Any FJingerites with conservative opinions?

[formergothardite]

I found the article I was looking for. It says:

"We had a woman in the study who died of an infection 10 days after giving birth," Foster told Current. "She would not have died if she had not been pregnant."

So for all the pro-life people who say that they will allow an abortion if the woman's life is at risk, well that wouldn't have helped this lady. She was forced to be pregnant against her will and it killed her.

Also:

"While there were no mental health effects of obtaining an abortion, the study did find physical health differences between women who had abortions and those who carried unwanted pregnancies to term.

"Abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term," Foster said"

http://current.com/groups/news-blog/939 ... denied.htm

So which is more important, a fetus, or the quality of a woman's life?

[merrily]

The fetus!! Because it has... wait... oh I know!! Potential to become a person!1!1!

[merrily]

Seriously someone should make a video in tune to the music I'm a blond. All the logic these fundies are spouting can totally fit the 'because I'm a blond' lyrics.

"Because I'm a fundie

I don't have to think

I protest at clinics

'cuz I'm not like those minxes (giggle)

Don't have to worry 'bout prince Charmin'

'cuz I'm not one to live in sin

cause I'm a fundie

yeah yeah yeah"

[formergothardite]

The fetus!! Because it has... wait... oh I know!! Potential to become a person!1!1!

I wish the "pro-life" crowd would just be honest and say "Yes we want to force women to do something that can kill her or ruin her life." Instead of going on about how they care about women.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Seriously someone should make a video in tune to the music I'm a blond. All the logic these fundies are spouting can totally fit the 'because I'm a blond' lyrics.

"Because I'm a fundie

I don't have to think

I protest at clinics

'cuz I'm not like those minxes (giggle)

Don't have to worry 'bout prince Charmin'

'cuz I'm not one to live in sin

cause I'm a fundie

yeah yeah yeah"

Holy shit! That could be the Rebellious Harlots of Babylon's first single!

[Minerva]

I'm consistent as I'm also anti-death penalty and anti-euthenasia (active means to end a life, not passive like DNR's, etc.).

Does this mean you're against doctor-assisted suicide? Do you think it should be illegal? If so, why?

[merrily]

:D I'll be happy to finish writing the lyrics. When's the concert? :dance:

[boysmom]

I've stated that if I accept your assumption (that an embryo is not a life) I agree with your conclusion (that pro-choice is the correct viewpoint). My assumption is different, that an embryo is a life, which leads me to a different viewpoint. Ad hominem attacks do not advance the discussion.

[GolightlyGrrl]

:D I'll be happy to finish writing the lyrics. When's the concert? :dance:

Hmm, I don't know? What's the sluttiest day of the year? Beyonce's birthday?

[Minerva]

I've stated that if I accept your assumption (that an embryo is not a life) I agree with your conclusion (that pro-choice is the correct viewpoint). My assumption is different, that an embryo is a life, which leads me to a different viewpoint. Ad hominem attacks do not advance the discussion.

Why does being alive automatically grant something rights?

ETA and I've never heard of anyone, pro-choice or not, who thinks an embryo is not alive.

[Maggie Mae]

I've stated that if I accept your assumption (that an embryo is not a life) I agree with your conclusion (that pro-choice is the correct viewpoint). My assumption is different, that an embryo is a life, which leads me to a different viewpoint. Ad hominem attacks do not advance the discussion.

I too believe that an embryo is alive, in the same way that plants, cats, puppies, reindeer, humans, and any other biological creature is alive. However, I can not support legislation over another human's body. If my child needed a bone marrow transplant, I can not legally force my husband or adult children to donate their bone marrow. I can not force someone on the street to give up their liver, just because I know someone who needs it and it's a match. Why are women expected to be an incubator for 9 months - giving up her autonomy - just because another human being needs her organs to live?

I find abortion to be no different than any other medical procedure. I used to be fairly devout, and even then, I couldn't see how my morals had any bearing on other people's choices. If you don't want to have an abortion, do not get one. If you feel you must somehow end abortion, support women's clinics. Support sex-ed. Support welfare programs. Support paid maternity leave. Support minimum wage requirements.

[formergothardite]

I've stated that if I accept your assumption (that an embryo is not a life) I agree with your conclusion (that pro-choice is the correct viewpoint). My assumption is different, that an embryo is a life, which leads me to a different viewpoint. Ad hominem attacks do not advance the discussion.

But the conclusion of your opinion on the embryo being a life is that you are willing to ruin the lives of women and possibly kill them. Will you not at least acknowledge that? It is a fact. And a side of the pro-life movement that is rarely acknowledged by people who would prevent women from having abortions.

[August]

Oh, I should add, danger to a woman's life is a different situation. I value all life, the woman and the baby. I also am not opposed in the case of incest or rape, although I don' t think I'd choose it for myself if I were in that situation. Which I never will be due to being infertile any over 40 anyway.

That makes no sense, though. If it's killing a baby you're still killing a baby no matter how it was conceived.

[Full enough quiver]

The rape/incest exception drives me nuts. Firstly, because if you believe all life is sacred, then those babies deserve to live just as much as all the other babies. Secondly, how do you prove it? Incest could be proven with a paternity test, but do you only count it if it is a first degree relative (father or brother) because they've proven that first cousins have a very low incidence of inbreeding related defects. So is an uncle ok? Stepfather? Technically you're not related. How much inbreeding makes that baby unworthy of life? As for rape, I assume you'd have to prove it or everyone would claim rape. Problem is, lots of women don't report their rape. I didn't. I was embarassed. I thought it was my fault. Then you he into the "legitimate rape" argument. Does date rape count? What if you were drunk? Does it have to be a violent attack, where you're beaten up? How traumatic of a rape does it have to be to make the baby unworthy of life? That's why I think it's a BS argument pro lifers use so they don't sound like total dicks. No one is saying the embryo isn't alive, or isn't a potential human baby. The debate is whether or not it has a right to the use of your body against your wishes. I say it does not. Don't like abortion? Me neither. But I would never wish to make my personal views the law of the land. I say we encourage sex ed and contraceptive use, and improve access to affordable childcare. That is how you decrease the abortion rate, not by making women feel like crap about themselves. I don't care if you slept with one man or one thousand men, raped or not, are 14 or 40, the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is yours, and no one else's.

[formergothardite]

The rape/incest exception drives me nuts. Firstly, because if you believe all life is sacred, then those babies deserve to live just as much as all the other babies. Secondly, how do you prove it? Incest could be proven with a paternity test, but do you only count it if it is a first degree relative (father or brother) because they've proven that first cousins have a very low incidence of inbreeding related defects. So is an uncle ok? Stepfather? Technically you're not related. How much inbreeding makes that baby unworthy of life? As for rape, I assume you'd have to prove it or everyone would claim rape. Problem is, lots of women don't report their rape. I didn't. I was embarassed. I thought it was my fault. Then you he into the "legitimate rape" argument. Does date rape count? What if you were drunk? Does it have to be a violent attack, where you're beaten up? How traumatic of a rape does it have to be to make the baby unworthy of life? That's why I think it's a BS argument pro lifers use so they don't sound like total dicks. No one is saying the embryo isn't alive, or isn't a potential human baby. The debate is whether or not it has a right to the use of your body against your wishes. I say it does not. Don't like abortion? Me neither. But I would never wish to make my personal views the law of the land. I say we encourage sex ed and contraceptive use, and improve access to affordable childcare. That is how you decrease the abortion rate, not by making women feel like crap about themselves. I don't care if you slept with one man or one thousand men, raped or not, are 14 or 40, the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is yours, and no one else's.

:clap:

I think a lot of it comes from thinking(but not admitting) that many pro-lifers think that women who have sex should be punished. If you are raped by your father you don't deserve to have your life ruined because you didn't choose and enjoy that sex. But if you just had sex with your boyfriend and have an unwanted pregnancy, well, you're a slut who deserves to be punished. It is all about punishing women.

But getting an anti-choicer to admit what they are really doing, punishing women, ruining women's lives, forcing women to risk death, is very hard. Not even they want to look at what being pro-life really means. It is easier on their mind to just scream "save the babies" while ignoring what this does to women.

[Vex]

It really baffles me when people say "I am against abortion except for X, Y & Z." Either it is bad and shouldn't exist or it is a necessary evil and needs to exist. The fetus dies no matter what the reason for the abortion. How can you argue against killing the fetus in one situation but then it's okay in another? Why be against it at all? It doesn't bug me quite so much when people don't think it's murder, but when people say it's murder but it's okay in certain circumstances it drives me bonkers. I don't mean any offense, it's just a personal peeve.

[salex]

In regards to education I'm quite radical in my liberalism: I want all private schools and homeschooling to be made illegal. I want everyone to have to buy into the public school system. We have the tiered system we have today because the wealthy can buy their way out. If the wealthy are forced to become invested in the public school system then things are bound to improve. What I want is complete equality in education. Those students with special needs, whether below or above average will have those needs met within the system. Teacher education programs would be rigorous and weed out those not up to the task. A graduate degree would be required of all teachers. Essentially, what I want is the Finnish system imposed on the U.S. and it will never happen. Not ever.

It is possible I would join you on this. My state is dabbling with the idea of putting the per student money "with the student" and using it to fund homeschoolers, any bizzaro private school, etc. This causes my head to explode, as my husband's niece is a principal at one such "private" religious school and the crap they teach makes my eyes bleed.

[Carla Bruni]

And this, IMO, is one of the major problems with moving people off assistance. There's a point where the transition is unworkable and unmanageable and that is the wrong incentives.

QFT

^^ This. The fact that people still have to turn down raises/extra hours to qualify for the social services they desperately need is completely absurd, doubly so in a country like America, which prides itself on a history of being built by hard-working people who valued individual agency. That's why I mentioned that something like a "graduated" system, whereby someone isn't put in the ridiculous position of turning down a raise because they'd lose ALL support, would work much better. However, seeing as we don't even have a budget, much less of an idea of where to go as a nation, I understand that that may be asking for too much :|

ETA:

Sorry, but when people start whining about it not being fair that their taxes are supporting "those people" instead of themselves, I interpret those comments a little differently.

If one thinks s/he should be entitled to subsidies, why not just focus on that argument?

To clarify (if that was directed at me), I wasn't whining that my taxes were supporting "those people" instead of myself; I'm quite happy to have them support people in need. I do (for the Nth time...) believe, however, that people - general people, the extended population, not myself - who make just above the state's pre-set bracket for things like affordable housing are at a disadvantage, and it's not fair that they're priced WAY out of a building/area just by making a little bit "too much". Hence the "graduated"/percentage-based system suggestion, etc.

[Rosa]

Part of the issue with housing is that, instead of building public housing that makes more affordable housing available, we generally subsidize private housing that the landlord is getting market rate for. So prices stay high, and we help some (but not all) people pay for it. That is a huge disadvantage for other people who need affordable housing but don't qualify for subsidies, and it's also a disadvantage for people who qualify for subsidies but plain can't find housing. In a lot of markets there is a wait, not because the government agencies are out of subsidy money, but because there is no housing that accepts the subsidy that fits the needs of the people on the list.

Partly this is because "public housing" in many cities went so terribly wrong in the '70s and '80s (largely because of inadequate budgets for upkeep and security) and partly it's because landlords and residents groups lobby very effectively against public housing projects - for landlords, new housing is a competitive threat while Section 8 payments are a subsidy to the landlord as well as the tenant.

[Mama Mia]

Part of the issue with housing is that, instead of building public housing that makes more affordable housing available, we generally subsidize private housing that the landlord is getting market rate for. So prices stay high, and we help some (but not all) people pay for it. That is a huge disadvantage for other people who need affordable housing but don't qualify for subsidies, and it's also a disadvantage for people who qualify for subsidies but plain can't find housing. In a lot of markets there is a wait, not because the government agencies are out of subsidy money, but because there is no housing that accepts the subsidy that fits the needs of the people on the list.

Partly this is because "public housing" in many cities went so terribly wrong in the '70s and '80s (largely because of inadequate budgets for upkeep and security) and partly it's because landlords and residents groups lobby very effectively against public housing projects - for landlords, new housing is a competitive threat while Section 8 payments are a subsidy to the landlord as well as the tenant.

I think you need both kinds of housing. I don't have a problem with landlords making money from the subsidy - to me it means you are spreading out purchasing power in the community. Families who use their Section 8 in a suburban neighborhood are bringing in money to the local supermarket, clothing store, etc. And housing has to be reasonably low cost, and still meet habitability standards and be a reasonable rent compared to other housing in the area. I do understand why landlords don't want to just through the 100,000 hoops involved though.

With the housing complexes - you get some advantages like there is often on-site childcare, but there are trade-offs and you can have kids looked down upon because they live in "low-income housing" , instead of just living in a neighborhood without people knowing their economic situation. And most housing complexes are charging the government the full-subsidy amount, even if the actual units would go for somewhat lower on the private market, and they need to do it because of all the paperwork involved.