Thursday, November 30, 2006

SC Times Letter to the Editor (Choice related!)

Oh how I miss my time at SCSU. The daily reading of the SC Times chatroom and the crazy comments that inundate it on a daily basis. I actually saved some of the post Homecoming stuff where people were wishing ill will upon me during that time.

It was awesome!

I digress. Here is the letter. I think it is a solid letter. The issue is perhaps the most delicate issue in modern politics. I witnessed it firsthand while campaigning. I completely respect perspectives that I do not possess, I respect one's right to stand up and fight for what you believe in, even if it is in complete contradiction to what I believe in. As a matter of fact, I respect those that educate themselves on the issues and can engage in a dignified discussion of the matter at hand.

Letter: Positive Alternatives Act was anti-choice, woman
Alice Cowley, Becker

A very tragic bill was passed during the 2005 state legislative session titled the Positive Alternatives Act. This bill gave approximately $5 million in tax dollars to the anti-birth control, anti-choice, anti-woman clinics throughout our state.

These anti-birth control clinics lure women who may be pregnant to come into their clinics, claiming they will help you. Their brainwashing techniques are that "abortion kills babies" and that "the potential life is more important than her life."

Women who come into their clinics are already sexually active and the only birth control information they give them are "abstinence only" and natural family planning. "Abstinence only" teaches that "good girls" don't get pregnant and when "good girls" do get pregnant, many go into denial until the birth of their babies.

Desperate people do desperate things. Abandoned babies are still being found and few are found alive. Republicans who supported this anti-birth control bill were Sens. Michele Bachmann, Betsy Wergin and Rep. Mark Olson, who campaigned to cut taxes.

Is the state keeping track of the extra cost to taxpayers of the medical and welfare expenses resulting from this compulsory motherhood bill? How much of your federal taxes are paying to promote "abstinence til marriage"? And look at the recent headline — "Abandoned infant found on roadside."

How tragic! When will the anti-choice learn that their brainwashing "abstinence only" doesn't work for everyone!

For centuries the religious moral ethic has been abstinence before marriage, which worked for some, while others ended tragically with broken minds, bodies and even death.

The wise concept of Planned Parenthood needs to be preserved and improved upon — realistic, humanitarian "Prevention not Prohibition."

The comments are interesting.

Ron from Fairhaven
Posted: Nov. 30, at 6:57 AM
Ideally, of course, state-sponsored women's clinics should be ideologically neutral in addressing young pregnant women. Counseling by the various religious groups should also be available if requested. But, in the recent political environment, the fundamentalist base has distorted this approach via the legislature and the more progressive factions have, it seems, allowed this to happen, virtually unchallenged. Hopefully this can be corrected as more progressive legislators take their seats. It is not that the Christian Right is "wrong" or unscrupulous; they have a right to have input into this dilemma. What we must strive for is balance and a sense of legal neutrality here. This is one area where faith-based initiatives could be of help, to provide young women opportunities for counseling in accord with their moral inclinations. A case could still be made for abortion procedures, if that is what is desired, to be funded privately, either by the pregnant parties or interested non-profits. For these procedures to be paid from state revenues seems to violate the rights of taxpayers with strong reproductive convictions.

GBGirl from St. Cloud
Posted: Nov. 30, at 7:50 AM
I do not believe in abortion (for convenience purposes). I would never get an abortion (for convenience purposes). With that being said, I will ask all of these self-righteous persons the question I ALWAYS ask when abortion issues and lack of BC education comes up....are you ready?

Preaching "abstinece" only is irresponsible and arrogant. Can you assure me that 100% of the time, 100% of our youth will listen and do as you say, 100% of the time? If not, then what is your plan to protect the youth?

It is arrogant and irresponsible to think that your son/daughter will hear of birthcontrol or learn of sex on their wedding night. They will hear the word "condom" and "Birth control" LONG before that night....who is it you'd like them to hear it from? Their peers on the playground?

If you don't like abortions, do something proactive...attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

count from countyline
Posted: Nov. 30, at 9:12 AM

VERY GOOD observation, Warning Will Robinson.
It probably is true of some of the posters here also.
Later on today/tonight the "usual " female posters will state that men should not comment as they "have no idea".
I will respond beforehand by stating that female posters who HAD an abortion, but never in their life gave birth to a child should also not post as they have nothing to compare the abortion against.
And,no GBGIRL----EA --IS-- correct in her statement about Alice Cowley. How many of her articles have you read from the --abortion rights advocate--, GBGIRL?
Alice Cowley is in a class of FEW!

GBGirl from St. Cloud
Posted: Nov. 30, at 9:58 AM
Count: Again, don't be so ignorant. People that are in support of a womans right to choose and on prevention of abortions, are NOT pro-abortion.
If you are going to make-up labels to apply negative connotations based on your skewing of their views, then I will say you and EA are "ANTI-CHILDREN". Here is why....
1) don't educate on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies (or STD's etc)....which causes the youth that don't hear your abstinence message (and yes, not everyone views you both to be the all knowing) to become young parents or inflicted with STD's.
2) If you do get pregnant and have the baby, way to go! You didn't have an abortion! What? You are a young mother who is alone? Well we don't support government "handouts" because anyone can make their way unless simply lazy, so sorry...but good luck to you and that kid!
Yes...the "ANTI-CHILDREN" crowd is alive and well today! Some want to protect the child in the mother, others show concern for when the child is also outside of the mother.

Proud Progressive from Your Neighborhood
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:14 AM
I've long hoped that at some point the fetus fetishists would simply get tired and go away. There's no question that many evangelical leaders either applauded Roe when it first came down or simply ignored it. Abortion was not the major concern of conservative Christian churches until Falwell, then the Reagan campaign, made it so in the late 1970s. Since then it has been fueled by money and the growing power of the religious right, certainly, but that does not change the facts that abortion was not a major issue for religious conservatives before the late 1970s (they were much more concerned with things like individual salvation, and yes, even poverty) and that a large majority of Americans prefer to keep abortion legal.
The only reason the anti-abortion crowd still makes headlines is because they have been co-opted by the Republican party, which has intentionally done nothing on their issue in order to keep it alive politically. Officials from the Regan and current Bush administrations have clearly stated as much, showing their disdain for the anti-abortion religious right at the same time they use them to advance their own political programs. It's a sad story for everyone involved. What if all this effort and money had been spent in promoting birth control, or even providing adequate food/housing/education for children?

Lisa from not so much Northside
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:21 AM
When the pro-birth crowd truly becomes pro-life, we will be able to make progress in this country. Until then, it's PREACH PREACH PREACH about birthin' more, and turning a blind eye to the thousands upon thousands of children whose basic needs aren't met. Children without health care, without homes, without food. Where are the advocates for these children? Not on these threads, preaching "pro-life".

Ma Cheri from SR
Posted: Nov. 30, at 10:54 AM
Many years ago, I went with a friend of mine while she had abortion. At that time I was roughly 5-6 months pregnant. It was not up to me to judge her, it was up to me as her friend to go with her in a time of need.
After being a the clinic for a few hours, I went outside, and was immediately swarmed by vulgar, angry, hostile “pro-life" protesters. Leading the crusade was a minister of some type. He got in my face with his disgusting, doctored, and mainly inaccurate pictures, begged ME not to go through with this abortion, if I agreed they would take care of me financially during the remainder of my pregnancy and completely pay for all mine and the baby’s medical bills. Well, that got my attention (of course I was not there having this done, but they assumed with my bulging belly, I obviously was, regardless of the fact that it was a woman’s clinic that performed more than abortions.) So I asked if he would guarantee that statement, he said yes, I then agreed to not go through with the procedure, and asked for his name and address so I could have all my medical bills transferred into his name. UUMM, guess what, never got it.
The moral of this story is, pro-lifers only care about saving a fetus, they do not care about the ones that are born, once they take their first breath, they wipe their hands clean and leave em on their own. (Pretty sure it was Warning Will that was in the cloth with his nasty arse pictures)

I could continue, but you get the picture. Oftentimes, it's a very spirited debate in the SC Times chatrooms. I do not partake anymore...only so many hours in a day!

<$Choice$> <$St Cloud$> <$Bachmann$>

No comments: