South Dakota Senate Passes Abortion Ban [Archive]

Kanga

02-23-2006, 11:58 AM

I was just coming here to see if this was already a thread. Here's another article if anyone's interested.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionlaw/a/sdabortionban.htm

I can not believe there is no exception for rape or incest. I just can not imagine telling dh that I was going to have to be pregnant with another man's child against my will and that he has no say in it. I would like to think that if god forbid this did happen to me, we would raise they child and dh would treat him/her like his own. But I have never been a victim of sexual assault so I can only pretend to imagine what that must be like. Regardless of my decision, I wouldn't impose the same thing on anyone else. It's just not right.

ETA - people will still try to terminate the pregnancy if they want it bad enough. I remember seeing an episode of ER once where the man was strongly against abortion and the women became pregnant. They already had children and couldn't afford anymore so she never drank water in hopes that she would miscarry.

mimieliza

02-23-2006, 12:03 PM

:( :mad:

So sad, and so scary. I can't believe this is happening.

allyray231

02-23-2006, 12:13 PM

people will still try to terminate the pregnancy if they want it bad enough. I remember seeing an episode of ER once where the man was strongly against abortion and the women became pregnant. They already had children and couldn't afford anymore so she never drank water in hopes that she would miscarry.

ITA. We are gonna see back alley abortions and young girls and woman dying because they feel like they have no choice.

villanelle75

02-23-2006, 12:34 PM

Might I suggest that in addition to our outrage, we all consider donating to PP? They are going to need every penny that can come by int he coming months and years and I for one would like to see that they have the best legal services possible.

Plus, it might make some of the desperate helplessness that I feel right now ebb just a little.

JamBray

02-23-2006, 12:53 PM

Wow...I have no words right now for this, just that it's so, so scary. :(

pocket

02-23-2006, 04:07 PM

i wonder...do you guys ever think we as a CC community should be more politically or charitably active?

villanelle75

02-23-2006, 04:20 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i wonder...do you guys ever think we as a CC community should be more politically or charitably active?

I do think that. I know I am so often overwhelmed at how to get started at being more active and that sense of being overwhelmed just turns into its own inertia and I continue doing notnearlyenough. I'm much more of a joiner when it comes to this kind of thing because i just don't know how to start, but if there was a leader that stepped up and organized something that i believed in as well... .

hockeybrat

02-23-2006, 04:32 PM

Yes.

Welcome to the Future, ladies.

Di

Shit, it isn't much of a promising future.

Thank goodness I already know the words to the Canadian national anthem. I could pass as a Canuck.

What a sad day :(

bookworm

02-23-2006, 04:41 PM

Before we all keel over (and I do share the sentiment), remember that this law will immediately be struck down. Then it will be appealed and re-appealed. And then the court will decide whether to hear it. And then it will take awhile to rule on it, and given the makeup of the court, it may be upheld.

And...then what? 10 other states enact similar bans. And then what? It's fairly easy to boycott South Dakota (no Mt. Rushmore for me, you barbarians!). What about when it's Texas? Do you want to boycott Dell? Or other major industries based there? What's the appropriate response, besides shock and horror?

Southlooper

02-23-2006, 04:43 PM

Well I just sent a rather terse e-mail to Senator Bartling. Although she may not care about my opinion (as I live in Illinois) it made me feel better.

I encourage you to do so too.

Off to write my check to Planned Parenthoond and NARAL....

camberne

02-23-2006, 06:19 PM

i wonder...do you guys ever think we as a CC community should be more politically or charitably active?I would say no, because who will decide what political or charitable issues to support or oppose. I think that this community is a wonderful place to exchange ideas and thoughts, but I think we should keep the CC community "unbiased". I think that many of us are already very involved in our own political and charitable issues, that if some decide to ban together and do something as a group within the community that would be great. This is a great forum from which to generate support for whatever issue.

prudies

02-23-2006, 06:52 PM

I would say no, because who will decide what political or charitable issues to support or oppose. I think that this community is a wonderful place to exchange ideas and thoughts, but I think we should keep the CC community "unbiased".

Well, I doubt the CC community could agree to officially support something, but that doesn't mean that unofficially those who do agree can't do something.

What can we do? We can donate money. We can write letters. I think right now it's important to support legal organizations that will be fighting this at the Supreme Court level. Because that's where it's headed next and it's going to be a hell of a fight.

camberne

02-23-2006, 07:03 PM

Well, I doubt the CC community could agree to officially support something, but that doesn't mean that unofficially those who do agree can't do something. Yeah, that's why I went on to say in the next half of my post that you quoted stated "I think that many of us are already very involved in our own political and charitable issues, that if some decide to ban together and do something as a group within the community that would be great. This is a great forum from which to generate support for whatever issue."

lawgirl4

02-23-2006, 08:04 PM

camberne - whoa! what's wrong with prudies stating a similar sentiment? I really don't think she was contradicting or challenging what you were saying, she was building on it.

*********************************

I agree, I heard this news story this morning and just shook my head. I knew that this was coming. It's pathetic, scary, and disturbing.

allyray231

02-24-2006, 01:58 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/abortion_rights_debate

S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

PIERRE, S.D. - State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it. Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's

brenda

02-25-2006, 10:52 AM

"WHY SOUTH DAKOTA WON'T LEAD TO ROE REVIEW"
Posted by Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent (06:25 pm ET, 02/24/06)

http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/02/why_scotus_wont.html

Let's hope he's right.

prudies

02-25-2006, 11:48 AM

A Supreme Court expert, appellate lawyer Tom Goldstein of Washington, D.C., offers another reason the court is unlikely to take the case. While the justices make legal decisions, they are fully aware of the political impact of their actions. Even assuming Roberts and Alito are prepared, someday, to overturn Roe, they might well think it would be perceived as blatantly political to reach out, so soon after arriving at the court, to the first frontal assault on Roe that comes their way. They might worry that such an action would be perceived, Goldstein says, as a payback to the Bush administration.

I completely agree with this. All of the Justices are obsessed with how they're perceived, except Scalia who shmoozed with Cheney right before a case concerning the Veep was to be heard by the Court.

Also, there seems to be good reason to think at least Roberts would not be so quick to overturn precedent. About Alito I'm not so sure. He seems to be more of Scalia's ilk, and I don't mean Italian.

So I wonder if this means Kennedy is the new O'Connor?

greenbunny

02-27-2006, 12:07 PM

The bill was purposefully designed to be overly strict because it is expected to be challenged. This is why there is no provision in the bill to protect those impregnated against their will.

Supporters of the ban have said an anonymous donor has pledged to provide South Dakota with $1 million to help defend the law in court.

...

"This is a new strategy by opponents of abortion rights," says Cohen. "Instead of nibbling around the edges as then attorney Sam Alito suggested in 1985, they are attempting a direct frontal assault on Roe v. Wade in the hope that by the time these cases make it to the Supreme Court. the Court's makeup will be different, more conservative and more receptive to overruling Roe outright."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/23/politics/main1339393.shtml

Bolding is mine. Any wild guesses as to the affiliations of this anonymous donor?

Another thought: if women who are raped are forced to not abort, doesn't that mean the rapist can fight them for paternity rights? Can you imagine having to drop your unwanted kid off once a week to the man who raped you?

Emilie

02-27-2006, 01:11 PM

I was thinking about this over the weekend and I wonder what the male representatives who were so quick to pass this bill and the Gov of the state would want their wife or daughter to do if they were pregnant due to rape? Would they want their wife to carry the result of an attack to full term or would they cross the border to North Dakota?

And yes, Greenbunny - the rapist would have paternal rights if they fought for it and since it always seems that some rape convictions are pathetically light, they would have the right to interact with their children once out of prison. :mad: ETA: although I would hope the courts would take that into consideration when awarding parental custody and rights.

mamahammer

02-27-2006, 01:24 PM

And yes, Greenbunny - the rapist would have paternal rights if they fought for it and since it always seems that some rape convictions are pathetically light, they would have the right to interact with their children once out of prison. ETA: although I would hope the courts would take that into consideration when awarding parental custody and rights.

I would hope that there would be changes made to the custodial statutes because of this. That there would be something in the custody laws that automatically negates the paternal "rights" of a convicted rapist in relation to children born as a result of the rape.

ysolde

02-27-2006, 01:27 PM

I would hope that there would be changes made to the custodial statutes because of this. That there would be something in the custody laws that automatically negates the paternal "rights" of a convicted rapist in relation to children born as a result of the rape.

Why? The issue in determining child custody and visitation is not the interests of the parents, but the best interests of the child, and the presumption is that it is in the best interests of the child to have a relationship with both parents, unless one of the parents has been convicted of committing a violent crime against the child. Moreover, the mother may have to pay the father/rapist child support, since a convicted felon may have a difficult time getting a job. Nice, huh?

LittleFredPunkinHead

02-27-2006, 02:28 PM

And of course, even if a conviction for rape did count against the rapist in a custody case, what about a rapist who goes unconvicted? How much would that suck to deal with?

mamahammer

02-27-2006, 02:28 PM

Well, as to why I would hope to see such restrictions - it's fairly obvious that it would be in the best interests of the child.

And there are already such laws on the books in certain states:
California
B. Child Conceived By Rape: Without exception, no person convicted of rape pursuant to Ca Penal § 261 may be granted custody or visitation with respect to a child conceived by that act of rape. [Ca Fam § 3030(b)]

wine_o_girlie

02-27-2006, 02:45 PM

This is just disgusting. I am so pissed off I can't even think straight. :mad:

I wonder what state will go next with this ban? Texas? Alabama?

curlyjr

02-27-2006, 02:56 PM

This is just terrifying, that's all I have to say.

jbenny75

02-28-2006, 06:22 AM

Unreal.:mad: :(

msnicolea

02-28-2006, 08:29 AM

More nonsense, from today's Daily Roe Blog:

On the heels of the South Dakota legislature voting to ban nearly all abortions last week, I thought to myself, gee, who or what is influencing policymakers there? Where does this ultraconservative bent come from? My search for the holy grail wasn’t exhaustive, but it was illuminating. Did you know that the national Abstinence Clearinghouse is situated in Sioux Falls, South Dakota?

Who or what is that, you ask? In part, it is a network that directs organizations focused on promoting abstinence until marriage to federal money funding same. According to its website, "The mission of the Abstinence Clearinghouse is to promote the appreciation for and practice of sexual abstinence (purity) until marriage…" http://www.abstinence.net/about/ It’s been a while since I’ve heard purity bandied about, but this group is so wild about purity, that it’s having a father-daughter "Purity Ball." The third annual ball of its kind. The night’s festivities will include a speaker on "Why I saved my first kiss for marriage." I’m thinking it would be tough to sell tickets to The Vagina Monologues to that crowd.

You can also rule out Brokeback Mountain. According to the clearinghouse, "Research shows the homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy alternative for males or females. The male and female body are not anatomically suited to accommodate sexual relations with members of the same sex. Sexual practices in the homosexual lifestyle are considered very dangerous for disease, infection, ect. This lifestyle should not be encouraged as healthy or as an equal alternative to marriage." http://www.abstinence.net/blog/index.php?postid=191

And lest you think purity only relates to the encounters you have with others, well, I’d say you should keep your hands to yourself, but not even that would do. "The focus of the marriage union is a shared intimacy between two people, a husband and a wife. The arousal response in individuals is the most easily trained response in the human body. Sexual self stimulation along with fantasy or pornography can actually train a person to bond to pictures, objects, ect., and may eventually leave the person unable to respond sexually to a real person." http://www.abstinence.net/blog/index.php?postid=190

At least they don’t say you’ll go blind.

GeekGirl

02-28-2006, 08:33 AM

At least they don’t say you’ll go blind.

Go blind? And here I thought you just grow hair on your palms...:rolleyes: :p

greenbunny

02-28-2006, 08:33 AM

Saving your first kiss for marriage? So, on the altar then, right? Yeah, that's when I'd want my first kiss to be--in front of everyone I know.

The words "father daughter Purity Ball" give me the heebie jeebies.

SingleWhiteFemale

02-28-2006, 08:39 AM

The words "father daughter Purity Ball" give me the heebie jeebies.The first thing that popped into my mind was "Joe Simpson" (virgin with the double D's father). Like we really need more of him running around. Guess I need to get out of the gossip threads :o

pocket

02-28-2006, 08:48 AM

The male and female body are not anatomically suited to accommodate sexual relations with members of the same sex. Sexual practices in the homosexual lifestyle are considered very dangerous for disease, infection, ect.

LOL

this is my favorite part! what a ridiculous thing to say!

msnicolea

02-28-2006, 08:53 AM

LOL

this is my favorite part! what a ridiculous thing to say!

Yeah--cuz heterosexuals NEVER pass STDs to each other and homsexuals NEVER have hot sex!

JamBray

02-28-2006, 10:29 AM

I’m thinking it would be tough to sell tickets to The Vagina Monologues to that crowd.

Now that would be something I'd like to see. :p

flygirl

02-28-2006, 11:12 AM

Sexual self stimulation along with fantasy or pornography...
So I have to assume that self-stimulation without fantasy or porn is perfectly acceptable. I'd like to see them make more of that distinction, but for some reason I don't think it's going to happen.

ellybelle

02-28-2006, 11:30 PM

Actually, lesbian sex (in its tamest forms) is least likely to spread STDs -- less likely than hetero-sex. So is it really a better form of sexuality?

And what if homosexual couples saved themselves for marriage?

mgrace

03-01-2006, 01:17 PM

Abortion-rights advocates threaten to boycott S.D.

RAPID CITY — The South Dakota Legislature’s passage of an abortion ban bill prompted an angry reaction from abortion-rights supporters who vowed to boycott the state’s tourism industry.

The state Department of Tourism received a dozen e-mails and a number of angry phone calls Friday from abortion-rights supporters who say they will not vacation in South Dakota.

A Madison, Wis.,-based group has formally called for a boycott of South Dakota tourism. In a news release titled “Bypass South Dakota!”, the Women’s Medical Fund urged supporters to steer clear of South Dakota.

“All kinds of families visit Mount Rushmore every year. It’s a favorite of Americans and foreign tourists. But we can do without Mount Rushmore, the Black Hills, the Badlands and the Corn Palace,” Anne Gaylor, director of the Fund, wrote. “We are encouraging all groups who care about women’s rights to urge their members to bypass South Dakota.”

Billie Jo Waara, head of the state office of tourism, said her office has been hearing from people throughout the country.

“They have commented on the fact that the state is a great destination for travel, but our current political situation doesn’t match their agenda,” Waara said.

Waara said she was unsure exactly how many phone calls the Tourism Department has received. She confirmed that the agency got 12 e-mails, a small number compared with the Tourism Office’s daily e-mail traffic.

She hasn’t heard of anyone canceling trips that were already planned for South Dakota; the callers and e-mailers are instead saying they won’t make plans to visit the state.

“Certainly, this is an important issue for South Dakota, an important issue for our country. Our state’s leadership (Legislature) is taking their position, and we’ll have to determine what impact this will have on our industry,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Rapid City Journal received seven letters to the editor on Thursday and Friday that specifically call for a tourism boycott of South Dakota.

One of the letter writers, Louise Jezierski of Okemos, Mich., wrote that she and her husband have visited the Badlands and Black Hills in the past. “We planned to take our two boys to share with them this very special place,” she wrote Friday. “But today, the government of the state of South Dakota voted to take away the civil rights of women and their families. I cannot, in good conscience, support any economy that thrives on intolerance and promotes the relegation of women to second class citizenship.”

In an interview Friday afternoon, Gaylor of the Women’s Medical Fund compared a South Dakota tourism boycott to the 1990 Idaho potato boycott, which she said was successful in turning back an abortion ban in the state.

The potato boycott never became an actual boycott. The National Organization for Women and other pro-choice groups called for a boycott of Idaho’s most famous agricultural product.

Pro-life groups countered with a drive to encourage members to increase potato consumption if the bill became law.

It isn’t clear what effect the potato boycott threat actually had. Then-Gov. Cecil Andrus vetoed the abortion bill, citing an aversion to out-of-state pressure.

Tourism is billed as South Dakota’s second-largest industry, behind agriculture. It isn’t clear whether the “Bypass South Dakota” movement has broad support. The National Organization for Women Web site posted a statement decrying the South Dakota Legislature’s vote. However, it made no specific mention Friday of a boycott.

South Dakota has seen various tourism boycotts in the past. Most recently, some motorcycle groups vowed to boycott the Sturgis motorcycle rally to protest what they believed was a light sentence for Rep. Bill Janklow’s manslaughter conviction. He served 100 days in jail for killing a motorcyclist in an auto accident.

In 2003, American Indian groups called for a South Dakota tourism boycott to protest the treatment of Indian burial grounds and sacred sites.

Neither had a significant effect on visitation.

Bill Honerkamp, head of the Black Hills, Badlands & Lakes Association, said Friday he was not aware of an abortion-rights tourism boycott of South Dakota.

“That’s the first I’ve heard of it,” he said. “We’re powerless to stop a faction from staging a boycott, but I can’t imagine it having much political leverage (on the Legislature).”
Rapid City Journal

ysolde

03-01-2006, 01:31 PM

DH and I always take a couple of vacations within the US each year. This year, we wanted to head west. Whatever we do, I say, Bypass South Dakota!

MaineBelle

03-01-2006, 03:17 PM

This bill really makes me sick. Don't the SD government have better things to do than limit women's liberties? How about the Meth problem in South Dakota, or poverty

You know its pretty bad when even President Bush doesn't agree with this bill:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-03-01T130806Z_01_N28304728_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-ABORTION-BUSH.xml&archived=False

President George W. Bush said on Tuesday said his view on abortion differs from that of a South Dakota measure that would ban the practice in all cases except when the mother's life was at stake.
...
Asked about the provisions in the state law, Bush replied, "Well, that, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother."

Also...
I wonder what state will go next with this ban? Texas? Alabama?
It appears that Mississippi is following suit.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Misssissippi_Abortion.html

msnicolea

03-01-2006, 03:24 PM

You know your ass is crazy when George W appears like a moderate next to you!

This is making me so angry. And I want to scream at those people who called us crazy, said we were overreacting and getting "hysterical" when we said we feared that there would be an attack on Roe. I'll behave myself and not call out anyone here--but I am PISSED.

littlemia

03-01-2006, 09:37 PM

It looks like Mississippi (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11621741/) is next. This is f***ing scary.

kedzieb

03-02-2006, 12:41 PM

Along with boycotting South Dakota tourism, I'll be boycotting as many of their industries as I can. What you can do?

Citibank is based there - cancel bank accounts/credit cards. Be sure to tell the customer service people WHY.

Wall Drug, Dell Computers, a lot of the country's beef producers... the list goes on. Anyone know a good place to find a list?

ysolde

03-02-2006, 12:42 PM

Time to change my bank account. Anyone know wher eChase is based?

kedzieb

03-02-2006, 12:46 PM

Time to change my bank account. Anyone know wher eChase is based?

New York

from their site:

The merger of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank One, completed in July 2004, creates a financial services leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers and businesses, financial transaction processing, asset and wealth management, and private equity. JPMorgan Chase & Co is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

This merger unites two prominent financial services companies with remarkable histories and deep roots across the United States and the world -- a legacy that reaches back more than 200 years with the founding of its earliest predecessor in 1799.

Today, our corporate headquarters are in New York City. Our U.S. retail financial services and commercial banking headquarters are in Chicago. Our major legacy institutions - J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Chemical, Manufacturers Hanover, Bank One, First Chicago, and National Bank of Detroit contributed significantly to the development of communities worldwide. Our corporate history is intertwined with innovations in finance and the globalization of the world economy.

dionysia

03-02-2006, 12:52 PM

OT: one of my company's clients is JP Morgan Chase. ;)

Di

artist

03-02-2006, 01:00 PM

This bill really makes me sick. Don't the SD government have better things to do than limit women's liberties? How about the Meth problem in South Dakota, or poverty

Ha! I think I will drop dead from shock the moment Republicans starting caring about things like poverty! (Afterall, keeping the poor poor makes the rich richer!)

artist

03-02-2006, 01:03 PM

Could we just send all the crazy Right Wingers to their own little island where they can think they're Jesus and have sex through the sheets the one or 12 times they want to procreate? (I would hope they would NOT procreate. The world does NOT need more crazies!)

msnicolea

03-02-2006, 01:39 PM

artist

03-02-2006, 01:44 PM

Let's send them all to South Dakota--two birds, one stone!

(You're missing my point though. MN is too close to SD. Could we send them all to TX instead?:) )

greenbunny

03-02-2006, 01:47 PM

The Sturgis rally is in South Dakota, and brings in a LOT of money every year. Anybody want to spread the word to their biker friends?

AirForceLove

03-02-2006, 01:56 PM

(You're missing my point though. MN is too close to SD. Could we send them all to TX instead?:) )

Hey what's wrong with TX... that's where I was born and raised. :)

I too am sicken by this. No one but me, myself, and I should be able to tell me what I can/can not do to my body. I have always wanted to to goto SD to visit. Sturgis was at the top of my list, nope not anymore.

LyLMyssChaos

03-02-2006, 02:00 PM

Let's send them all to South Dakota--two birds, one stone!

I'd happily move to South Dakota, if I knew anything about the place. In fact, I think we need to add SD to our "hope to visit" list. Perhaps next year instead of Florida we'll drive out west. I wouldn't like all the gambling, but perhaps if we got enough "crazy right wingers" living out there we can get rid of that too! :rolleyes:

artist

03-02-2006, 02:02 PM

Hey what's wrong with TX... that's where I was born and raised. :)

Sorry! I actually have some really wonderful people from TX and I have been there and it is a really beautiful state! (I just disagree with it politically. Well, yeah, I am sure there are SOME Democrats there, but I think you get what I mean.):)

kedzieb

03-02-2006, 02:13 PM

ooh, sturgis is a good one too. i think that boycotting that would be similar to boycotting tourism, but in a more specific way. do you think the bikers would be able to re-route the trip to take place in another state? i'd hate for their annual tradition to be cancelled, but maybe moved?

AirForceLove

03-02-2006, 02:21 PM

Sorry! I actually have some really wonderful people from TX and I have been there and it is a really beautiful state! (I just disagree with it politically. Well, yeah, I am sure there are SOME Democrats there, but I think you get what I mean.):)

Thank you! Texas is a beautiful state and the people are friendly. I guess that is why the call it the Friendly State. :D

Well, FWIW, I am a Rep, from TX... BUT... I have been really disappointed in Bush and I am Pro Life. Yes I did know what you mean. I have to give people a hard time when they rip on my state. :D :D :D

artist

03-02-2006, 02:24 PM

Thank you! Texas is a beautiful state and the people are friendly. I guess that is why the call it the Friendly State. :D

Well, FWIW, I am a Rep, from TX... BUT... I have been really disappointed in Bush and I am Pro Life. Yes I did know what you mean. I have to give people a hard time when they rip on my state. :D :D :D

You probably are not the only Pro-Life Republican disappointed in Bush or with this thing in SD! (I keep thinking there MUST be more people like you. Heck, there have to be with Bush's approval ratings lately.)

ETA:
Woops! Just noticed the typo. "I have actually known some really great people from TX..." is more what I meant!

flygirl

03-02-2006, 02:34 PM

(You're missing my point though. MN is too close to SD. Could we send them all to TX instead?:) )
Not as long I'm still living here. I'll let you know when I move ;). And yes, there are plenty of DEMs here. Kerry still got 1/3 of the vote :).

AirForceLove

03-02-2006, 02:35 PM

You probably are not the only Pro-Life Republican disappointed in Bush or with this thing in SD! (I keep thinking there MUST be more people like you. Heck, there have to be with Bush's approval ratings lately.)

ETA:
Woops! Just noticed the typo. "I have actually known some really great people from TX..." is more what I meant!

I have lived in MI for the last year (Blue State) and it has been very hard for me and my husband. Since living here I have more of an understanding why his approval rating is going down. We are moving next month (miliatry job) because the economy is so bad here. I need to provide for my family and it is not happening here.

thedoorchick

03-02-2006, 02:36 PM

Ha! I think I will drop dead from shock the moment Republicans starting caring about things like poverty! (Afterall, keeping the poor poor makes the rich richer!)

Kinda like I will drop dead from shock the moment Democrats start caring about things like babies' lives?

Assumptions make you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't they?

artist

03-02-2006, 02:48 PM

Kinda like I will drop dead from shock the moment Democrats start caring about things like babies' lives?

Assumptions make you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't they?

Um, hello???!!! Don't get me started! You think I hate babies now or something? Well missy, why don't you tell your peeps to help SUPPORT those women who HAVE the babies? Fund education how 'bout! Stop killing Iraqi babies! My lord. I may have to leave the thread for awhile.

ETA:
Add Head Start to that list!

villanelle75

03-02-2006, 02:52 PM

Artist, I think her point was that your post failed in any way to acknowledge that any republicans care about poverty, and for those of who do, it's a bit of an offensive generalization.

artist

03-02-2006, 02:54 PM

Okay.

Enlighten me then. How do the Republicans care about poor people? Did I miss something? (I know LMC had a thread sort of about that awhile back.) I really have never noticed any elected Republican officials to care about poverty.

ETA:
And back to my earlier post about children and babies...No Child Left Behind only counts as a valid program when it's fully funded...er the schools are funded enough to be able to accomplish that. It's great in theory, but it needs funding.

AirForceLove

03-02-2006, 03:00 PM

Enlighten me then. How do the Republicans care about poor people? Did I miss something? (I know LMC had a thread sort of about that awhile back.) I really have never noticed any elected Republican officials to care about poverty.

The Republican Party (the elected officials) is what you are refering too? Not the general public...

Like I posted above, I am Republican, but since living in MI, I can fully understand the poverty problem and it is big here in MI. Everytime I turn on the TV buisnesses are going bankrupt or people are getting laid off due to downsizing. What is that, the CEO giving themselves a raise.

For the first time in my life, I was actually afraid of going homeless this past year. When you have 2 young children that is a scary thought. Thankfully, me and DH both have wonderful families that would make sure that, that didn't happen.

thedoorchick

03-02-2006, 03:06 PM

Artist, I think her point was that your post failed in any way to acknowledge that any republicans care about poverty, and for those of who do, it's a bit of an offensive generalization.

That was precisely my point. Thank you. :)

artist

03-02-2006, 03:10 PM

The Republican Party (the elected officials) is what you are refering too? Not the general public...

Like I posted above, I am Republican, but since living in MI, I can fully understand the poverty problem and it is big here in MI. Everytime I turn on the TV buisnesses are going bankrupt or people are getting laid off due to downsizing. What is that, the CEO giving themselves a raise.

For the first time in my life, I was actually afraid of going homeless this past year. When you have 2 young children that is a scary thought. Thankfully, me and DH both have wonderful families that would make sure that, that didn't happen.

Well, the elected officials of course are the decision makers. I haven't really noticed any Republican elected officials doing anything about poverty. No legislation, funding of important programs, that sort of thing.

I am glad to hear you are going to be okay! (And that you have great families!) The thing is, not all people are lucky enough to have that support. And really, a lot of us are closer to being homeless than we realize.

I also like the idea of schools and early childhood education programs being well funded, not just in the rich neighborhoods, but everywhere.

So, I have not seen much evidence of Republican elected officials caring about poverty. Or a lot of things that I feel are pretty important. Though, if someone saw things the same way I do, that poverty or education are really important issues for example...I wouldn't understand why they would vote for someone like Bush.

I guess if someone feels super strongly about abortion, maybe they would vote for Bush? I have a couple of relatives who are super against abortion but disagreed with Bush on everything else, but voted for him only because of the abortion thing.

Asha

03-02-2006, 03:13 PM

LyLMyssChaos

03-02-2006, 03:14 PM

So, I have not seen much evidence of Republican elected officials caring about poverty. Or a lot of things that I feel are pretty important. Though, if someone saw things the same way I do, that poverty or education are really important issues for example...I wouldn't understand why they would vote for someone like Bush.

I guess if someone feels super strongly about abortion, maybe they would vote for Bush? I have a couple of relatives who are super against abortion but disagreed with Bush on everything else, but voted for him only because of the abortion thing.

Honestly, when I vote, I find myself voting for the lesser of "two evils." It is extremely uncommon for me to find a candidate that I agree with on all issues. It is often even rare to find a candidate that I can find myself agreeing with on most issues (especially here in Michigan.) So I just evaluate each individual candidate on all of the issues and try to figure out which one fits the best with what I want to see achieved and/or what I believe.

artist

03-02-2006, 03:15 PM

So, does anyone actually think for example that Bush cares about poor people?

I guess we could get back to the original topic, but I really am curious if anyone here actually has examples of Bush or any elected Republicans doing anything about poverty.

Or, doing anything for children besides insisting that women must bring all pregnancies to full term. (And BESIDES "No Child Left Behind", which not only is so poorly funded, but seriously, ask any teacher their opinion on that one and ask them how much their students are "learning" from all that testing that takes away from classroom time.)

artist

03-02-2006, 03:17 PM

Honestly, when I vote, I find myself voting for the lesser of "two evils." It is extremely uncommon for me to find a candidate that I agree with on all issues. It is often even rare to find a candidate that I can find myself agreeing with on most issues (especially here in Michigan.) So I just evaluate each individual candidate on all of the issues and try to figure out which one fits the best with what I want to see achieved and/or what I believe.

I hear ya on that! That's why it would be so great for example if there were more than 2 parties. (2 or more with a realistic chance that is!) I still wouldn't ever completely agree with any candidate though.

Asha

03-02-2006, 03:20 PM

(And BESIDES "No Child Left Behind", which not only is so poorly funded,

it's not funded. it takes away federal funds that were already given in the first place to poorly performing schools that choose not to use programs that are statistically validated. btw, there are only about two programs that are statistically validated and have results that could be generalizable to most populations of people in the u.s.a.

oh, i have no idea what bush thinks about poor people. also, i think a lot of poeple who are against helping the poor with welfare are just angry that there tax dollars are going to other people besides themselves. i am against welfare for most people bc i think it has paralyzed generations of people into not fulfilling their true potentials in life.

artist

03-02-2006, 03:20 PM

i don't know if you could exactly call it not caring about poor people. some people actually think it a diservice to poor people to provide them with welfare bc it doesn't encourage them to try to lift themselves out of their situation.

Besides even welfare though. Actually, nowadays it's pretty hard to even GET Welfare and nobody gets to stay on it that long.

Can you think of any way though that elected Republicans are caring for the poor? (Putting money in the offering plate at their church on their own time doesn't count! I'm talking about public policy here!:) )

Asha

03-02-2006, 03:22 PM

Besides even welfare though. Actually, nowadays it's pretty hard to even GET Welfare and nobody gets to stay on it that long.

not true here. it's hard to get on it if you hold any sort of job at all. it's easy to get on it if you don't work at all. i hate that bc the people who really suffer are those who are working minimum wage, tax paying jobs.

LyLMyssChaos

03-02-2006, 03:23 PM

I guess we could get back to the original topic, but I really am curious if anyone here actually has examples of Bush or any elected Republicans doing anything about poverty.

Well, this isn't Bush, but my very favorite Republican, Orrin Hatch has done quite a bit for the poor and children.
Hatch: Low Income Seniors Getting Lost in Medicare Shuffle (http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=1539)
Feed America Thursday Resolution (http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=SponsoredBills.Detail&SponsoredBillID=142)
Child Protection and Home Safety Act (http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=SponsoredBills.Detail&SponsoredBillID=146)
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act (http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_id=238)

artist

03-02-2006, 03:25 PM

not true here.

I wonder why that is.

I was also going to bring up for example liveable wages. If people had liveable wages, it might keep a lot of people from having to get public assistance. What if places like WalMart for example paid their employees fairly, let them Unionize? Paid them their overtime? ACTUALLY sold American made products? Didn't take over whole entire communities and then impoverish them to the point of needing to be on Welfare?

Asha

03-02-2006, 03:26 PM

ah, artist, i think my edited post cross posted with your's.

Asha

03-02-2006, 03:26 PM

you think bush has his resume posted on monster.com so we could see what work he has done for the poor??!! ;)

LyLMyssChaos

03-02-2006, 03:27 PM

I wonder why that is.

I was also going to bring up for example liveable wages. If people had liveable wages, it might keep a lot of people from having to get public assistance. What if places like WalMart for example paid their employees fairly, let them Unionize? Paid them their overtime? ACTUALLY sold American made products? Didn't take over whole entire communities and then impoverish them to the point of needing to be on Welfare?

Ya know? When I worked at Wallyworld, I was paid more than any other place in town by $3 or $4 an hour. I was fully paid for my overtime and I got awesome benefits (stock, medical, 401k, etc.) I really enjoyed working at Wal-mart, it was the customers that I couldn't stand.

villanelle75

03-02-2006, 03:31 PM

I think the big probelm is that fo rmany of us, the Republican elected officals don't represent us. But you didn't say that republicna officals, by and large, dont' care bout the poor; you bascially said that all republicans don't care about them/ I am a republican. I care about the poor. I support (both with my money and my vote) many programs for the poor. I feel horribly embarrased by W. He does not represent my desires or values. I voted for Kerry. But I am still a republican, and one who actively cares about poverty and related issues and to suggest that that is not possibel is somehwat offensive to me.

Your disgust (which I think is well-founded) of most current Republican officals should't lead you to assuem that anyone associated with the party shares their values, supports their policies, or shares their apathy towards the poor.Though I am a republican, I am not George W. Bush.

Are you seriously unable to acknowledge that some republicans are concerned with poverty and its many effects? Even a few?

artist

03-02-2006, 03:34 PM

LMC-

Thanks for posting a couple of examples. However, this one:

Feed America Thursday Resolution

Date Introduced: 11/15/05

Bill Number: S.Res.314

Description: The resolution encourages Americans to sacrifice two meals on Nov. 17 and donate the money they would have used for food to a charity or religious organization of their choice. The charities and churches, in turn, are encouraged to feed the hungry with the funds received.

The United States Department of Agriculture has reported that 33 million Americans, 13 million of whom are children, live in homes that do not have an adequate supply of food. The contributions this resolution encourages will serve the needs of those who suffer from hunger in our nation.

is nice and all, but it isn't really public policy in my opinion. It's sweet to suggest that people donate to charities, but I'd really like my tax dollars to go that sort of cause too.

The gun safe thing was interesting. (The tax credit for a gun safe that is.) Though, again, I'd be happier for example if it were a law like, "Gun owners, especially those with children, need to store their guns unloaded and locked in a safe."

Asha

03-02-2006, 03:38 PM

asking people to donate their money to charities wouldn't help. there are many people who don't hold that same value system and don't really believe in giving to charities.

Weddings by

03-02-2006, 03:42 PM

...any elected Republicans doing anything...BESIDES "No Child Left Behind"...

Because we all forget who supports what, we tend to remember the things done by those we opposed. So...I looked up "No Child Left Behind" and found this:

"The law, supported overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans alike..."

I just thought that might be of interest. Maybe not. :)

artist

03-02-2006, 03:43 PM

Your disgust (which I think is well-founded) of most current Republican officals should't lead you to assuem that anyone associated with the party shares their values, supports their policies, or shares their apathy towards the poor.Though I am a republican, I am not George W. Bush.

Thank goodness you are not W.!:)

And I do realize you for example, though still a Republican, did vote for Kerry. You voted for the guy you agreed with more on more issues. I am sure he wasn't exactly the most ideal candidate for you personally, but I am guessing you disliked Bush more or something like that.

But I do wonder then, why did any of the other Republicans who feel the way you do still vote for Bush then? (Are you more like one of those "old school" type Republicans, who seems a bit more Libertarian that the neo-con Bush style Republican? I sure miss the old school type!)

Are you seriously unable to acknowledge that some republicans are concerned with poverty and its many effects? Even a few?

Sure, I am sure some are. But I don't believe that the elected Republicans are doing anything about it.

I could actually argue that I even wish Dems would do MORE to address the issue. For example, why is the poverty level still at the same level it was in the 1960s? Surely Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton could have made the poverty levels more realistically reflect current times. But I am guessing they didn't for fear of the Republicans turning it around with, "Look! Under the Clinton years the poverty rates skyrocketed!" when it reality it would have been, "Under the Clinton years it looked like poverty rates skyrocketed, but that is only because he changed the poverty level."

See, so I don't 100% support those on MY side either.

artist

03-02-2006, 03:44 PM

Because we all forget who supports what, we tend to remember the things done by those we opposed. So...I looked up "No Child Left Behind" and found this:

"The law, supported overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans alike..."

I just thought that might be of interest. Maybe not. :)

Right. Like I said, it's nice in theory, but it needs to be paid for as do the schools. It's nice idea though.

Weddings by

03-02-2006, 03:48 PM

Kristin--because I forgot to mention it, I want to let you know that I wasn't directing my post at you or anybody. I was just curious about it because I didn't remember when it came about, so I looked it up. :)

Asha

03-02-2006, 03:57 PM

also, these test scores that they use to measure a school's success are bologne in my opinion. for one, they don't acutally prove that the school caused the educational success or failure bc those tests don't measure progress of student's academic growth. in addition for those tests not proving any instructional effects on students, there is a weak relationship between students test scores and instruction. a quote from my research methods book, "scores on standardized acheivement tests tend to correlate highly with socioeconmic status but minimally with any indicators of the instruction that students have received."

pocket

03-02-2006, 04:19 PM

if people care about poverty, why support the political party that has been all about moving resources from the needy to the wealthy since the 1980's? in the latter half of the 20th century, republicans have been the party of the rich worshipping at the supply side altar as everyone in this country gets poorer and poorer and all they care about is making it easier for rich people. i know the rationale - rising tide lifts all boats, trickle down economics, welfare is cruel because it saps people's will to work, raising the minimum wage is wrong because it will lower employment and investment, the rich deserve the tax breaks because they work so hard etc etc ec. it's all lip service. You can't look at what politicians say. you have to look at what they do. republicans care more about what happens to corporations than they do about what happens to you and me.

i don't get this idea that the republican elected officals don't represent the views of the people they represent. my elected officials represent my viewpoint very well. i like George Miller, and Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer. and I love Gavin Newsom, and my state reps too. Feinstein needs to go.

villanelle75

03-02-2006, 04:21 PM

(Are you more like one of those "old school" type Republicans, who seems a bit more Libertarian that the neo-con Bush style Republican? I sure miss the old school type!)

Yup. That's me, as far as I know, i coined the term "paleo-con" on WC to describe my political affiliation and I'd say that's about right, though I think that even for an "old school" republican, I'm a bit more socially liberal than the standard.

Hell, to be honest, I'm not even sure I really am a republican. I get as amped up about things like choice, marriage and adoption rights to all, and things of that ilk as most of the liberals I know, but something about the overall mindset of the old repbulicans feels liek ti sutis me better than the Democratic party. But maybe I'm deluding myself. Am I really a closet Dem?

greenbunny

03-02-2006, 05:18 PM

No Child Left Behind passed with flying colors because it paid lip service to better education and improving kids' lives. It was full of buzzwords that made people all warm and fuzzy inside.

But the reality is that not only are the mandates not being financially supported, but they aren't even realistic to begin with. DH has three classes of 30+ students who cannot speak a word of English, and their test scores are held to the same expectations as native speakers. The schools are losing money because they can't teach, and they can't teach because they don't have enough money. DH and I put money aside from our salaries so he can buy paper to run off tests and assignments, overhead plastic, chalk, etc.

People seem to think that doing things like having Spanish-speaking aides in the rooms will bypass these issues. But he has not only students who speak different dialects of Spanish, but also students from different parts of Africa and Asia--some who only know their tribal language, and there is no one in this state who can understand them. Even enrolling these kids took long distance calls to college professors who could help translate. It's ridiculous that these kids are being counted in language skills exams that dictate funding. It also supposedly reflects on his teaching skills that he can't get these kids to pass tests. He can't even teach evolution curricula to half of his classes, because the kids plug up their ears and shout "Diablo, diablo" over and over.

Ask any teacher, and they will tell you it's really "No Teacher Left Standing".

/teacher's wife, daughter, and DIL soapbox

Annette

03-02-2006, 05:58 PM

artist

03-03-2006, 09:55 AM

Re: No child left behind... My mother echos your comments, Greenbunny. She's a special ed teacher and she even says that her students are held to the same standards as the regular ed students. Her kids are in 6th grade and are learning at a 2nd-3rd grade level. There's no way they could pass the 6th grade tests.

Yes. Haven't some schools lost a lot of funding because they used the test scores from special ed. students, the scores were obviously low, and then the schools lost funding? I have heard that.

artist

03-03-2006, 09:57 AM

Yup. That's me, as far as I know, i coined the term "paleo-con" on WC to describe my political affiliation and I'd say that's about right, though I think that even for an "old school" republican, I'm a bit more socially liberal than the standard.

Hell, to be honest, I'm not even sure I really am a republican. I get as amped up about things like choice, marriage and adoption rights to all, and things of that ilk as most of the liberals I know, but something about the overall mindset of the old repbulicans feels liek ti sutis me better than the Democratic party. But maybe I'm deluding myself. Am I really a closet Dem?

I love it! ("Paleo-Con" that is!) Are you a closet Dem? I dunno! You sound kinda like it, but I guess that would be for you to discover.

Asha

03-03-2006, 10:33 AM

Yes. Haven't some schools lost a lot of funding because they used the test scores from special ed. students, the scores were obviously low, and then the schools lost funding? I have heard that.

yes, in a lot of affluent school districts they somehow get a lot of the special ed kids exempt from mandated testing, so their test scores get inflated. i am not talking about mentally retarded kids. i am talking about kids with slight learning disabilities.

basically kids in schools in lower income neighbords have to be severely mentally retarded to be exempt from testing. for the most part, the average kid (in terms of acheivement level) in those neighborhoods is about equal to the special ed kid with slight learning disabilities in the affluent neighborhoods who somehow get exempt from testing.

Asha

03-03-2006, 10:36 AM

oh yes, artist, as i said before, "no child left behind" doesn't give extra funding. it takes funding away.

jnettie

03-03-2006, 03:29 PM

I'm gonna echo that statement about special ed kids and No Child Left Behind. DH's Uncle D works for the NYC Dept. of Ed for the Special Ed schools and the are having an enormous problem with NCLB. The whole system, as a matter of fact, is, since, aside from the specialized schools like Bronx Science or the Perfroming Arts HS, the rest of the system is filled with the poor kids in the city. They have so many other problems in their lives that education is usually not on top of their list. Schools already don't have enough $ to buy books for every student, how in the heck are they supposed to pass the tests? Then, when the school is labled as "failing" where exactly are they supposed to transfer to? The schools are overcrowded as it is!

(Wow, have we got off track!)

Anyhow, it just seems like the Republican party doesn't care about the needs of the people as much as the needs of their funders.

Asha

03-03-2006, 03:54 PM

i can confirm what jnettie says as i used to teach for the nyc dep't of ed like her uncle. our school actually was a magnet for all the kids who left their schools, and it was horrible bc we couldn't turn them away, and some classes were up to 35 students. i taught first grade, and i had 30 students, 7 of whom were special ed students, and i had no assistant teacher to help me out. it was awful. i was tearing my hair out that year.

artist

03-03-2006, 04:46 PM

jnettie

03-03-2006, 04:51 PM

The funny thing is, eveybody always points to NYC as the example of a bad school system, when acutally, it wasn't before Bloomberg changed everything and NCLB wreaked havok on it. It had it's problems, but considering how many students are in it, it was run pretty well. NCLB actually made the bad parts worse.

allyray231

03-06-2006, 12:24 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

neenbean

03-06-2006, 05:29 PM

Thanks allyray231! I was beginning to think I switched to a different thread by accident! :confused:

I thought this was a discussion thread titled "South Dakota Senate Passes Abortion Ban"?!

jnettie

03-06-2006, 05:37 PM

Thanks allyray231! I was beginning to think I switched to a different thread by accident! :confused:

I thought this was a discussion thread titled "South Dakota Senate Passes Abortion Ban"?!
He he he... yeah, we got a little off track! Nothing like a CC tangent!

bookworm

03-06-2006, 05:54 PM

There was speculation on the news tonight that the SJC will refuse to hear this case (the lower court has to strike it down due to SJC precedent, and w/out a higher level hearing, that ruling will stand).

ejs

03-06-2006, 10:33 PM

From an article on time.com: "South Dakota may be leading the way, but legislators in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri, West Virginia, and Oklahoma have introduced similar bills."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1170368,00.html?cnn=yes

GeekGirl

03-06-2006, 11:03 PM

I feel sick to my stomach over this.

The fact that somewhere in this country a woman can be raped, and forced to carry her rapist's child to term is sickening.

When will the revolt of the silent majority finally happen? When will enough of our rights be stripped by this administration? When will the people finally put a stop to this?

Ugh. :mad:

ejs

03-07-2006, 12:09 AM

First, you know that this will more than likely be overturned, right? The odds of this sticking are very, very slim.

There was an interesting thing in the Time article I posted. If a woman in SD is raped, she can go to the ER soon after and ask for emergency contraception. So the state seems to feel that if a woman isn't positive that she is pregnant, she can take precautions. Ridiculous.

Sadly, many women are too traumatized after rape to get help. Also, ERs in the state are required to tell women about the emergency contraception, but they aren't required to carry or dispense it. How little sense does that make?

Finally, please note that this act goes farther than even the President does. He is not against abortion in the case of rape and incest.

If anyone lives in any of those states I mentioned in my last post, write your legislators and let them know how you feel about this issue. My opinion is we can't let a bunch of men decide what we do with our bodies.

singerwife

03-07-2006, 06:07 AM

I am 100% pro-choice, and here is my latest issue with this law. It's a logic thing.

If the premise is that abortion is not ok, except when the life of the mother is at stake...then the lawmakers are already 1)stating that the right of a mother's life supercedes that of the fetus, and 2)stating that abortion is ok in some circumstances.

So the logic is 100% circular. I don't understand how people don't see that.

The question then becomes who has the right to determine the circumstances surrounding an abortion, which imho, is the woman having one and her doctor.

GeekGirl

03-07-2006, 08:49 AM

I certainly hope that this won't stick...but I've been disappointed by this administration so many times, I'm sorry to say I wouldn't be surprised if it did. :(

off2skl

03-07-2006, 09:21 AM

We've just taken a step back 30 years. I just don't even know what to say; I am so appalled.

ysolde

03-07-2006, 09:42 AM

Will the nightmares vested upon us never cease???

msnicolea

03-07-2006, 09:48 AM

Will the nightmares vested upon us never cease???

Perhaps--on Inauguration Day, 2009

lawyergirl25

03-07-2006, 10:11 AM

Perhaps--on Inauguration Day, 2009
Saw a cute shirt this weekend in DC with this logo:

http://static.flickr.com/48/109273561_0f87ccea8b.jpg?v=0

LittleFredPunkinHead

03-07-2006, 10:47 AM

ysolde

03-07-2006, 10:54 AM

I was reading the internets today ;) and saw that this question is going around:

That is a question I have always wondered about. How would the strict pro-lifers, the ones who believe that a fertilized egg is an unimplanted child (or, as my friends joke, an unimplanted, pre-born zookeeper/garbage collector/lawyer/ veterinarian/department store santa/ Laker Girl :rolleyes: ) answer that dilemma? Clearly, the best thing to do would be to save the petri dish, and let the two-year old burn, if they are true to their beliefs that there is no difference between a blastula and a two year old, and they have the chance to save five "babies" v. one.

batgirl

03-08-2006, 09:02 AM

I was reading the internets today ;) and saw that this question is going around:
If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?

I saw this too. The funny thing is that Mike Stark, who runs a blog (callingallwingnuts.com) encouraging liberals to torment right-wing talk radio hosts, called anti-choice radio host Andrew Wilkow from WABC.

Here's what Wilkow said in response to Stark's question (from the above blog):

"You can put anybody in a stupid, 'Catch-22' situation," he sputtered. "What if I can grab all the petri dishes and the kid and make everybody happy? You want to know why this is idiotic? Because you're the type of person that would burn a cop at the stake in a shoot-or-not-shoot situation where they have one Mississippi to make a decision, and you want me to tell you what I'd do in a burning building situation?"

When Stark suggested that Wilkow, like anyone else, would rescue the 2-year-old, Wilkow exploded. "You don't know what I would do. You don't know a clue about what I'd do ... Shut up for a second ... Shut your mouth for a second, OK? This is what's bothering you. You can't storm in and tell me what I'd do and then tell me what you know that I would do and then tell me who I am. You don't know me. You can't tell me how to think ... Because you don't know. Don't tell me what I would do and what I wouldn't do based on your preconceived notions of stereotypical conservatives."

After he hung up on Stark, Wilkow said he'd been victimized by a "preconceived, trick-question scenario."

flygirl

03-08-2006, 09:08 AM

That's hillarious :). "Preconceived, trick-question scenario." Victimization? Please.

batgirl

03-08-2006, 09:17 AM

The fact that somewhere in this country a woman can be raped, and forced to carry her rapist's child to term is sickening.

Not true not true!

Apparently S. Dakota's state Sen. Bill Napoli (R) was asked on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" if he could conceive of a scenario in which the abortion exception might be invoked.

His response: "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged," he said. "The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

So apparently a sodomized virgin may be able to get an abortion in S. Dakota if she is religous, saving her virginity for her husband, and sodomized "as bad as you can possibly make it..."

Course if your not a virgin, not religious (this probably means not "christian"), etc, well then, your shit out of luck I guess...

allyray231

03-08-2006, 09:18 AM

batgirl reading that made me physcially ill

villanelle75

03-08-2006, 09:32 AM

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged," he said. "The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married.

When the loose, slutty girls get raped, though, well, that clearly won't be traumatizing form them on the same level. Right? They are probably damned to hell anyway, so it doesnt' even really matter. The poor religious girl would be upset enough about her rape this it might be life-threatening but since a non-virgin was already dirty, she would walk away unscathed if she carries her rapist's baby to term. Got it. It all makes sense now.

ysolde

03-08-2006, 09:36 AM

When the loose, slutty girls get raped, though, well, that clearly won't be traumatizing form them on the same level. Right? They are probably damned to hell anyway, so it doesnt' even really matter. The poor religious girl would be upset enough about her rape this it might be life-threatening but since a non-virgin was already dirty, she would walk away unscathed if she carries her rapist's baby to term. Got it. It all makes sense now.

I really am beginning to question whether some of the extreme RTLers live in the real world. Grrr. :mad:

msnicolea

03-08-2006, 09:45 AM

I know--they always talk about how "out of touch" liberals are--give me a #$%#^#^#@ break.

jnettie

03-08-2006, 10:16 AM

Is any of that crap still admisable in SD courts! That is the most sickening thing I've heard!

Gee, what if she's a virgin wearing a short skirt? Sure, she's a virgin, but she "asking for it." :mad:

chrisinluv

03-08-2006, 10:18 AM

"...I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Wow, he's acting like he thought of that concept all by himself,when others have been telling people like him that for years.

SingleWhiteFemale

03-08-2006, 10:19 AM

Wasn't that the ruling the other week in the Italian court? The only rape vistims that matter are virgins?

Sarah

03-08-2006, 10:29 AM

That is pretty nuts.

jnettie

03-08-2006, 10:35 AM

SingleWhiteFemale - yes. There was a ruling in Italy where the stepfather of a 14 year old girl was given a lighter sentence for forcing his SD to perform oral sex on him because she wasn't a virgin. :eek: It's pretty sickening.

In this country, AFAIK, that sort of this is supposed to be inadmissable. I just did some scanning of the SD laws on the such. It seems to indicate rape is when sexual contact is not consented or the person is unable to consent. The only execption was if the person accused of rape is a spouse. :rolleyes: Apparently you can't be raped by your husband in SD.

SD Sexual Assult laws (http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-22)

Rape Defined (http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-22-1)

Sexual contact without consent with person capable of consenting (http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-22-7.4)

pocket

03-08-2006, 11:56 AM

The only execption was if the person accused of rape is a spouse. :rolleyes: Apparently you can't be raped by your husband in SD.

that is so F'ed up. i can't understand why people continue to insist that the religious right is not anti-woman.

LyLMyssChaos

03-08-2006, 12:10 PM

that is so F'ed up. i can't understand why people continue to insist that the religious right is not anti-woman.

Maybe it's because we aren't "anti-woman." I really wish that those generalizations would stop getting thrown around. I really don't feel that they are warranted.

katmg

03-08-2006, 12:30 PM

Wasn't that the ruling the other week in the Italian court? The only rape vistims that matter are virgins?

Wow! I didn't know that. I remember a few years ago there was a big push in their parliament(?) from the women to change the law that said that you couldn't be raped while wearing jeans. The thought was that, jeans are so hard to get into that you would have to help someone take them off of you. :rolleyes: I remember all the women wore jeans to parliament(?) one day to protest. I think the law was changed, but I didn't know they still had other delineations on what do/does not constitute rape.

BTW, that state Senator's comments make me physically ill. So if his (hypothetical) married daughter was raped by someone, it would be okay for her to carry the baby?? Since she's married it wouldn't be as traumatic?? :rolleyes:

pocket

03-08-2006, 12:33 PM

I really wish that those generalizations would stop getting thrown around. I really don't feel that they are warranted.

Well how else do you interpret a law like that? And what is happening in SD? Being pro-woman, IMO, is being pro-independece and pro-equality. A law that spousal rape is not rape is anti-woman. and the religious right are the people who are opposed to changing those laws....so.....

i think the religous right has a collection of positions that taken together are anti-woman. You have to look at what people DO not what they SAY.

pocketmom had a bumpersticker that said - Bush, get out of mine!

msnicolea

03-08-2006, 12:41 PM

Go on pocketmom!

LyLMyssChaos

03-08-2006, 12:45 PM

Well how else do you interpret a law like that? <snip> A law that spousal rape is not rape is anti-woman.

I interpret a law like that as flat out wrong. Any case in which a person (either man or woman) has sexual acts forced upon them is rape. And it is not fair for the actions of a few to classify a whole group. That would be like me saying that left-wingers are whackos that are severely lacking in morals, or something equally offensive. It really isn't right, now is it?

maxandmolly

03-08-2006, 12:48 PM

Maybe it's because we aren't "anti-woman." I really wish that those generalizations would stop getting thrown around. I really don't feel that they are warranted.
LMC, I don't get it. How can a law that says that spousal rape is not rape, not be anti-woman? Explain that to me. In your very own words, tell me exactly how standing up, staring straight in the face of a woman who has just been forced to perform sexual acts on a man, who just so happened to have been her husband, and telling her she hasn't been raped, is not anti-woman. PLEASE. I'd love to hear it.

maxandmolly

03-08-2006, 12:50 PM

pocketmom had a bumpersticker that said - Bush, get out of mine!
I bet pocketmom was the neighborhood cool mom all the kids wanted to hang out with.
Also, can she tell me where I can get one of those bumperstickers?

LyLMyssChaos

03-08-2006, 12:55 PM

LMC, I don't get it. How can a law that says that spousal rape is not rape, not be anti-woman? Explain that to me. In your very own words, tell me exactly how standing up, staring straight in the face of a woman who has just been forced to perform sexual acts on a man, who just so happened to have been her husband, and telling her she hasn't been raped, is not anti-woman. PLEASE. I'd love to hear it.

The law is anti-victim (and I use that term because I believe that men can be raped as well as women, so all laws regarding rape should be accountable to both sexes.) That does not mean that a whole political party is anti-woman. Even if the law was only anti-woman, how is it that a whole political party gets blamed for that law in one state? I know that in my state that is considered criminal sexual assault in the 4th degree to rape your spouse, and most certainly there are right-wing lawmakers here just as there are in South Dakota.

edited for typos

pocket

03-08-2006, 12:57 PM

From the Focus on the Family website:

U.N. Women's Conference Causes Concern

from staff reports

Family advocates worry that liberal ideas will dominate discussion. The United States is just one nation concerned about this week's United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and how it will seek to achieve its goals of enhancing the participation of women in government.

Of chief concern are quotas some countries have adopted for women in government, which Focus on the Family United Nations representative Thomas Jacobson called a misguided, unsustainable and harmful policy.

"No nation has been able to achieve parity of women in leadership and the workforce without government mandates," he said, "because such a policy is contrary to nature, the natural family and the true desires and passions of most women."

Australia has reported modest success with its voluntary measures to bring women into leadership.
"Governments that have tried to implement parity voluntarily," he said, "have found most women uncooperative because their hearts are with their families."

Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, told Family News in Focus the commission will soon pressure the U.S. to ratify the Convention on Eliminating Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
She called it "a terrible treaty, one which would give a U.N. monitoring committee the ability to supervise our laws, our policies and even our textbooks."

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039739.cfm

More on CEDAW

"CEDAW is just about the most dangerous treaty that the U.S. government has ever considered ratifying, because it calls for the absolute leveling of any kind of distinction between men and women, at every level of society, including in the home," said Austin Ruse, head of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, which monitors the United Nations.

For example, Article 5 of CEDAW mandates that nations agreeing to the document "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of … stereotyped roles for men and women."
Thomas Jacobson, United Nations manager for Focus on the Family, also took issue with the treaty's philosophical underpinnings.

"CEDAW seeks to redefine 'equal rights' to mean an unnatural and absolute equality between men and women in all areas: marriage, work, public affairs, government," Jacobson said. "CEDAW rejects the true basis of equality: that men and women are equally created in the image of God."

As bad as the treaty is, Ruse added that the 23-member panel it created to monitor implementation of CEDAW has taken the issue "exponentially into dark, dark territory." Here are just a few examples of nations that have been criticized by the panel in recent years:

• Belarus, 2000: for "the continuing reintroduction of such symbols as ... Mother's Day";
• China, 1999: for its laws outlawing prostitution; the committee called for "the decriminalization of prostitution";
• Kyrgyzstan, 1999: for its laws against lesbianism; the committee ordered that "lesbianism be reconceptualized as a sexual orientation and that penalties for its practice be abolished";
• Ireland, 1999: for its "stereotyped view of the role of women in the home and as mothers"; and
• Slovenia, 1997: for having "less than 30 percent of children under three years of age ... in formal day care."
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0021017.cfm

BTB

03-08-2006, 01:03 PM

That is a question I have always wondered about. How would the strict pro-lifers, the ones who believe that a fertilized egg is an unimplanted child (or, as my friends joke, an unimplanted, pre-born zookeeper/garbage collector/lawyer/ veterinarian/department store santa/ Laker Girl ) answer that dilemma? Clearly, the best thing to do would be to save the petri dish, and let the two-year old burn, if they are true to their beliefs that there is no difference between a blastula and a two year old, and they have the chance to save five "babies" v. one.

I'll bite. :D The situation is a bit contrived, but victimization? That guy needs to switch to decaf. I hate to bite and run, but I've got to add a disclaimer - DH, DD and I are heading out of town tonight for a whirlwind job interview/daycare tour/househunt to the city to which we're moving, so, I may not be around much between tonight and Sunday.

I'm pro-life, but I'm not pro-torching-2-year-olds. I personally have never said there's no difference at all between a blastocyst and a two-year-old; someone who has may feel more "stuck", assuming they agree with the utilitarian view that maximizing numbers is the most important goal. What I've said is that pre-born life is, from an exclusively scientific perspective, alive, human, and distinct from its mother. Given that, I don't think it is okay to destroy it after making what I think was a choice to create it.*

I would totally save the two-year-old, absolutely. But I don't think that makes one speck of difference as to whether or not abortion is "okay" or whether it should be legal. There are two important components of the above scenario that make it not at all analogous.

First, in the fire, the person saving the toddler or the petri dish is a bystander. An external force is acting - the fire - and the bystander has the opportunity to possibly save life by virtue of being in the right place at the right time. The bystander is not legally required to act; s/he could run from the building, protecting him/herself, and not be responsible for the death of anyone. The law is pretty clear that you are not required to act to save another when you come upon a situation in which you could do so but in which you'd put yourself at risk - for example, if I'm driving later and see a burning car with someone inside, it would be good for me to try to help, but I'm not legally obligated to do so. This doesn't for a second mean I could drive past that same, but unburning car, with that same person inside, and set both on fire. Now I am responsible for that person's death. But because the bystander didn't start the fire, the bystander is not responsible for causing the death of anybody even if s/he runs away. I don't feel the same is true of a mother aborting a child.

A second distinction of import to me is the fact that I would save the 2-year-old as the result of a value judgment. It is my belief that the toddler is more valuable, but that's my belief and should not be legislated. Ideas of personhood and what makes people "worthwhile" are rooted in spirituality and/or philosophy and IMHO neither is appropriate basis for law. One person might believe personhood begins at conception, another at viability, another at birth. Great. All three are entitled to their opinions, and none can be proved right or wrong. That's why I don't think any of those opinions ought to have legislation erected which institutionalizes it. Science is becoming more and more capable of answering questions regarding the beginnings of human life, and if scientifically we could say x is alive, human, and distinct, then someone else's religion or philosophy ought not trump that. There's no question in my mind that faced with saving MY baby or saving my neighbor's baby, if I could only rescue one, I would not hesitate for one second, but grab my daughter and rush us both to safety. That's because I value my daughter more than my neighbor's child - but to say that because I saved my daughter and left the other baby behind means the other baby is okay to intentionally kill in a methodical way is ridiculous. My value judgment doesn't have any impact on what society recognizes or ought to recognize about the legal right to life of my neighbor's child.

*I recognize not all women who become mothers do so through consensual intercourse and have written at some length about why I feel there needs to be a legal distinction between aborting a pregnancy which resulted from rape and aborting a pregnancy which resulted from consensual sex, whether or not there is an ethical distinction in ending the two lives.

LyLMyssChaos

03-08-2006, 01:04 PM

Just in case anyone was curious, I just read on Wellesley's Center for Women (http://www.wellesley.edu/WCW/projects/mrape.html) website that as of 1998, that wife rape was illegal in all 50 states and on all federal lands. The problem is that there is an exemption clause that is still on the books in all but 17 states and DC. That is the loophole that people are using to make wife rape "legal." The clause says that although it may be illegal to rape your wife, a man who does so cannot be prosecuted for it. Now that is just wrong, flat out and totally wrong. It looks like a lot of states need to get rid of that exemption.

You can see a list of states and which ones have the exemptions at the
© National Clearinghouse on Marital & Date Rape, May 2005 (http://hometown.aol.com/ncmdr/state_law_chart.html) website.

pocket

03-08-2006, 01:08 PM

maxandmolly

03-08-2006, 01:09 PM

The law is anti-victim (and I use that term because I believe that men can be raped as well as women, so all laws regarding rape should be accountable to both sexes.) That does not mean that a whole political party is anti-woman. Even if the law was only anti-woman, how is it that a whole political party gets blamed for that law in one state? I know that in my state that is considered criminal sexual assault in the 4th degree to rape your spouse, and most certainly there are right-wing lawmakers here just as there are in South Dakota.

edited for typos
Because the source of that law in South Dakota IS the right-wing Republican contingent there. So yeah, I'm gonna blame them for it. You find me a Democrat who voted for that bill, I will retract my statement. Until then, I will wholeheartedly blame the right-wing members of the South Dakota Republican Party for such a law being on the books.
Imagine if, say, California (or New York, or some other traditionally very blue state) had some ridiculously liberal law on the books-like pot and booze being supplied to kids in middle and high school because, hey, they're gonna do it anyway, right? Might as well do it in a safe environment! RIDICULOUS left-wing Democrats, you would think. You would blame the Democratic Party of that state for that law being anti-family, or anti-child, or anti-wordofyourchoicehere. Right or wrong?

amew

03-08-2006, 01:12 PM

Apparently you can't be raped by your husband in SD.

Marital/spousal rape is a crime in all 50 states, though 33 states (including South Dakota) do grant various exemptions from prosecution to men who commit marital rape. The 17 states that have criminalized marital rape with no exemptions are about evenly split between red and blue states. While I am no great defender of the religious right (or South Dakota for that matter), I don't really think that the presence or absence of marital rape exemptions can be directly blamed on it. Many of these laws were on the books long before the religious right came into existence. But I do agree that exemptions from prosecution for marital rape are most definitely anti-woman, and to the extent that the religious right fights to keep those kind of exemptions on the books, they are being anti-woman.

This article has a list of what states have exemptions in place for perpetrators of marital rape if anyone is interested:
http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_mrape.pdf

LyLMyssChaos

03-08-2006, 01:13 PM

Because the source of that law in South Dakota IS the right-wing Republican contingent there. So yeah, I'm gonna blame them for it. You find me a Democrat who voted for that bill, I will retract my statement. Until then, I will wholeheartedly blame the right-wing members of the South Dakota Republican Party for such a law being on the books.
Imagine if, say, California (or New York, or some other traditionally very blue state) had some ridiculously liberal law on the books-like pot and booze being supplied to kids in middle and high school because, hey, they're gonna do it anyway, right? Might as well do it in a safe environment! RIDICULOUS left-wing Democrats, you would think. You would blame the Democratic Party of that state for that law being anti-family, or anti-child, or anti-wordofyourchoicehere. Right or wrong?

I would blame the people who voted for such a measure, that is correct, but I would not blame it on an entire political party. I would not take it as indicative of what all Democrats would want.

pocket

03-08-2006, 01:19 PM

BTW - I never said that republicans were anti-woman. i don't think that. but i do think that the religious right are anti-woman.

amew

03-08-2006, 01:21 PM

Ironically, South Dakota was apparently the first state in the union to criminalize marital rape.

From Wiki:

Marital rape first became a crime in the United States in the state of South Dakota in 1975.

msnicolea

03-08-2006, 01:22 PM

The religious right isn't a political party--they just think they are. I don't think anyone has said that republicans are anti-women, but I agree with Pocket--the religous right sure is.

jnettie

03-08-2006, 01:24 PM

Why do I suddenly have "I am strong, I am invicable, I am WOMAN!" in my head? :D

On the 2 year old/petrie dish question: Contrived, yes, but isn't that the interesting thing about hypotheticals. DH loves to come up with things like this to spark discussion. And, to me, that's the difference between that Radio Host's response and BTB's. BTB, yours was well thought out. You have good, sound reasons for your beliefs and can take the hypothetical for what it is. That's why I enjoy debates with you, too.

Somehow, there's an aspect to the extreme right wing of the pro-life movement that doesn't seem to see the difference between an alive and breathing human 2 year old child and a dish full of blastula. In this hypothetical, it challenges the statement that blastula are equal human life. But, I can still respect someone's possition on abortion and when life begins even if they say they'll save the child instead. But your possition better be well thought out! ;)

Ooo! Now I've got "Sisters are doing it for themselves! Standing on their own two feet, raising up their own hell!" in my head!

LyLMyssChaos

03-08-2006, 01:32 PM

In general, these positions held by the religious right, I consider to be anti-woman (from wiki):

Women
• Women have an obligation to society to bear children.
• Women (especially mothers)should be discouraged from pursuing a career.
• Women should not waste their childbearing years by staying to long in college.
• Women should be encouraged to marry young (early twenties).
• Women are not neurologically equiped for math, hard sciences, business, politics, or roles involving leadership (especially in business, theology, and politics). Therefore all affirmative action policies should be banned.
• Women must obey their husbands.
Marriage
Should continue to be regulated by the state and defined as one man and one woman.
Divorce should be made illegal and only granted by a judge in cases of abuse, adultery, and abandonment
Husbands who beat their wives should go to mandatory counseling instead of serving a jail sentence.
That’s before you even get into reproductive rights and abortion – I also think that being opposed to those things is being anti-woman.

I don't see some of the things that you have listed as being "anti-woman." They are things that as a woman, I am proud to take part in and embrace fully. I believe it is a privilege to be a wife and mother. I got married because I found the person that I wanted to spend forever with and I didn't see any reason not to get married. I think affirmative action should be banned because I don't believe it serves it's purpose anymore. I don't believe that a woman should obey her husband as much as I believe that they should be equal partners in their marriage and both may have control over different issues, but in the end they make decisions together. I also believe that Marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe that abusive spouses should go to counseling. I don't think that jail time is quite as effective in correcting the behavior as counseling, anger management sessions, etc. In cases of extreme abuse, I do believe that jail is necessary, but I would expect that in any case of assault, not only spousal assault. I also think that it is far too easy in this country to get married and divorced. We see/hear all the time about these 60 second celebrity marriages. I think that something needs to be done to make the choice to get married/divorced(where there is no abandonment, adultery, abuse, etc.) more difficult. That way perhaps people will think things through a little better before taking "the plunge." I don't see these practices as "anti-woman" at all. I am a woman, proud of it, and being able to take part in many of these things just increases my pride as a woman. It in no way detracts from that.

jnettie

03-08-2006, 01:32 PM

Thanks for that info, amew. I was rather peeved when I read that in the rape laws. I was fairly sure that spousal rape was a crime everwhere, so I was suprised to see an exception.

maxandmolly

03-08-2006, 01:33 PM

LyLMyssChaos

03-08-2006, 01:34 PM

I mistyped. I should have said "political group," not "political party." But I still stand by I said.

maxandmolly

03-08-2006, 01:37 PM

Women
• Women have an obligation to society to bear children.
• Women (especially mothers)should be discouraged from pursuing a career.
• Women should not waste their childbearing years by staying to long in college. • Women should be encouraged to marry young (early twenties).
• Women are not neurologically equiped for math, hard sciences, business, politics, or roles involving leadership (especially in business, theology, and politics). Therefore all affirmative action policies should be banned.
• Women must obey their husbands.
Marriage
Should continue to be regulated by the state and defined as one man and one woman.
Divorce should be made illegal and only granted by a judge in cases of abuse, adultery, and abandonment

NOT anti-woman? To say we should all be *discouraged* from doing anything with our lives other being married and having children? You don't see that as anti-equality? Anti-choice?
And don't even get me started on affirmative action. The day everyone in this country has an equal oppurtunity to get an equal start in life-proper nourishment, love, attention, education, and the rest, then, then, we can talk about banning affirmative action. But as long as you have children attending substandard schools that have to scan them for weapons, don't you DARE talk about affirmative action being unnecessary.

msnicolea

03-08-2006, 01:39 PM

The religious right is not their own party? Republicans are not anti-woman? Not all of them, maybe, but come on-have any of you *ever* met a Democrat who could honestly be classified as being part of the religious right? Perhaps not all Republicans are members of the religious right-but I'd say 99% of the religious right are Republicans.

I think there are plenty of moderate Republicans that are not anti-women--it's unfortunate that the religious right within the party have co-opted the messages and the have the ear of the president. If I were a republican (that made me giggle) I would be mortified by the direction the party is going.

jnettie

03-08-2006, 01:42 PM

• Women are not neurologically equiped for math, hard sciences, business, politics, or roles involving leadership (especially in business, theology, and politics).
Wow. Interesting. Considering the Department Chairs of my majors for undergrad and grad were women and that DH is outnumbered by women in the all the Labs he's ever worked at, I'd say this is wrong. And the minister who married DH and I sure would argue that she's not "hardwired" for theology, and so would I!

dionysia

03-08-2006, 01:44 PM

pocketmom had a bumpersticker that said - Bush, get out of mine!When my mom and I went to the March on Washington in April 04, she carried a sign that said on one side: "1994: George, get out of my bush!" and on the other "2004: Dubya, get out of my daughter's bush!" The slogan was my idea and she LOVED IT. :D

Di

LyLMyssChaos

03-08-2006, 01:45 PM

The things you bolded, I didn't respond to some because I feel that they are ridiculous and as a member of "the religious right" I don't believe in them, so I didn't comment on them. I don't feel that women are inferior to men in some fields, but they can be in others. I feel that if a woman wants to go to college, she should go to college. If a woman wants to work, she should work. I personally want/need to be home with my children, but if I wanted to work, you had better believe I'd be out there doing it. And yes, I think that marriage should be regulated by the state(I don't understand how that one is anti-woman btw.) And to be "discouraged" does not mean "kept from doing" so no, I don't see it as anti-woman. I see it for exactly what it is, a recommendation. That doesn't mean that you have to follow it, it is only encouraged that you do so.

jnettie

03-08-2006, 01:58 PM

When I was a little girl, my Dad's friend made me a wall plaque that said "Girls can do ANYTHING!" I still have that plaque. If I have a little girl of my own one day, I'm hanging that in her room.

Girls and Women should never be discouraged to do anything. Girls should be ENCOURAGED to be whatever they want to be. If that means they want to be a homemaker, then, golly, be the best SAHM you can! But if that means she wants to be an astronaut, ballet dancer, race car driver, doctor, machanic, fill in the blank, then she should be encouraged to do it!

People have all sorts of preconcieved notions of what a woman should or should not do. (FTR, I think men also have limitations in our culture, but that's not the issue at hand.) My MIL flat out told me that I would have to cook once DH and I have kids. My response: no I won't. I don't cook well, DH likes to cook, so he'll cook. Yeah, I'll feed the kids if he's not around, but he's gonna be the one making dinner on a regular basis!