News-Record.com

Welcome to the world of doublespeak, Mrs. Weatherby.

'paternalistic chauvinism'?

BJ, do you see any problem with the murder of the deaf-mute in our society?
Perhaps Ruth Buzzi could write us a thesis about the 'risk' to society by those who cannot speak.

Liberals view the murder of the unborn as a 'choice'. Liberal politicians view them as unable to vote and therefore have no value.

At least they are bio-degradable.

"(I refuse to call this kind of abortion by its "invented" name -- a vile, gruesome name designed to make everyone shudder.)"

That's because partial birth abortion is a vile, gruesome procedure. Sucking the brains out of a partially born baby should make everyone shudder and should go against everyone's moral norms.

I says alot of someone who can not only defend this barbaric practice but write an LTE to defend it.

B.J. Weatherby, thanks for expressing displeasure with this recent US Supreme Court decision.

Regarding the "judicial activism," can we the people expect any less with the makeup of the Court at this present time? It is a sad day in Muddville.

Shalom

Partial birth abortions have no place in America.

I support a womans right to choose, except in the case of partial birth abortions. I say, if a woman waits that long to get an abortion, too bad...have the baby and be a mom.

I think partial birth abortions go against the constitutional rights of the baby who has the potential to live if only given the chance and not murdered by the procedure Dan describes above. What is 'outrageous' is that this procedure would ever take place in a civilized nation.

All this talk that this is just the first step in what will be the outlawing of all abortions is really putting the cart before the horse.

The Supreme Court's decision is one of the few reasons I'm glad I voted for Bush. I'm sure that Congress will run out and pass a new law to overturn that decision. I hope whoever we elect in the next Presidental race will have the backbone to veto any such legislation.

I am not surprised some of you are missing the point. You are male and this does not affect you. But what the male justices are saying is their moral norms are more important than those of a woman, any woman. That women don't have enough sense or the right to make some decisions (with regard to her body) on her own. Poor dimwitted women need the guidance and wisdom of men.

This is archaic thinking and an insult to women. And it proves this is still a man's world; a world that considers women as second class citizens. How is that different than many of the underdeveloped countries around the world (that some of you point to and say how badly women are treated)?

For the record, I do not believe in partial birth abortions. However, I believe it is not my right or business to infringe on the rights of other women by imposing (forcing in this case) my belief system on them.

When women can make decisions about men's reproductive rights, I'll concede it's tit for tat. Until then, it is outrageous conduct for a group of supposedly professional, unbiased men.

Thanks, Ms. Weatherby, for calling this ruling out for what it is.

For those who think that dilation & extraction (D&X) abortion exists for women who sit around watching soaps on their sofas until deciding later in their pregnancies that they don't want to be mothers, please read this story of a real woman's experience with the procedure:

http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyandsoul/womenintheworld/articlemc.aspx?cp-documentid=4595719

Although D&X not only refers to later-term abortions, that is typically what people think of when they hear about it. The picture that anti-choice activists have painted of women who seek later-term abortions (including D&X) is deplorable. These are overwhelmingly women who desparately want to be mothers but because of their own health or severe fetal abnormalities, they and their doctors decide that abortion is the safest and most humane route for them. (And yes--I believe it is more humane to end a pregnancy early than go through with it, knowing that a baby will be stillborn anyway or--worse--will live only for a few hours in excruciating pain.)

And as if the pain of having a diagnosis that would lead a woman to choose a D&X abortion isn't enough, there are always plenty of folks around to condemn them for a choice they never wanted to make. For those making the blanket judgements, please at least do a minimal amount of research about the procedure (and no, this doesn't include reading Bush's speeches or a Chick track), who gets it, why they get it, and what the alternatives are before deciding that you know what's best for women.

Ms. Weatherby is angry that five males exhibited appalling paternalistic chauvinism. She is so outraged that the court placed a ban on the "intact dilation and extraction" type of abortion. She refused to call this kind of abortion by its "invented" name -- a vile, gruesome name designed to make everyone shudder.) Yes, let's pretty-up the procedure. Here's what an intact dilaton and extraction abortion is:

"An abortion doctor extracts a baby, feet first, from a mother's womb down through the birth canal until only its head remains inside. The abortion doctor plunges the tips of his surgical scissors into the back of the still-living baby's skull, inserts a suction device into the opening and vacuums out the baby's brains. The abortion doctor then proceeds to completely remove the now-dead baby from the mother's womb." Sure wouldn't want to call that "procedure" by a vile, gruesome name, would we?

PBA's are performed in the third trimester, after what is called viability of the fetus, or unborn child. At this stage the fetus is in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of a human. It is living at that stage. Such a fetus could be delivered and become a person, given the current state of medicine. Reading descriptions of this abortion procedure clearly state that the abortion physician must "kill" the fetus, so why do some women feel that it is their constitutional right to kill their unborn child before it is born? We are dangerously close to infanticide here.

The Supreme Court in its Roe vs. Wade was specific in segmenting abortion into the three trimesters and how each should be treated. They acknowledged that the fetus was viable in the third trimester and regulation of abortion in this trimester was constitutionally proper, taking into consideration of the mother's health, which the latest ruling does.

well hate to pick nits, nitpicker .. but according to our very one US constitution, one cannot be a US citizen until one is BORN.

Nitpicker,

Actually, this ruling upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The Supreme Court in this case performed as the judicial branch was intended, to interpret laws passed by the legislative branch and affirm those laws' constitutionality. Here is the vote on the act in 2003.

"In the House, the final legislation was supported by 218 Republicans and 63 Democrats. It was opposed by 4 Republicans, 137 Democrats, and 1 independent. Twelve members were absent, 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats. In the Senate the bill was supported by 47 Republicans and 17 Democrats. It was opposed by 3 Republicans, 30 Democrats, and 1 independent. Two Senators were absent, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tx.), a supporter of the bill, and Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), an opponent of the bill. The bill was then signed by President George W. Bush to become law.

JDR is right. The letter of the Constitution fails to grant rights to the unborn. JDR uses the word "citizen", but I believe that the Constitution refers to "person" born in the country. So, the unborn aren't "persons". I suspect that is because our founders never anticipated that our society would desire to have the consitutional right to "kill" their unborn. Would any civilized society feel that need? Sad to say, but that is the case today.

The health of the mother isn't an issue: delivering the child without killing it first provides exactly the same benefits. In the case of abnormalities likely to cause death, I can even understand delivering the child and withholding all but the most minimal medical care, but killing it first is barbaric. If the feotus is even arguably viable, then it is homicide plain and simple.

The writer's diatribe against "judicial activism" is simply stupid. The case involved a federal law--you know, the kind made by elected representives--banning partial birth abortions. It had been struck down by judicial activists in the federal courts before the Supreme Court reversal. For once, the people (who oppose this procedure by huge margins) have been allowed to speak.

rcmann,
You and James seem to be the only ones posting here who actually "GET IT".

I played golf this past weekend with an Ob/Gyn. I asked him if the recent court decision "hurt" women. His reply was a resounding yes. Unlike most of the "right to lifers" who wrap themselves up in emotional knots, the doc was quite pragmatic. He said that whenever the arm of a doctor is tied by the court, it is a sad day for the world of mediciine, and in this case women in general. He then went on to speak of a case where a woman carried a baby to the third trimester when warning signs began to appear. There was no brain matter in the head, and other major developments made the fetus a non viable one. Then, the doc told me that the procedure for removing this is the same one referred to by the invented name "partial birth abortion".

So yes, those who wish to make decisions for women about reproductive health, have once again won. So get out your coat hangers and kitchen tables, because the right wingers will not stop here. They love school prayer, hate homosexuals, and think women should be barefoot and pregnant. Oversimplified? Yes. But mostly accurate.

If the feotus isn't viable, then simply deliver it without sucking out its brain (if it has one). Without brain matter, as I recall from biology class, humans are unable to survive or feel pain. Probably your pragmatic "doctor/ golfer" would be pragmatic enough to recognize that a brain is necessary for life and sensation, and thus that he need not perform this procedure in the case he cites.

"Without brain matter, as I recall from biology class, humans are unable to survive or feel plain"

brian,

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE has proven that theory incorrect. They need to update the textbooks.

I don't consider this a 'women's issue'.
If men gave birth to children, I'd feel exactly the same way.

I consider this, really, to be a human issue. The murdered child could be a boy or a girl.

I don't consider it ridiculous to impose belief systems on women to make it illegal to murder children. There's a lot of things I can't do that are imposed upon me. For instance, I can't walk up the street, naked, stroking my genitals at every pretty girl I pass.

We're all subject to laws that may not exactly coincide with our own individual 'belief systems'. Personally, I'm glad we are.

"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion, because if a mother can kill her own child what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between."

-- Mother Teresa

Anyone stop to think about how maybe there is a correlation between a lot of the stuff we see going wrong around us, and abortion?

If the life of the most innocent is to be considered disposable at the convenience of the rest of us, then there really is no compelling moral reason why we should consider the sanctity of the lives of anyone else, either.

"You are male and this does not affect you."

And I suppose men are the only ones capable of chauvinism? Last time I checked it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. I'm responsible for the child yet have no say in whether it is born?

After reading your statement, I suppose in your mind men are only good for two things, sperm and child support payments. Talk about chauvinism.

"So yes, those who wish to make decisions for women about reproductive health, have once again won. So get out your coat hangers and kitchen tables, because the right wingers will not stop here. They love school prayer, hate homosexuals, and think women should be barefoot and pregnant. Oversimplified? Yes. But mostly accurate."

Does anyone else ever notice that when people like L.C. don't have an argument of reason they resort to bashing and name-calling of opponents? The only other thing in L.C.'s arsenal that he didn't hurl was "racist", and that might have been used as well, if it could have been worked into the insult.

L.C., or should we say Demon Deacon, those people that made the law limiting "killing" of human fetuses, are called Members of Congress. The U.S. Constitution grants the authority to the legislative branch of government to establish laws that govern our society. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was duly enacted by Congress regulating third trimester abortions and signed into law by President Bush. The Supreme Court ruling upheld the constitutionality of the law. The members of the highest court in the judicial branch exercised its wisdom here in the same manner that the same court did in 1973 with its Roe vs. Wade ruling. The difference here is that the court upheld a law enacted by the legislative branch, whereas the previous court "made" abortion law.

Infantcide or near-infantcide should never be tolerated, much less legalized, in a civilized, moral society. Maybe in an anarchistic society that would be allowed, but our country is not there, yet.

There are two issues here: 1) partial birth abortion and 2) "Is the government paving the way to regulate more and more things that are more properly the province of the state";and maybe even more importantly,"Is the Supreme Court starting to use its power to impose morality"? And as the question was asked, "whose morality are we talking about?" If we can step aside from the partial birth abortion issue for a moment, and see what the Court may be saying "We have to protect you because you may not understand what you are doing". What are the paramenters on this kind of decision making? The statements suggesting that the aura for this "legal invasion" are paternalistic and chauvinistic have merit but even more scarey is what seems to me to be the moving of the judicial boundaries to include not only interpreting the constitution but imparting moral judgements as well.

People today are truly informed. They know what they want and further know what they think is in their best interests. Society is also a great protector. The decision, for me, should have been restricted to communicating a statement of a finding of law and lawful acts. PERIOD.

My point hopefully is clear; it has applicability for both sides of the partial birth abortion issue. Even if you support the finding, look at how it was determined; are we setting a precedent here that hints of "big brother?"

Well stated, JoeJoe .. I totally agree, and like the suggestion we look at it from a different perspective - remove the emotion of abortion - and just discuss the ever larger role of a single group deciding everything for everybody.

"We have to protect you because you may not understand what you are doing".

... but I dis-agree that "People today are truly informed." Some are completely uninformed. Some are more informed that others, and still others are less informed than they think they are. I probably fit into that last category.

"After reading your statement, I suppose in your mind men are only good for two things, sperm and child support payments. Talk about chauvinism."

Bishop,

I have never known you to be such a presumptive, unfair individual. There was absolutely nothing in my post to warrant such an improper statement. Shame on you.

I never said you or any other man should not have a say in whether YOUR child is born. What I said was "But what the male justices are saying is their moral norms are more important than those of a woman, any woman. That women don't have enough sense or the right to make some decisions (with regard to her body) on her own. Poor dimwitted women need the guidance and wisdom of men."

Now I want to know how you are affected by that statement. You are not a woman so it does not apply to you. No female justice is making laws that affect your reproductive rights because "you may not understand the consequences" of making a baby.

Apparently you missed the point also. So does this mean you only see women as baby making machines or play toys?

Whew! The topic of abortion brings the emotionally challenged out en masse.

JoeJoe & James,
I agree with the segue' into the real crux of the matter, which is allowing such a small group of people to dictate very personal decisions to the states and to the people.
If the majority of Americans believed as some of the more myopic folks in the minority believe, abortion would have been outlawed long ago.

Nit,
Sorry you had to make such a personal attack on me, but I understand you cannot distinguish between passion and reason. I certainly hope you are not in favor of "clinic bombers" or one of the Christian protestors that yell "murderer" at women going in for an abortion. Hope you just take it out on this blog and folks who think differently here. :)

TLC,

With you last post, you have proven the depth of your ignorance of this issue.

Roe v. Wade was not decided based upon law created by the states or the federal government. What happened in Roe v Wade is that the Supreme Court found that a fundamental right existed in, but was not specifically mentioned under, the US Constitution.

This right, they found, is called the right to privacy. The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court felt that, when read as a whole, the entire document created some unmentioned rights, such as the right to privacy of one's affairs.

This right to privacy they found was the basis of what they used to strike down an anti-abortion law that had been duly passed by a state legislature, the one that Roe challenged (Texas, I think). This decision nullified state law banning abortion as unconstitutional, as such a ban would violate one's right to privacy under the Constitution.

So, TLC, if you have been keeping track, a small group of people (the Supreme Court majority) dictated a very personal opinion to the states and the majority of the citizens of the states, evidenced by that state passing such a law.

Since this decision is in accordance with your beliefs, I am sure that you will not challenge this as an undue influence of the minority on the majority, so in the future, you may want to ammend the argument you stated above, the one about the few dictating to the many being a bad thing.

That is also why, TLC, a simple vote can not do anything to Row v Wade. It was made a Constitutional issue, not an issue governable by passing laws that reflect the will of the majority.

I have heard that those that oppose abortion outnumber those in support of it. I don't really have the statistics to back that up, so feel free to look into this yourself. But I do know that abortion opponents lack the base to make a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion which, after Roe v Wade, would be about the only option they would have. I think it takes 2/3 or so of the Senate to pass an amendment, but I am a little shaky on this, but it is certainly more than a simple majority.

I guess another option is getting the Supreme Court to reverse themselves and overturn the precedent they set in Roe, that declared abortion a fundamental Constitutional right. This is much more likely to happen, IMO, than an ammendment. And there is nothing that any legislator in the country can do about it, either. Or any President, for that matter.

Sometimes the SC does overturn decisions. Think about Dredd Scott. That was a precedent that, I think we can all agree, had to be overturned. Once set, precedent is not necessarily permanent.

But, honestly, I think that abortion as we know it is here to stay. I doubt it will go away completely, but also doubt that the partial birth ban will go away anytime soon.

Yvonne,

I read your comments and I understood them well.

"You are male and this does not affect you."

"When women can make decisions about men's reproductive rights, I'll concede it's tit for tat."

Just look at the comments you posted above. Did you not post them? Men have absolutely no reproductive rights in this country. After the conception, that's it.

If the mother decides that she doesn't want the baby, she can opt to have it aborted without the father's consent. The opposite of this argument is true as well. The father has absolutely no say if he wants the baby aborted. Men have a responsibility to the child as well as the mother, but no rights period.

The mother can decide at any time that she wants nothing more to do with the father. The father then receives a grand prize of child support payments for the next 18 - 22 years. Rarely does a court give custody to a man these days.

Child support payments are not a last resort, but a first resort. The government automatically assumes that a father would not buy the things his child needs.

You want to talk about rights being stepped on, but don't want to admit that men get stepped on in this arena just as much as women. So point your finger and say "shame on me." You're just as guilty of making assumptions.

Swanks,
From the legal standpoint, Roe is not good law. From the moral standpoint, it was the right thing to do. Those who argue it emotionally cannot see what you or I am even talking about here.
As for an amendment, or changing the law---it can happen and it has happened. Look at Prohibition for just ONE example. The problem is, that those who are so hell bent on telling other people what to do, are the same ones advocating for taking government out of our lives in other areas. They have no leg to stand on.

I don't 'resort' to personal attacks. I use humor when I feel it is appropriate. There's a difference, you know. :)

Bishop,

You cannot decide what was in my heart and mind with any degree of accuracy when I made the statement "You are male....". What I posted BEFORE that statement should have made it clear, but apparently, for you, it didn't.

"I am not surprised some of you are missing the point." preceded the "You are male..." and "But what the male justices are saying is their moral norms....." followed. Clearly I was talking about the decision a very small group of biased, superior, chauvinistic males had made and the wording of that decision. It was a total insult to women in general.

It sounds as if this issue of men not being able to dictate what decisions a woman might make regarding abortion is a very personal one for you. If that is the case, I am truly sorry that is your experience. As I posted in another thread, I think women in a committed relationship should involve the man who impregnated her and respect his right to have a voice in the decision.

That is how I feel. Abortion decisions are extremely personal and should involve only those immediately affected by them. It is not a decision in which some "supreme" beings should be involved in. The man, the woman and God are the only ones who should decide what is best for everyone.

If you are not in a committed relationship and are just having casual sex with the woman, you shouldn't have any say in what her decision is regarding her pregnancy. You should have thought about the ramifications of casual sex and unwanted pregnancies BEFORE you satisfied yourself.

As for men having no reproductive rights, I'm sorry you don't see what a bunch of baloney that is. Any man has a choice about having children or not. No one is trying to legislate whether he has to or does not have to have children. It is his responsibility to prevent the need for abortion as much as it is a woman's. The difference, and the point of this debate, is a man can simply walk away from an unwanted pregnancy. A woman can't. She has to either carry the child to term or abort. That is why women should be able to make the final decision.

After birth of the child, divorce, child support (Incidentally, I had three children when my ex and I split. He paid not one dime in child support, mainly because I did not demand it.) and so forth are not the point of the letter. It is an entirely separate issue. (Again, if this is a personal issue, I hurt for you. No man should be separated from his children, unless he is unfit.)

"As for men having no reproductive rights, I'm sorry you don't see what a bunch of baloney that is. Any man has a choice about having children or not."

As I said before it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby. Both parties have the right as to engage in the conception of a child (provided it's a mutual decision). A woman still has the right to an abortion up to a point; with no regard for the man's feelings period.

"... a man can simply walk away from an unwanted pregnancy."

Then I suppose we agree to disagree. A woman can walk away just as easily as a man. Save having an abortion in the first trimester.. ever hear of adoption?

"No one is trying to legislate whether he has to or does not have to have children... "

It's not like the government is impregnating women against their wills. I've said it once and I'll say it again... takes two to tango. I already pointed out that men get no choice with regard to matters that concern their children. Women have an abortion in private without the man's consent and the government simply steps in and orders the man to pay in the event the couple splits.

I'm going to assume you haven't had a child recently, because in this day and time -- as a man you don't get away with not paying. Your wages are garnished automatically if don't pay, you can lose your license, and in extreme circumstances be arrested. Just because your ex didn't pay does not mean EVERY man is a deadbeat.

You have a problem with the government assuming that all women would make poor choices about aborting a child and I have a problem with the government assuming that all men make poor choices that concern taking care of their children.

It's a legitimate argument yet you dismiss it as "baloney" and a "completely separate issue." I guess we weren't discussing the government being far too involved with regard to women, men, and their children.

Bishop,

As I was going about my housework and thinking of our "at odds" discussion, I was praying for clarity and resolution (I hate conflict.). I don't know if this is really any help or not but I think we must be from different generations and caught in the Mars vs Venus trap.

When I went to the hospital to have my tubal ligation (in the early '70's), I was told they could not do it until my (then) husband came by and signed for the procedure to be done (on me). There has never been a time, to my knowledge, when a wife had to sign for a husband to have a vasectomy.

I also was having children when abortion was not available to women legally. That was because MEN decided they knew what was best for women. The wording of the SC decision brought back some really raw emotions (of being controlled and dictated to by men). The wording also implied that women could not be trusted to decide what was best for themselves. (Again the implication that men could control what goes on inside a woman's uterus and they (women) were at the mercy of these mens' decisions. Second class citizens comes to mind.)

Since I am a strong feminist, my ultimate allegiance comes down on the side of women. As a man, I understand your allegiance to men in general. Thus I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree (as I think we will never see eye to eye). Besides, I think we both are taking this too personally rather than in a general context.

(In case I have not been clear, this is a peace offering.)

"When I went to the hospital to have my tubal ligation (in the early '70's), I was told they could not do it until my (then) husband came by and signed for the procedure to be done (on me). There has never been a time, to my knowledge, when a wife had to sign for a husband to have a vasectomy."

I'm going to guess that had to have been insurance related. Regardless, that wouldn't happen in today's America.

"Since I am a strong feminist, my ultimate allegiance comes down on the side of women. As a man, I understand your allegiance to men in general."

In that case you don't understand me at all. According to Katherine Young, feminists strongly resemble male chauvinists. I am of the opinion that women can do anything they put their minds to. I don't have an allegiance to either sex. However, I do have a severe problem with folks not being sensitive to the rights and feelings of others.

Do I have a problem with the recent SC ruling? Damn right I do! However, I feel it affects both men and women.

Bishop,

I read a mini synopsis of Katherine Young's life and career. I saw nothing to give any credence to her opinion of feminists. She, of course, like you, have the right to YOUR opinions. That, however, does not make it accurate. Following are some web definitions that describe my idea of a feminist: 1) Belonging to movements and ideas which advocate the rights of women to have equal opportunities to those possessed by men. 2) A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism. 3)Feminism can be described as an organized movement of social theories, moral philosophies, economic and political thought, all focused on the liberation of women from a perceived subordination to men. Many feminists are concerned with practices and social, political, economic inequalities that discriminate against women.

If you want to denigrate my belief in the equality of women and women's issues, have at it. It reflects badly on you, not me.

Your guess about the insurance would be wrong. It was law and accepted practice. Just like Wachovia Bank refusing me a two hundred dollar loan without the signature of my husband. Apparently you think it unimportant that women have traditionally had to fight for every right to independence.

I base my decisions now on my experiences. While I don't believe in living in the past (of one's own life), it would total foolhardiness to ignore what has taught me the lessons I have learned. I learned well the lesson that it's a man's world and if I wanted to survive, I had to learn to stand up for myself.

"However, I do have a severe problem with folks not being sensitive to the rights and feelings of others." If that statement is true, I guess you have a problem with yourself.

"I read a mini synopsis of Katherine Young's life and career. I saw nothing to give any credence to her opinion of feminists."

Then I'm afraid you read about the wrong Katherine Young.
According to Young "...modern feminist theory has chauvinistic elements."

There is a far cry of difference between Advocates for Women's Rights and Feminism.

Some other authors on the subject have similar thoughts:

"Wendy McElroy claims that in some "gender feminist" views, all men are considered un-reformable rapists, wife-beating brutes and useless as partners or fathers to women."

"If you want to denigrate my belief in the equality of women and women's issues, have at it. It reflects badly on you, not me."

For the record I want nothing to do with denigrating your beliefs in the equality of women. I too hold those same beliefs. What I have a problem with is modern feminists that go too far. Did I not say in the above post that a woman can do ANYTHING she puts her mind to? How does that denigrate your belief in equal rights?

Bishop,
How many "unwanted" children or "crack" babies have you adopted? Just wondering if your pocketbook followed your mouth.

Oh, so you want to tell others what you feel is right for them, but it's not your job to feed, clothe, rear, and educate the babies once their born! Thought so. So you are PRO BIRTH, but you couldn't give a crap about a baby once it's born.

Note: John Larsh aka Jack Armstrong, the last paragraph is a rhetorical device.

Bishop,

Exactly what is your point? That you think I am a female chauvinistic pig because I believe men do not have the right to control a woman's decision to abort a baby? That you think feminist hate men and since I identify as a feminist I hate men? That Katherine Young or Wendy McElroy think feminists are chauvinistic and therefore not credible? Where are you going with this and why? And why is it so important to you to try to discredit my POV?

Is this the way you handle women in your personal life. Badger them and suggest they are men hating feminists when they disagree with your opinion? Or is it just because you do not know me that you feel it is OK to imply my opinion is somehow inferior to your's?

If I hurt your feelings, I am sorry. My intent was to express an opinion, an opinion that men should not be making laws that trample on a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own uterus. And to say how insulting the SC's wording was to all women. Then you attack me for expressing my opinion and have kept up the attack, for what perverse reason I haven't a clue.

"What I have a problem with is modern feminists that go too far." If that is your excuse for being insulting, it's your character that warrants examination, not mine.

"Then you attack me for expressing my opinion and have kept up the attack, for what perverse reason I haven't a clue."

Ask yourself what you've been doing? You apologize and follow-up with more personal attacks on me.

"My intent was to express an opinion..."

As was mine.

TLC,

For the record there have been over 50 foster children in my home throughout the years. Five of which were adopted. Any more smart-ass comments from the peanut gallery?

TLC,

Where did you get the idea I'm pro-birth? Read my above comments. I've always been pro-choice. It's funny how folks want to cast me as some Neanderthal because I feel that a man has a say too.

"Do I have a problem with the recent SC ruling? Damn right I do!"

If that is how you choose to view it, Bishop, so be it. However, you know full well I never tried to paint you as a woman-hating, chauvinistic male. That was you who delivered that little zinger (implying I was a man-hating....), more than once, I might add.

It seems as if you want to absolve yourself of any responsibility for trying to demonize me and my POV. Well, you can't. It is here in black and white.

You are right about one thing though. I do not know you. I HAD thought you to be a man of integrity.

Bishop,
My hat is off to you for your work with Foster Children. Thank you very much. Also, I apologize for pigeonholing you into the "Pro Birth" Camp. I understand how that is very demeaning to one who is actually trying to make a difference. Again, my hat is off to you. While I may disagree with you on it being a Woman's issue, I respect you for being pro choice and for being a foster parent.

The rub for me, are the folks who seem to think they have some moral undergirding, but are just plain hypocrites. One poster, who most can identify, clings to the sancitity of life argument for a fetus. Then that person puts conditions upon which abortion could be legal. Guess life of the fetus is NOT really that important after all! Then there's the Catholic Church with its hierarchy of male leaders, telling women what they can and cannot do---AND claiming birth control is unholy. Give me a freaking break! These people have no credibility with thinking people---they should stick to what they do best...BINGO and pedophillia! (That part's a joke, in case John Larsh, aka Jack Armstrong is watching!)

I believe we must be caught in a game of semantics. I explained my thoughts on the difference between 'Feminism' and 'Womens Rights' below.

"There is a far cry of difference between Advocates for Women's Rights and Feminism."

'Feminism' obviously has a different connotation for you than it does for me.

I think we can both agree than the government should keep its hands out of the matter.

Yet you take it a step further and are abhorred that male justices were even involved to arrive at this ruling. Frankly, I'd think you'd be opposed to the ruling even it were made by female justices.

One man and one woman make a baby. If there is a decision to be made about the abortion/adoption or anything else concerning the child; then both the father and mother should be involved. That is my belief; that is all I'm saying.

You are right that I would oppose a total ban on abortion, Bishop, whether made by men or women. I think no one should be making such private decisions for anyone else.

I actually disagree with late term abortions except in extenuating situations. However, it is because of these circumstances that the ruling is wrong imo (plus the reason listed above). But considering that about 86% of all abortions happen in the first trimester, the problem of late term abortions is very minimal.

You are also right about my reaction to a group of men insinuating women were too dimwitted to make intelligent decisions regarding their own uteruses. If a woman insults my intelligence, I usually laugh. Since many men have historically thought women were less intelligent and treated "the little woman" that way, it does strike me the wrong way. But for a group of men sitting on the SC to be so condescending, it really put a burr in my britches.

I have been saying all along that was what I was referring to and meant when I made the statement that you took offense to. Anyhow, thank you for making one last attempt to make yourself clear.

Yvonne,

That is precisely the reason I took offense. The sex of the people making that ruling shouldn't make a difference. My point is, the ruling should have never been made to begin with.

Given my belief that the mother and father should both be involved in the decision to abort a child, the ruling insults the intelligence of both men and women.

I have seen countless families split apart over the years. In my experience fathers abandon children only slightly more than mothers. However, it does happen and it is just as painful for the children involved.

In my opinion the government should not be making those decisions for the people; regardless of the governmental rep's sex.