be women who become pregnant who don’t want to be. Women have the right to terminate pregnancies under any circumstances, but if women WANT to continue them, then the anti-choice politicians and policy makers should be bending over backward to make that possible.

  • ack

    You’re comparing legislation and policy to community volunteer work? Seriously? There is a huge gap between the effects of policy and that of volunteerism.

     

    I believe strongly in community building work, but if you’re working against laws and policies that restrict people’s choices and limit assistance, then your work will only affect a limited number of people. Supporting strong policies like the list that Jodi provided helps protect people in your city, your county, your state, and your country. It has to happen hand-in-hand with grassroots work, and I’ve seen nothing but passing the buck among the anti-choice in my state. The legislature expects non-profits to fill the gaps left by decreased state funding, even when the agencies are telling them that donations and volunteering are down. Either you’re completely in support of women continuing pregnancies by supporting them at every step of the way, even 17.99 years down the road, or you’re not. 

     

    Of course, I personally believe that abortion should be available whether help is there or not. No matter what policies are in place, there will always be women who become pregnant who don’t want to be. Women have the right to terminate pregnancies under any circumstances, but if women WANT to continue them, then the anti-choice politicians and policy makers should be bending over backward to make that possible.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Progo,

     

    You continue to make this claim about Peter Singer without basis.

     

    We have never “looked to Peter Singer” for guidance on RH issues.  Frankly, I do not know much of his work so I can not speak to what it does or does not say and won’t make an opinion based on hearsay or on other people’s interpretations.

     

    But the assertion we have looked to him for guidance is patently false.

     

    Jodi

  • progo35

    “And they would be wrong.  I suggest you read up on Sue Rodriguez.  So, everyone else gets the right to die with dignity, exCEPT the disabled?  Because, of course, someone will find a way to do so, if they are able-bodied enough for it.  And the fearmongering of these individuals has NOT born out in countries that DO have assisted suicide laws. “

     

    Oh, please. People with disabilities can definitely commit suicide themselves if they want to. They can run their wheelchairs into walls, go out and buy a gun, or take a lethal overdose, just like everyone else. The only difference is that when a nondisabled person does this, it’s considered a tragedy to be avoided and when a disabled person does it, it’s considered a sensible decision to be assisted.

  • progo35

    Jodi,

    Once again, I remind you that you featured at least one article lauding his input on reproductive issues and that you also refused to remove a hateful comment calling for infanticide against disabled newborns, which is something that he supports. So, what I said is true. I am not going to provide the links right now because we’ve had this discussion several times and I’ve provided the links on those occasions. Review your own website before you accuse someone of lying.

  • jodi-jacobson

    You continue to confuse two things:

    one: the fact that individuals write commentary and opinion for RH Reality Check, but do not represent some uber position of this site.  just as people debating the war and many other things discuss various positions on the NYT op-ed page, that do not necessarily reflect the position of the NYT as a company, the same goes here.  If someone in some distant past article–and if I recall this was on the Common Ground site which was not under my direction–mentioned this person, it has nothing to do with RH Reality Check.  I am not really sure why that is so difficult to understand.

    second: you also failed and continue to fail to distinguish between the comment you site and satire in the context of the discussion that was being held and which you continuously point to. 

     

    If you are going to try to characterize something here–and we are happy to be characterized for those things for which we do stand, at least take the pains to recognize consistent, long-term positions, like trusting women, and don’t try to raise a few sentences of someone’s comments to elevate what represents an “editorial” position as with regard to your claim no such thing exists and never has.  If it did, I assure you, many, many other people would be calling us out.

     

     

  • crowepps

    The only difference is that when a nondisabled person does this, it’s considered a tragedy to be avoided and when a disabled person does it, it’s considered a sensible decision to be assisted.

    Undoubtedly there are some people who do believe that, but I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone here promotes the idea that all disabled people ought to kill themselves.

     

    Particularly when the subject isn’t assisted suicide for disabled people in the first place, but instead people with incurable illnesses who want a choice of when and how they die and who generally speaking cut their lives short only a few months.

     

    You need to make up your mind — are disabled people equal to everybody else and capable of making their own decisions, or are they because they are disabled so incompetent they need someone to make their decisions for them?

  • progo35

    “Undoubtedly there are some people who do believe that, but I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone here promotes the idea that all disabled people ought to kill themselves.”

     

    If that’s true, than you need to pay better attention. One of the chief editors here had a huge influence on passing Oreon’s “Death with Dignity” Act.

     

  • emma

    Those of us who are pro-choice believe reducing rates of unwanted pregnancy is desirable in and of itself. Unwanted pregnancy is stressful. When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, one needs to make a decision as to whether to terminate or continue the pregnancy, and, if the latter, one must then decide whether to adopt out or raise the resulting child. Abortion involves either surgery or taking pills that induce what can be fairly severe cramping/bleeding/pain. Continuing a pregnancy means, for some, going through a lengthy and painful labour, sometimes major abdominal surgery, risking one’s health throughout the pregnancy, and sometimes accumulating longer term health problems.

     

    For me, for instance, continuing or terminating a pregnancy would cause more pain and stress than not dealing with an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. So, if you recognise that dealing with a pregnancy one doesn’t want (whether one terminates or continues) is less desirable than avoiding the unwanted pregnancy, it makes sense to support measures and policies that reduce rates of unwanted pregnancy, such as comprehensive sex education and access to affordable and effective contraception. And yup, that’s bearing in mind that contraceptive failures will still occur; but perhaps fewer of them, if more people know how to use contraception correctly.

     

    I do not support reducing the abortion rate by restricting supply. I do think it would be preferable for fewer women to have to deal with unwanted pregnancies. For reasons explained above, I think reducing unwanted pregnancy is a worthwhile goal in and of itself. And, happily (one would think…?) for the anti-abortion cohort, fewer unwanted pregnancies would mean fewer abortions.

     

    (This comment only considers elective abortion, by the way.)

  • crowepps

    Progo has made it very clear that the only comments which should be allowed here are those which do not contain anything she finds offensive.  The fact that this censorship would totally invalidate the whole concept of ‘open discussion’, i.e., allowing people to post their varied opinions and then talk about them, is irrelevant.

     

    Progo is entirely consistent in her views – she believes that ‘an authority figure’ should make everyone’s personal decisions and she believes that ‘an authority figure’ should decide what people are allowed to say publicly because she doesn’t believe people should have diverse views but instead should do just as they’re told by ‘the authorities’.

  • progo35

    “the fact that individuals write commentary and opinion for RH Reality Check, but do not represent some uber position of this site. “

     

    Tell me, Jodi. If one of your commentators wrote a piece lauding David Duke as someone whose philosophies could shed light on important reproductive rights issues, would you publish it? I think not. You said earlier. “Frankly, I do not know much of his work so I can not speak to what it does or does not say and won’t make an opinion based on hearsay or on other people’s interpretations.” It seems to me that you should know something about someone’s philosophical positions before you allow them to be held up as a positive example in any article. If you bothered to research this man at all, you would know that the disabled community regards him as a bigot akin to the likes of David Duke and co. Frankly, it is difficult to respect the editorial decisoins of someone who is ignorant of an issue that is of significant consequence for a large segment of the population. If you wouldn’t feature an article putting a positive spin on David Duke’s philsophies, than you shouldn’t feature one that extolls Singer.

     

    Moreover, our earlier conversations about the infanticide post and the post itself bear out that this post was NOT satire. THe person who wrote it was serious about it, they weren’t being a joke, and many readers besides me did write to you asking that it be removed per your site’s hate speech regulations, but even though the comment targeted a specific group of people, the handicapped, you refused to classify it as such and maintained that it was “free speech.” I hope that if someone said that he or she would kill their LGBT baby, you would not allow such a comment to stand, but apparently you would, since such a decision would be consistent with your psotion that calling for the murder of disabled infants is “free” and not “hate”
    speech.

  • crowepps

    One of the chief editors here had a huge influence on passing Oreon’s “Death with Dignity” Act.

    The Death with Dignity Act is concerned with people with TERMINAL ILLNESSES who have six months or less to live.

     

    There is an enormous difference between BEING IN THE LAST STAGES OF DYING OF A TERMINAL ILLNESS and being disabled.  People with disabilities still have to kill themselves in the traditional painful ways all by themselves just as they do now.

     

    It does not REQUIRE people to kill themselves.  It does not RECRUIT or PROMOTE or SUGGEST that people kill themselves.

     

    After it passed people did apply for it in case their pain became unbearable but it was actually used very, very few times.

     

    The majority of people nationwide support similar laws for people with TERMINAL ILLNESSES.

  • progo35

    I NEVER said that “the authorities” should make everyone’s decisions. Don’t put words in my mouth. It isn’t about “offending” anyone.  It’s about tolerance vs.  HATE SPEECH, pure and simple. I believe that the site’s policy regarding HATE SPEECH should be consistently enforced, and that includes HATE SPEECH against the handicapped.

  • julie-watkins

    I think I’ve replied to some of your comments before & you haven’t answered, but I’ll try again. Does Oreon’s “Death with Dignity” Act include language saying “all disabled people ought to kill themselves.”

    I’m not of the opinion that saying “I’ve got my things in order, I’ve had enough pain, I want to peacefully go to sleep and not wake up” is the same as saying “all disabled people ought to kill themselves.”

    Do you have a link?

  • progo35

    Your comment is in response to Crowepps’ conflation of what I said. Earlier, I said that there was a double standard regarding the suicides of disabled people and the suicides of nondisabled people, in that if someone is sufficiently handicapped, he or she is allowed to kill him or herself under such laws, but a nondisabled person canot. This creates a caste system of value concerning people’s lives and is essentially based on the premise that suicide prevention is for the non-disabled-the disabled can go ahead and kill themselves if they want. Crowepps phrased that portion of my argument as “all disabled people ought to kill themselves.” By creating a caste system of whose lives should be saved, however, death with dignity laws, combined with general intolerance in our society, send the message that handicapped people are unwanted, a burden, hated, etc, and thus, ought to kill themselves. It’s a general attitude rather than a specific statement, but I suspect you knew that.

  • julie-watkins

    OK, thanks. I’m glad Oregon’s law doesn’t imply “all disabled people ought to kill themselves.”

  • crowepps

    Your position is that anything that YOU find offensive is hate speech and that those comments should be censored.

     

    Okay, let’s run with that.  I find it really offensive when people post that women who have abortions are ‘murderers’ so I guess that could be considered hate speech and all those posts ought to be removed as well, along with any post that criticizes women for being promiscuous, and then any posts that criticize doctors who perform abortions are obviously hate speech and all those posts ought to go, and posts that talk about men failing to use birth control offend men and ought to be banned, and posts that criticize churches are obviously hate speech/delete those.  Pretty soon we won’t have any comments at all.

     

    I suppose we could talk about the adorable things our pets do or the weather.

  • progo35

    Actually, Julie, that’s precisely what the law IMPLIES, it just doesn’t SAY that specifically.

  • progo35

    “The Death with Dignity Act is concerned with people with TERMINAL ILLNESSES who have six months or less to live.

     

    There is an enormous difference between BEING IN THE LAST STAGES OF DYING OF A TERMINAL ILLNESS and being disabled.  People with disabilities still have to kill themselves in the traditional painful ways all by themselves just as they do now.”

     

    Actually, no. First of all, doctors can be way off in terms of how much time a person has left. Secondly, Oregon  Medicaid has offered “death with dignity” INSTEAD OF CANCER MEDICATION to two people, meaning they wouldn’t give the meds to those people because they were too expensive, but they would pay for $20 narcotic to kill them. Thirdly, illness is a form of disability and people with such conditions are included under the Americans with disabilities Act. Fourth, you are very naive if you really think that the people behind these laws want to stop with terminal illneses. They belive that ANYONE should be able to kill him or herself because the right to control one’s death is an intrinsic right.

     

  • crowepps

    http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/index.shtml

     

    127.805 s.2.01. Who may initiate a written request for medication.

    (1) An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897.

    (2) No person shall qualify under the provisions of ORS 127.800 to 127.897 solely because of age or disability. [1995 c.3 s.2.01; 1999 c.423 s.2]

  • progo35

    “Your position is that anything that YOU find offensive is hate speech and that those comments should be censored.”

     

    NO, I think that any comment suggesting that any GROUP OF PEOPLE OR PARTICULAR PERSON SHOULD DIE is hate speech. Big, BIG difference, Crowepps.

     

    Let’s flesh this out a little.

     

    One time during a discussion on adoption, a commentor said that she was glad to know that I was happy with the “people who bought” me and that arranged marriages work out well too sometimes. This is nasty, but it is not “hate speech.” However, if that person had written, “You, Progo 35, should die because…” that WOULD be hate speech.  But, you know that.

     

  • julie-watkins

    How does it imply that? You say it doesn’t imply that, crowepps just made a post that makes me think she doesn’t think it implies that.

    Also, I wouldn’t want to prevent someone from getting adequate pain relief when they’re dying because it’s discriminating against handicapped people. I’m having trouble parsing your earlier “double standards” post.

    I say this, because I don’t like using a late-term abortion scandal (where a rogue doctor kills viable fetuses) as a reason to prevent a woman from getting an abortion when her fetus is dead or dying or she’s dying from the pregnancy. Which is what some anti-abortion groups are trying to do.

  • crowepps

    That all sounds very reasonable, except for the fact that the law SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES the disabled and is ONLY for terminally ill patients. YOU are the only one here who keeps talking about how “handicapped people are unwanted, a burden, hated, etc.” Project much?

  • jodi-jacobson

    We have had this conversation, ad nauseum.

    I could not imagine every inviting anyone to write, nor accepting anyone writing a piece lauding David Duke. On the other hand, I have seen many people here make heroes out of murderers, such as Scott Roeder and others, and I have let those comments stand for the most part (with exceptions) because I think it is revealing of the kind of hateful and sadistic philosophy espoused by extremist anti-choicers.

    Sorry. I do not well know the work of Peter Singer, but we have never had an RHRC position on nor ever published a piece of his work. So again, moot point. My points stand. I do my best, absent what is clearly violent, over the line, or offensive to simply allow people to have discussions.

    If people here don’t want to engage with certain other people, they can just ignore them and not respond and engage with and answer to only those they feel they want to do so.

    As for satire, you and I simply disagree on that point, and we have for some long time.

    As I have many deadlines to which to attend, I will just leave it at that.

  • progo35

    No person may qualify SOLELY because of age and disability, but that the key word is *solely.* If other mitigating factors, such as, say, the use of a repirator in the case of a quadrapalegic or if the disability is stemming from a disease like Cystic Fibrosis or Parkinsons  are present, than the person may kill him or herself. Moreover, if you knew about the history of euthanasia in the Netherlands, for instance, you would know that they legalized euthanasia for the terminally ill back in the seventies and now allow it in cases of unremitting mental illness. Moreover, the law also says that this is supposed to be voluntary. Was it VOLUNTARY when Oregon Medicaid refused to pay for Barbara Wagner’s cancer meds but offered AS? NO! That in itself would seem to be a subversion of the law, but it happened anyway.

  • progo35

    “I do not well know the work of Peter Singer, but we have never had an RHRC position on nor ever published a piece of his work. So again, moot point.”

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/18/video-chomsky-and-singer-discuss-abortion

    The author in this article clearly takes a position on singer’s philosophies. And, since you are willing to publish that piece but not one on david duke, you implicitly lend your support to Singer’s bigotry and distinguish him from such miscreants as someone who ought to be listened to.

  • progo35

    “How does it imply that?”

     

    In general, the disability community regards such laws as implicitly saying that disabled people’s lives are worth less than other people’s. When this is combined with a lack of access in our society, the general assessment of such laws is that they are society’s of way of telling to handicapped that they “ought to” kill themselves. Is that what the law literally means? Maybe, and maybe not. But what I’m talking about is the message sent by the law within the larger context of discrimination against the handicapped. Does this clarify my position for you?

  • crowepps

    Just how is a law “implicitly saying” something about the worth of disabled people when it does not concern them at all and explicitly EXCLUDES them?

  • crowepps

    Even in states where there is no “assisted suicide law” disabled people already have the right to refuse treatment, including insisting their respirator be disconnected,  and their medical providers have to honor that refusal.   Unless, of course, they’re in a Catholic hospital.

     

    There isn’t anything at all in the law saying that people who are disabled get to end their lives because they’re disabled.  There has to be a determination that they have six months or less to live.

     

    Barbara Wagner’s State funded insurance, which had already paid a great deal for chemotherapy and radiation which sent her cancer into remission, refused to pay more after the cancer recurred for a drug which MIGHT have extended her remaining life from four to six months at a cost of $24,000 but which would NOT have cured her lung cancer.  The agency explained this as “not a good use of taxpayer dollars”.  That has nothing to do with disabled people.

  • julie-watkins

    I should have made the two part question clearer. You disagree with the law as written.

    The 2nd part I was wondering, do you want the law to fixed or repealed?

    I would rather the law not be repealed. Well, actually, I wish this (and abortion) and any other medical matters were a matter for medical standards, not laws.

  • crowepps

    The only ‘fix’ that I could imagine would be for the law to specifically exclude disabled people even if they do have a terminal illness and leave the unwilling disabled, but not anyone else, to die in agony.  Which seems kind of like exactly the kind of ‘discrimination’ against the disabled she deplores.

     

    Since I’m approaching the age where this issue may be personally important to me, I’d just as soon make my own decisions about what I could tolerate without the government butting in to limit my options according to what somebody else, who is not in the same situation, thinks I should do.

  • bornin1984

    The only good thing about him is that he is consistent in his views. He sets forth the groundwork for what a person is and holds to it, unlike most pro-choicers who tend to pick and choose when and where to apply their arguments. But, no, Singer is not the best individual to look to concerning his views on abortion, since he believes that infanticide is perfectly acceptable up to a point in time.

  • julie-watkins

    Since I’m approaching the age where this issue may be personally important to me, I’d just as soon make my own decisions about what I could tolerate without the government butting in to limit my options according to what somebody else, who is not in the same situation, thinks I should do.

    This is why I’m in favor of medical standards for medical matters. (And not drawn up by doctors being told what to say by religious leaders)

  • ks

    My honest question is the following: At what point is an individual human being a person? Is the individual human being a person only AFTER it travels through and out of a woman’s birth canal?

     

    This whole thing about fetal personhood is a distraction.  I know people sincerely worry about that, but it really doesn’t matter when an individual becomes a person.  The right to abortion rests on the right of women to have bodily autonomy, same as everybody else.  Just like I can’t be forced, morally or ethically, to give blood, donate organs, or allow the use of my body in any way, shape, or form to sustain the life of another, I also cannot be forced, morally or ethically, to continue a pregnancy that I don’t want.  It might be a good thing for me to donate blood or organs, and it will almost certainly save the life of another if I did, but I can’t be forced to do it–not even for my own born children.  And before anyone jumps in with the whole consent to sex is consent to pregnancy nonsense, I’m allowed to change my mind with regards to organ or blood donation, even in the middle of the process, and the same is true for pregnancy.

     

     

    Now, you can believe whatever you want about fetal personhood and you can try to convince me that it would be a good thing to continue a pregnancy and give birth, but in the end, the choice of what to do with my body is, and should be, ultimately mine. 

  • mellankelly1

    Please feel free to reference, in it’s entirity, the quote which supports this claim:

     

    “But, no, Singer is not the best individual to look to concerning his views on abortion, since he believes that infanticide is perfectly acceptable up to a point in time.”

     

    It is odd that one who claims to abhor when people (and I quote) “tr[y] to read things into what people write out that are simply not there, and then proceed to draw the conclusion you want to draw out of your mischaracterization” would do exactly the same thing to another person, isnt’ it? If you have any question as to where Peter Singer stands on any particular issue (in context) please feel free to visit his website, where he can clarify for you:  http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/index.html

     

    ~you may find the FAQ section particularly helpful

  • ahunt

    Mellenkelly….so damn glad to see you…so damn glad!

     

    Stand up, Kids. The Original Fact Checker is back in the ring!

  • progo35

    I view the issue of assisted suicide as being distinct from abortion, as most disability rights advocates do, hence, I feel that all laws allowing for assisted suicide should be outright repealed, as opposed to the allowance of abortion in a very select set of circumstances. (the woman’s life is in danger, the woman was raped and it is an early abortion.) I believe that if you researched the issue of assisted suicide from the perspective of most disability rights organizations, you would find that the objection lies in very well founded anti-disability prejudice behind the euthanasia movement in general, and the use of AS to alleviate suffering instead of using pain medication/appropriate accommodations to do so.

  • progo35

    “Barbara Wagner’s State funded insurance, which had already paid a great deal for chemotherapy and radiation which sent her cancer into remission, refused to pay more after the cancer recurred for a drug which MIGHT have extended her remaining life from four to six months at a cost of $24,000 but which would NOT have cured her lung cancer. 

     

    Oh, I see, so it has to be a CURE before it’s worthwhile? Gee, I guess we can stop paying for in home assisted living for those with quadrapalegia and warehouse them in nursing homes instead, since they’ll never be cured. Providing resources that do not amount to a cure is the very nature of disability accommodation.

     

    The agency explained this as “not a good use of taxpayer dollars”.  That has nothing to do with disabled people.”

     

    Your thick-headed-ness is truly tragic, crowepps. I hope that if you are ever disabled by cancer, your insurance company or state insurance policy doesn’t see fit to tell you whether you can live another six months or not because the extension of your life is “not a good use of taxpayer dollars.” I hope that if you decide that you want to live longer, they honor your choice. That’s what you’re all about, isn’t it? Or are you?

     

     

  • progo35

    “Barbara Wagner’s State funded insurance, which had already paid a great deal for chemotherapy and radiation which sent her cancer into remission, refused to pay more after the cancer recurred for a drug which MIGHT have extended her remaining life from four to six months at a cost of $24,000 but which would NOT have cured her lung cancer. 

     

    Oh, I see, so it has to be a CURE before it’s worthwhile? Gee, I guess we can stop paying for in home assisted living for those with quadrapalegia and warehouse them in nursing homes instead, since they’ll never be cured. Providing resources that do not amount to a cure is the very nature of disability accommodation.

     

    The agency explained this as “not a good use of taxpayer dollars”. That has nothing to do with disabled people.”

     

    Your thick-headed-ness is truly tragic, crowepps. I hope that if you are ever disabled by cancer, your insurance company or state insurance policy doesn’t see fit to tell you whether you can live another six months or not because the extension of your life is “not a good use of taxpayer dollars.” I hope that if you decide that you want to live longer, they honor your choice. That’s what you’re all about, isn’t it? Or are you?

     

     

  • progo35

    Megakelly-

    I have read several of Singer’s books and articles, including Should the Baby Live, Rethinking Life and Death, Practical Ethics, and How are We to Live? I don’t need to read the stupid Q and A page on his website to know that Born is right. Moreover, that page bears out that he supports exactly what Born and I have said he supports-INFANTICIDE of disabled infants up to a certain point in time. You will also find that he has written editorials supporting healthcare rationing against those with handicaps

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html.

     

    I quote:

     

    “We can elicit people’s values on that too. One common method is to describe medical conditions to people — let’s say being a quadriplegic — and tell them that they can choose between 10 years in that condition or some smaller number of years without it. If most would prefer, say, 10 years as a quadriplegic to 4 years of nondisabled life, but would choose 6 years of nondisabled life over 10 with quadriplegia, but have difficulty deciding between 5 years of nondisabled life or 10 years with quadriplegia, then they are, in effect, assessing life with quadriplegia as half as good as nondisabled life. (These are hypothetical figures, chosen to keep the math simple, and not based on any actual surveys.) If that judgment represents a rough average across the population, we might conclude that restoring to nondisabled life two people who would otherwise be quadriplegics is equivalent in value to saving the life of one person, provided the life expectancies of all involved are similar.

    This is the basis of the quality-adjusted life-year, or QALY, a unit designed to enable us to compare the benefits achieved by different forms of health care. The QALY has been used by economists working in health care for more than 30 years to compare the cost-effectiveness of a wide variety of medical procedures and, in some countries, as part of the process of deciding which medical treatments will be paid for with public money. If a reformed U.S. health care system explicitly accepted rationing, as I have argued it should, QALYs could play a similar role in the U.S.”

     

    Also, here is an excerpt from Practical Ethics dealing with his belief that it is okay to kill disabled babies:

     

    I quote:

     

    “When the life of an infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the ‘prior existence’ and the ‘total’ version of utilitarianism entail that, if there are no ‘extrinsic’ reasons for keeping the infant alive – like the feelings of the parents – it is better that the child should be helped to die without further suffering. A more difficult problem arises – and the convergence between the two views ends – when we consider disabilities that make the child’s life prospects significantly less promising than those of a normal child, but not so bleak as to make the child’s life not worth living. Haemophilia is probably in this category. The haemophiliac lacks the element in normal blood that makes it clot and thus risks prolonged bleeding, especially internal bleeding, from the slightest injury. if allowed to continue, this bleeding leads to permanent crippling and eventually death. The bleeding is very painful and although improved treatments have eliminated the need for constant blood transfusions, haemophiliacs still have to spend a lot of time in hospital. They are unable to play most sports and live constantly on the edge of crisis. Nevertheless, haemophiliacs do not appear to spend their time wondering whether to end it all; most find life definitely worth living, despite the difficulties they face.

    Given these facts, suppose that a newborn baby is diagnosed as a haemophiliac. The parents, daunted by the prospect of bringing up a child with this condition, are not anxious for him to live. Could euthanasia be defended here? Our first reaction may well be a firm ‘no’, for the infant can be expected to have a life that is worth living, even if not quite as good as that of a normal baby. The ‘prior existence’ version of utilitarianism sup- ports this judgment. The infant exists. His life can be expected to contain a positive balance of happiness over misery. To kill him would deprive him of this positive balance of happiness. Therefore it would be wrong.

    On the ‘total’ version of utilitarianism, however, we cannot reach a decision on the basis of this information alone. The total view makes it necessary to ask whether the death of the haemophiliac infant would lead to the creation of another being who would not otherwise have existed. In other words, if the haemophiliac child is killed, will his parents have another child whom they would not have if the haemophiliac child lives? If they would, is the second child likely to have a better life than the one killed?

    Often it will be possible to answer both these questions affinnatively. A woman may plan to have two children. If one dies while she is of child-bearing age, she may conceive another in its place. Suppose a woman planning to have two children has one normal child, and then gives birth to a haemophiliac child. The burden of caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third child; but if the disabled child were to die, she would have another. It is also plausible to suppose that the prospects of a happy life are better for a normal child than for a haemophiliac.

    When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.

    The total view treats infants as replaceable, in much the same way as it treats non-self-conscious animals (as we saw in Chapter 5). Many will think that the replaceability argument cannot be applied to human infants. The direct killing of even the most hopelessly disabled infant is still officially regarded as murder; how then could the killing of infants with far less serious problems, like haernophilia, be accepted? Yet on further reflection, the implications of the replaceability argument do not seem quite so bizarre. For there are disabled members of our species whom we now deal with exactly as the argument suggests we should. These cases closely resemble the ones we have been discussing. There is only one difference, and that is a difference of timing – the timing of the discovery of the problem, and the consequent killing of the disabled being.”

     

     

    It is interesting that while Singer asserts that no infant is a person, he is only willing to support the infanticide of disabled ones. Gosh, could that be due to, say, I don’t know, prejudice????

     

  • colleen

    No person may qualify SOLELY because of age and disability, but that the key word is *solely.* If other mitigating factors, such as, say, the use of a repirator in the case of a quadrapalegic or if the disability is stemming from a disease like Cystic Fibrosis or Parkinsons  are present, than the person may kill him or herself.

    Two states, Oregon and Washington, allow assisted suicide and they allow it because the law was put to a vote and passed by referendum. The law says that a person cannot qualify unless two independant physicians certify that the individual seeking  death with dignity has 6 months or less to live.  The key words are “six months or less to live”.

    In the past I’ve provided you with links to both laws. I don’t know why you persist in making crap up and pretending that you’re defending the rights of terminally ill people who wish to have the option of a dignified and merciful death. You are not.

  • progo35

    I’ve also provided links to stories about the Netherlands where they went from legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill to legalizing it for those with physical handicaps to those with mental handicaps. I have also provided links to the words of right to die advocates saying things like the right to die should be extended beyond those with terminal illnesses to the general population. But did YOU bother to read any of THOSE links? Nope.

  • colleen

    But did YOU bother to read any of THOSE links? Nope.

    At one point you provided me with several links. I did indeed read the ones that were readable. I did not watch the ytube stuff because I’ve a slow connection. I told you this. You got angry.

    That said, why would I be interested in unsourced, unsubstantiated testimony or in the laws of the Netherlands, particularly from someone as consistently dishonest as you?.

  • catseye71352

    Oregon Medicaid DOES NOT COVER ASSISTED SUICIDE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! You people _know_ this; it has been debunked a THOUSAND times, but you NEVER let the truth get in the way of a good “talking point.”

  • progo35

    “Oregon Medicaid DOES NOT COVER ASSISTED SUICIDE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! You people _know_ this; it has been debunked a THOUSAND times, but you NEVER let the truth get in the way of a good “talking point.””

     

    You’re the liar. Oregon Medicaid absolutely DOES cover assisted suicide as a form of “comfort care.” It is FEDERAL medicaid that does not cover AS. Therefore, the state Medicaid DOES cover it, but it is covered via STATE, not federal, funds.

    I quote:

     

    Q: Will insurance cover the cost of participation in the Act?

    A: The Act does not specify who must pay for the services. Individual insurers determine whether the procedure is covered under their policies (just as they do with any other medical procedure). Oregon statute specifies that participation under the Act is not suicide, so should not affect insurance benefits by that definition. However, federal funding cannot be used for services rendered under the Act. For instance, the Oregon Medicaid program, which is paid for by federal funding, ensures that charges for services related to the Act are paid only with state funds.

     

     

    Babara Wagner’s story proves that Oregon’s public plan covers AS:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erzYKNrsx_I

     

     

     

     

     

  • colleen

    For instance, the Oregon Medicaid program, which is paid for by federal funding, ensures that charges for services related to the Act are paid only with state funds.

    Good for the state of Oregon.

  • progo35

    Incontrovertible evidence that coverage is provided for AS via STATE FUNDS, just as abortion is covered under MA’s medicaid program through state funds.

  • progo35

    My position and the disability rights community’s position on AS and euthanasia tend to be seperate from religious beliefs that we hold as individuals. I know atheists, Buddhists and Pagans in the disability community who oppose AS for the very reasons I outlined.