Nobodies belittling things you think are important, the right certainly doesn't belittle the abortion issue, I'm talking about the media ironclad third party-documented tendency to pick the most fanatical and fringe members of right wing movements to interview as representative of the movement.
For clarity: I do see that happening, but I don't limit my intake to liberal media, though I obviously don't go to the extent that you do to speak with conservatives. And when I say I feel "belittled," I am really just saying that I don't like the fairly strong trend against some things I hold to be important (gay marriage, women's rights, etc). I am not claiming there are no republicans who take these things seriously, or even feel how I feel.
It's really not best to get most of us started on abortion. I am more relaxed than most, as the absolute victory of the pro-life cause is, to me, a foregone conclusion. If the goal is to decrease the occurrence of abortions, improvements in technology of birth control and raising babies to term in tubes, so to speak, makes it inevitable, so I'm calmer than most. I'd also question your sources on abortion rates in countries where it is illegal.
I am not anti-life; I do not like the idea of killing anything or anyone, but when you take away the legal option, you are not taking away the choice. Most often, you are taking away the most readily available (and affordable) places women go for the information and help you say you want them to have. Imo, the choice and the centers should remain open and available, or you're never getting your hands on those women who most need to be supported (or potentially influenced, iyo).
When I was recently having this discussion with a friend, I did quite a bit of reading in medical journals, normal media articles, etc. I don't know whether you'll accept something from the Guttmacher Institute, but that is one location that I've found the information laid out quite simply. See link.
I don't agree, I refuse on principle not to consider an abortion a life or death situation, it is my opinion that only where urgency is required, as in self-defense, battle, or triage is it acceptable to make such decisions quickly. Even if I did not consider it life or death, I would consider it a major, massive decision with permanent life altering effect, I've known to many people who had them and regret it, or at least are very saddened or traumatized by it even if they'd do it again, to believe such a thing should be decided in haste or in isolation.
If it's a murder, it shouldn't be legal. Since that isn't currently the judgment, legislating anywhere in the middle is trying to force that moral load onto women, and I do not think that is fair or appropriate (other than regarding waiting too long, at which point most definitely do believe it is a baby with rights).
A large part of where we differ is that I do not think most people are making this choice in any more haste than needed (or not). Of course, some are, and I will not claim that every woman would do exactly what she thought she would before the situation arose, but I will stand by my assertion that most have thought about it to a sufficient degree before going through it. From the moment it is even a thought in their minds, they are doing nothing but thinking about it. I will not pull the "I have ovaries, so I'm right" card, because I think that is bull-honkey, but I know that as a human, when something major comes up in my life, I have usually at least thought about it previously, have some instincts about it, and think about nothing else until I make my decision. I do not think a woman should be penalized for knowing her mind and wanting to deal with the situation as quickly as possible. I can say that I know that if I decided to have an abortion, I would want it done NOW. Mostly because of when nerve cells develop in fetuses.
No one should be doing this without talking to someone - their partner certainly if they're in the picture, or a family member or close friend or preferably a spiritual or psychological counselor - and giving it some time to percolate. Whether one believes a fetus is a human or not, one or two days will change nothing.
And yet, many feel it is an intensely personal choice. They should not be made to speak to someone if they do not want to. I would not want to, and, knowing my personality, I would not react well to being forced to by law. I maintain that if it is legal, the govt doesn't have the right to make demands regarding an individual's feelings.
I also absolutely reject the idea that women know if they want to have a kid, maybe you do, but what I lack in ovaries I make up for in eyes and ears and social relationships of my own. Sorry Jen, but that's just flat wrong, or a rare minority, even were it the majority it would still mean a sizable minority did not. You can not tell me a woman who just noticed she was missing her period, runs out and grabs a kit, and pops hot is instantly aware and fully rational to make that decision. Some, yes, I'm a level-headed pre-planner myself and I'm sure I would if female have given it much thought in advance, in general terms, but I do that for a lot of things and I know how often mental prep-work flies out the window when the real situation arrives. And I also know I do more of that than most people, I've that sort of mindset that prefers to pre-stress in hope of avoiding stress, most don't do much of that, especially younger people who account for most of these abortions.
I cannot even claim that I know I don't want a child (even though I feel fairly certain at this moment), but I do think that most are aware of the facts that help them decide - income, support, shelter, significant other, etc. At that point, there will be certain women who feel very strongly either way, and there will be some who have no idea ... I just can't believe they are not spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about it and weighing the options. I suppose that could be me not being able to get out of my own shoes, because I know I think too much. But based on my societal experiences, I am not sure you can convince me that I'm wrong.
How quickly do you think this happens for most people? From thinking it's an option, getting to the store, taking a test (knowing friends who've gone through this, I can say with some certainty that it is likely several tests are taken before one feels certain), making an appointment, getting to the location, many states have a 24 hour waiting period, going back to the location and then finally going through the procedure? How many women are doing that in less than a week? I would like to see that stat, because we seem to disagree on how many women decide and rush into it that quickly. Besides (and I need to check the real numbers on this), I have read that many physicians won't do the procedure until a few weeks later, for fear that they may not get all the pregnancy tissue and/or that the pregnancy may not be in the womb at all (ectopic). That's already 4 or 5 weeks in. If we assume that a woman has sex the very first day after the end of her cycle, we've got about 28 days before she expects the next one, she may not find out about this until that 4-5 week period has passed, but if we call that the most extreme case and assume that most pregnancies happen when we are at our most fertile (14 days in or so), that extends that even longer.
If you're trying to make a case against a day after pill, I will not agree with you there. I do believe that one is ending the process by which a human is created, because that IS what is happening; however, I do not believe that is the murder of a baby. Sorry, but I definitely do see a difference between a blastocyst/zygote and a baby.
I mean no insult, but I think on this point you are succumbing to wishful thinking. An unexpected pregnancy is a crisis by definition, possibly excluding people on their third or fourth kid or abortion, no one should ever act quickly in a crisis if circumstances do not require it, and doubly so if there is no advantage to rapid action. A few days should make no difference excluding possibly those who believe things change on brain or heart function, and then only those in that window would have cause for haste.
I'm not insulted. I can only go based on my own feelings and those of several close friends who have gone through this. There are three I know have undergone the procedure, and each says that even though the actual decision was (and is) painful, they would not have taken it back. Whether that is rationalization or how they truly feel, I simply do not believe that most people rush into this so willy-nilly as you think. Or that the govt has the right to force them into anything more than the mandatory 24hr delay most states have in place.
No, you hear what the liberal media wished you to hear. You hear the first inarticulate fanatic they can get on film. You are not present at sober discussion amongst conservatives where medical findings are discussed, under-reported incidents are racked up, counter-evidence presented.
Ah, well, I do find this slightly insulting. I know I didn't give much helpful information there, and that it is probably misleading because I was trying not to get involved in this very conversation we are having. I was raised by Catholic democrats, so I am fairly aware of the breakdown, thank you.
I did not say that I sop up my news only from liberal sites and/or papers. To some degree, yes, that is where my news comes from, but I also make a point not to read much that comes only from a specific party - I head for the middle, and read several different sites to try to get it. I also spend quite a bit of time skimming crap articles for the actual studies and support they use to write said articles, so that I can skip to the real stuff. Saying that the only way I could have come up with my feelings is by missing all the real information is not true, and is kinda rude. I would prefer not to be dismissed that way - if I only went based on what I saw in the mainstream media, I would be more concerned about birth control, and I would be agreeing with Jens, hands down. We would not be able to have this conversation.
Paul Ryan is selected as Republican VP candidate
11/08/2012 05:01:47 PM
- 1850 Views
Personally? No, I'm not voting Republican at all this year.
11/08/2012 05:18:06 PM
- 882 Views
Ya know that narrative of the right getting further right is pretty ridicolous
11/08/2012 06:43:44 PM
- 841 Views
it could possibly be the "all or nothing" budget fights and gay marriage among other things
11/08/2012 08:19:11 PM
- 885 Views
Yeah, I forgot the Dems are very enlightened about gay marriage now for what? 2 Months?
11/08/2012 08:59:17 PM
- 948 Views
yet despite that, dems didn't put referenda and push bills discriminating against gay people
12/08/2012 07:55:38 PM
- 962 Views
They certainly have, they've just done it less and less recently
12/08/2012 09:39:53 PM
- 846 Views
I dunno, but from my perspective (and this is from one who doesn't follow politics closely)
11/08/2012 08:32:43 PM
- 1079 Views
I'm sorry, but anyone that votes for Obama after the past 3 and 1/2 years is a moron.....
12/08/2012 03:30:47 AM
- 784 Views
If you are proud of not voting, please shut up: The adults have a country to run.
12/08/2012 04:11:49 AM
- 815 Views
Candidates have to earn my vote - I'm not a slave like you to the 2 party system.
12/08/2012 04:24:02 AM
- 952 Views
Who said anything about the two-party system?
12/08/2012 04:29:36 AM
- 778 Views
No offense intended, but voting third party is as stupid as not voting.
12/08/2012 04:42:28 AM
- 1035 Views
I'm with Joel on this. There's a big difference between voting third party and not voting.
12/08/2012 07:31:29 PM
- 940 Views
Nice asshatery.
12/08/2012 07:56:57 AM
- 1021 Views
Wouldn't you love to have a "none of the above" option.....
12/08/2012 03:36:54 PM
- 800 Views
Or you could use a PR system and act like responsible adults. *NM*
12/08/2012 05:47:14 PM
- 417 Views
Not voting sends no message but "we will let politicians do as they please."
12/08/2012 05:12:55 PM
- 1233 Views
Well there's a difference between not voting at all and not voting in one race
12/08/2012 05:55:47 PM
- 973 Views
Usually only in degree, not kind, though I mostly had the former in mind.
12/08/2012 07:27:54 PM
- 913 Views
I hope that most of the disenchanted Obama 08 suppoerters feel the same way *NM*
13/08/2012 11:27:15 AM
- 405 Views
I'm happy with it, I like Ryan
11/08/2012 06:47:21 PM
- 856 Views
What a shock.
11/08/2012 08:18:35 PM
- 987 Views

Most Republicans are fine with gutting Medicare.
11/08/2012 08:31:03 PM
- 1077 Views
Everyone with an ounce of common sense is okay with "gutting" Medicare.....
12/08/2012 03:37:17 AM
- 796 Views
The only thing bankrupting Medicare is unsustainable US healthcare costs eating 20% of US GDP.
12/08/2012 03:56:28 AM
- 1108 Views
Silly comment - 30% of Medicare is FRAUD.....and the program is fatally flawed.
12/08/2012 04:09:26 AM
- 935 Views
So private insurance costs are really growing SIXTY percent faster?!
12/08/2012 04:24:49 AM
- 935 Views
Medicare worked for 50 years and SS for 80 because most people were DYING before 65.
12/08/2012 04:29:26 AM
- 727 Views
Eligibility age for both must increase (SSs has, but not enough.) They are not "unsustainable."
12/08/2012 04:31:57 AM
- 727 Views
definitely a bold pick but not going to help him enough in november
11/08/2012 08:27:59 PM
- 898 Views
Since I forgot you asked Americans if it would change our votes: No, still voting Jill Stein (Green)
11/08/2012 11:07:12 PM
- 802 Views
Who cares? He's hot.
11/08/2012 11:53:42 PM
- 1053 Views
I actually said, "He's not hot enough."
13/08/2012 01:15:58 PM
- 776 Views
On the plus side, you need not fear Ryans failure to mention abortion and contraception.
13/08/2012 03:17:45 PM
- 968 Views
Legolas a question for you, what is your opinion of George W Bush Social Security Plans in 2005?
12/08/2012 01:03:24 AM
- 797 Views
Wonderful choice! Truly wonderful.....check the video.
12/08/2012 03:22:48 AM
- 784 Views
No, it doesn't change my opinion any
12/08/2012 07:50:21 AM
- 961 Views
I hear even the DNC has rejected its TN Senate nominee.
12/08/2012 05:46:37 PM
- 885 Views

Yes, they disavowed him
12/08/2012 08:00:33 PM
- 879 Views
Apparently the TN Democratic Party agrees voters should write in someone elses name.
12/08/2012 08:34:46 PM
- 861 Views
Does not work in the US
13/08/2012 01:17:58 AM
- 832 Views
We do not need most of the populace to cast protest votes, only most voters.
13/08/2012 01:33:41 AM
- 782 Views
I was going to vote Romney anyway, so no, it doesn't change anything.
12/08/2012 10:39:15 PM
- 862 Views
But I'm guessing you're glad with Ryan? Prefer him over the alternatives? Or not?
12/08/2012 10:49:35 PM
- 1019 Views
Makes sense for you. You are Romney's target audience.
13/08/2012 01:19:26 PM
- 796 Views
What should Obama have done?
13/08/2012 07:31:23 PM
- 835 Views
Mmm, Objectivism. Another reason for me to vote Obama.
12/08/2012 11:00:34 PM
- 955 Views
But doesn't he say he detests Rand?
12/08/2012 11:53:47 PM
- 703 Views
No he doesn't disavow Ayn Rand, he still believes in her
13/08/2012 01:15:34 AM
- 882 Views
that is pretty mild of you campare it to the radical influence in Obama's life *NM*
13/08/2012 11:35:52 AM
- 516 Views
Ah, the classic "it is OK because their guy rapes puppies, too, even though he does not" defense.
13/08/2012 03:23:29 PM
- 729 Views
Obama doesn't have a history of openly endorsing the views of said radicals. *NM*
14/08/2012 12:32:52 AM
- 557 Views
he has a much closer and more personal realtionship with radicals than Romney or Ryan *NM*
20/08/2012 03:54:17 AM
- 519 Views
Link to audio of Paul Ryans address to The Atlas Society.
13/08/2012 03:37:27 AM
- 1000 Views
Or you could have just read my response which posted prior to yours
13/08/2012 01:45:07 PM
- 792 Views

Don't get me wrong
13/08/2012 12:53:10 AM
- 806 Views
Actually I believe he promised to vote for Romney if I did
13/08/2012 03:48:35 AM
- 954 Views

What an amusing retrospective.
13/08/2012 04:20:02 AM
- 960 Views
I tried reading it again, but my eyes glazed over when you started babbling about lesbian covens.
14/08/2012 12:30:03 AM
- 736 Views
It was a hyperbolic reference to the extreme left (one stolen from Matt Groening, btw.)
14/08/2012 10:12:09 AM
- 806 Views
Interesting.
14/08/2012 11:34:30 AM
- 887 Views
They have a pill for that now.
14/08/2012 01:14:39 PM
- 925 Views
I'm pretty sure the solution is you learning elementary composition. *NM*
15/08/2012 11:33:57 PM
- 544 Views
Your willful reading incomprehension is neither my fault nor problem.
16/08/2012 07:40:46 PM
- 881 Views
Disillusioned, sure. But I don't recall ever considering voting Republican.
14/08/2012 12:31:17 AM
- 878 Views
No birth control, no right to choose, no planned parenthood?
13/08/2012 01:58:51 PM
- 734 Views
I saw a theory just after the announcement speculating Ryan was chosen as a scapegoat.
13/08/2012 03:33:56 PM
- 894 Views
I agree with your statements
14/08/2012 12:53:41 AM
- 959 Views
It's mostly nonsense
14/08/2012 04:46:11 AM
- 867 Views
Well
14/08/2012 02:54:06 PM
- 1079 Views
'Nonsense' refers to the thing said about the religious right by the media
14/08/2012 04:01:47 PM
- 1086 Views
I'm wondering if "belittles" is the wrong word.
14/08/2012 06:30:23 PM
- 1129 Views
Re: I'm wondering if "belittles" is the wrong word.
15/08/2012 01:45:59 AM
- 832 Views
I have to keep this short, because I am on the iPad.
15/08/2012 05:38:48 AM
- 783 Views
Triple reply chain is usually a good point for the trim-edit anyway
15/08/2012 05:27:20 PM
- 964 Views

The question, as for Tom, is what you believe Romney would improve for small businesses.
14/08/2012 01:38:29 PM
- 907 Views
I am aware of that, thank you. And I don't distill my choice down to small business, either.
14/08/2012 02:24:24 PM
- 938 Views
I see your point, but...
14/08/2012 02:30:22 PM
- 724 Views
Well
14/08/2012 03:09:18 PM
- 912 Views
Are you really going to let Obama con you into voting for him again?
21/08/2012 02:00:06 PM
- 728 Views
Expanding our perspective does not improve our options much, sadly.
14/08/2012 04:23:48 PM
- 852 Views