in its 1972 debut issue, ms.
Magazine ran a bold petition in which 53
well-known u.S. Women declared that they
had undergone abortions—despite state
laws rendering the procedure illegal.
These women were following the example of
a 1971 manifesto signed by 343 prominent
french women, who also declared they had
abortions.
Even then, to many it seemed absurd that
the government could deny a woman
sovereignty over her own body. It is even
more absurd in 2006 to learn that an
abortion ban has passed into law in south
dakota. The south dakota ban has been
stayed because an initiative to remove
this ban has been placed on the state’s
november ballot. Whatever happens in
south dakota, 17 states now have trigger
laws or pre-roe bans that will ban
abortion if the supreme court were to
reverse roe v. Wade.A myriad of
restrictions already limit access to
abortion in the u.S. For poor women,
young women, and women in the military.
We know it is time again for women of
conscience to stand up and speak truth to
power.
At the time of the original ms. Petition,
illegal abortions were causing untold
suffering in the united states, especially
for poor women who had to resort to unsafe
self-induced or back-alley abortions.
Today, in the developing nations each
year, approximately 70,000 women and girls
die from botched and unsafe abortions and
another 500,000 maternal deaths
occur—most of this suffering and loss
could be prevented. U.S. International
family planning policies contribute to
this death toll: first, by conditioning
its aid on a global gag rule that prevents
medical workers from giving even
information on abortion; second, by
withholding or providing inadequate funds;
and finally, by funding abstinence-only
education.
We are now starting a new petition,
beginning with the names of some of the
original 1972 signers. They signed “to
save lives and to spare other women the
pain of socially imposed guilt.” their
purpose was “to repeal archaic and
inhuman [anti-abortion] laws.”
we recognize that, still, not every woman
will be able to sign today—33 years
after roe—even though abortion is a very
common, necessary and important procedure
for millions of women in the u.S. But if
a multitude of women would step forward
publicly—and more and more would
continue to join them—we would change
the public debate.
We know that women who have had abortions
have spoken out many times during the last
33 years … and millions of women and men
have marched in countless rallies and
demonstrations.
It is time to speak out again– in even
larger numbers —and to make politicians
face their neighbors, influential movers
and shakers, and yes, their family
members. We cannot, must not—for u.S.
Women and the women of the world—lose
the right to safe, legal, and accessible
abortion or access to birth control. Just
as in 1972, ms. Will send the signed
petitions to the white house, members of
congress and state legislators. We will
also place the petition online. And we
ask signers to make a contribution so ms.
Can promote the petition and provide
needed funds to fight abortion bans and
support targeted abortion providers, such
as the sole remaining women’s clinic in
mississippi.
Your name and your voice will make a
difference.
would you sign? Why or why not?
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3760 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 80
Thanked:66
Posted: 02-12-07 13:50pm
I haven't had an abortion but if I had, I
still would not sign this. My reason
is that while I do not wish abortion to be
illegal, I do not think it should be made
'socially acceptable'.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-12-07 15:52pm
Since I believe these petitions are to
keep abortion legal, and have not as much
to do with social acceptance, then if i'd
had an abortion, I would sign a hundred
petitions, even if it meant going to jail.
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 360 Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 4
Thanked:1
Posted: 02-12-07 19:53pm
My only reluctance to sign would be
because of the possibility of some
anti-choice whacko nutbjob shooting me.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-12-07 21:11pm
msrosie
wrote:
my only reluctance to sign
would be because of the possibility of
some anti-choice whacko nutbjob shooting
me.
hahaha!
|
diamond splinter
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 611 Location: ,
Posted: 02-13-07 09:40am
eiri
wrote:
msrosie
wrote:
my only reluctance to sign
would be because of the possibility of
some anti-choice whacko nutbjob shooting
me.
hahaha!
hypocrit you jump all over pro lifers for
comments like the one you seem to find so
funny
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3966 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-13-07 12:22pm
diamond splinter
wrote:
hypocrit you jump all over pro lifers for
comments like the one you seem to find so
funny
do you deny that those who shoot doctors
who perform abortions and target abortion
clinics with violence are not "anti-choice
whacko nut jobs"?
I can't believe that a prolife person
would not condemn these acts, as they are
not pro life either.
birch
wrote:
would you sign? Why or why
not?
i would not sign. And it's not because I
don't think abortions should be socially
acceptable, it's not because i'm afraid of
retaliation. I think men/women/whoever
in washington should stay out of my
uterus, period. My reproductive
decisions are private, and should stay
that way. That doesn't mean I would
condemn a woman for signing it. Plus,
even though I don't think this should be
what happens...Society doesn't accept
abortion, and I don't want to lose a
job/friends/respect because of a private
decision I made in my best interests.
People are stupid, and cannot fathom why I
would make such a decision. They are
quick to judge and condemn.
Purestgreen, why do you think abortions
should not be 'socially acceptable'?
Thanks...
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-13-07 12:48pm
diamond splinter
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
msrosie
wrote:
my only reluctance to sign
would be because of the possibility of
some anti-choice whacko nutbjob shooting
me.
hahaha!
hypocrit you jump all over pro lifers for
comments like the one you seem to find so
funny
this one is clearly sarcastic. Sorry if
your humor doesn't translate well to the
internet...
And she also brings up a very valid point.
I too would be terrified to protest in
public and declare I was pro-choice, in a
place where pro-lifers were, for fear that
they would shoot me too. Terrified, but
i'd do it.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3760 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 80
Thanked:66
Posted: 02-13-07 13:56pm
birch
wrote:
purestgreen, why do you think abortions
should not be 'socially acceptable'?
Thanks...
i would not want to see a society where
the termination of the life of a human
being was regarded equally acceptable as
any other medical procedure because that,
for me, would take away the significance
of abortion.
Edited because on reading through I
realised an error that bugged me
anally retentive? Moi?
Last edited by Jules on 02-15-07 01:44am; edited 1 time in total
|
Meandering Away
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 535
Posted: 02-13-07 15:57pm
eiri
wrote:
diamond splinter
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
msrosie
wrote:
my only reluctance to sign
would be because of the possibility of
some anti-choice whacko nutbjob shooting
me.
hahaha!
hypocrit you jump all over pro lifers for
comments like the one you seem to find so
funny
this one is clearly sarcastic. Sorry if
your humor doesn't translate well to the
internet...
And she also brings up a very valid point.
I too would be terrified to protest in
public and declare I was pro-choice, in a
place where pro-lifers were, for fear that
they would shoot me too. Terrified, but
i'd do it.
sorry but that was not sarcastic that was
someones opinion of pro life and I am
tired of the excuses made for pro choicers
who say this shit it is always sarcastic but
if a pro lifers says something then all
hell breaks loose.Pro choice have just as
many nutters in their ranks as the morons
who call themselves pro life so don't come
that.
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3173 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 74
Thanked:104
Posted: 02-13-07 18:04pm
I would sign, I would like to know all my
options available and would like to have
them open in case im in a position to
choose.
|
Guest
Posted: 02-13-07 18:07pm
cowboys
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
diamond splinter
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
msrosie
wrote:
my only reluctance to sign
would be because of the possibility of
some anti-choice whacko nutbjob shooting
me.
and she also brings up a very valid point.
I too would be terrified to protest in
public and declare I was pro-choice, in a
place where pro-lifers
hahaha!
hypocrit you jump all over pro lifers for
comments like the one you seem to find so
funny
this one is clearly sarcastic. Sorry if
your humor doesn't translate well to the
internet...
Were, for fear that they would shoot me
too. Terrified, but i'd do
it.
sorry but that was not sarcastic that was
someones opinion of pro life and I am
tired of the excuses made for pro choicers
who say this shit it is always sarcastic but
if a pro lifers says something then all
hell breaks loose.Pro choice have just as
many nutters in their ranks as the persons
who call themselves pro life so don't come
that.
lookie, cowboys is back with more
illiterate, impotent, non-punctuated
ranting!
Once again, here I come to show you the
errors of your ways.
First of all, if you want to contribute
something to the thread and perhaps the
online community while don't you answer
the questions? Secondly, no, prochoicers
do not have "nutters" in their ranks like
prolifers do. Prochoicers don't bomb,
threaten, m*rder, commit arson, threaten
with anthrax, stalk, vandalise, trespass
and commit battery like prolifers do.
See this lovely chart below:
so yeah, there are rightwing whacko
nutjobs out there defeating the whole
purpose of the prolife movement, and thus,
mrosie was perfectly within her bounds to
vocalize that these people are a danger to
her. I certainly wouldn't stand in your
way if you came up with a comparable
prochoice description that's accurate.
|
Guest
Posted: 02-13-07 18:15pm
Lookie, i'm still an fool!!
|
Guest
Posted: 02-13-07 22:35pm
anonymous
wrote:
lookie, i'm still an fool!!
birch, I assume lol
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3760 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 80
Thanked:66
Posted: 02-14-07 02:19am
Oh birch, come on, there are definitely
nutters in the pro-choice ranks! There
are nutters everywhere! However, I
would call such people pro-aborts rather
than pro-choice. By the same token, I
would not call the scum that bomb clinics
'pro-life' but 'anti-aborts' or perhaps
'murdering scum'.
I've got to be honest though and say that
in my travels around the internet world, I
have come across few 'pro-lifers' who are
not .Christians and I think it's this that
damages the reputation of the movement
more than anything. If all you are
going to do is quote hellfire and
damnation at people then i'm not shocked
that pro-lifers have such a bad name.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-14-07 03:23am
purestgreen
wrote:
oh birch, come on, there are
definitely nutters in the pro-choice
ranks! There are nutters everywhere!
However, I would call such people
pro-aborts rather than pro-choice. By
the same token, I would not call the scum
that bomb clinics 'pro-life' but
'anti-aborts' or perhaps 'murdering
scum'.
I've got to be honest though and say that
in my travels around the internet world, I
have come across few 'pro-lifers' who are
not .Christians and I think it's this that
damages the reputation of the movement
more than anything. If all you are
going to do is quote hellfire and
damnation at people then i'm not shocked
that pro-lifers have such a bad
name.
that is a very notable comment. Because
so many of the vocal pro-lifers are of the
evangelical/brimstone/"you're murdering
babies" group, it's hard to hear a sane
argument against abortion. Almost
everything is backed up with the christian
religion... And sometimes, even if you
find some source that looks good, if you
delve deeper, you'll find that their base
opinion and reasoning is still based upon
their religion: christianity. I don't
have a problem with religions. I have
problems with religions dictating
someone's actions, and dictating how they
behave on human rights issues. They
cannot see the real women involved; they
only see the bible.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3966 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-14-07 07:50am
[quote="purestgreen"]oh birch, come on,
there are definitely nutters in the
pro-choice ranks! There are nutters
everywhere! However, I would call
such people pro-aborts rather than
pro-choice. By the same token, I
would not call the scum that bomb clinics
'pro-life' but 'anti-aborts' or perhaps
'murdering scum'.
[\quote]
oh, i'm not denying there's nutty people
in the prochoice camp, just a different
kind of nutty. Not the kind of nutty
that kills people.
|
Meandering Away
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 535
Posted: 02-14-07 12:31pm
[quote="birch"]
purestgreen
wrote:
oh birch, come on, there are
definitely nutters in the pro-choice
ranks! There are nutters
everywhere! However, I would call
such people pro-aborts rather than
pro-choice. By the same token, I
would not call the scum that bomb clinics
'pro-life' but 'anti-aborts' or perhaps
'murdering scum'.
[\quote]
oh, i'm not denying there's nutty people
in the prochoice camp, just a different
kind of nutty. Not the kind of nutty
that kills
people.
i dont normally answer liars but for this
stupid inane babble I will show that you
really are too stupid for words.
If you had half a brain you would of seen
that this was debated with the great steen
and he lied like you then had to back
down, go do some research you iliiterate
stupid person, just to get you started
heres a link talks about both sides of the
violence.
now if you wish to had something to the
debate stop lying and do a little bit of
research halfwit.
Please note unlike you I am not so
arrogant has to say there are no pro life
nutters, they are not pro life they are
anti everything.
|
Guest
Posted: 02-14-07 13:20pm
[quote="cowboys"]
birch
wrote:
purestgreen
wrote:
oh birch, come on, there are
definitely nutters in the pro-choice
ranks! There are nutters
everywhere! However, I would call
such people pro-aborts rather than
pro-choice. By the same token, I
would not call the scum that bomb clinics
'pro-life' but 'anti-aborts' or perhaps
'murdering scum'.
[\quote]
oh, i'm not denying there's nutty people
in the prochoice camp, just a different
kind of nutty. Not the kind of nutty
that kills
people.
i dont normally answer liars but for this
stupid inane babble I will show that you
really are too stupid for words.
If you had half a brain you would of seen
that this was debated with the great steen
and he lied like you then had to back
down, go do some research you iliiterate
stupid person, just to get you started
heres a link talks about both sides of the
violence.
now if you wish to had something to the
debate stop lying and do a little bit of
research halfwit.
Please note unlike you I am not so
arrogant has to say there are no pro life
nutters, they are not pro life they are
anti
everything.
oh, my, cowboys, what are we going to do
with you?
Did you read your links? I did, for
once, because I am always interested in
learning more and certainly willing to be
humble. However, I did not find anything
in your links to support your
argument...Which was...Er...Let me sort
through your insults...That prochoicers
commit violence like prolifers do. I
think...I could be wrong...Because i'm
sure you didn't mean to say that I said
there are no prochoice nutters, because I
didn't say that. Did i. No.
So, here's my argument, and then we are
welcome to continue this in a different
thread, if you wish.
Your first link, from wikipedia, was
primarily about prolife violence.
Seriously, you should have read it first.
The only thing about prochoice violence is
as follows:
wikipedia
wrote:
violence is sometimes
committed against people or organizations
which oppose abortion. Acts generally
consist of crimes against property, or
violations of civil rights, although
whether these are to be considered
"violence" is disputed. There is one
documented case of the homicide of a
pro-life advocate.
August 26, 1993: eileen janezic of
huntsville, alabama shot minister and
radio talk show host jerry simon to death
inside of his church.[24] janezic had
previously attended at simon's church but
claimed to be a satanist.[24][25] a
psychologist, Dr. Roger rinn, testified
that janezic suffered from bipolar
disorder and believed that carrying out
the homicide was "satan's will".[26]
madison county circuit judge lynwood smith
found janezic to be sane but recommended
that she serve the life imprisonment that
was her sentence in a place where she
could receive mental health care. [27]
some pro-life sources describe janezic as
a "pro-abortion activist" and state that
simon was involved locally in pro-life
advocacy.[28] [29]
february 23, 2006: rubina kousar, a nurse
at the mattrai health center in pakistan
was gang-raped after refusing to perform
illegal abortions.[30]
march 3, 2006: a 52-year-old woman drove
her car into a pro-life rally in nampa,
idaho, running over one protester's foot.
The protester was not injured. The woman
driving claimed that the police had done
nothing to remove a sign with graphic
photos of an aborted fetus, which she did
not want local schoolchildren to
see.
so, we've got a mentally ill person and no
one has connected this homicide directly
to the abortion debate. This is in
juxapose with all the prolife people who
are not mentally ill and commit homicide.
Okay, next...We've got a nurse in
pakistan who was gang raped for refusing
to perform illegal abortions. These men
were hardly your typical prochoice
advocate committing acts of violence again
prolife organizations. But okay, they
did rape her...I'll give you three out of
ten on that one. I did after all say
that "i don't deny there are nutters on
both sides". The third, however, was a
woman who drove her car...Well, you can
read it. She didn't hurt anyone, and she
didn't want kids to see graphic posters.
So you get nothing for that.
Now, prochoiceviolence.Com and
lifesite.Net are intertwined, as the
latter uses the former as a resource. So
we look at the former, which includes in
the lists of homicides perpetuated by
prochoicers pregnant women and their
fetuses who died during the legal act of
abortion, and goes on to include all acts
of abortion as "violent" and rants about
mrders that were committed in which the
victims happened to be prolife, and the
guilty m*rderers happen to be prochoice,
but the reasoning behind the m*rders
wasn't because of the opposing views on
the issue. Or, the people committing the
murders happened to be vocal prochoice
advocates and they killed someone,
completely unrelated to the abortion
debate.
Phew!
So we move on to your final site,
mediaresearch.Org. I like ".Org's" so I
was hopeful. However...I read up on the
author of the report, and guess what, he's
a big ol' biased .Christian who is vocally
prolife and conservative. (*snicker* and
you specifically mentioned media bias when
you posted this site....)
dang cowboys, you struck out! Got
anything else?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3966 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-14-07 13:22pm
Now that is just batty, because I signed
in before I posted that. Does it "time
out" or something if you don't post after
awhile?
