mudcat.org: BS: abortion south dakota
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: abortion south dakota

GUEST,saulgoldie 12 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM
Alba 12 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM
Ron Davies 12 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM
SINSULL 12 Mar 06 - 10:55 AM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Mar 06 - 09:57 AM
Alba 12 Mar 06 - 09:29 AM
katlaughing 12 Mar 06 - 03:44 AM
Greg F. 11 Mar 06 - 07:02 PM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM
Greg F. 11 Mar 06 - 09:51 AM
GUEST 10 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Mar 06 - 12:34 PM
GUEST,dianavan 10 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM
GUEST,another regualr catter 10 Mar 06 - 07:49 AM
kendall 10 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM
Cluin 10 Mar 06 - 04:37 AM
katlaughing 10 Mar 06 - 12:28 AM
Anonny Mouse 10 Mar 06 - 12:13 AM
Peace 09 Mar 06 - 11:50 PM
GUEST,dianavan 09 Mar 06 - 11:48 PM
Peace 09 Mar 06 - 10:57 PM
Ebbie 09 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM
Greg F. 09 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM
GUEST 09 Mar 06 - 12:21 PM
GUEST,a regular 'catter. 09 Mar 06 - 11:18 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM
GUEST 09 Mar 06 - 10:06 AM
GUEST,donuel 09 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM
katlaughing 09 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM
kendall 09 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM
GUEST,Larry K 09 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM
MaineDog 09 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Mar 06 - 08:02 AM
jacqui.c 09 Mar 06 - 07:36 AM
Cluin 09 Mar 06 - 12:16 AM
katlaughing 09 Mar 06 - 12:09 AM
Peace 08 Mar 06 - 08:33 PM
Peace 08 Mar 06 - 08:31 PM
Peace 08 Mar 06 - 08:29 PM
Peace 08 Mar 06 - 08:21 PM
JohnInKansas 08 Mar 06 - 08:19 PM
katlaughing 08 Mar 06 - 08:14 PM
JohnInKansas 08 Mar 06 - 08:11 PM
Peace 08 Mar 06 - 07:26 PM
Bill D 08 Mar 06 - 06:43 PM
GUEST,dianavan 08 Mar 06 - 06:04 PM
JohnInKansas 08 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Mar 06 - 01:45 PM
Bill D 08 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM
Peace 08 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

If the anti-choice (often erroneously referred to as "pro-life")were truly concerned about reducing the number of abortions as opposed to controlling women's reproductive systems they would promote fair and balanced sex education programs (that treat the subjects with respect and truly inform them) rather than brain-dead "abstinence-only" scams. They don't support them, and they ARE only interested in controlling women.

"Pro-life" is an erroneous term because it implies that those who oppose it are somehow anti-life. This is not the case. I venture to say that most "pro-choice" proponents are ANTI capital punishment, ANTI war, and are more likely to be vegetarians. Certainly the humans who committed crimes are alive, as are those who would be battlefiend enemies, and Mother Nature's other beings. Similarly, among the "anti-choice" (NOT "pro-life") you find more warmongers, proponents of capital punishment, and animal eaters. All such actions are decidedly ANTI-life.

And finally, you cannot compromise. You either endorse the right of a woman to make her own reproductive choices or you have the state makes those decisions for her. There is no medium ground. It is a binary choice, not a spectrum. Those who suggest "compromise" are content to let the state make some decisions for the woman, and do not endorse a woman's right to choose, period.

Is it totally impossible to be logical in this argument?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM

I don't think you were on a Soapbox Sins.
I think you had the courage to tell it like IT IS in the REAL world.
I admire you even more than I already do for your post on this topic.

Sinsull's post, for me, was gut wrenching to read. As are some of the Guests who have been brave enough to recall the horror of their experiences to help people better understand the issues at stake on this issues.
My Thanks and my Heart goes to you all.
Jude


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM

Just how far out of touch the so-called "pro-life" people are is indicated by Larry K's first post--with absurd, meaningless and plain wrong statements like "Mexico has no alleys" and ridiculous claims like 60% of the population-- (where are the alleged polls, with sources, which support this fantasy?)--- being "pro-life" (a truly Orwellian formulation).

The only thing true he says is that abortions will still be done in other states--but it still does not answer the main question--which is why shouldn't it be up to the woman to decide, without interference by the state?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 10:55 AM

I am pro-choice. The reasons have been discussed ad nauseam. Neither side is going to convince the other.

As to those thousands of eager families waiting to adopt - they are eager to adopt a healthy infant. Every major city has a foster care system filled with unwanted crack/heroin/AIDS babies, warehoused children that no one wants. And the older they get, the less likely it is that they will ever be adopted. They age out of the system and are put out on their own with $200 and no prospects.

I adopted one. Despite years of a loving, supportive family, special schools and constant mental health support, he has never been able to get past the emotional and sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of the NYC Foster Care System. His mother had neglected him. His foster mothers tortured him. At the age of eight months he was hospitalized suffering from malnutrition and covered with bruises and HUMAN BITES! The foster care worker who supposedly made weekly visits hadn't noticed any problems. He remained in foster care until he was eight - emotional abuse, neglect, anal rape, sexual molestation by men and women, horror stories.

This is how we treat those children that nobody, including their mothers, want. My son's story is not unusual. If we are going to force women to carry unwanted children to term, we have to have a system in place to give them loving, safe homes, an education that will prepare them to be self sufficient, and the respect they deserve.

I will get off my soapbox now.
SINS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 09:57 AM

Well, abstinence on the part of the man would stop rape.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 09:29 AM

Ah yes Kat... Allen

I wondered when I read this if Allen's decision on the Rape Victim's request for a termination was based on the same kind of theory he held regarding Aids! ABSTINENCE STOPS RAPE!

Thanks for the post. Another 'stunning' mind gone from the Bush Administration. Forgive me if I do not mourn the loss of this numb nut! Another icon of virtue and Family Values bites the dust.


Love and Light
Jude


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 03:44 AM

One of Bush's top domestic policy advisors, who resigned just recently, has just been arrested for scamming Target store for thousands of dollars worth of goods. Just a hint of what Bush looks for in an advisor (my emphasis):

Allen went on to serve as the Health and Human Services secretary for Virginia, where he cemented his conservative bona fides by denying a low-income rape victim Medicaid funds for an abortion. In 2001, Bush appointed Allen to the No. 2 post at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he promoted abstinence-only AIDS-prevention programs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 07:02 PM

Sorry, Kevin- don't know where 'Brian' came from. I must be having a bad day. At least I didn't call you Ruthven.

And I'm with you about the shared goal approach.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM

Brian McGrath? That was my brother's name - you didn't know him by any chance, did you Greg?
.................................

I think that may be a Stateside thing that is less true in other places - at least it doesn't square with people I've known who've been actively involved with organisations like Life, in England.

I suspect even in the States you'd find some people in both camps who'd be doing "towards that end" stuff, and others who'd be ignoring that side of it, in favour of just hammering the enemy. And my point is that the latter sort really aren't entitled to call themselves either pro-choice or pro life.

And that the former sort ought to be able to recognise some commonality beneath the differences, and be trying to find ways of cooperating on a shared goal of ending situations where women feel that abortion is their only option, and yet one they do not want.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 09:51 AM

I think you'll find, Brian, at least in the U.S., that most of what you call the "pro-choice" folks are involved with "towards that end" of ensuring the provision of "the basic needs of food, shelter etc", while the single-issue, anti-abortion, blastula worshipping "christisn"[sic] set are far too busy pursuing their political agenda -


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM

Hey I know. We should be able to take a tax deduction when we are pregnant. Let's see if South Dakota will also enact that law. It's only fair.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:34 PM

But in cases where women have abortions because the alternative is that the child will not have the basic needs of food, shelter etc, that is not a matter of free choice.

"Pro-choice" and "pro-life" people ought to be united in ending a situation where that happens, and willing to work aongside each other towards that end. Anyone not willing to do that really has no right to use either label.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

Yes, Kat, I did mean pro-life.

Thanks for the correction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,another regualr catter
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 07:49 AM

When I was a teenager I was raped and as a result I fell pregnant. I had an abortion and to this day I know I did the right thing. The baby would have been a constant reminder of the most harrowing experience of my life. Yes, some of you might have said that someone would have adopted the baby and given it a good home. But I couldn't have handled 18 years or so down the line the person finding me and asking me why I gave them up as a baby. I would then be obliged to explain to them how they were concieved and relive the whole thing again.

My body was violated and I am glad that I had the option to have an abortion. I would ahve been violated twice if another of my choices as a woman had been taken away from me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: kendall
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM

Common sense tells me that abortion is seldom used as a birth control method.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Cluin
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 04:37 AM

Yes, good post, Peace. Another thing we see eye-to-eye on.

Saying the anti-abortion movement is only about controlling women is an over-simplification of the issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:28 AM

dianavan, I think you meant "pro-life" in your first sentence: Many of you pro-choice people seem to think that the fetus has rights.?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:13 AM

Good post, Peace.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:50 PM

"The stupid thing about this is that the right-wing legislators think they will stop abortions by passing these laws."

The above quote is one of the more insightful remars made yet.

I heard from my aunt years back that girls who 'got in trouble' would purchase penny royal from the druggist and swallow it (I don't know how much). This old memory thinks it caused convulsions and resulted in an abortion. The era: 1920s and 1930s.

I am of two minds to do with abortion. I oppose it because (as has been noted by both Martin and Joe speaking of their own views), I perceive it to be wrong on 'moral' grounds--I am strongly opposed to it being used as a retroactive form of birth control. I think abortion on demand is the ultimate method of turning people into statistics. Uh, I was too preoccupied to use precautions and I need to get rid of my little mistake. HOWEVER, kids get pregnant because 'young hearts beat fast' and things happen. Unwanted pregnancies occur for myriad reasons--not all of them nice or good.

The story someone told about a friend who chose abortion as the last option is one I have heard many times. The gal still agonizes over it, and no doubt will for the rest of her life. I don't think the decision to abort is entered into lightly by most people.

As a very young teenager, my best friend and his girlfriend got involved, used no precautions (mostly because neither of them knew how to and I was no help because I didn't know what 'precautions' were, and she got pregnant. We had no one to turn to because who could you tell that to in 1962. They were fourteen years old (I was thirteen). We finally found an abortionist--I am pretty sure the guy and his nurse were not a moonlighting doctor and nurse team. She lived through it, but I understand she was never again able to get pregnant after that.

We cannot go back to those days. If there are going to be abortions, then they must be handled by people who know what they are doing--and that means medical doctors in hospitals or clinics that are sterile and equipped with the necessary life suppost systems for the girl or woman in the event things don't quite go as planned. Too many kids have left 'butcher shops' and bled to death or died from needless infection. No more of that. Please.

Bobert pointed out that education is the key. I have to agree. There is no 'easy' answer for this. Abortion is often wrong. It is often not wrong, too. In a perfect world, abortion would not be necessary; nor would it be seen as an answer to aspects of human carelessness, oversight or accident. However, the world ain't perfect.

I disagree that the attempt to criminalize abortion is specifically meant to be a mechanism to control women, but I understand how people could see it that way. This swing to the right and the polarization of people scares the hell outta me, but it is simply a continuance of an agenda that seems to be there but never talked about, an agenda to dominate all people everywhere in all aspects of their lives. It is prompted by all the wrong motives. As was noted above, likely the best bet in getting the US back on track is to vote very wisely in 2006. I wish you well."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:48 PM

Many of you pro-choice people seem to think that the fetus has rights. I think its odd that you grant the right of life to the unborn fetus but deny the rights of the mother to control her own life.

Until you can guarantee that every child is provided with the basic needs (food, shelter, clothing and care) you have no right to insist that they live a life of misery. Is poverty something you want to impose on another human being?

Even if the child is adopted by another family, what right do you have to impose on that child and his/her birth mother, the associated emotional problems that they may face?

You are overlooking the fact that there is no guarantee that the pregnant mother will have the proper pre-natal care that she needs. Who will pay for her daily living expenses when she must leave the work place? Who will love her when she is all alone? Who will ensure that her emotional well-being is taken care of? Her emotional well-being is critical to the mental health of the unborn child she carries.

We all know that a healthy baby needs a healthy mother. What are your plans to insure the health of the mother?

Once you have all of these provisions in place, your pro-life argument might make some sense. Until then, the pro-life argument will always be another way to abuse women and children.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:57 PM

I think that was the point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM

Just to make a -probably redundant - point: there is a distinct difference between castration and sterilization. Sterilizing a woman is not an equal thing to having castrated a man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM

Et Tu, Larry-

Why don't YOU just move to Ireland or Iran or etc- plenty of fundamentalist theocracies out there to choose from where your views would be right at home.

Problem solved.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:21 PM

What this country needs is more people who are ready, willing and able to mind their own F*****G business.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,a regular 'catter.
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:18 AM

I am a regular catter who has signed out to post this.

About a year ago, my partner was very concerned that she was pregnant, despite us both being very careful, and that she would have to have an abortion. This meant we both had to think very carefully about this.

The whole situation re-enforced the view that I hold, that any decision on abortion can only be made by the Woman concerned. If she wishes to tell her partner, family, doctor or preist, that is her right, but they are not the ones who will have to carry the baby, and should not be able to impose their views un-invited.

In something so personal, unless you are trusted and respected by the Woman, what you think should have no relevance whatsoever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

Not everything wrong is a matter for lawcourts. I think most women who lose a baby and put it down to the fact that they had drank and smoked heavily during pregnancy would recognise that they had been wrong to do so.

There seems to be a tendency to oversimplify - if something's legal, that means it's right; if something's wrong, it ought to be illegal. But that's essentially fundamentalist thinking, at home only in set-ups like the Taliban's Afghanistan or John Calvin's Geneva. I think we have to muddle along in a world where often enough bad things are going to be legal and some good things are going to be illegal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:06 AM

Some time back someone posted this
The only people who are "prolife" are,
1. Men
2. Women past child bearing age
3. Women who are too ugly to get laid.
Is there any truth to this?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM

Did you hear that the Republicans in South Dakota have cornered the coat hanger market?

Dear Mudcatters: Is this too vile to be illustrated as a cartoon?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM

LarryK. you demonstrate the epitome of people who do not understand what women face, esp. women of poverty. How could you? You are male and thus can never get pregnant. That, from the start, imo, makes it wrong and impossible for you to pass judgement and laws concerning a woman's right to choose.

Having been a teenage mom, I can assure you I have been through all of the aspects of considering the father in such circumstances AND the baby. With three children, I find it highly presumptious of you to assume anything about me and where I am coming from, except what I have plainly stated.

Let me be even more clear: YOU, nor anyone else, has any rights to govern MY body. I do not believe a fetus is a "being" at conception. Many people agree with me. YOU cite broad and sweeping statistics, with no citations, plus stats can be manipulated by both sides to suit their needs.

As to people living in poverty moving? What world do you live in? Have you read some of the threads, lately, by Mudcatters who are working in the trenches with poor people? Do you realise what a move costs and how much it costs to set up house in another area, utility deposits, first, last and security deposits for rent, moving expenses, etc. esp. when one does NOT have a job, nor skills to make anything more than minimum wage? Do you understand that most jobs available to people without much training, esp. stay-at-home mothers who've not been out in the job market, are service jobs with low wages and usually no benefits?

Your views and suggestions are completley unrealistic and seem to be driven by emotional reactions rather than any understanding of your fellow human beings.

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: kendall
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM

It's all been said, so all I can add is:
"The Devil loves an unwanted child." (Henry Kranz)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

KatLaughing-   You look at this issue at 100% from the side of the woman.   You do not consider the man or more importantly the baby.   The majority of the people in this country believe that the baby has rights- as does the mother. If left to a national vote abortions would probably be made illegal throughout the country.    When you ignore the baby in these discussions, you are not addressing the issue with any coherent thought.

To continue your thought for Pro Lifers- if the baby exists at the time of conception- shoud all woman who have miscarriages be charged with manslaghter?   Especially if they are overweight, have smoked cigarettes, or drank alcohol?

Finally- the concept that woman can't afford to move to a state or live in a state of their choice is rubbish.   You must not have noticed that people move all the time.    Millions and millions of people move each year.   People in the northeast are moving the the south and southwest.    People in California are moving to Arizona and New Mexico.   An African American speaker in Detroit a few weeks ago stated how African Americans moved to Detroit to work in the auto industry. Today, Detroit is laying off people and Toyota and Saturn are building plants in the South.   His contentions is that African Americans should move to where the jobs are rather than live in welfare where the jobs aren't.   There is nothing stopping anyone from moving to a place that more suits their values or jobs or weather.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: MaineDog
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM

No, its the other way around. People who are messed up about sex go into fundamentalism in order to spread their misery around, try to turn their disability into an advantage.
MD


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:02 AM

Forced sterilisation of "the feeble-minded" and "moral delinquents" and so forth wasn't a hangover from ancient days, it was hailed in its time as the up-to-date progressive thing to do. When Hitler took it up and extended it, it was as a way of being modern and forward-looking and all that. He got some good press for it too. It was seen by some people who didn't like him in general as being a silver lining in his dark cloud, in the same was as the building of the autobahns.

The mind-set that is comfortable about abortion as the best solution where there's a chance a child might be disabled isn't a million miles away from that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: jacqui.c
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 07:36 AM

Cluin

Culture, religion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Cluin
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:16 AM

Why do people get so fucked up about sex?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:09 AM

Thanks, John. I thought it was more widely known, now. It is heinous that it ever happened and that it could, indeed, happen, again.

Just as heinous, imo, is that in 1970, under 21 year olds could not get contraception without their parents' permission and married women still had to get their husband's okay for an abortion, no matter what kind of asshole they were married to. I had a girlfriend whose new husband couldnt' tolerate the idea of a baby right after marriage and through a failure of birth control they were using. He was a very well-educated man who forced her to submit to an abortion. (Happy to say, I helped her divorce the bastard years later.)

The government has no business being in anyone's personal business in these ways. They are all heinous.

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:33 PM

Sorry for no site names. Easily found with a google of

forced sterilization, alberta


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:31 PM

Alberta apologizes for forced sterilization
WebPosted Tue Nov 2 18:04:09 1999 (CBC Radio)

EDMONTON - The government of Alberta has apologized for one of the darker chapters in
the province's history: forced sterilization of more than 2,800 people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:29 PM

"Forced sterilization of mental patients
Edmonton, Alberta
March 21, 1928
"...the patient may safely be discharged if the danger of procreation with its attendant risk of multiplication of the evil by transmission of the disability to the progeny were eliminated, the board may direct ...sexual sterilization of the inmate..."

Alberta passes the Sexual Sterilization Act. It provides for the forced sterilization of inmates in mental hospitals.

Similar laws are enacted in other provinces, such as British Columbia.

Want To Know More?
See:
Sexual Sterilization Act, S.A. 1928, c.37.

Did you know?
Sterilization of the "feeble-minded" is supported by leading women's rights figures such as Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:21 PM

"Those who speak flippantly of involuntary sterilization as a "social improvement" tool may not be aware that not very long ago it was fairly commonly used, in many states in the US and in a fair number of other countries."

It was done legally in Alberta until 1972. I will say that again: 1972. Practised on mental health patients. Bloody barbaric.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:19 PM

kat -

I could see the irony quite clearly, but in fact there seem to be few people even aware that this ever happened.

It did.

It could.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:14 PM

A good reminder, John. Of course, you must know I was being ironic.:-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:11 PM

Those who speak flippantly of involuntary sterilization as a "social improvement" tool may not be aware that not very long ago it was fairly commonly used, in many states in the US and in a fair number of other countries.

It was used against persons incarcerated for "sex crimes" on the premise that it would "cure them of their urges." It was fairly often applied to persons confined for crimes having nothing to do with sex, solely if they were "unruly in confinement," on the premise that it would make them, especially but not exclusively the males, "more tractable." It was not too unusual for this procedure to be applied to persons in short term confinement for relatively petty crimes. It was fairly widely used on persons confined as "mentally deviant," "mentally ill, or simply "feeble minded," occasionally on half-baked theories purporting that it would cure them of their "mental problems," but often just "to keep them out of trouble."

In most places, a court order was nominally required, but it was often just a "rubber-stamp" process for anyone for whom the warden or chief admistrator filled out the form. There often was no formal "hearing," much less a trial. Final decisions were sometimes made by an appointed committee, and in some cases the chief administrator or the "medical director" of a confinement facility alone could decide to do it to someone on his/her own sole authority.

The disappearance of the last state laws permitting (or requiring) this "treatment" came at about the same time that the most brutal of the segregation laws began to fall by order of the Federal Courts, so for some of us elders it's a fairly recent thing.

There are still a fair number of people who think it was a good idea because the "Old Testament says that drastic punishments are proper."

There are still a fair number of people alive who's parents taught them that it was an appropriate "scientific treatment" based on the pseudo-scientific theories of the period when the practice was widespread.

At least there are few direct descendants of the victims to complain.

Involuntary lobotomy and forced electroshock treatments were common in the same recent era, although probably less frequently than sterilization.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:26 PM

"That would be easy enough. When a child is born illegitimately, we test the DNA and then we castrate the father of the child so that it never happens again."

And also forced sterilization of the female who got pregnant. That would make it unlikely that either party would reoffend. If you are going to hate, hate equally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 06:43 PM

sorry, dianavan...that might be sweet revenge and a moral victory, *grin*...but no practial results, I'm afraid. Like sweeping the waves off the beach.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 06:04 PM

I like Kat's idea.

If abortion is illegal, we should also make vasectomies illegal.

Why stop there. Perhaps we should bring back castration.

That would be easy enough. When a child is born illegitimately, we test the DNA and then we castrate the father of the child so that it never happens again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

McG -

balls to the wall

The derivation I've always heard is that in most aircraft you push the "balls" - the knobs on the throttle, mixture, and prop pitch control levers, to the "wall" - the control panel, in order to "proceed at maximum speed."

A corollary implication not particularly well known is that most aircraft are/were designed to be capable of "emergency power" that will destroy the engines if sustained more than briefly, so that the meaning for those who know is:

At maximum speed and at risk.

"Modern" pilots refer to it as "full military power," or just "full-military," and most turbine engines are installed so that they can be operated at 105% or 110%, occasionally more, of "maximum sustained thrust" for brief periods in an "emergency."

No documentation at hand for this etiology though.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:45 PM

It would have been balls to the wall...

That sounds very uncomfortable. What does it mean?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM

You beat me to it, kat.....let me just add, Larry, that if you think a country where people on one side of a river, who have the same president and *constitution* as those on the OTHER side of the river should live under different moral principles because 51% have been sold a different bill of goods, you have a strange notion of what the point of a Republic IS!

This is not 1897, where travel is slow & tedious and living in another state is almost like living in a different world....everyone is linked by TV, travel and internet...we all know what is going on across the country, and it makes NO sense for one area to pretend to huddle in the past with antiquated laws restricting personal freedoms that their neighbors enjoy.

What DOES make sense is for those who prefer more conservative ways of making choices to go ahead and practice them.....and leave their neighbors who feel differently alone!

Re-creating a system where there is clandestine traffic across state lines to get abortions is beyond ludicrous!...it is also divisive and expensive.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

Sorry. That should have read '1960'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 24 May 10:35 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.