Town Square

Post a New Topic

Republicans approve platform that would ban abortions

Original post made by Resident, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Aug 28, 2012

The republicans approved their socially backwards platform, one that would ban abortions. Read about it:

" Republicans emphatically approved a toughly worded party platform at their national convention Tuesday that would ban all abortions and gay marriages, reshape Medicare into a voucher-like program and cut taxes "

"The party states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." It opposes using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage."

Source:

Web Link

Comments (54)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2012 at 11:25 pm

They also support abstinence only sex education:

"Republicans support consumer choice, including home schooling, local innovations such as single-sex classes, full-day school hours and year-round schools. It says Republicans renew their call for replacing family planning programs for teens "with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior.""

Web Link

They should talk to Sarah Palin - she can explain to them the abstinence only teachings that helped her daughter... but wait, her daughter got pregnant as a teen and is now a single mom...hmmm


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:13 am

Yeah, the Republican party is out of touch with most of America. They would be better off sticking to fiscal conservatism, and dropping the social conservatism line.

Not that they have much credibility when they tout fiscal conservatism, though. Note that no Republicans are trying to remind us of the George W. Bush years and his track record at controlling government spending.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by innocent
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2012 at 8:57 am

"It opposes using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage."

If, as supporters keep screaming, that abortion is a personal choice made by women only, they shouldn't have a problem with this statement. After all, if you don't want the govt involved in decisions about your body (and the results of your poor choices), then you should fund the correction to your mistakes without Uncle Sam's intervention.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 29, 2012 at 10:10 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Hehe, "consumer choice" except for birth control!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 29, 2012 at 10:16 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Hello, how may I help you today with your birth control needs? We have several different selections you can choose from. We cater to our customers' very demanding tastes to bring you only the best. Would you like to try abstinence, abstinence, or abstinence?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2012 at 11:48 am

"If, as supporters keep screaming, that abortion is a personal choice made by women only, they shouldn't have a problem with this statement. After all, if you don't want the govt involved in decisions about your body (and the results of your poor choices), then you should fund the correction to your mistakes without Uncle Sam's intervention. "

OK, let's say that we leave abortion legal but without federal funding (complete no govt intervention), fine... but let's be equal all around: that means that all those backward thinking seniors, including Ryan's mom, have to give up their GOVERNMENT assistance (aka Medicare)

Goes both ways! Republicans are such hypocrites: want no government yet they want their Medicare (but only for people like Ryan's mom, the heck with the younger ones), their right to control women's bodies, their right to teach their backwards views on sex ed in public schools, etc....

The GOP is truly out of touch and makes less sense as time goes by!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2012 at 12:13 pm

"If, as supporters keep screaming, that abortion is a personal choice made by women only, they shouldn't have a problem with this statement. After all, if you don't want the govt involved in decisions about your body (and the results of your poor choices), then you should fund the correction to your mistakes without Uncle Sam's intervention. "

And if you are OK with the GOP not funding or subsidizing health care that includes abortion, then what about funding for couples like the Santorums, whose backwards views on birth control resulted in an accidental pregnancy (mistake) that then resulted in the birth of a child with severe defects and very expensive medical needs?

Do you suggest that the woman who was raped or choses not to have a baby with such severe defects not be given coverage, but Santorum's wife (who should know better than to get pregnant at such an old age) should indeed enjoy said coverage?

And what about health care which covers ED drugs? (yes, ask your beloved RL about his viagra)

Can't have it both ways! Women have as much right to get health care coverage for abortions as other people have right to have their health care needs met.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm

"innocent" said: "If, as supporters keep screaming, that abortion is a personal choice made by women only, they shouldn't have a problem with this statement. After all, if you don't want the govt involved in decisions about your body (and the results of your poor choices), then you should fund the correction to your mistakes without Uncle Sam's intervention."

I think that what "pro-choice" supporters are primarily "screaming" about is the issue of whether it's a personal choice or not. Actually, that's true of "pro-life" supporters, too.

If "pro-choice" supporters were to agree to relinquish any and all claims on public funds for abortions in return for "pro-life" supporters accepting the view that abortion is a personal decision, do you think that "pro-life" supporters would agree to that and leave "pro-choicers" alone?

Nah. Me neither.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident too
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2012 at 2:15 pm

I'm a resident too...a legitimate resident. You have about 20 page long skreeds on this topic, since your last abortion thread on Aug 21. Resident is way beyond a 'single issue' voter. In fact Resident is a clever tag to use for a non-resident to throw mislead us. Sad to abuse this PW Forum with such a great volume of tiring repetition. I dare say this "resident" is in the Chicago political pit and being paid to write these volumes campaigning to keep 'single'issue' women in the fold. Since many are unemployed, that might be a bit more relevant issue in their own big pictures.
I just watched our very smooth 'campaigner-in-chief' on a college campus begging for student votes that he depends on so much. For me, having a competent president is so much more important than a slick campaigner-in-chief. We've learned presidential performance does not always equal campaign performance. I'll choose a performer over a talker.
We have to be so careful with Obama, since we heard Obama tell Putin he'd 'have more leeway to do whatever he wants after the election, since he wouldn't have to worry about re-election any more'...beware he can go hog wild once he's turned loose.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Republican-no
a resident of Amador Estates
on Aug 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm

What's amazing is that many Republicans have said this is a State's right. If they believe it is, then why is part of their national platform?

Same with same-sex marriage

Another inconvenient fact.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident too
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Because, NOBODY EVER READS IT ! ! ! ONLY, the most ignorant PARTISANS and the 96% DEM PRESS ! ! ! ! diddle with your 'facts' all you want. Obama looked HIS support in their eyes, saying he'd never do anything about marijuana....So?? he lied. and that's just for starters ! ! Platforms for guides written by a few activists and newer read or practiced...get real.
It's hard to believe with all the methods available, that there would even be any need for abortions in 2012...don't most people know by now, where babies come from ? ? ? ? so many pills, condoms, IUDs, and more, how would anybody not? See, I think condoms or an IUD appointment should be included with every welfare check....I'm a fiscal conservative.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 29, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The number of methods available for birth control is irrelevant to the need for abortions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Republican-no
a resident of Amador Estates
on Aug 29, 2012 at 4:50 pm

Resident too, so you are saying that the Republican leadership are jerking the delegate's chain?

And, " ONLY, the most ignorant PARTISANS and the 96% DEM PRESS !" this sounds like an excuse.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2012 at 5:02 pm

" Resident is a clever tag to use for a non-resident to throw mislead us. Sad to abuse this PW Forum with such a great volume of tiring repetition. I dare say this "resident" is in the Chicago"

I hate to disappoint you, "Resident too," but I live in Pleasanton. As for tiring repetition: I think you should talk about that to the backwards thinking conservatives who have taken over the GOP... they are the ones who continue to talk about abortion and other social issues.... Akin's remarks, then the "GOP platform," and now the convention! (and that is just recently). I agree with a post above that the GOP should focus on fiscal issues, and yet the "base" and tea party types do not allow that: they keep talking about social issues because they want to impose their backward views on the rest of the nation.

"It's hard to believe with all the methods available, that there would even be any need for abortions in 2012"

Not hard at all to believe. Your beloved Palin has a daughter who..oops, got pregnant as a teen (unplanned). Yeah, with the GOP's "abstinence only" teachings, I am pretty sure that many unwanted pregnancies would take place among GOP women. As for other non-GOP women, unless you believe the nonsense that Akin said about rape, you will know that a rape can lead to pregnancy.

" I think condoms or an IUD appointment should be included with every welfare check....I'm a fiscal conservative."

Hmmm, you must not be paying attention. The GOP wants "abstinence only" for teens, wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood (where many low income women get birth control)....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:55 pm

it's a woman's body and she makes the final decision what she wants to do with HER body...got it?

tee hee...

if you don't like what women decide, then go back to where your ancestors came from...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 29, 2012 at 6:57 pm

there are strawberry and pineapple flavored rubbers...what do some of your prefer....hmmmmmmmmmm...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:08 pm

sam is so wise...wonder what flavor rubbers he uses...corn chip flavor or tortilla with green salsa! tee hee...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm

Cholo said: "sam is so wise...wonder what flavor rubbers he uses...corn chip flavor or tortilla with green salsa! tee hee..."

Oooh! I just thought of a witty rejoinder.
But unfortunately this is a family newspaper......

:-(


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 29, 2012 at 7:58 pm

Well, the Republican party has done it yet again. First, they alienate female voters with their stance on abortion, and now there's an ugly "peanut" incident at the Republican National Convention that's going to turn off a lot more voters.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 29, 2012 at 9:44 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Peanuts? No, no. It's supposed to be an aspirin between the knees, not a peanut.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Another independent
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm

If we don't have a vibrant economy, none of the rest of this stuff matters. It's just a political diversion.

I listened carefully to the major RNC speeches this week and will do the same next week during the DNC. I'll go with the ticket that has the better pro-growth story.

I sure hope the DNC answer is not just to increase revenues so that they can redistribute. Taking more from the 60% (remaining productive economy) and giving more to the unproductive 40% has never been the answer. And yes, history shows over and over again that government is inherently less productive than private industry.

So squabble all you want over these diversionary issues. We all know that the election will be decided on the question of who is best able to get our economy growing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm

now that "another independent" brings up the top of vibrators in his first sentence, i may as well ask sam if he has one...tee hee

but, since this is a fambly newspaper, i won't dare ask...

oh my...i must be witty!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 29, 2012 at 11:11 pm

"Another independent" said: "I listened carefully to the major RNC speeches this week and will do the same next week during the DNC. I'll go with the ticket that has the better pro-growth story."

You're going to go with the ticket that has the better "story"? LOL! OK, Mr. Gullible. Good thinking.

Hey, your comment just got me thinking that maybe the Republican party should come up with some slogan to highlight how well the economy has grown under Republican Presidents as opposed to economic growth under Democratic Presidents. You know, something like "Vote Republican and you can get a Republican President who will fix the economy like the great President George W. Bush fixed the economy!" What do you think?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident too
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2012 at 11:45 pm

Nothing jerk Akin says is going to stop anybody from getting an abortion. Nothing in any party's platform is going to stop anybody, from anything !! marijuna or anything else...nothing! enough of the dramatics
I'm with you Independent, without a vibrant economy, nothing else matters anyway.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Another independent
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 7:17 am

If I go the Republican route, which I'm leaning towards now, I'm not betting on a party but a leader in Mitt Romney who has proven over and over again success in business/markets/economy.

Republicans and Democrats have proven the only thing they can do well is crony capitalism. On this dimension Obama is no different than Bush.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tennessee Jed
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Aug 30, 2012 at 7:53 am

I am not interested in any of the reasons making abortion illegal by statute. Not until the fundamental question is answered. So maybe all of the posters here can respond to the question

"When is it OK to kill a baby?"

Please be courteous and thoughtful before you respond...no screeds...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Phyllis
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 30, 2012 at 9:12 am

Jed, that is the struggle point here and all who have had an abortion will tell you that they know they killed their own child. For those who are pro death they stay away from framing this discussion. The discussion never centers on life because it is an argument which cannot be won.

My former boss told me that when he was young and working through college he worked either in a hospital or a clinic which performed abortions and his job was to get rid of the "remains". He told me that it was at this point in his life he was against abortions because he said he looked at them and they had little hands, fingers, toes, etc.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 9:17 am

Stacey is a registered user.

What has that question to do with abortion? It's an incendiary, unthoughtful, and screedy question because you used the word "baby".

When is it ok to take away a woman's right to her own body?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 9:25 am

Stacey is a registered user.

If you really value life, you don't devalue a woman's life by taking away her rights. It is up to the woman to decide irregardless of whether or not you think she made a bad or wrong decision.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by liberalism is a disease
a resident of Birdland
on Aug 30, 2012 at 9:40 am

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

"When is it ok to take away a woman's right to her own body?" You give it up to the man who impregnated you and choose not to be responsible about birth control. I guess that's being pro-choice....choosing to forego precautions that would prevent the death of an innocent by-product of bad decisions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 30, 2012 at 10:41 am

liberalism said: "You give it up to the man who impregnated you and choose not to be responsible about birth control. I guess that's being pro-choice.."

So I take it that you're OK with abortion in the cases of rape or incest? You know, cases where the girl or woman had no choice about the pregnancy?

Or maybe you adhere to the views of Akin and say that the pregnancy is the woman's fault in those cases, too, because if she were truly traumatized by the event she wouldn't be pregnant.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 10:55 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Lib,

What this is about is the Republicans wanting to use the power of government to take away the rights of ALL WOMEN, regardless of the circumstances. Sorry, this isn't about an individual woman making a poor choice to be irresponsible about sex and no woman gives up the right to her own body through sex (OMG did you really suggest that a woman loses her rights to the man who raped her?!). She doesn't suddenly become the playtoy of the man she had sex with. If you believe that rights are lost by sex, what's to stop someone from claiming that the man becomes the woman's playtoy property?

I think abortion is a tragedy. The end results are disgusting and I hope that I'm never put into a position where I am faced with that choice. But my personal beliefs and preferences in no way excuse me from devaluing human life by taking away all women's God-given right to their own body using government power.

Some of you may think this subject is a distraction from the economic issues and you're right. Yet Romney picked a socially backwards politician as his running mate. The Republicans adopted it as their platform. That's the only reason this subject is being discussed. So good luck with trying to reclaim economic discussions.

The Republicans claim to value the Constitution yet they want to trample all over it when it comes to this subject. A woman has inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government. Government is always restricted in such instances by due process. What due process is there in legislating that all abortion illegal, even in cases of rape? All the talk about Constitutional values and principles are just lip service when you believe that a woman doesn't have a right to her own body.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Phyllis
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 30, 2012 at 11:28 am

Stacey,

50% of those babies being killed are females. What about their rights? Taking it a step further take a look at the stats of the ethnicity of babies being killed. One might call it racial genicide.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 11:53 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Phyllis, I reject your ideological redefinition of the word "baby". You can call me lexically conservative.

Do you support capital punishment for murderers?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Phyllis
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Stacey, no matter how you slice it left unkilled or unaborted to make it more acceptable it would be a baby or child. In answer to your question, no I do not support killing convicted murderers. Killing is killing regardless of a baby or a murderer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 12:31 pm

""When is it OK to kill a baby?""

Jed: it is not OK to kill a baby, or a child, or a teen, or an adult or anyone. But we are not talking about killing here. We are talking about abortion, and as I said on another post, not everyone thinks that life begins at conception because religious views and values are different for everyone. Even Romney's son and daughter-in-law used in vitro fertilization (IVF) where embryos are created and some are thrown away/destroyed...so you see, it seems that even Romney's family does not think that an embryo is a baby or that destroying an embryo means "killing a baby" - otherwise they would not have used IVF since the procedure involves destroying some embryos. Either that, or the republican hypocrisy can be seen here, big time: want to ban abortions because they believe an embryo is a baby, yet they think nothing of going through IVF where many embryos are destroyed.....

". I guess that's being pro-choice....choosing to forego precautions that would prevent the death of an innocent by-product of bad decisions."

And how exactly is a victim of rape supposed to protect herself from getting pregnant (as a result of the rape)? I suppose you believe Akin's non-scientific statements that a woman has a way to prevent pregnancy in cases or rape? Wow! This is absolutely unbelievable, and the reason why we need all backwards thinking GOP politicians as far away from Washington as possible! We need to make sure that Romney/Ryan do not win, but also that we have a majority of intelligent politicians in the senate and house (ie, good-bye Akin et al).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Even though using the word baby makes it easier for you to call abortion murder, notice that the key phrase in your sentence is 'would be'. Potential babies don't have rights any more than dead people have rights. The government doesn't give out rights. It can't take rights away from children or adults. It can't grant a right to a fetus. Rights are only asserted by those who have been born and are still living. Babies can assert themselves (sometimes; failure to thrive comes to mind). Fertilized eggs and fetuses cannot.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm

I am curious, Phyllis, since you think this way, how do you view Romney's son in vitro fertilizaiton, given that, those embryos that were disposed of in the process, according to you, if " left unkilled or unaborted to make it more acceptable it would be a baby or child."

Why is it OK for Romney to say he would support undoing Roe v Wade, thus making abortion illegal, but he is OK with his son using not once but twice, IVF where embryos were destroyed? (and more than one of his sons used IVF)

Plus Romney does not agree with the creation of embryos for stem cell research but is okay with the "leftover embryos from IVF" to be used for research. You can look it up on various sites and online papers, but here is an article about it:

""The former Massachusetts governor attempted to explain away his wildly divergent public comments on IVF embryos as recently as May, when he was asked in an interview about his new twin grandsons.

"I believe that when a couple gets together and decides that they want to bring a child into the Earth, and they go to a fertility clinic to do so, and if they're going to be through that process a leftover embryo or two, that they should be able to decide whether to preserve that embryo for future use or to destroy it," he said, adding that those embryos can be utilized for "research and experimentation."

"And so for me, that's where the line is drawn. Those surplus embryos from fertility clinics can be used for research.""

Web Link

I think that the GOP is always an advocate for what benefits them or their members (Medicare for Ryan's mom, IVF for Romney's son), but the same thing is not okay, in their view, for everyone else (Medicare for those now younger than 55 once they retire, the use of the morning after pill for victims of rape).

I am curious to hear what you think, Phyllis, because to me, it does not make sense at all.

I am pro choice and pro stem cell research, and find the position of the GOP quite extreme, and I also find these GOP guys to be hypocrites (say one thing like opposing abortion because they believe an embryo is a baby but at the same time, use IVF where embryos are destroyed, for instance)....plus Romney backs health insurance coverage for IVF but not for abortions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

After the Republicans re-criminalize abortion, expect an explosion in the designer baby industry.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Phyllis
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 30, 2012 at 1:39 pm

I am against using embryos for stem cell research or invitro fertization and I am not a republican nor a democrat. Killing is killing and call it what you want if it makes you feel better but at the end of the day I think you and I know it is wrong that is why you are lashing out here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 1:41 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Resident,

As you know, each zygote and sperm cell is a potential baby with rights. The government should pass a law that all discarded eggs and semen will need to be frozen to protect the innocent. Anyone who fails to submit eggs or sperm for freezing will be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm

"Resident,

As you know, each zygote and sperm cell is a potential baby with rights. The government should pass a law that all discarded eggs and semen will need to be frozen to protect the innocent. Anyone who fails to submit eggs or sperm for freezing will be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law."

I hope you are being sarcastic, Stacey. But yes, if the republicans get their way, what you say is possible. Have you read the Ryan "personhood" bill?

And Phyllis, you keep calling it killing but it is not. We are talking about abortion, often in the first trimester, and a potential life is not a baby (not capable of surviving on its own outside the womb). I assume then, that you do not agree with Romney or Obama on this issue but are in complete agreement with backwards thinking Ryan?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 2:20 pm

And Phyllis, does that mean that every pregnant woman can claim the child tax credit even if they get pregnant at the end of december?

How about child bearing women in general? (since after all, we have viable eggs)... can we claim the child tax credit because of the potential life we carry?

Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm

"child bearing women in general? "

childbearing AGE


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 30, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Pregnancy happens even when precautions are taken--99% effective means sometimes prevention fails.

The problem I have with those who wish to overturn Roe v Wade is there isn't a plan for what happens to all the actual children that are carried to term by someone(s) who didn't want a child. Newborns are still left in dumpsters and toilets. Children are still neglected, abused, abandoned, and murdered. There's the cost of welfare, food stamps, and foster care. And then there are the moms (and sometimes the dads) who may have poor employment choices: "A CDC study showed that only 50 percent of teen moms will get a high school diploma by the age of 22, HealthPop reported." Web Link More info here on abstinence only states: Web Link

It seems government money would be better spent on preventing the pregnancies in the first place so the discussion/education about abortion becomes less divisive because it is no longer being used as a birth control method. Sex is happening; it's how we all got here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Resident,

Criminalizing the discarding of zygotes and semen is not sarcasm, but taking the idea to its logical conclusion to show how absurd it is. If we allow that a potential baby has rights, why is conception the arbitrary dividing line? Each and every egg and sperm has the potential to become human life too.

Lib,

If a woman loses her right to her own body when she becomes pregnant, then what happens if she is murdered or killed? Maybe the fetus could sue for wrongful death and loss of habitat. And if she's killed by the man who impregnated her, well then, no crime was committed at all!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Each One
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Since there is so much heartfelt disagreement over when life begins, perhaps we should allow each woman in this situation to decide for herself.

Oh wait...the Supreme Court already agreed with that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Phyllis
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 30, 2012 at 5:47 pm

Maybe the supreme court did but not the supreme lord. Feel very sorry for many here because it will not end well


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 30, 2012 at 6:29 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Why, Phyllis? It is no sin to speak out against the Republican agenda to ban _all_ abortions. The debate may be settled in your mind that life begins at conception and abortion at any time is therefore murder, but not even Christians are all of the same mind on the theology of the issue. You really want to question the piety of others?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 7:03 pm

"Maybe the supreme court did but not the supreme lord."

Whose "supreme lord" are we talking about? Religions vary and are many, so which teachings do we follow? Yours or mine or the neighbor's? You have the right to believe abortion is wrong for you, Phyllis, but others have the right to believe that under certain circumstances, abortion is the solution.

"Criminalizing the discarding of zygotes and semen is not sarcasm, but taking the idea to its logical conclusion to show how absurd it is. If we allow that a potential baby has rights, why is conception the arbitrary dividing line? Each and every egg and sperm has the potential to become human life too."

You have a point, and with the criminalizing you speak of would come other issues: do we give ourselves the child tax credit because we are still young enough to have babies and therefore carry potential life? Do we give a woman a child tax credit this fiscal year even if she gets pregnant on december 20? The GOP's agenda is very scary and has the potential to get out of control (it already is actually).

Kathleen:

I agree that we need to invest more money on "preventing the pregnancies in the first place," but as you have seen, the republicans, in addition to their desire to ban abortions even in cases of rape/incest, want to replace sex education for teens with "abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior."

That would be a big problem: not only will teens be sexually active regardless, but once married, then what? No birth control too? Sounds highly unrealistic to me. Not many would embrace the Santorum's views and ways of doing things: I would personally not risk getting pregnant if I were the same age as Santorum's wife, but without birth control like the GOP and some religions suggest.....

The GOP should have been able to win this election easily by focusing on the economy, and yet they are struggling because they have alienated independents and women with their backwards and extreme social views, and with the selection of such a hard core conservative like Ryan. It is amazing to see people like Huckabee, Santorum be "welcome speakers" at the RNC, at a time when Romney is trying to win public support, especially from women and independents.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 30, 2012 at 8:04 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Resident, Point taken. I mentioned education but I certainly do not agree that abstinence is the only option. It is sad, on either side of the aisle, that platforms are most often driven by the most extreme members of their respective parties.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2012 at 9:54 pm

Phyllis,

If you want save and protect lives, why not worry about people who are already here? There are plenty of children who could use your help who have already been born.

By the way, I don't know of any "Supreme Lord" who said that discarding an embryo was the same thing as murdering a person.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 1, 2012 at 8:48 pm

Julie is a registered user.

It sounds like some people need a child development lesson. A pregnant woman is not carrying a "baby", she is carrying a "fetus". A fetus cannot live on it's own outside the woman's body. A fetus is "unborn". A baby can survive without the host (mother's) body and is a "born" person. Of course when we are pregnant we don't use the technical term "fetus" because when we want a baby, we humanize the future person growing inside us. We refer to it as "baby" even when it's simply a zygote. But, it's not a baby, it's a fetus.

I am surprised to hear that (if it's true) there are those who support embryos from IVF being destroyed, and yet cry murder when a woman seeks to end her pregnancy (same end result...destroy an embryo).

If I remember correctly (it has been a while) I was not able to count my fetuses as dependents on my taxes. And how ironic, that's when they were the MOST dependent on me! I don't know any couple, awaiting the birth of their first child, who refers to themselves as a "family of three". When is that distinction made? When the fetus is born.

I am ethically opposed to abortion, but am politically pro-choice. While I do not consider abortion the same as murder, I also do not consider it the best birth control method. I would not wish the need for an abortion on anyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 2, 2012 at 9:22 am

"I am surprised to hear that (if it's true) there are those who support embryos from IVF being destroyed, and yet cry murder when a woman seeks to end her pregnancy (same end result...destroy an embryo)."

It is true. Romney is among those who support IVF but condemn abortion. This is what Romney said:

"And so for me, that's where the line is drawn. Those surplus embryos from fertility clinics can be used for research."

Web Link

So Romney is OK destroying embryos if those are leftover from IVF (of course, his son used IVF), but he is against creating the embryos for research, as his official website states:

"When confronted with the issue of stem cell research as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney chose to support life by vetoing a bill that would have allowed the cloning of human embryos. Quite simply, America cannot condone or participate in the creation of human life when the sole purpose of its creation is its sure destruction."

Web Link

And this is what Romney says about abortion, also on his official website::

"Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade"


Web Link

Basically, Romney, and most republicans, are OK when certain things are done (destroying embryos for instance) if they benefit them or their friends or family, but are quite against it (morning after pill, stem cell research, abortion even in the early stage) when it would benefit others.

Same with his VP pick Ryan: he wants to keep Medicare intact for his mom, but wants those currently under 55 to never benefit from Medicare and instead use a voucher system.

The republicans are against everyone else, and are just looking for their own well being. Watching the RND convention confirmed that.

The country needs new leadership, and yes, Obama has not done a good job, but Romney is not the answer. Romney/Ryan can only make things worse, and the two, if elected, have promised to undo Roe v Wade, set women's rights back to the dark ages, have promised to undo what they call "Obamacare" but want to leave Medicare as is for Ryan's mom (do they not realize that Ryan's mom's Medicare is simply "Obamacare for seniors"?)

Obama must get re-elected, there is no other choice. And hopefully, the GOP will continue to alienate independents and women. And hopefully, the senior citizens will realize that once Medicare is undone for everyone else, they are next, because there is no way an entire country of people younger than 55 will continue to be happy about being taxed to finance the current Medicare recipients, knowing the program will never be available to them, and knowing that healthcare for many young people will continue to be unavailable (if Romney and Ryan get elected)




Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Lulu is back home!!!!
By Roz Rogoff | 6 comments | 906 views

Measure BB could pay to connect Dublin Boulevard to Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 544 views