To Draw A Line

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
For a few years now I have grieved for the Sea Org women who have been forced to abort their babies. And this ugly truth proliferates as more and more speak out. Though, I think there is even more to the story, and that would be the public scientologist women or men who "chose" to abort their children. I was particularly inspired by Commander Birdsongs essay, which I came across just a few days ago. It is not only the sentiment and the common sense in it, but had this been put into the books of law it just seems to me it may have changed some situations within the "church". I have understood for a long time that the "church" does not really care what they do in the eyes of God or a sense of true personal ethics. They care about "PR". When I was in it did not take me very long to understand that the only way you could hope to correct abuse is to claim out PR. I find this essay political. And I dislike politics, but by the same token, who you gonna call? We live in a politically motivated culture. I am looking really for those who have lost children because they were too busy saving the planet, or threatened in some way because of a pregnancy. $cn has murders on it's hands, more than have ever been counted. So this is the essay, bad formatting is my fault:eyeroll:


In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States of America with its historic ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade erased the line prohibiting the termination of pregnancy by medically induced miscarriage. That same year our country signed an agreement with Hanoi which left the government in Saigon indefensible and the American League adopted the Designated Hitter Rule. Grievous tragedies are known to come in threes. Baseball remains a beautiful sublime and compelling game, the people of Saigon still call Saigon Saigon, one day those who make maps will as well and thousands of new Americans are born each day.
The National League is not considering taking bats from pitchers’ hands and the politics of Vietnam are in the hands of the Vietnamese but the conflict over our country’s practice of abortion and the treatment of the unborn is alive and active. In the most notable current political initiative, the Obama Administrations seeks a law to require hospitals to offer abortion services. The Catholics have stated flatly they will close their hospitals rather than comply. And this article is not an exercise in objectivity. It is a call to rally to the defense of conscience and not just block an incoming blow but to counter punch.
Our dialogue on abortion is usually characterized in terms of “Pro-Life” and “Pro Choice” and often descends into one side calling the other “Anti-Life” or “Anti-Choice.” In truth our political opinions are spread across a spectrum with four main sections, “Right to Life,” “Pro Life,” Pro Choice” and “Pro Abortion” and perhaps the two in the center are closer to one another than they are to either end. Very many people who have strong sentiments about the sanctity of life have as well so great a love of freedom, such a hatred of tyranny, and so great a compassion, understanding, tolerance and forgiveness for women they are ardent to reduce the rate of abortion but not by demanding the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Many men, myself included, cannot in good conscience ask legislation against a right which is not ours. And then as well, those who are firmly “Pro Choice“ are often deeply touched by the sanctity of life themselves.
Unlike those whose position is not “Pro Choice” but, though never so denominated, is actually “Pro Abortion.” This is so different a stance it could be alleged for those who hold it to call themselves “Pro Choice” is camouflage and a masquerade. My own ears have heard a spokesman state unequivocally, “We want absolute control over procreation.”
No.
Certainly there is a strong consensus humankind must address the undeniable problem of over-population with self-restraint but absolute control over procreation does not belong in the hand of the man I heard speak those words and those who cheered him.
Those who stick to their shillelaghs about “Right to Life” politics appear to be very effectively neutralized. The Equal Rights Amendment failed. America decided it did not wish to eliminate all distinction between genders. However, before it finally stalled it was approved by more than half of our state legislatures and in fact it established broad if incomplete equality between men and women as both the law and custom of the land. So far as I know, the still raised banner of a Right to Life amendment or law has never made it to any ballot. Its supporters are stigmatized by their religious ardor and association, held at bay by Separation of Church and State, the American Press does not stop far short of mockery in its treatment of them and comics who can mix wit with an absence of restraint about them can pack nightclubs with raucous sophisticates.
Though there is some wrong in writing of what may be another soul’s secret I suspect part of the reason for the ineffectuality of “Right to Life” politics is the result of a hidden self-restraint within their ranks. Are there those who must or will put the letter of their faith upon their tongue but keep it from their hand? If so I do not call them hypocrite but friend. An abortion under the most forgivable circumstance is a tragedy and if I could feed five thousand with five loaves and seven fishes my politics would be Right to Life as well. Creator! Ordain a New Physics and Geometry with a flat earth of endless meadows and streams, mountains and seas stretching out endless miles that my politics might match the heart Thy Word has grown within my breast! Science! Open wormholes in space so humankind may set foot upon a thousand verdant earths circling a thousand distant suns that my conscience might play free. I cannot hold to Right to Life in this world as I know it but I would dread to live here if the principle were not espoused.
But in this world as I know it I am thoroughly unconvinced of a necessity to deny the practice of Medicine to those who by conscience will not perform abortion. On the contrary, if there are any of faith who despite not being in a vegetative coma have yet never acted in violation of their own conscience their number must be few. Let us act fiercely and well to keep Acts of Conscience off the Endangered Species List.
So.
Block that and toss this.
Rather than a Right to Life Amendment how about a Pro-Life Amendment?
The United Nations has composed, adopted, and published a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Am I the only one who noticed it did not state it is a woman’s right to bring a pregnancy to term? I cannot believe I am the only intelligent adult who would call this a human right deeper in the marrow than several other items on the list.
It was long thought our kind rose above animal when we began to use tools but now we know animals as well use tools. Perhaps we became human when first we drew a line.
By what we are, by what abortion is, there was a line. Though that line is now undrawn we are still what we are, abortion is still what it is. Let us measure with keen eye, grasp straightedge with firm hand and, in pencil, with deft and steady stroke, make mark upon the page then turn to our countrymen and women and beseech the Sovereign Ink.
Let us amend the Constitution of the United States of America to read, “A woman’s right to bring a pregnancy to term shall not be abridged.”
Just when this idea of a Pro-Life amendment came to mind escapes me but it stuck fast from its conception. It was at least two or three years before I spoke of it. A couple thousand years ago a controversial rabbi commented on the way swine treat pearls and those who present them and I had already been disabused of the young man’s thought that scripture is largely outmoded.
As it happened I chose well when I finally broached the subject for it was not only treated with respect but I was then told just what I needed to know. I have a friend in Boston who is a lawyer doing pro bono work on behalf of psychiatric patients. I often ate at a bar and grill in the Fenway where he often stopped in the evening and we had a running dialogue for years. He gave a very strong response to the idea locking his gaze on my own. After a timeless moment he looked off and weighed upon it, turned back to me and said, “You’d have to have a case [when the right was abridged].”
‘Nuff said.
Of course it happens every day in private. I had opportunity once to counsel a young woman who was being pressured by here boyfriend to get an abortion she did not want. The look on her face and sound of her voice when she said, “I have very strong feelings about it,” are unforgettable. I don’t recall just when the idea came to me but it was she who inspired it. Would that I could have sprouted angel wings from my back to enfold her. Short of that it would be comforting to know every young woman in her position was taught in grammar school the Law of her Nation stands with her.
This vignette will never be a case at law.
However there was a report this spring in The Boston Globe fulfilling the requirement prima facie. An article related that several American women, including married women, serving in Iraq had been ordered to have abortions.
This would be a lawful order. Yes, a military commander may order a medical action for a subordinate. Many a brave and wounded soldier hot to stand and fight has been ordered from the battlefield to the MASH unit. The pro-abortion forces have been insistent on treating an abortion as a medical procedure no different than setting a broken bone or removing a splinter, have in fact pressed the depredations of Orwellian Newspeak on the language of abortion.
And.
No line is drawn.
Nowhere in law is there a word affirming a woman’s right to her unborn child, an absence now made glaring.
Our Constitution is ours. Our charter seats national sovereignty in the people. It is in our power to raise this question, to say here is a place to draw a line and to appeal to our fellow citizens enshrine it in our Law.
The process of doing so could be a very healing and restorative process. The debate over abortion in our country has been divisive and fierce. This contest will continue even if this initiative were to be fully successful. Those who are very firm in seeking the overturn of Roe v. Wade will not be folding their tents. Some will likely take the position they prefer no line to a line they believe misplaced. Others will recognize that if Oregon declares war on California and mobilizes forces which occupy Redding, California would be wise to establish a firm defensive line north of Sacramento. It seems sort of a shame scripture advises against schadenfreude because it would seem the Pro-Abortion people will be sort of funny looking in their attempts to oppose it. But the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice who are probably the great bulk of the population should be able to warmly unite in support of an action both will find soothing and stabilizing.
For my own part I believe the absence of a line on abortion is subtly but greatly disorienting and that to draw a new line would create a benchmark against which we can measure our efforts to reduce the staggering rate of this tragedy and most especially a barrier to prevent us from falling into an abyss.
Liberty, sweet and fair, may recline on purple velveteen savoring petit fours and Beaujolais in her palazzo built in Yes only if she shows deference to Freedom espoused to Responsibility in their simple abode on the bedrock of No.
Let us draw this line.

William O. Birdwood
San Francisco, California
August 14, 2010
 
surfing the net about scn years ago i stumbled across a video of a woman (in tears) being interviwed about scn FOCA (forced or coerced abortions)

if someone could find it and post it...
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
That was a very moving essay... Thank you for posting it.

The only issue I see with this essay's proposal is that late term abortions (over 20+ weeks by most definitions) would seem to be allowed if the woman changed her mind and did not want to bear it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Late-term abortions are a controversial subject and the laws across the USA are varied and complicated mainly on where to draw the time-wise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

How far along in the pregnancy can or should that choice be given to the mother? That would be the question.
 
For a few years now I have grieved for the Sea Org women who have been forced to abort their babies. And this ugly truth proliferates as more and more speak out. Though, I think there is even more to the story, and that would be the public scientologist women or men who "chose" to abort their children. I was particularly inspired by Commander Birdsongs essay, which I came across just a few days ago. It is not only the sentiment and the common sense in it, but had this been put into the books of law it just seems to me it may have changed some situations within the "church". I have understood for a long time that the "church" does not really care what they do in the eyes of God or a sense of true personal ethics. They care about "PR". When I was in it did not take me very long to understand that the only way you could hope to correct abuse is to claim out PR. I find this essay political. And I dislike politics, but by the same token, who you gonna call? We live in a politically motivated culture. I am looking really for those who have lost children because they were too busy saving the planet, or threatened in some way because of a pregnancy. $cn has murders on it's hands, more than have ever been counted. So this is the essay, bad formatting is my fault:eyeroll:


In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States of America with its historic ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade erased the line prohibiting the termination of pregnancy by medically induced miscarriage. That same year our country signed an agreement with Hanoi which left the government in Saigon indefensible and the American League adopted the Designated Hitter Rule. Grievous tragedies are known to come in threes. Baseball remains a beautiful sublime and compelling game, the people of Saigon still call Saigon Saigon, one day those who make maps will as well and thousands of new Americans are born each day.
The National League is not considering taking bats from pitchers’ hands and the politics of Vietnam are in the hands of the Vietnamese but the conflict over our country’s practice of abortion and the treatment of the unborn is alive and active. In the most notable current political initiative, the Obama Administrations seeks a law to require hospitals to offer abortion services. The Catholics have stated flatly they will close their hospitals rather than comply. And this article is not an exercise in objectivity. It is a call to rally to the defense of conscience and not just block an incoming blow but to counter punch.
Our dialogue on abortion is usually characterized in terms of “Pro-Life” and “Pro Choice” and often descends into one side calling the other “Anti-Life” or “Anti-Choice.” In truth our political opinions are spread across a spectrum with four main sections, “Right to Life,” “Pro Life,” Pro Choice” and “Pro Abortion” and perhaps the two in the center are closer to one another than they are to either end. Very many people who have strong sentiments about the sanctity of life have as well so great a love of freedom, such a hatred of tyranny, and so great a compassion, understanding, tolerance and forgiveness for women they are ardent to reduce the rate of abortion but not by demanding the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Many men, myself included, cannot in good conscience ask legislation against a right which is not ours. And then as well, those who are firmly “Pro Choice“ are often deeply touched by the sanctity of life themselves.
Unlike those whose position is not “Pro Choice” but, though never so denominated, is actually “Pro Abortion.” This is so different a stance it could be alleged for those who hold it to call themselves “Pro Choice” is camouflage and a masquerade. My own ears have heard a spokesman state unequivocally, “We want absolute control over procreation.”
No.
Certainly there is a strong consensus humankind must address the undeniable problem of over-population with self-restraint but absolute control over procreation does not belong in the hand of the man I heard speak those words and those who cheered him.
Those who stick to their shillelaghs about “Right to Life” politics appear to be very effectively neutralized. The Equal Rights Amendment failed. America decided it did not wish to eliminate all distinction between genders. However, before it finally stalled it was approved by more than half of our state legislatures and in fact it established broad if incomplete equality between men and women as both the law and custom of the land. So far as I know, the still raised banner of a Right to Life amendment or law has never made it to any ballot. Its supporters are stigmatized by their religious ardor and association, held at bay by Separation of Church and State, the American Press does not stop far short of mockery in its treatment of them and comics who can mix wit with an absence of restraint about them can pack nightclubs with raucous sophisticates.
Though there is some wrong in writing of what may be another soul’s secret I suspect part of the reason for the ineffectuality of “Right to Life” politics is the result of a hidden self-restraint within their ranks. Are there those who must or will put the letter of their faith upon their tongue but keep it from their hand? If so I do not call them hypocrite but friend. An abortion under the most forgivable circumstance is a tragedy and if I could feed five thousand with five loaves and seven fishes my politics would be Right to Life as well. Creator! Ordain a New Physics and Geometry with a flat earth of endless meadows and streams, mountains and seas stretching out endless miles that my politics might match the heart Thy Word has grown within my breast! Science! Open wormholes in space so humankind may set foot upon a thousand verdant earths circling a thousand distant suns that my conscience might play free. I cannot hold to Right to Life in this world as I know it but I would dread to live here if the principle were not espoused.
But in this world as I know it I am thoroughly unconvinced of a necessity to deny the practice of Medicine to those who by conscience will not perform abortion. On the contrary, if there are any of faith who despite not being in a vegetative coma have yet never acted in violation of their own conscience their number must be few. Let us act fiercely and well to keep Acts of Conscience off the Endangered Species List.
So.
Block that and toss this.
Rather than a Right to Life Amendment how about a Pro-Life Amendment?
The United Nations has composed, adopted, and published a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Am I the only one who noticed it did not state it is a woman’s right to bring a pregnancy to term? I cannot believe I am the only intelligent adult who would call this a human right deeper in the marrow than several other items on the list.
It was long thought our kind rose above animal when we began to use tools but now we know animals as well use tools. Perhaps we became human when first we drew a line.
By what we are, by what abortion is, there was a line. Though that line is now undrawn we are still what we are, abortion is still what it is. Let us measure with keen eye, grasp straightedge with firm hand and, in pencil, with deft and steady stroke, make mark upon the page then turn to our countrymen and women and beseech the Sovereign Ink.
Let us amend the Constitution of the United States of America to read, “A woman’s right to bring a pregnancy to term shall not be abridged.”
Just when this idea of a Pro-Life amendment came to mind escapes me but it stuck fast from its conception. It was at least two or three years before I spoke of it. A couple thousand years ago a controversial rabbi commented on the way swine treat pearls and those who present them and I had already been disabused of the young man’s thought that scripture is largely outmoded.
As it happened I chose well when I finally broached the subject for it was not only treated with respect but I was then told just what I needed to know. I have a friend in Boston who is a lawyer doing pro bono work on behalf of psychiatric patients. I often ate at a bar and grill in the Fenway where he often stopped in the evening and we had a running dialogue for years. He gave a very strong response to the idea locking his gaze on my own. After a timeless moment he looked off and weighed upon it, turned back to me and said, “You’d have to have a case [when the right was abridged].”
‘Nuff said.
Of course it happens every day in private. I had opportunity once to counsel a young woman who was being pressured by here boyfriend to get an abortion she did not want. The look on her face and sound of her voice when she said, “I have very strong feelings about it,” are unforgettable. I don’t recall just when the idea came to me but it was she who inspired it. Would that I could have sprouted angel wings from my back to enfold her. Short of that it would be comforting to know every young woman in her position was taught in grammar school the Law of her Nation stands with her.
This vignette will never be a case at law.
However there was a report this spring in The Boston Globe fulfilling the requirement prima facie. An article related that several American women, including married women, serving in Iraq had been ordered to have abortions.
This would be a lawful order. Yes, a military commander may order a medical action for a subordinate. Many a brave and wounded soldier hot to stand and fight has been ordered from the battlefield to the MASH unit. The pro-abortion forces have been insistent on treating an abortion as a medical procedure no different than setting a broken bone or removing a splinter, have in fact pressed the depredations of Orwellian Newspeak on the language of abortion.
And.
No line is drawn.
Nowhere in law is there a word affirming a woman’s right to her unborn child, an absence now made glaring.
Our Constitution is ours. Our charter seats national sovereignty in the people. It is in our power to raise this question, to say here is a place to draw a line and to appeal to our fellow citizens enshrine it in our Law.
The process of doing so could be a very healing and restorative process. The debate over abortion in our country has been divisive and fierce. This contest will continue even if this initiative were to be fully successful. Those who are very firm in seeking the overturn of Roe v. Wade will not be folding their tents. Some will likely take the position they prefer no line to a line they believe misplaced. Others will recognize that if Oregon declares war on California and mobilizes forces which occupy Redding, California would be wise to establish a firm defensive line north of Sacramento. It seems sort of a shame scripture advises against schadenfreude because it would seem the Pro-Abortion people will be sort of funny looking in their attempts to oppose it. But the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice who are probably the great bulk of the population should be able to warmly unite in support of an action both will find soothing and stabilizing.
For my own part I believe the absence of a line on abortion is subtly but greatly disorienting and that to draw a new line would create a benchmark against which we can measure our efforts to reduce the staggering rate of this tragedy and most especially a barrier to prevent us from falling into an abyss.
Liberty, sweet and fair, may recline on purple velveteen savoring petit fours and Beaujolais in her palazzo built in Yes only if she shows deference to Freedom espoused to Responsibility in their simple abode on the bedrock of No.
Let us draw this line.

William O. Birdwood
San Francisco, California
August 14, 2010

Thanks PT for re-posting this and than you for your comments.

I remember this.

The Commander posted this back then without using a designated poster or Henry Kissinger and he hit it out of the park.

Thanks again.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
That was a very moving essay... Thank you for posting it.

The only issue I see with this essay's proposal is that late term abortions (over 20+ weeks by most definitions) would seem to be allowed if the woman changed her mind and did not want to bear it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Late-term abortions are a controversial subject and the laws across the USA are varied and complicated mainly on where to draw the time-wise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

How far along in the pregnancy can or should that choice be given to the mother? That would be the question.
i guess what i mostly came away with from this essay is a leaning toward a more matriarchal approach to the entire subject. i am pro choice, in the truest sense of the word. and yes it is a very complicated and controvesial topic. and in todays financial climate the abortion rate is soaring. were gonna end up like the soviet union in 20 years, paying women bonuses to give birth.
 
That was a very moving essay... Thank you for posting it.

The only issue I see with this essay's proposal is that late term abortions (over 20+ weeks by most definitions) would seem to be allowed if the woman changed her mind and did not want to bear it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Late-term abortions are a controversial subject and the laws across the USA are varied and complicated mainly on where to draw the time-wise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

How far along in the pregnancy can or should that choice be given to the mother? That would be the question.

my heavens!

it seems many readers manage to miss the meaning of the proposed amendment

it does NOT abolish roe v. wade!!!!

it merely protects and reinforces a woman's right to choose life
 

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
The Equal Rights Amendment failed. America decided it did not wish to eliminate all distinction between genders.

Umm, no. It failed because equal human rights are ALREADY covered by the 14th Amendment. The "ERA" had nothing to do with natural human rights, thus it was thrown in the circular file.
 
Umm, no. It failed because equal human rights are ALREADY covered by the 14th Amendment. The "ERA" had nothing to do with natural human rights, thus it was thrown in the circular file.

It also failed because of the way it was worded, which turned people against it.

The way it was phrased really would have made separate restrooms for males and females legal discrimination.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
my heavens!

it seems many readers manage to miss the meaning of the proposed amendment

it does NOT abolish roe v. wade!!!!

it merely protects and reinforces a woman's right to choose life

I never said I thought it meant an abolition to Roe v Wade.

You wrote:

Let us amend the Constitution of the United States of America to read, “A woman’s right to bring a pregnancy to term shall not be abridged.”

[..] Nowhere in law is there a word affirming a woman’s right to her unborn child, an absence now made glaring.[..]


And I agree except.

BUT my point is that by shifting it to the woman's right and decision seems to also lend to possibilities that include the right to terminate it at long past viability. And that this would be a contentious and complex argument to make because of the varied state laws.

We do need an equal right amendment and one that includes the right to bear and bring to term children.
 

Adiren

Patron
i guess what i mostly came away with from this essay is a leaning toward a more matriarchal approach to the entire subject. i am pro choice, in the truest sense of the word. and yes it is a very complicated and controvesial topic. and in todays financial climate the abortion rate is soaring. were gonna end up like the soviet union in 20 years, paying women bonuses to give birth.


Thank you so much for bringing here this magnificent essay - thank you Commander, Sir - which touches such a delicate subject.
Like you, I am a 100% pro-choice, either to have or not to have your babies, even if on a personal level I am pro-life. But it must be your decision. However, here I have a problem, I think it cannot be an exclusive to the mother, but it must also involve the father as long as he is present.

Nevertheless, what is in question here is the right to HAVE a child, to carry a pregnancy to it's term, and that has never been discussed anywhere, as far as I know.

I remember some scandals related to the exposition of women to radiations, for instance in the late USSR but also in the USA, that could compromise the possibility of those women to procreate or the health of the babies in case those woman were pregnant.

I know that there are some Labor laws that protect women - in here we have a "positive segregation": certain jobs must not be performed by women within certain age intervals, but in fact there is nothing that can protect them from being harassed from not having children for professional or other reasons.

When Portugal entered the European Union, the pressure on everybody, but especially on women to become career successful was even bigger than before. The fact is that most enterprises pressured their employees not to have children, and by their own choice most women of my generation and the following have declined that blessing.
Now, this country that was one of the southern countries more family oriented is barren. It's one where the old and elderly have overpassed the young - we are an old country.

I remember that when I got married, the President of the Institution I was working for was present (he had made himself invited), he congratulated me, but as if in a joke said to me: "now, look out if you don't get pregnant".
 
Last edited:

Adiren

Patron
Commander Birdsong,

I think that for the cases that you are thinking about such a law would function, eventually, as a sanctionatory law but not as preemptive.
When we read the testimonies of so many that have been forced to those inhumane acts we see that, at the time of its occurrence, those people where unable to fight back the pressure put upon them. How could a law be applied if, almost certainly these people would keep quiet?

However I think it is important that such a cover for the right to give life to a new being exists.
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
Commander Birdsong,

I think that for the cases that you are thinking about such a law would function, eventually, as a sanctionatory law but not as preemptive.
When we read the testimonies of so many that have been forced to those inhumane acts we see that, at the time of its occurrence, those people where unable to fight back the pressure put upon them. How could a law be applied if, almost certainly these people would keep quiet?

However I think it is important that such a cover for the right to give life to a new being exists.
This is the situation exactly. As the laws in the US stand, if a woman decided to have a child against the fathers will, the father will be held legaly liable for child support. As in so many ugly situations where there is blood there is money. So, I can see that yes, the same pressure would be applied to a woman in a personal relationship. However, these changes would affect military woman in a positive way. I was also shocked to find out that the military can order women to abort their children.

I remember in my custody battle for my daughters, (the father didnt want the children, it was just another way to make my life hell) but during the court hearing the judge asked me what my profession was. I told her I didnt have one. She said "ARE YOU DISABLED?"
I had two young daughters and I was determined to be at home for them and devote myself entirely to their care. To the state this practically makes you a tax dodger and not a valuable "human resource."
 

Adiren

Patron
Excuse me for using a different colour to get my way between your paragraphs

This is the situation exactly. As the laws in the US stand, if a woman decided to have a child against the fathers will, the father will be held legaly liable for child support. As in so many ugly situations where there is blood there is money. So, I can see that yes, the same pressure would be applied to a woman in a personal relationship. However, these changes would affect military woman in a positive way. I was also shocked to find out that the military can order women to abort their children.


That is something that I cannot accept. I've watched many TV programmes, where we have to understand that they are what they are, but where men are coerced to accept to father and take financial responsibility for babies they didn't even know they existed. It looked too much like a trap. But that is not what I believe is behind the essay that you brought here, even though those cases should be prevented by such a law.

As far as I could see, in the essay, it is that there should be a law to which one could apply when pressured to give up the right to have a baby. However, I maintain that I don't think it would prevent those situations as, we, the women, are the ones that allow it to happen. It must be much more precocious, in the first levels of education, at home (which doesn't exist in SCI), with example to the little ones.


I remember in my custody battle for my daughters, (the father didnt want the children, it was just another way to make my life hell) but during the court hearing the judge asked me what my profession was. I told her I didnt have one. She said "ARE YOU DISABLED?"
I had two young daughters and I was determined to be at home for them and devote myself entirely to their care. To the state this practically makes you a tax dodger and not a valuable "human resource."

To be a mother is an honoroble a profession as any other, but it's understandable that to the Judicial system they think about who can provide for the child/children. In here here it's the same. If you don't work it doesn't matter how honest and capable you are, the other parent will get the guardianship of the children, unless he is a monster.
 
I never said I thought it meant an abolition to Roe v Wade.

You wrote:




And I agree except.

BUT my point is that by shifting it to the woman's right and decision seems to also lend to possibilities that include the right to terminate it at long past viability. And that this would be a contentious and complex argument to make because of the varied state laws.

We do need an equal right amendment and one that includes the right to bear and bring to term children.

interesting comment AM

thank you

i don't think this correct but it is a concept now entered into the dialogue
 
The 9th Amendment covers this already...

not specifically OMG

and again, there is not one single word in law anywhere on the planet affirming this obvious right

take a look at the 1948 UN declaration of human rights. there are some very politically controversial items there. any country which attempted by law to ensure those rights would have to be a socialist tyranny. it is a tremendous challenge for a nation to allow them

this particular right, which quite understandably was overlooked in 1948 as at that time a woman did not have the right to abortion in most countries, needs to be named and affirmed. the most likely argument to block it's adoption is that it is unnecessary. even if such an argument proves to have a lock hand, this idea needs and deserves a full airing in our national dialogue.

even if the initiative ultimately fails it still succeeds by naming and affirming this particular right

your statement is sensible argument against adoption. it is most firmly and decidedly NOT an argument against the attempt
 
Excuse me for using a different colour to get my way between your paragraphs



To be a mother is an honoroble a profession as any other, but it's understandable that to the Judicial system they think about who can provide for the child/children. In here here it's the same. If you don't work it doesn't matter how honest and capable you are, the other parent will get the guardianship of the children, unless he is a monster.

the OP is sure to generate tangential statements. serious tangential statements should be turned into their own threads

please my estteemed colleagues, take care not to take this thread far or long from the OP

thank you
 
Top