Women's Rights.....Will It Affect Your Vote.....A Poll

The People should avoid voting for candidates that will use the power of government to restrict the rights of humans. It is tyranny against the population.

And the mothers to the other half.

And the mothers to the other half.

when I was growing up, mothers did not work. Women of my generation were behind the men in education. Now more women than men prepare with a college education...we are making progress and moving forward!

It is up to us to keep women's rights!!! We cannot let the Christians rule us. We cannot let laws be passed that even start to limit our choices in reproduction. We have to start voting for clear prochoice candidates and never back down for any reason!!!

So true,CC, so true.

No man knows the challenge presented by bleeding 3-10 days every month for up to 40 years of his life. No man knows the pain of endometriosis or the heartbreak of multiple miscarriages.

No offense but, um, yeah we do.

LOL, got you my vote up.

Yeah, PMS can be a bitch for everyone. LOL

2. damn, i forgot!

Cooking, cleaning, changing diapers, reading the bible, going to the store to get more beer, ordering the pizza, doing laundry, planting the vegetable garden, picking the vegetables, feeding the chickens, sewing the clothes, milking the cows, churing the butter, fixing the roof, helping the children with the home schooling, working, not complaining when he goes out with the boys but comes home smelling of perfume, sex on demand, etc, etc, etc,

3sheets,

too funny! when the old man comes home smellin' better than your hard workin' butt , it's time to ask him if he's really committed to the relationship! remember those nights in the back of the car when YOU and only YOU were on his mind.

in the back of the car

Don't you mean the back of the rusting pick-up truck that sits in the front yard on a pile of bricks instead of 4 tires?

shelby,

a lotta old white guys can only git it up when theys got the stars and bars wrapped around mars bar with a mental image of obama swangin frum a magnolia. gotta run, that no good darkie don't know nuthin 'bout birthin. babies. shut the hell up, charlotte, i told ya not to vote for santorum!

Fed up, got a laugh on that one, the ones they had back in the day made me throw up more than being pg did. And sick...I was lucky wasn't able to be consistent in getting pg though. :)

The GOTP thinks it's about whoremones and not about hormones! ;-)

CA @ #8.2

Now that is probably the most factual statement I've read in a long time!

Da-yam!
LOL

I can think of several dead women I once knew who I wish had been able to have the life saving benefits of contraceptives that could have saved their lives. One was my favorite Aunt, who was much to young and to good a person to die so young. She died of cervical cancer, which could have been prevented if she had had access to contraceptives.

What Issa and his GOPTeaBag Religious Inquisition are trying to do is nothing short of selective murder, by condemning women who could be saved by the use of contraceptives to a needless early death.

I am sure that Issa and the rest will simply say that their deaths was "God's will." And I hope that it will also be God's will that for every women that dies for the lack of the contraceptives that could save her, that one of the GOPTeaBag Bible thumpers who were so eager to condemned her will also know her fate.

Please don't castrate me! Can I be pool boy instead?

"I will in turn have the right to dictate what he does with his testicles"

A giant Amen!! to that!

baddestbob, I'm laughing sooooo hard, it hurts!!! You are outrageously funny! Thank you for that!!!

shelby,

ya know, it becomes so tiresome to try to reason with these people, that ya gotta laugh. thanks for the kind words!

I swear one has better luck reasoning with a cat.

"I swear one has better luck reasoning with a cat."

Yeah....like trying to put one in a bucket of water!

Yeah, but the Constitution is winning.

samenslow

Can you provide one bit of evidence that RU486, the Pill, Diaphragms, sponges are preventing STD's? I know condoms do, but you made it sound as though all contraception devises are used to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C and STD's. I would like some reinforcement in the form of a document that shows where these devises, other than condoms, are being effectively used to prevent the spread of diseases.

Doc Phil

Is there a reason you failed to mention the wonderful side effects of taking the Pill, such as a 50 percent increased risk of contracting SLE? I am sure that this is what most women would want to have happen to them due to the wonder drug as you have described it.

Just a few of the symptoms that can occur with taking the Pill

Thank God high blood pressure and high cholesterol are not serious problems and should be welcomed by women. Yes, these are what women are looking for.

Guess what possible side effect is often listed for migraine medication; headaches.

@13.5

I agree. Except that you were trying to sound like an advertisement in that you failed to show any negatives regarding the use of medications to prevent pregnancy, only the positives. In some circles, that is called deception.

In a doctor's office, between a patient and a doctor, I am sure the doctor will spell out the good, the bad, and the likely to the patient. That is not what you were doing in this post. I merely called you out to ask why.

And your response was to back peddle and say that anyone who takes medication should know there are side effects. Yet, you somehow failed to bring that up until called upon to do so. If you truly are a doctor, do you only show your patients the positives of a medication while failing to mention the negatives? Or do you only use that tactic when trying to make a weak point seem valid?

And there we have SW Mule trying to compare a headache as a side effect to depression, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, among many others. Mule, are you serious?

The point is that a medication used to treat headaches can list a side effect of headaches. An ointment used to treat a rash can list a side effect of causing a rash. You are using the possible side effects as a reason not to take a drug that has tremendous benefits. Most side effects are minor or are symptoms naturally experienced whether the drug was taken or not. The only things I see that are not a part of the natural symptoms experienced during the cycle are:

• High cholesterol
• permanent discolouration of the face
• Hair loss or changes in hair growth

Are you a man or woman? Reason I ask is that if you are a woman you would know the symptoms of the cycle.

How about we take ALL medical decisions and post them on the INTERNET! (Why not.. Oklahoma was going to do that with women seeking abortions...)

That way, we know who is on BC, who has VD, who has HIV/AIDS, who's pregnant, who's on Viagra...

Will that be OK??

If that isn't a conversation stopper, I don't know what is (on the net anyway) or off possibly. LOL

@13.10

Lie. You clearly made a reference in 13.3 of all the great benefits of birth control medication. I called you out as to why you failed to mention none of the negatives of the same medication. Now you are back peddling and saying that all you were trying to do was to make a claim that it is a woman's health issue and that it should be discussed between her and her doctor. If that was truly your goal, you would not have tried to present birth control medication as a wonder drug.

My granddaughter thinks it is ...after two children...they can't afford anymore.

It is a women's health issue that has to do with more than contraception. Birth control is used to treat a number of other illness including prevention of certain cancers. Listing the side effects from a medication web site does not tell you much.

Doc, go ahead and delete. You have already put the words out there in black and white. I called it like it is.

The issue shouldn't be just STDs. The issue is necessary preventive medical care for women. Here are some references for a few articles that provide strong evidence for the medical need for contraception that goes far beyond birth control.

The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9599, Pages 1591 - 1592, 10 November 2007doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61667-5Cite or Link Using DOI

Daniel J. DeNoon.... Strong protection from ovarioan cancer gives the pill overall anti-cancer effect......on Web MD 2/18/2012

Michelle Roberts.....Contraception coil raises hope of delaying web cancer..... in BBC News Health 9/28/2010

Dr. Sharon Phillips.....Contraception is prevention....in National Physicians Alliance...7/27/2011

These are only a few of innumerable articles that I was able to find in five minutes on this topic. They ranged from pieces in popular magazines to peer reviewed medical journals. The question than becomes, if the act of contraception has recognizable and proveable health benefits for women, how can insurance companies not cover this under preventative care? Other medications that have side effects of contraception such as those used for reflux conditions, some kidney conditions, etc. are paid for and not objected to.

anyone who has taken any medication, over the counter or by prescription should be aware of the side effects..... I've taught that there are side effects from drinking milk. That's not the point. Or if it is, it is even more reason for a woman to make the decision with her doctor.

I have taken the liberty of copying your two posts and highlighting the parts that are not, shall we say in total agreement with each other. Remember, you were answering my request for evidence that most birth control medications prevent STD's, hepatitis C, and HIV/AIDS. I asked that question because samenslow made a comment that these medications prevented these other diseases. Is there a reason that you or samenslow did not provide the evidence I was asking for? Could it be that samenslow told a lie? Naw, just hasn't had time to come back with the links to the AMA journals that show that using the Pill stops women from contracting HIV/Aids, or any other STD. Being that you did not correct samenslow, I must think that you agree with him/her. Are you really a doctor? If so then it must be easier for you to provide the link to the evidence to show that statement as true. Give samenslow a hand please, and provide the link to the evidence.

One more point before you delete this post. You make a point that women should be aware of the side effects of taking medications, whether they are over the counter or prescription. Keep in mind that of the 98 percent of women who had elective abortions, 47 percent of them used no birth control at all. NO BIRTH CONTROL AT ALL. And you want these same women to understand all of the risks of taking the Pill, when they can't even understand the basic facts of how to prevent pregnancy?

No, I am not denigrating women. Call it what you will. 98 percent of all abortions were elective. Of those, 47 percent were done for women who used absolutely no birth control at all. And these same women, along with yourself are screaming that someone is taking away their free birth control. I don't call having an abortion after not using any preventive means to prevent the pregnancy a form of birth control. I also don't see that being a very cost-conscious way to apply birth control. Can you tell me the cost difference between a condom and an abortion? I am willing to go out on a limb here and say, (without hearing the answer first), that a condom is just a slight bit less expensive than an abortion.

And I notice you still won't provide the evidence about STD's and such being prevented by using birth control medications like the Pill. Having trouble finding the link to that one?

47 percent were done for women who used absolutely no birth control at all. And these same women along with yourself are screaming that someone is taking away their free birth control.

newwtricks...women cannot conceive all by their lonesome. Why are you putting the entire blame on women to use birth control? I am so sick and tired of women getting the full blame when men are just as guilty for bringing a child into this world as a woman is. The reason men don't get dumped on everyday about contracptives and abortions is due to the fact that it is NOT their bodies that have the reproductive organs to carry and deliver a baby.

Men can cover that thing with a condom, purchase spermicides too. It shouldn't always be up to the woman. You speak of 'elective' abortions...well...a damn MAN put it there. Call these damn "plug and go" men out!!!

So Shelby, you are in favor then of a man having a say so as to whether the woman has the baby or not? As you have stated, he has as much responsibility in preventing the pregnancy, therefore he should have as much right as to determine the path chosen after the pregnancy has taken place.

And you think I want to take away a woman's right.

For years we have been told that it is a woman's choice to have or not have a baby, regardless of what the male wants or does not want. Now, you come back screaming that the male is half responsible. Can we please pick a side and stick with it? I am getting dizzy from the flip-flopping from side to side.

So Shelby, you are in favor then of a man having a say so as to whether the woman has the baby or not? I am getting dizzy from the flip-flopping from side to side.

newwtricks, I am in favor of a man stepping up to the plate and also assuming some of the responsiblity of using contraceptives instead of popping that thing in, having your pleasure and then..BINGO!..out the door you go. That is what I am in favor of and I haven't flip-flopped on that.

What I am referring to(and you know this)is the PREVENTION of pregnancy....you know..BIRTH CONTROL. The issue that is all over the news is regarding taking away contraceptive choices that women NEED in order to AVOID having UNWANTED pregnancies. Some are arguing who is responsible for paying for want of a better word, the 'pill'. Since, there are other options in case, the 'pill' is thrown off the table, and it takes two to tango...then why can't the man share in the responsibility of PREVENTING CONCEPTION IF THAT IS WHAT BOTH CONSENTING ADULTS ENGAGING IN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR WANT.

I am not flip-flopping. If a woman conceives who for some reason did not wish to conceive, then it should be her right to decide what she wants to do about it.

I've stated it before and I state it again, men who want sex, but no babies, wrap it up or get snipped. Don't just tell the woman that she has to assume all of the responsibility to take preventative measures to ensure that she does not become pregnant.

Once again, this seed was NOT about abortion, it was about contraceptives...you know...methods that prevent pregnancy in the first place. If you want to talk about "women wanting to have a baby regardless of what the male wants', why don't you write your own article.

....and finally, STOP TWISTING MY WORDS!!

CK, a fetus cannot be transferred from one uterus to another so a surrogate is not an option. Sorry.

Not at this time, but it is being studied so there is hope for the future of such science.

The idea of doing a live birth transfer....is so freaky weird.... I am practically speechless.

Understandable but if you think about it, within the first few weeks it would be a minimally invasive procedure. After that, it would be a literal lifesaver for both unwanted fetuses bringing joy to otherwise barren women, or life-saving techniques for women who could not carry to term without risking their own or the babies life. This is what I am envisioning the use of the procedure for. In that instance, it is no more freaky than using swine tissue transplants to treat diabetes, blindness, or brain diseases.

And not currently feasible. Unless you know something the rest of us don't know. Not to mention, you have to make sure that the surrogate is healthy, the correct blood and Rh compatible, not pregnant herself... what are you going to pay this surrogate? Is this like a regular job? Are there benefits?

Is this the secret GOP jobs plan??

No it would not be a minimally invasive procedure. Finding a Fertilized egg in a woman's womb Now that would be interesting considering it would be like the size of the end of a ballpoint pen.

For another the construct of the uterus would mean a C-section. C-sections are not normal and the trauma to the woman would be high. Not counting the instant loss of blood. It has got to be a man thinking of this and yes it is Way more freaky weird than tissue transplants.

Take it this way, it is not putting a Chevy motor in a Ford and those are things not women and Women are not Things...sighhh

Exactly why do the two of you have a problem with this research? Do you object to any of the reasons given for possible uses of this science? If so, on what grounds?

And Yes, Brite, there are women who are paid surrogates. I suppose they are all Republicans, right?

I have no problem with it. Personally, it's not a career path that I would choose, since pregnancy is hard on the body. Part of the reason that our great grandmothers died so young was that they were bred to death. Like brood mares. It's a lovely way to die.

But as a mother, and as someone who has given a child up for adoption - I can tell you that there are emotional issues that you have figured into your grand scheme.

As a birth mother, I knew that giving up the child was the best thing for both myself and the child. And I never held that child. Never touched her. But I ached for her, longed for her. I mourn the loss of her. As much as I mourn the loss of the child that died.

And maybe you don't understand that. Maybe you don't want to. And maybe you don't give a sh*t. But there are psychological issues there are you aren't figuring in to your grand scheme, that will backfire BIG.

As a birth mother, I knew that giving up the child was the best thing for both myself and the child. And I never held that child. Never touched her. But I ached for her, longed for her. I mourn the loss of her. As much as I mourn the loss of the child that died.

What a thoughtful, unselfish, and wonderful thing for you to have done even as devastating as it was for you personally. I salute you. My Mother kept telling my Dad that she was going to keep having babies until she got the girl she wanted and 6 was the magic number. 5 boys one after another until Bingo my baby sister was born and then no more. We laughed about that for years. They are all gone now and I am the last

It would not be like taking a fertilized egg from a petri dish and implanting it in a uterus. It would be first knowing early enough that the woman was pregnant, before the egg attaches to the wall of the uterus. Finding that microscopic egg or few cells and extracting it. Then implanting it in the receiving uterus and hoping it takes. Too much risk for both women and danger to the egg/cells/zygote.

Citizen Kane, 1) because this type of experimental idea enters into the realm of considering both the fertilized egg and the two women, mother and surrogate, as Objects to be used for some off the wall reproductive purpose.

2) a barren woman is one that has spontaneous miscarriages or has No uterus to have a pregnancy. Therefore making it impossible to carry to term.

Brite, So for you the emotional complications would eliminate the possibility if it were indeed available as options. Would you be willing to tell two other women who do not share those qualms what they can and cannot do with their own bodies in the pursuit of motherhood? Isn't this the same thing many are protesting about men trying to do?

msstanley2265, I probably should start by directing you to the same question I pose to brite in this post. You also appear to wish to enforce your morals upon those who do not share them.; this should answer your first statement. Neither woman would be forced into the hypothetical procedure, but would be allowed to choose to do so if they were so inclined.

Your second objection is one of the reasons for developing the procedure in the first place that I gave above. Your example goes to the heart of why this research should continue and hopefully come to fruition.

uhh Citizen, there would be fruition because if a woman Doesn't have a uterus, nothing there for the ova to thrive on much less be born to term.

and Moral and Ethics also do enter into science or Everything that for instance, Joseph Megele experiments..... would have been continued.

So you are indeed trying to enforce your beliefs that only women capable of bearing a child should be allowed to have one. Got it! I think that any science that gives women more options to either being stuck with an unwanted pregnancy or abortion is a good thing and should be embraced.

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this.

No... I didn't say that. What I was saying is that your grand scheme would and should have some serious over sight. Remember that huge court case about the custody of a child when the surrogate changed her mind?

We have all but ceased stem cell research because of the "moral and ethical" issues associated with it, yet we continue animal research. (I, personally believe in both types of research... yes... I'm a bitch, heartless and cruel)

And I have no problem if a woman wishes to have a child. Adoption is a wonderful way to go. But the real truth about adoption is that we have made it so difficult, and people tend to want blue eyed, blonde haired Caucasian infants, that other infants are left to be raised in the "system".

Creating a child outside of the womb goes back genetic engineering that we have been so afraid of.

Citizen Kane, not my beliefs, common sense. A Woman's uterus and child bearing process is not up for Experiments. And that is exactly what the idea of taking a fertilized ova out of one woman and putting it into another is. An experiment that has Major complications, even risking the death of the mother, complete loss of viability of the ova and even if the second woman Does have a uterus, complications from pregnancy and miscarriage. If you think that a woman doesn't have a problem with having a miscarriage, I can tell you ...much Mistaken.

Being pregnant and carrying a child to term is not a process that doesn't have risks. Though too many people think so. There are women Still that are dying from childbirth related issues. And you are proposing an even riskier procedure for all concern. There is no Upside to it.

What I was saying is that your grand scheme would and should have some serious over sight.

Oh HELL YES it should! Obviously if I am Pro-Life then I would want it to be tested, re-tested, and triple-tested before even being attempted in human trials. Even then I would want those who participate to be in the position where these trials are their only alternatives to saving the life of their fetuses or the mother.

As far as stem cell research goes, I believe we are indeed losing out on an opportunity here since the placenta and umbilical cord after a natural birth contains plenty of them that can be harvested for use which are currently burned in the incerator instead.

ACCESSIBILITY - The advantages of using umbilical cord blood and placental stem cells as sources of stem cells are ease of procurement and vast abundance - tens of thousands of healthy babies are born each day. As a consequence, vibrant, versatile, healthy umbilical cord blood and placental stem cells are easy to obtain which helps keeps the price competitive and cost of therapy more affordable.

OTHER ADVANTAGES: By using umbilical cord and placenta stem cells from a live, disease-free, full-term birth, we make use of nature's very best screening test for viable, robust, youthful, versatile stem cells. Remember that up to 50% of all fertilized human embryos (the same ones used in embryonic stem cell therapy) ultimately do not develop into a live, healthy, newborn, full-term baby. Instead, they are spontaneously aborted by the mother during pregnancy as genetically nonviable and undesirable. In other words, embryonic stem cells have not been through Mother Nature's merciless screening process. Umbilical cord and placenta stem cells from healthy mothers and healthy, full-term babies, however, have already passed the test.

This is why I can't understand why we can't ban the use of stem cells from aborted fetuses while still embracing the study of their usefulness from post-partum harvesting. No-one could reasonably object to this IMHO.

A Woman's uterus and child bearing process is not up for Experiments.

Why are these off limits now? They have been used for experimentation producing everything from IUD's chemical contraceptives, surgical techniques, fetal monitoring devices, and a plethora of other discoveries. These experiments are conducted with the full knowledge of the risks involed by the subjects after extensive animal trials. This is common research Standard Operating Procedures and will continue to be so. Clinical Trials are done to identify possible side-effects and to develope safe and effective treatments prior to the procedures being done on a wide-scale basis. To say that any part of a human body is off limits for research is simply not true with limited notable exceptions (like stem cell).

Think where we would be on cervical cancer, ovarion cancer, hysterectomies, and these research studies of endometrium pathological diseases if we declared a womans reproductive system "off limits". How many billions of women would be dead now if we had allowed your "off limits" position to guide us from the outset of medical research?

Citizen Kane, research and use of Birth Control and health issues is not Comparable to an experiment in fertilization via Removing a fertilized ova from one woman and implanting said ova in a barren woman.

It is Why a Laboratory in vitro fertilization is used for implantation instead of Removing one from the womb of a woman.

So all in all....it is a mote concern.

That is the current status just as it was once a current status that cancer was an almost automatic death sentence. This is why I support continued research. In this regard, they are exactly the same since it is only through further research that alternatives can be developed. Hopefully this will lead to an ending of female inferitility for those who wish to bear their own children but cannot.

Okay, I think this debate is a dead horse and continued flogging of it will produce no further results so this will likely be my last post on the matter. I would support a candidate who supports continued research in this area for the humanitarian reasons I have laid out throughout the previous posts. I believe their position would be pro-women's choices in the long term and thus they deserve the support.