Posted on 02/03/2006 11:10:47 AM PST by presidio9
The UConn Women's Center hosted an event Thursday night that highlighted a woman's right to choose an abortion. Co-sponsored by the National Abortion Rights and Reproduction Action League (NARAL), the event consisted of the documentary film, "Speak Out: I Had An Abortion," and a discussion among students about the social issue.
The film documented the stories of several women of different racial, social and religious backgrounds and their decision to have an abortion performed on them, whether it was legal or illegal depending on the time period. The film was directed by Gillian Aldrich and produced by Jennifer Baumgardner. The first segment dealt with an 85-year-old black woman named Florence Rice who had an illegal abortion performed to her at the age of 16 in 1938. At this point in time during the Depression, abortions were both illegal and greatly shunned upon in society, yet Rice stated she had no regrets over her decision.
Many women spoke about their lives and their decision to have the procedure, even if they had to keep the ordeal a secret from friends and family. Some, however, had to face the harsh consequences from their families. Jenny Egan had an abortion while in high school in 1994, but faced many hardships growing up in a conservative Mormon household. Her mother found out about her abortion after an anti-abortion group known as "The Brotherhood" sent a letter informing her parents of the abortion, to which her mother inflicted much guilt onto Egan. Upon entering an all-girl college, Egan found comfort in telling her story to her peers.
A woman named Robin Ringletta-Kottkin, who grew up in a strict Catholic household with anti-abortion beliefs, had to ultimately choose to have the procedure after an adoption agency informed her that they would not accept a bi-racial baby, since the father of the child was black. While still in college and with no way to care for and support the child, it was then that she realized society had valued some children over others, which led to her decision. Ringletta-Kottkin discussed the day of her abortion and the protesters she had to face outside the clinic. It wasn't until inside with the female physician that she felt comfortable about what she was doing. Since then, she has regretted not talking about her abortion because it had just created more shame for herself.
The goal of this documentary was to discuss this social issue with true stories of women who had to face this decision and the comfort they felt in openly dealing with their stories. The film chronicled the support women had for each other- whether it was just with their gynecologist or holding "speak outs" where women spoke to large crowds about their experiences. "When I saw women standing up for their support of abortion, I realized how little alone I was," remarked one woman who participated in pro-choice rallies.
After the film, Lisa Marie Griffiths, an instructor in the School of Nursing and a board member of NARAL, hosted an open discussion with students on their thoughts on the film and any questions they had regarding the medical procedure and social history of abortion. Some students chose to discuss their own experiences with abortion and the difficulty that came with the decision.
"The purpose is to bring awareness of women's choices and to increase acceptance in women's abortions," said Griffiths about the goals behind the event. "If we don't talk about it, it's still going to be a social stigma."
It was probably pulled because it's a photo-shopped composite photograph, not a real one.
Why answer, when you have obviously decided that "conservative" means your definition of "conservative", and that anybody who doesn't meet your definition doesn't belong on FR? By your definition, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, and Condi Rice would be unwelcome on FR, because they don't qualify as "conservatives".
The framers of our Constitution were very much "libertarians" by today's popular definition of that term. Among other things, they didn't believe in government confiscating the fruits of some people's labors to give to other people, or regulating what people do with their own real and other private property, they didn't believe that government was responsible for ensuring a pleasant outcome in each citizen's personal life, and they didn't believe in "gun control". They didn't say a word about abortion.
The framers of our Constitution did not address abortion because it was not medically viable at the time (also, the framers did not address space travel for similiar reasons). In the 18th century death of the mother was a frequent side effect of abortion.
Complete bunko!!
It has always amazed me that men have arranged for women to accept abortion as a woman's right thing rather than a man's irresponsibility thing. At one time a woman would not have had sex with a man who didn't love her enough to marry her and raise children with her. Now, she will do so and claim it as a constitutional right! She can sleep with anyone no matter what he thinks of her.
When I was young I was told what I thought was an appalling joke. A woman is bag ugly if you have to put a bag over her head before you will sleep with her. She's double-bag ugly if you have to put a bag over your head in case her bag falls off. And she's coyote ugly if, upon waking up and finding her asleep on your arm, you'd chew your arm off before taking a chance of waking her up. I hated the joke because of what it made the woman out to be.
But they seem to want to make themselves out to be that very thing.
Shalom.
Fear of what? That presidio9 will disapprove of me? Gimme a break!
You shouldn't have bit on that one. The idea that the adoption agency might not have been able to place the child had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The most the concept of an orphanage might have contributed to the discussion was to suggest that a baby is better off dead than in an orphanage. You are arguing with someone who just wants to argue.
Shalom.
It is not possible for me to know what is driving your fear. I am just correctly pointing out that you are afriad of answering the question.
My dear O and T. You are confusing the 2000s with a century that understands reality. In the 2000s the only thing faith can do is make people behave differently than they were born by nature to do. That's why the little kid who played Pocahontas in "The New World" talked about how awful it must have been for that poor woman to become a Christian.
Understand, stories like the story of Pocahontas, or the Waodani as told in "The End of the Spear", where faith actually changes your life for the better and creates a viable society where one does not live before will NEVER be acceptable in this century. Faith can only enslave, it can never liberate.
That is, unless you know G-d.
Shalom.
There doesn't seem to be much support for the "Male Abortion." That's a law that permits a man to file a certificate disowning the child during the period when an abortion would be legal. He has to pay a fee, similar to the cost of an abortion. Once the document is filed, the child is dead to him. No visitation rights, no supporting him in his old age, and no child support payments to momma.
For some reason, the pro-choice crowd has never taken up this project to give daddy a choice.
Shalom.
Murderers in prisons like to tell their stories to one another too. "Well, f%*@, Charlie, I hadda kill that guy. I had a bright future ahead of me. I couldn't let that &@^@*($#&^@ mess things up for me."
Our entire society was birthed on the notion that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Life.
The right to life.
I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the framers of our constitution, the fathers of this nation, would not be in favor of snuffing out innocent life in pursuit of whatever.
You are correct. But so many pro-aborts are fond of telling us that nobody wants the little Black babies and that simply is not true. But you are correct it was a red herring and I shouldn't have followed the line of reasoning.
No, you are just assuming you are correct. If I was the fearful type, I'd just refrain from posting messages that express views which are unpopular on the forum.
This may be difficlut for you to understand (even after the point has been repeated multiple times), but you are afraid of answering the question. Clearly, you are not afraid of lying or making an ass out of yourself. You've established that.
Women don't need abortion to avoid having a baby ... unless they've been raped, nonpenetrative sex and abstinence are always options. The "freedom" to abort is the "freedom" to commit in-utero infanticide.
You don't think there were abortions at the time of the framing of the Constitution? Even the Egyptians knew how to procure abortion. At the time we became a country, we followed British common law on the subject, which was basically that the law ignored it until "quickening". States only started passing laws against it in the 1820s.
As a matter of fact I know a family that did just that in 1970. Old-line Catholics do not BELIEVE in abortion. A parent might push adoption, but not abortion.
In which she proved she did not even value her own child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.