Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
CDA

Journal bmetzler's Journal: The Angry Left 69

Journal by bmetzler

July 1st the "Women's Right to Know" act will go into law in Minnesota. This has caused the pro-abortion groups to be absolutely livid with rage. With rage, I say.

The Women's Right to Know act means that women who are wanting an abortion have to have a pre-abortion session where they are told what an abortion is, what the side effects can and *will* be, and alternatives to an abortion. Then the women will have to wait 24 hours before actually having the abortion procedure done.

The pro-abortion people are saying that this law has no other purpose but to allow women to change their mind about having an abortion. "This will cause a drop in the number of abortions," they cry! How perceptive of them. That is exactly what this bill is trying to do, and I am filled with glee.

Planned Parenthood has said that they will comply with the letter of the law, but will not tell mothers that what they are doing is murdering their babies. Or that this abortion may cause breast cancer. It will be a "positive" message, designed to encourage the mother to allow her child to be murdered. That's fine, I'll wait for the lawsuits to start. Planned Parenthood may try to skirt the issue, but I'm optimistic that one day Planned Parenthood will have to tell the truth. "We are murderers."

I'm already beside myself with glee, and July 1st is still a week away. I just know that in 10 years I'll meet this 8 year old girl one day. She will tell me that her mother went in to an abortion clinic one day to murder her. The nurse explained what an abortion was, but this time instead of dragging her to the operating table while she is begging and pleading to be let go, that she doesn't want the abortion anymore, she'll be told she has to come back tommorrow. She'll be compelled, threatened, told that she won't get her money back. But she'll leave, and she won't come back. Ever. Soon, there will be a baby girl. A cute, perfect, happy baby girl.

In 8 years I'll meet her. That baby that was doomed to die. And I'll know, I'll know: the only reason she is alive is because of what happened on that very special day, July 1st, 2003.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Angry Left More

The Angry Left

Comments Filter:
  • Where'd they go? I guess it makes sense- I mean, you get mad, so you leave. It sure beats sticking around to stew in your ire. To The Angry, I say: Good riddance!

  • Or maybe (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That girl will be born in some school restroom after hours and thrown in the garbage by its 15-year-old mother.
  • it's about time. I figure, if you aren't prepared for a baby, don't have sex.
    • All teenage girls should be on birth control, it should be apart of the school lunch program. Anti-abortion nuts should be advocating birth control to reduce the chance of unplanned pregancy, but instead most of them have a typical backwards view when it comes to contraceptives and safe sex.
      • And condoms should be given out like band-aids. No questions asked. If people were really concerned about abortions, they would understand the importance of preventative measures. Okay, so you force a couple of reasonably educated, privileged[1] people to wait a day before having an abortion. This doesn't address the underlying problem of unplanned pregnancies.

        I believe that every girl and woman should be informed of where they can get emergency contraception, and that it should be available without a
        • well, I for one am more concerned with the moral fiber of the nation/world than I am with simple murder and sex. I think by making sex easy to do like that, all it would do is make sex even more common/meaningless. I myself think it's rather important that sex be connected to commitment to the tune of marriage so that if the baby does in fact come, then it's got two parents who are ready to accept that responsibility. How is that bad? contraception is far from a done deal, whereas a married pregnancy pr
          • But promiscuous sex is fun.

          • Re:woo! (Score:2)

            by ces ( 119879 )
            I think by making sex easy to do like that, all it would do is make sex even more common/meaningless.

            The problem is sex is easy. People will have sex regardless if they have access to condoms and birth control.

            By making condoms or birth control hard to access all you are doing is ensuring there will be more of a problem with STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
          • That's right. We should outlaw fire extinguishers. They just encourage arson.

            We should outlaw ambulances on highways and roads. They just encourage reckless driving.

            Bannisters? Gotta go. Especially in schools. Responsible people don't need them. It's drunk losers who fall off a staircase.

            Same for lids on coffee sold to commuters. If you were morally pure, you wouldn't be in such a rush.

            We should certainly outlaw protective clothing for work environments. They only encourage lazy behavior around machi
            • Don't you think a more fair comparison would be an analogy between condoms and fire extinguishers, versus abortion and fire extinguishers?

              I don't think you should have to be told about your moral fiber. I do, however think that this could be a Good Thing(TM). Since when is objective consultation bad? As long as it's objective, which can be achieved through proper screening and training of the advisors.

              In an earlier post you expressed concern regarding access to the clinics and advisors/council/whatever
  • if this girl was unwanted all of her life, has been bounced from foster home to foster home by an overtaxed system, lashes out and is destructive to all those who try to help her, and wishes that all in all, she were dead?
    • Apparently you don't look at many Pro-Life billboards. Don't you know that all fetuses/embryos that would be aborted are healthy, full-term white babies with loving two-parent families that had access to pre-natal care?

      Here's a fun game: compare Pro-Life billboards to Adoption billboards. Notice how the children's race changes? A while ago, here in MN, there was a billboard paid for by Prolife MN or some such group. It said: Yes, it is a Black and White issue. Eep! I couldn't believe they said that.
    • [...] and wishes that all in all, she were dead?

      Oh, good point. I propose we legalize abortion until the age of 12. Certainly by 12 a child should know whether they are unhappy or not. Or are you saying that only children that might have been aborted have the right to wish they were dead?

      -Brent
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Oh, absolutely not. I'm merely pointing out that it's ridiculous to assume that your hypothetical girl will be absolutely thrilled and happy and overjoyed with life. Granted, she's your hypothetical girl, so I suppose that you can make her feel however you want.

        I just offered my own take on her. On another note, it's entirely possible that the next three Hitlers have all been aborted, and, thus, abortion would have saved the world from incredible tyranny and suffering. Of course, it's entirely possible

    • then by all means, SHE can take HER OWN life.
  • At the stupidity of the ultra-right, I love how these religion-blinded nutcases obsess about abortion, call fetuses humans, and obsess about a topic that is so insignificant. I would interested to see a IQ, education, and income level study of the average anti-abortion protester. It would be interesting to see it compared to say pro-choice demographic.

    The fact is that the amount of education completed by a given sample demographic is directly proportional to the likelihood that they are agnostic or athei

    • The fact is that the amount of education completed by a given sample demographic is directly proportional to the likelihood that they are agnostic or atheist. People who are devoutly religious are more likely to be poor and uneducated. There is a reason why in general phd's, high IQ's, etc.., are more likely to be non-religous, and it is not a fluke.

      I've never seen any documentation about that before. I've never even heard of that either. It doesn't matter though, because for the sake of argument, I'll jus

      • I'll just assume that you are correct. I speculate that they form their beliefs based on what the education system wants them to believe.

        I would say in general educational systems in America (baring Religion sponsored universities and k-12) tend to be independent of religious views. Religious convictions (good and bad) are generally a product of parenting, although I've personally seen a large amount of people in my generation remove themselves from the religious teachings of their parents and grandpare

        • asv108, I think that the point that I was trying to get across, is that it is bad form to be using words like "fact", when you don't have them with you. After all, you are then just placing your beliefs on somebody's word, & their credibility. If I tell you that my parents & grandparents are correct, & that they say that such 'n such is true, then you are likely to criticize me by saying, "Religious convictions (good and bad) are generally a product of parenting, although I've personally seen a
          • Don't believe me? @ 1 time, half of Harvard's graduates went on to be pastors. By your logic, educated people become pastors.

            Actually, I do believe you, a long time ago To turn it around, if the religious community controlled the education system, & had unwritten rules that required a belief in a particular religion

            Well this was pretty much the case for a great deal of universities before 20th century, most were funded by particular religions and required "study' of that religion. Today must unive

            • Well this was pretty much the case for a great deal of universities before 20th century, most were funded by particular religions and required "study' of that religion. Today must universities are secular for the obvious reasons, endorsing one particular religion has no place in higher education.
              Again, this just proves my point. According to your statistics, people, in general, just believe what they've been taught & thus the correlation is irrelevant.
              • Again, this just proves my point. According to your statistics, people, in general, just believe what they've been taught & thus the correlation is irrelevant

                So what you are trying to say is the absence of a religious requirement in higher education has led to the lack of deeply religious masters and phd students? Do you think endorsing Christianity, Islam, satanic worship, or any other religion has a place in higher ed?

                I would contend that as one gets a greater understanding of world around them

                • Do you think endorsing Christianity, Islam, satanic worship, or any other religion has a place in higher ed?

                  Yes. If I didn't make that clearer to begin with, then I apologize. I'm not saying that it should be mandatory in every place of any education [kindergarten to PHD], but it shouldn't be discouraged, nor should we be surprised to see it.

                  I would contend that...

                  Yes, I understand, & that was what I was trying to disprove. No worries, though. You've stated your positition & had a chance to explain,

    • The fact is that the amount of education completed by a given sample demographic is directly proportional to the likelihood that they are agnostic or atheist. People who are devoutly religious are more likely to be poor and uneducated. There is a reason why in general phd's, high IQ's, etc.., are more likely to be non-religous, and it is not a fluke.

      "Fact?" More like the opinion of yet another bigoted left-winger. It's so easy to whip out Ye Olde ad-Hominem Attack...it saves you the trouble of having

      • left winger? (Score:3, Informative)

        by asv108 ( 141455 )
        "Fact?" More like the opinion of yet another bigoted left-winger

        For the record I am a registered republican, so I don't know where you get off calling my left-wing. It is a mistake to assume that someone who is pro-choice is left wing, it has been only a recent phenomenon (past 20yrs) that the republican party has been associated with "christian conservatism."

        • "Fact?" More like the opinion of yet another bigoted left-winger

          For the record I am a registered republican, so I don't know where you get off calling my left-wing.

          Duck test.

          • Duck test.

            I am a republican because I believe in the fundamental ideology of the republican party, which in case you are wondering what it is, smaller government and less federal control over the states hence the word "republic" in republican. A "left-winger" would support a larger federal government, less state control, with higher taxes to support a variety of federal programs: social and public works projects. I would be happy to submit a history reading list if you would like to study the foundation

            • You seem to be forgetting the moral component of Republican politics, or maybe you don't want to acknowledge that it exists...never mind that it's this wing of the party, not the so-called "moderate" wing, that delivered victory in 1980, 1984, 1994, 2000, and 2002. (The "moderates" really are just RINOs--Republicans In Name Only. We have one as governor here in Nevada, and he's as big a pro-abortion, tax-and-spend liberal as any Democrat you could name.) We believe in limited government as much as the ne
              • The "moral component" of the republican party is there, but it is a relatively new phenomenon and has nothing to do with the fundamentals of being a republican. Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr would all be considered moderates in respect to the "moral component." Fringes of both parties may be the loudest voices for but it is the middle who is the deciding factor in any given election. Not subscribing to the "moral superiority component" of the recent trends in the republican party does not make someone any le
                • Often the moral component even runs contrary to the fundamental basis of republicanism. They embrace "big government" when it suits their goals[1], whereas I traditionally think of the Republican party as wanting to keep regulations to a minimum.

                  [1] An example being the Defense of Marriage Act [indiana.edu], which, as far as I can tell, exists to preemptively undermine states that would opt to define marriage as something other than the specifications of this act.
                  • They embrace "big government" when it suits their goals[1], whereas I traditionally think of the Republican party as wanting to keep regulations to a minimum.

                    I think of "big government" as government that exists to pamper people and bow to their every whim. Goverenment's responsibilities should focused *mostly* on defense, both foreign, and domostic. If the biggest budget expenditure is not defense, I think that there is something wrong. Second, government should be imposing a morality on its people.

    • Actually, a fetus IS a human child.
      • *snarf*

        Ok, it was a funny remark...but I think there's a deeper point to be made. If it's so human and so important, take it out of the woman who doesn't want it. Wait, what? It's not breathing?

        I'm all for telling someone about the options besides an abortion. I'm all for detailing the physical and emotional conditions that occur with said procedure. I'm all for the 'think about this for 24 hours' deal -- it's important to the know the risks of any procedure, especially one that's taxing on your bo

        • The defination of a child includes the fertilized egg until some point of maturity.

          The fertilized egg is of human origin.

          Thus you have a human child.

          If a man has a heart attack, you don't say he was murdered. His heart just stopped.

          When one person perposfully takes the life of another, it is murder.

          • When one person perposfully takes the life of another, it is murder.

            And thus we go right back to the argument that starts this whole thing: where does life begin and who gets to define that? If there was a single definition, this would be easy, but there isn't.

            For some, it's at birth, for some it's conception, for some, it's viability. All seem pretty valid to me -- so I tend to have a problem with legislation on the issue because it assumes a definition that isn't concrete.

        • I'm all for the 'think about this for 24 hours' deal

          I'm not. I don't know how familiar you are with this particular law, but the state essentially provides a script that has to be read to the patient detailing the dangers of the procedure as determined by the people who made the law, not the doctors. I believe they also have to be informed about the development of a fetus and alternatives. But this isn't what upsets me.

          What I don't like about the law is this: name one other case wherein the state doe
          • This is their profession. If they don't fully inform people about procedures, they can lose their license.

            Exactly. And that's one of the points of this law. Abortionist should be compelled to imform their patients about what is going to be done to them, just like every other medical procedure is handled. If not, they should lose their license. Abortionists don't lose their license now if they don't inform patients. It is time for that to change.

            Name one other procedure wherein the state has decide

            • I can't name one other procedure where you can go in, get a diagnosis and have the operation the same day.

              Ummm...Have you ever inquired about an abortion? Given your sex, I'm thinking no on that one. They will not give you an abortion the same day as a pregnancy test. First of all, results from the blood test have to be sent out to a lab. Then, if it is positive, the clinics with which I am familiar counsel you on your options, and provide information on adoption, and services to help women who would
              • They will not give you an abortion the same day as a pregnancy test. First of all, results from the blood test have to be sent out to a lab.

                Woah!! Now you make it sound like this 24 hour waiting period isn't any too big of a deal at all. That's good. Then the new law will have no problem being implemented properly.

                So which is it? Is a same-day abortion something that we would be depriving women of, or do they have to wait for more then 24 hours anyways?

                Do a little research instead of spouting uni

                • Ummmm...According to the law, women will have to wait 24 hours longer than previously. It isn't 24 hours from the pregnancy test, or 24 hours from the post-test counseling. It's 24 hours from when they would like the appointment to be. And, honestly, an aborted fetus is an aborted fetus whether it happens 7 or 8 days from now. Someday I'm going to have an abortion just to piss people off. Then I'm going to write a book about how happy it made me to see the offending cells sucked from my body.
                  • It isn't 24 hours from the pregnancy test, or 24 hours from the post-test counseling. It's 24 hours from when they would like the appointment to be.

                    Ah, this is what I get for not reading the actual law. I think that 24 hours between the counseling and the procedure is a good thing -- although I don't quite see the difference. If you have the counseling, and schedule the appointment directly after, the 24 hour rule makes sense to me at least...

                    I dont think they wheel you in for surgery for at least 24

    • Actually, on the specific issue of abortion, I seriously doubt you'd find any meaningful correlation between attitudes and IQ or income or much else. There are plenty of, say, Catholics who have PhDs and make a ton of money but who will obviously oppose abortion. On the other hand, you will also find a lot of poor, uneducated immigrants that support it, especially those from asia (where, say, in China it is mandatory under certain circumstances).

      Believe me, you absolutely will not find the correlation yo
  • Great, another person running around taking up precious space and resources.

    Hell I say that it should be mandatory for all pregnant woman under the age of 18 to have an abortion.

    While they are at it, to make things fair, interview the mother (and then do a DNA test to confirm) to find out who the "potential" father was and beat the living shit out of him.

    Oh, and that eight year old girl?

    Raped repeatedly on the streets outside of the crack house her mother lives in. Fuck you, I have friends who have liv
    • (not that republicans could give less of a care ABOUT poor children. . . .)

      While I tend to favor that the abortion option be (legally) available, it must take exception to the above - it is not the government's job to look after or take care of anybody, children or adult, poor or rich. That our government often does claim to try to, or want to, the federal constitution has nothing that truly allows such things. They do it under the "provide for the ... general welfare" clause, but that's really quite an
        • it is not the government's job to look after or take care of anybody, children or adult, poor or rich.


        No, but it IS the governments job to ensure the continued general welfare of the country in every other sense.

        A well educated populas is one that produces scientiests, engineers, artists, and great thinkers. From those thinkers shall arise the very foundations of economic greatness, and without those thinkers, a nation shall be weak and eventualy fall.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • This sounds like a fairly sensible move, whether you are 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'. Informing women what they are signing up for has to be a good plan. You get this nowadays from anyone offering a product or service, including encyclopaedia salesmen, and, with all due respect to the latter group, I would have thought that an invasive medical operation was potentially at least as life-changing as buying a yard of books.

    I still think that a lot is going to depend on how the alternatives are perceived. If th

    • Promoting sensible counselling, mixed-race adoptions and programmes designed to integrate young, unemployed, unmarried mothers into society in a non-condescending way should surely get cheers from both sides?

      It gets cheers here. But what you you think of government funding for counselling and programs like that? The pro-abortion side would oviously have a cow.

      -Brent

      • Why? Helping people to make informed decisions has to be an empowering thing (the information given does have to be information not propaganda, but I suspect that any presentation of the mechanics of abortion is likely to discourage rather than encourage women to go through with it.) If the USA is anything like Europe, there are lots of caucasian childless couples who would like to adopt, but adoption policy stops them from adopting non-caucasian kids. It the alternative is life in care, or abortion, the mi

    • Give me a single example of anybody here or elsewhere who has said that they "consider abortion to be a wonderful experience that every woman should have as often as possible".

      I know that you felt you were exaggerating for emphasis, but since the anti-abortion people actually DO insist that a blastula is a fully rights-endowed human being (complete with perverse claims of "look at the smile on its little face") I do not see your portrayal of both sides as even.

      Rustin

      • (I think you have an anti where you meant to put a pro...)

        Interesting, I was expecting the complaints to come from the pro side. You're right, no-one expresses themselves in the terms I used. But in one of your earlier posts you appear to label abortion as an 'enabler', which doesn't sound that far off to me. I can't see how abortion can ever be 'enabling'. I think you can argue that in some cases it is the least bad option, but enabling it isn't.

        All the examples you give are fundamentally different to ab

        • But in one of your earlier posts you appear to label abortion as an 'enabler', ...
          One of these days I'll start using sarcasm tags like everybody else.

          If there is anybody who still doesn't get it yet I have concluded, after extensive examination up to and including econometric analysis, that abortion should be unconditionally legal, free on demand, and, as Com2Kid suggested, strongly encouraged for those who are underage..

          If you don't have an abortion, you generally end up with a baby, which many peopl

          • I have concluded, after extensive examination up to and including econometric analysis, that abortion should be unconditionally legal, free on demand, and, as Com2Kid suggested, strongly encouraged for those who are underage..

            That's not a million miles a way from my position, but what does any of that have to do with the usefulness or otherwise of counselling, adoption or anything else? Suicide is legal, rightly IMHO, but I don't personally think that the government should be promoting it...

            I have two k

            • That's not a million miles a way from my position,
              Yes, that section was, as I pointed out, for *anybody* who has not realized where I stand and was meant primarily to make that entirely unambiguous.

              but what does any of that have to do with the usefulness or otherwise of counselling, adoption or anything else?As Some Woman has explained quite well, counseling is already common, in fact, pretty much ubiquitious. Further, as SW also pointed out, this law does not require any meaningful form of counseling.

              • I think my gender is less of a handicap in this discussion than my nationality...

                In the UK, and in France, counselling is required before cosmetic surgery. I don't think it's a statutory requirement, but I think surgeons can be banned from practising if they neglect this part of their job.

                When I was looking at options for operations on my knee a few years back, I certainly got a lot of counselling, without asking for it, and made my decisions on the basis of that advice.

                I have friends with a teenage son

                • Yes, this is a very American problem.

                  Again, as SW pointed out, we too already have counseling before major medical decisions and here too a doctor already faces penalties if they don't offer it.

                  That is part of why so many of us are so enraged. Our awareness that *real* counseling already exists is part of why we see no credibility in those backing laws like this.
                  Do I think that counseling should be offered to somebody seeking an abortion? Of course. But this is certainly not the way to do it.

                  For many of

                  • I don't feel qualified to comment on your account of the history of the debate in America, so I won't. But it seems to me that there is an alternative hypothesis as to why people can't get along which has to do with paradigms.

                    If you believe that an abortion is just like any other operation, and that a foetus is just another piece of tissue, as you appear to do, then the pro-choice arguments are indeed going to look rather dubious. Equally, if you believe that a foetus is in some sense a human being, justi

                  • "Why can't those who want abortion legal, accessable, and safe sit down and work it out with those who disagree?"

                    Simply, passion for a cause. Justified, misplaced, whatever your side, both sides have righteous indignancy. When you abhor the thought of something and by extension the person advocating it, good talks on the subject are hard to come by.

                    In concept I don't think this law is a bad thing. I hold it in similar regard to a gun waiting period. Obtaining a weapon is a big responsibility. Some th
                • So I guess I'm saying that I don't recognise the uniqueness of what is being proposed wrt abortion. I guess the issue might be something to do with federal legislation, but then that's another American hang-up I don't get. You seem to think that federal government is out to get you, whereas the equivalent in France, for example, is viewed as the solution to everyone's problems... If the counselling was being proposed in a code of practice rather than a bill, would that make a difference?

                  A couple of things
      • Just a thought, but is it not also fair to consider that abortion can be and often is scheduled as a panic response to a problem situation?

        Any woman that finds she is pregnant is going to have emotional response. If that woman is not in a good situation for it OR was not in a mindset of wanting a child is likely going to have an immediate negative response. Easiest fix (in the short term) is schedule an abortion ASAP.

        If this is the route chosen, then it is also possible, even likely, that the woman did
  • My wife is a social worker. She worked with adoption and foster care for several years until like almost all social workers she quit.

    There are THOUSANDS of children awaiting adoption in michigan alone. There is a book of them. No one gives away babies. They raise them, abuse them and then get them taken away. If they do give them away, many of them are terrible distorted from drugs and drinking the mother was doing during pregnancy. They require tons of support and medical care for the rest of their
  • The pro-abortion people are saying that this law has no other purpose but to allow women to change their mind about having an abortion.
    That is a lie.

    The primary concern, articulated in great detail for over twenty years now, is that this makes it just about impossible for those most in need to get an abortion at all.

    Everybody knows that those with money, access, and knowledge will simply go out of state. What this is meant to do is cripple the efforts of teenaged girls who live hours or even a day from the nearest abortion provider.
    Courtesy of the murdering terrorists of the anti-abortion movement, many girls no longer have anywhere nearby to go. It is already a major trek to get to a clinic. It will get much harder for them if they have to schedule two visits, in some cases having to stay somewhere overnight.

    Yeah, THAT'll strengthen their "moral fiber", being stranded for the night in some far away place, usually terrified, broke, alone, and exhausted.

    This law isn't about "right to know", it's about obstruction.

    Ralph Reed himself admitted that this strategy was a planned course of deception and lies.
    They knew that most Americans wouldn't back outlawing abortion, so they switched strategies.

    Instead they, you, are fighting to keep chipping away. If you can just keep making this harder and harder, more and more expensive, dangerous, and humilitating, you figure that you can weasel your way in the back door to creating a set of laws that enforce what you already know the American people don't support.

    Bully for you. You've guaranteed more unwanted pregnancies, ensured more back-alley abortions, set the stage for more impoverished, brain-damaged children, who will be more likely to become more rejected and unproductive criminals.
    Women and girls who are forced to carry a baby to term do not pay attention to prenatal care. They smoke, drink, do drugs, and resent the baby when it's born.

    A true step into your sort of America.

    Too bad that so many libertarians and utilitarians like me and many other /.ers are swiftly rising up to stop this forced "morality" once and for all.

    Enjoy it while you can.

    Rustin

Slashdot Top Deals

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS

Close