Indeed.

Barbara, Christine, you both took the words right out of my mouth!

You said it perfectly.

The only thing I'd add: If a man wants to have a say in the abortion issue, all he has to do is ask the woman before they have sex what her stand is on the issue. If she says she would consider an abortion if she felt it necessary, and he disagrees, then he should keep his sperm to himself.

He has a right to control his body, just like I have a right to control mine. If he releases his sperm to me, he has forfeited that right and left the decision in my hands.

I agree with you miss cox on all but one thing.

As a man...I have no problem whatsoever with the woman having the final say.

I apologise to both miss cox and miss christian as my above comment was meant for miss christian.

Really ? Why is that mr. dudley ?

Could it be because your a fundemental christian male who's afraid of women having controll over their bodies ?

Scott,

That must be utterly humiliating for you. 

Perhaps therapy might help although, I have little faith it it either.

@Thomas -  No, not at all. Why are you making asumptions? I not christain and I believe women should have control of their bodies.

@Christine - What? Your reply doesn't make sense.

"I am ultimately responsible for the care, feeding and training of myself and my off-spring, should I decide to produce them."

No less than the father.

"which they almost NEVER do when it comes to the children of those they screwed over.  That's why we need our laws to "make men do right"."

That is fairly insulting. Men have absolutely zero rights to decline the financial responsibilites of a child already. The laws are stacked such that men are heavily financially responsible yet it's very difficult for men to have any real parental rights. You're implying justification for an unablanaced system.

"not just the old white guys, eh?"

Now that's what is really what insulted me. I'm just getting tired of the sexism and the racism... that's all.

Scott, perhaps things are different in your state than mine. If a man does not want to pay child support, he can easily do so in one of two ways: A) stop sending checks, or B) go to court and renounce all rights to the child. Both of these things happen quite often.

My sister's ex is months behind on child support and even though she has gone through the hassle and pain of taking him to court, nothing happens. He pays beraly enough to buy him enough time until the next court date, which is a pittance that does my sister no good whatsoever, and the whole cycle starts all over again. Abd I'm not even going to get into what that bastard puts his daughter through, not calling her back to let her know if he's going to pick her up on his assigned weekend or not (the girl is 5 years old. She doesn't need this).

In a perfect world, the father SHOULD have as much of a responsibility to the child as the mother. But the reality is the father can walk away much more easily than the mother can, and the father exercises that option much more often than the mother does. We're looking at the reality.

And once your sperm is in my uterus, you have relinquished your rights. It's in my body, and you have not more right to it than you would to my right arm, or my kidney, or any other part of MY body. If you felt so strongly about it, you should have talked to me about it before doing the deed.

We're tired of the sexism too. Stop the attacks on reproductive rights. I know it's a generalization, because not EVERYONE in Congress is an old white guy, but the vast majority of them are.

@Criss - I sympathize with your sister and am sorry she's going through a painful situation.

There may be a lot of old white guys in congress, but that doesn't condemn old white guys. It doesn't seem, from this last post, that was your intent.

Remember, there are a bunch of old white guys in congress because we voted them into congress. There are more women in the US than men, so men don't dominate the vote. If there's going to be a chance in the number of women in politics, women have to get into politics - it's the only way. (and it's slowly happening)

Well geeeee thanks...So does this mean that you dont think men should be for women's rights ?

You and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on this then.

Nope. Not what I said. Men should definitely be for women's rights. But a governing body comprised of 83% MEN should think twice about passing legislation about the actions of women.

There's no law keeping women from being members of the governing body. Women account for more votes in the US than men.

They would probably need it for all their girlfriends and/or mistresses.

Yes, and one of the big "things" they stood for was free speach & freedom from oppression.  One person's opinion is not greater than the other, and free speach means accepting that in order to have a right to say what you want, you have to be willing to listen while others have their say.

Also, what about married couples?  Do they just stop having sex because they "might" get pregnant?  Reproductive rights effect all women, of every age, and all men - try explaining to married men that they have to keep it in their pants.

Janine, how does my medical procedure affect you and your family?

I don't understand how someone else's medical procedure overrides your family's rights.

Should health care not cover chemo treatments for lung cancer if you were a smoker? Should health care not cover any medical care related to obesity, because if the person wanted to live he should just have gotten on a diet?

And you took my words out of context. I was discussing whether a man has a vote when the woman chooses to have an abortion. He does have a choice: if he opposes abortion, then he needs to make the choice to not have sex with a woman who would consider that option if she were faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

Even families that desperately love and want the potential child have been faced with the need to terminate the pregnancy because of a medical issue. If the pregnancy is not terminated, if she does not abort, then the woman will die, and the fetus will not survive. What are you planning on saying to those women?

It would be nice if the only need for abortion came from slutty girls. Then we could just wag our finger and say, "Bad, bad girl!" But the reality is that women seek abortions for a wide range of reasons, some you can't even fathom, because, as you said, it is a very personal choice.

What do you plan on saying to the children who are the product of these unwanted pregnancies? If the woman can't afford to pay for the abortion, do you think she can afford to pay for proper pre-natal care? Or that she can even begin to pay th day-to-day expenses of raising a child?

 You say, "I support your right to "choose" what you want with your life, body, and family...and so should you respect people like me and my family".  How does someone else having an abortion disrespect you? 

Funding abortion is a socialist idea?  Sorry Janine but you don't seem to know a damned thing about Socialism and you don't seem to know much about Democracty either.   Congress voting to fund abortion does not promote socialism, it promotes what everyone in a Democratic society desires for everyone else, the freedom AND the means, to choose.

Now please tell me why my ability to choose disrespects your ability to choose.  Please.  I need to understand this.  Oh, it's not the ability to choose you're quarrelling with but Congress saying we'll pay for the choice?  Well, you voted in the past election didn't you?

What they spent on their campaigns to allow you to choose one candidate or another would have funded every abortion performed in the United States last year!  I suspect you don't want Public Health to pay for STD tests either do you?  If every Dick kept it in his pants, we wouldn't have STD's, right?  And then there's reality.

There are times when we have to subsume our immediate desires for the benefit of the greater good - I think that's what you were saying when you we're railing at us naughty girls -  but be careful where you point that finger, honey - there's always three more pointing back attcha :)

@Janine - I think your arguement is entirely fair. If you're morally apposed to abortion, there is something wrong with being forced to contribute your tax dollars to providing them.

I've always believed that we should have a list of tick boxes on our tax forms and that we should be able to select what things our txes can not be used for. In a way, this would be voting with our tax dollars.

Scott, as a teacher I am morally opposed to standardizes testing, but my taxes go to pay for all those test booklets and instruction manuals and to the third parties that charge insane amounts to create the worthless tests and then to grade them. Throughout the history of this country we have been paying for things with our taxes, things we do and do not agree with, and most of the time we don't even know WHAT we are paying for, what our congresspeople are doing with our tax dollars. Why does THIS issue suddenly give everyone a right to pick and choose?

This is an attack on women. Access to abortion is so much more than some floozie who had a one-night stand and now doesn't want to "pay the price" (oh, what a beautiful way to refer to a child...) If you looked into the issue, you would see it's about so much more than that. If you are morally opposed to the separation of Church and State, then pick another State to live in. There are plenty of Catholic countries in the world, go visit one of them.

@Criss - I agree, I hate standardized tests too. Buyt Criss, comparing the morality of standardized tests to abortion is pretty weak sauce.

Telling someone who feels that abortion is murder that they are required to pay for abortions is no more misguided than someone telling YOU that you can't have an abortion because they think it is murder.

The last thing we want to do is force abortion in the back room of a run down clinic using unsanitary methods. But asking Janine to pay for someone's abortion is akin to the government making you pay to kill slews of innocent Iraqies. Maybe you don't have a problem with that, but it doesn't change the fact that you're doing it.

"But asking Janine to pay for someone's abortion is akin to the government making you pay to kill slews of innocent Iraqies. Maybe you don't have a problem with that, but it doesn't change the fact that you're doing it."

But that's the point: we're all paying taxes to fund things we don't agree with.  I'm currently funding the murder of Iraqis and other innocent civilians in 2 unpopular wars. 

If we were able to check off boxes on our taxes as to what we actually wanted to pay for, then certain things would never get funded or would be seriously underfunded.  I WANT my taxes to pay for the military, but I don't LIKE that my money right now funds killing for a cause I don't believe in.

To have the privelege of living in America, I pay my taxes and have to leave the distribution to the government.

Scott, I don't think you want me to elaborate on the damage standardized tests are causing our students and consequently our society. If you really, really want me to, I will, but I'm warning you, it won't be pretty.

You cannot tell me how I feel about a certain issue. Janine feels strongly about abortion and socialism. I feel strongly about abortion and education. You can't tell me how I feel and compare it to how you tell me she feels.

Moving on, as Lisa pointed out, you proved my point exactly. The government is already making me pay "to kill slews of innocent Iraqies." This is the way it goes. If I don't like it, I speak up, but this is the price I pay to live in this country. The majority wants our government to kill slews of innocent Iraquies, so the majority voted to keep Bush in office so he could continue killing slews of innocent Iraquies, with my tax money.

We voted again, and the majority voted for the guy who supports women's rights and health care. If it really bothers you that much, then find another country to live in, as I considered doing several times in the last 8 or so years.

"You cannot tell me how I feel about a certain issue."

Obviously.

"The government is already making me pay "to kill slews of innocent Iraqies." This is the way it goes."

Two wrongs don't make a right, althought three rights can make a left. Anyway, just because it's "the way things are" doesn't mean we're doing it right. If that was our attitude, you wouldn't be able to vote.

To force a man or woman to work towards the goal of killing innocent people against their wishes is no more just and fair just because you put layers and layers of govenment in the middle.

"so the majority voted to keep Bush"

Actually, that may not be true... but that's a whole different discussion..

Speaking of different discussions, even though this is not the best place for it, I *would* like to hear you rant about standardized tests. I kow they're a big problem but I wouldn't mind being more educated on their effects and - more importantly - on good alternatives. Feel free to directly message me if you wish.

Janine,

It's a funny thing:  a whole bunch of people are worried that "Big Brother" is going to keep track of them and invade privacy by encoding medical records - what's so laughable about the idea is that when we give the Government something to keep track of, they loose, destroy, spindle or mutilate it beyond usefullness and then, they want it in triplicate.  Who do you think is going to spend hours diving trough medical records to steal information for God-only-knows what Evil purposes.... ??

And these "insanely huge" Government fears are just as palpably paranoid.  We don't have one bit more government today than we did nine months ago - it's been re-shufffled and re-named but nothing and I do mean nothing, has changed. 

It might help to remember that we're dealing with paper money, Monopoly Properties and Community Chest clues.  Statisticians and the government can make numbers say anything they want them to.  The crises was manufacctured and the recovery will be too.  Just keep working your butt off and it'll be alright.

And then there's the "rights" issue.  "You are supporting further government oppression by giving this insanely huge government even more power over you and your life". 

What power would we be giving them that they don't already have?  Several branches of the Government can already access your health records - the IRS, FBI and Courts can have access right now - without due process - in the course of an investigation.

The system is supposed to help with diagnosis and treatment and it probably will, but it's really designed to catch doctor and patient fraud - that really can't be a bad thing either.

The sheep always think that they are just "paranoid" about the wolf...until he throws off his "clothing" and eats them.

I will not be an ostrich and pretend to not see the signs, regardless of the shell game that the biased liberal media is playing.

You are fooling yourself if you think that nothing has, and nothing will change.

Just because the government has "taken" the power that we have willingly given them...does not mean that they SHOULD have it!

My taxes are already "forcefully taken from me each week and feed into a cash-cow system that has proven it will continue to take and take and take from us and never balance speding with cash flow." There ar MANY things the government does with my tax money that I am categorically opposed to (standardized testing in schools and all that NCLB joke, for one), but I pay my taxes because I am a citizen of this nation. It's the price I pay for all the perks, I have to put up with some thing I do not agree with, and I have to vote and pester my congresspeople to make my voice heard (unfortunately for me, I live in Texas... sigh).

There is no way every person in this huge nation will ever agree 100% on every law we make. I'd be willing to say not a single law on our books has 100% support from the people. We live in a democracy, where all you need is 50% plus one agreement in order to make a law. I'm sure that, if you took the time to look into them, there are several other medical procedures you would disagree with. The fact that the only procedure targeted is this one says a lot -- there is no medical reason to exclude abortion, this is an attack on women's rights and yet another way to allow the Church to dictate what the State can and can't do.

The European systems may not work, but some work better than the US system. Germany has the best health-care system on the planet, yet they only pay a fifth of what we pay. Maybe emulating them isn't as bad an idea as you think. This idea isn't new. We've been trying to reform our healthcare system since President George H. W. Bush's administration (if not before).

In the meantime, Ms. Giandomenico it's the lower income brackets that need government-sponsored contraceptive and abortion access the most, being that they don't always have the same opportunities that the higher incomes do to pay for it on their own, and often the last thing they need is another mouth to feed.

As for people being unable to keep it in their pants, we are undeniably sexual creatures. Everyone who has been unable to resist their own sexual urges have been bred out since before we were walking upright. The STD epidemics that continue do so because mammals are just wired to rut at every opportunity. You may personally be disgusted with sex, or appalled at those who cannot control their baser urges, but this doesn't change the nature of the human beast.

Did you see what The People did with CPSIA? They spoke up. They organized and spoke up and CPSIA was delayed, modified,  changed.

We vote on representatives. The majority voted, and elected Obama. The way our system works, when we voted for him, we said we agreed to the things he said he was going to do, and the things he stood for. This is one of them.

We don't vote in individual policy, unless you are talking about local government (I'm not govt major, so please correct me, but I do not recall voting on individual pieces of federal legislation).

Congress works for you. If you don't like the law, call your representative and tell him or her what you think. If there are enough people who think like you, then the congressperson, as a representative of The People, will have to vote as you tell him or her to.

Again, I understand that you opposed abortion and don't want your tax dollars to go to that. It is your right to express yourself against it. But everyone's tax dollars are going to go to something we opposed. How much of my tax money has gone to a war I find abhorrent? How much of my tax money has gone to standardized testing, which is destroying our educational system? How much of my tax money is going to fund ridiculous pension plans for members of Congress, when teachers, firefighters, police, and veterans have to work well past retirement age in order to provide for their families?

This is the price you pay for living in this country. The majority gets its way, and when you're part of the minority on an issue, you deal with it -- or you organize, inform the people, and do something about it, like the opponents of CPSIA did.

My right/opinion should not trump yours or anyone else's. But by that same token, your right/opinion should not trump mine, or anyone else's. It's a fine line, and one that's very hard to find sometimes.

As a matter of fact, I do know first hand what the people did on CPSIA, which is why I brought it up. I write, call and demonstrate on this issue on an almost daily basis, because it has effected my company and our way of doing business.

You are right - it is a fineline we tread. However, my point is that it should not be a federal issue. It should be something that is taken care of by the individual states, and only by a majority vote. Research on implementation costs and other options should be presented.

...but Obama's administration is rushing this through...just like Bush did the CPSIA. I know PERSONALLY the disaster of the CPSIA, and because of that, I am fighting to make my voice heard, and to ask people to think about the ramifications and complications that this will create...not just think about the "but it's free!" factor. It's not free. The cost is our freedom to control our lives, liberty, choices and privacy.

It is my life, and I have the right to live it how I choose...and as well, I have the right to take responsibility for my actions and take care of myself, spouse and family's needs, both personally and financially. I am accountable to them, as it should be...not to an out of control government that thinks it's going to hit the lottery.

Mark my words - if this is rushed through, and no one considers any other options, just because Obama said he would or wants to do it, we will find ourselves in the same trash heap as the EU and Canada. What you propose is short-sighted.

I pay my way. I pay for and provide for my family. So should everyone else. Stop begging Uncle Sam to take care of everything for you.

Have you had personal experience with the "trash heaps" that are EU and Canada? Have you received medical care in these countries?

I had an abscessed tooth while travelling through the EU. The pharmacist in Paris was able to diagnose my problem and give me amoxicillin (sp?) to deal with the infection. When I arrived at my final destination in Spain, I found a dentist within walking distance from my dorms who saw me the next day. The cost of the root canal was a third of what my dentist would have charged me here, with insurance. And he did a better job than most of the dentists I've seen here in the US. (Also, last summer when I needed a root canal here in the US, the earliest appointment I could get was a month out. Same when I tried to make an appointment with my psychiatrist.)

I also ran out of my antidepressants while I was in Spain, but I was able to again go to a pharmacy and refill the prescription, by showing the pharmacist my empty Walgreens pill bottle. There is no way I would have been able to do that here in the US (I had gotten special authorization from my doctor and my insurance to refill two months' worth of the pills before I left, to avoid this particular scenario, but I guess I should have counted the pills when I picked up the prescription, because I was 15 days short).

I have a hard time referring to the EU's healthcare system as "a trash heap" when I think of those experiences and the ones I've had here in the US, as an insured taxpayer. Our health care system is a joke.

I pay my way. I provide for myself, and when I have a family I'll provide for them. I'm not asking for a free ride, I'm asking for a system that makes sense. I want to pay doctors, not insurance companies. I want to be able to keep the same doctor, even if I change jobs or if my job decides to change insurance providers. I want to not be chained to my job because I can't change insurance companies because the new company will refuse to cover a "pre-existing condition" or whatever other bureaucratic excuse.

I have a friend in London who is constantly telling me how great their health care options are and keeps asking me how I ever stand the system here in the US. 

I am a college degree holding mother & wife, my husband works for a family owned business that cannot offer affordable family coverage so my son & I have to get our own separate insurance.  Know what we can afford?  Emergency care.  No prescription coverage.  No dental.  No vision.  If I lose a leg, we're good - though I think my deductible is so high that it will make me think twice about sewing my own leg back on just to save the money instead.  My son gets one well-child visit a year, but that's it for him, too. 

Healthcare is a joke - all our money goes to the insurance companies, when it could be going straight to the doctors.  We would have unlimited choices instead of knowing that in an emergency I can only go to the hospital that my insurance covers (15 miles away) as opposed to the hospital that is 2 miles away. 

There's no two ways about it, it stinks.

Just to make sure, Ms. Giandomenico, are you aware:

Bills are typically hundreds, often thousands of pages, and hardly written to sustain interest. Our representatives seldom read the entirety of a bill they sign?

That the populace is even less inclined to slog through so many pages of legal drivel, or that they, averaging at 100 IQ are far more inclined to vote against what's more scary or squicky, than for what is right or just? And, invariably vote for more benefits yet fewer taxes?

That your ability to pay your own way doesn't equate to the ability of all Americans to pay their own way; that, for example, most Walmart employees are on food stamps and Medicaid because they're far enough below the poverty line to qualify? The families of enlisted men in the US Army are as well, but are under orders not to apply, since it does not speak well for the army. Life on minimum wage, netted after the sacred-cow payroll tax, typically while moonlighting since most conglomerates only hire entry-level part time as to avoid the obligation of insurance benefits, typically does not amount to an equitable standard of living and, yes, it really does suck like a singularity.

That your right to live as you choose does not allow you to impede on the rights of others to live as they choose, hence the same reason that Jews who practice kosher cannot impose their dietary restrictions on those who do not, and you don't have a right to live in an abortion-free state any more than you have the right to walk down a black-free street or live in a gay-free community. You cannot (or rather should not) be able to impose the restrictions of your belief systems on that of others, which is why abortion access should remain secured, and such things like gay marriage should be.

Just checking.

California is an expample of a democratic government run by referendum, Janine,  as you suggest that the entire United States be run - but look at California - fiscally bankrupt and perhpas, morally bankrupt also, if we believe the media. 

Time we all woke up to some facts:  this is not a Democracy, it's a Republic, which means that we have a representative government.  We elect the people that are *supposed* to be voting on our behalf - but don't.

If we want anything to change, we'd better be prepared to screen our candidates better and elect *better* people to office than the philandering, cheating, lying, two-timing, double-dippers we've got in there now.  Government is not some unknown alien creature - it is *us* and we've got what we voted in there.  Boy Howdy.

Personally, I''m for firing them all and starting over.

I like the term "obstructionists," since often those on the anti-choice/anti-reproductive rights wish to obstruct access to abortion AND they want to obstruct access to birth control and access to medically-accurate, unbiased facts about sex.

Regarding ectogenesis, though an interesting concept (and one of which I was not aware), it still doesn't address the issue of unwanted children. The pro-fetus/anti-choice/anti-reproductive rights/obstructionists yammer on and on about life being precious and adoption being the answer to the world's problems, but their concerns end as soon as the gestational period does. There are countless children already rotting in orphanages because nobody can or wants to adopt them; if we were bringing even more unwanted children into the world, what would we do with them? Who would raise them? Who would pay for them?