Wednesday, September 19, 2007

It's Your Choice

The Naperville Sun wants to know:
Do you think a Planned Parenthood facility should go into operation on the Naperville-Aurora border?
Click here and scroll down (it's in the right column) to vote.

18 comments:

OneMan said...

Yeah, because folks who live in the City of Chicago should be the ones involved in this...

So-Called Austin Mayor said...

OM,

Lemmie get this straight: The folks in Aurora should have autonomy from the folks in Chicago when it comes to decision-making in the form of web polling, but an adult female should not have autonomy when it comes to decision-making about her own uterus?

That seems to be a funny way to draw the lines regarding the minding one's own gddamn business.

-- SCAM

Ted said...

I might be able to support Planned Parenthood's presence if only they didn't display pictures of the medical procedure on their front lawn.

Oh, that's their opponents? Never mind.

OneMan said...

Hey if you want this in your neighborhood go right ahead.

A) If you can't understand why people have moral objections to the procedure then I guess you are right...
However if those objections should be trumped by other things is a worthy discusion in and of it's self.

And spare me the whole 'They want to stop BC' that isn't the veiw of most of the people who object to the clinic and pulling that out is sort of like saying everone who is pro-choice thinks it's a great idea and thinks it is the best form of BC.

I don't recall anyone protesting their BC clinic in Naperville.

B) The other thing most people who don't live here seem to be missing is in some ways the issue is how they were less than forthcoming during the whole permit process. How the city missed some of the things there were suposed to pick up on. That is in part the issue. Because if they can get away with that here now without at least getting challenged on it then all sorts of entities are going to try it here and other places.

C) You can have everyone in Chicago say that Aurora should have a clinic, fine. But all of the ground zero stuff asside at some level this is a local issue. Don't forget up until about a year ago there was a local provider doing this same procedure. He didn't have to BS the city to do it.

D) If it was 3 miles from your house and it was doing something you found objectionable (lets say animal testing or serving as military induction center or something) and the group that got it approved was less than forthcoming you would go. 'Yeah it's legal so I am going to keep my mouth shut'....

Remember for me this is a local issue, it's my city and next to the closest grocery store to my house.

So if I think my neighbors (reguardless of how they feel about this I might add) and I should have more of a say in what is going on then people who don't live in this community then too bad. Because I do because it is in my city and my neighborhood.

For lots of people this is an abstraction of a national issue. For me it's local.


E) Do I agree with the tactics of people on this all the time? No not by any stretch of the imagination. But the day we tell people to shut up and accept it because it is leagal and you shouldn't protest using legal means is wrong. Just as wrong for the right as it is for the left.

If you notice I have never said anything about how I feel about the bigger 'issue'. Why it part because I understand where both sides are coming from on it.

Midwestern Progressive said...

Oneman said:

"So if I think my neighbors and I should have more of a say in what is going on then people who don't live in this community then too bad."

What hubris and cenceit it must take for you to actually think you have any right whatsoever to "weigh in" on the healthcare decisions of others.

Why don't the "protestors" um, I don't know, mind there own business?

For the record, that's my Dominick's too. And my Blockbuster, and my UPS shipping store. "My" breakfast place is across the street. My Walgreens. My Shell is kitty corner from there.

I'm just not so full of myself that I feel that shopping there, shipping from there, dining there are buying gas there, or living nearby, gives me any right to interfere with the healthcare choices of other West suburbanites.

Please. Quite pretending that there are "two sides" to this little brouhaha. There is one side: the people who want to interfere with healthcare decisions that are none of their business.

Aurora would be a much better place without them.

Midwestern Progressive said...

Sorry for the typos - "cenceit" should be "conceit" and "are" should have been "and"....

*sigh*

And "preview" is your friend.

OneMan said...

"So if I think my neighbors and I should have more of a say in what is going on then people who don't live in this community then too bad."

What hubris and cenceit it must take for you to actually think you have any right whatsoever to "weigh in" on the healthcare decisions of others.


-- It takes no hubris to want my city to not be missled by a developer..... This is in part why I disagreed with the city on the whole drive-in thing.

Note have I said anyplace they don't have a right to operate? Have I even said I agree with the protesters?

To be honest it's the being less than open with the city that bothers me. Also the fact if they really wanted to serve the city they wouldn't have put it on the edge so it's by Naperville but not in Naperville.

As you know (being a progressive in the area) there are locations (such as even closer to the mall or closer to the Metra stations) that are better served by public transportation than where they are at and also not as close to a residential neighborhood. In my mind 'better' locations.

So when they are allowed to operate (which I am sure is going to happen when all is said and done) I will still think they picked a dumb location.

As for the protesters.. as a 'progressive' shouldn't you be happy to see someone advocating their position using legal means? Even if you disagree with them?

Because we know everyone who advocates for 'progressive' views is always just above board, kind and sweet when protesting.

Planned Parenthood Aurora said...

Thanks for the heads-up! We posted a link to this survey in our blog too.

Midwestern Progressive said...

"Have I even said I agree with the protesters?

Nope, you've clearly demonstrated the cowardice one needs to hide behind phony pretenses like "misleading the city," as if that is a reason for you, or anyone else, to start interfering with comletely legal heath care decisions of perfect strangers.

Have I even said I agree with the protesters?

No. Why don't you? Try showing some courage - do you support this new health care facility in Aurora, apparently near your home?

I do - and remember, that's my Dominick's too.

Gonna be brave enough to take a stand? Or are ya going to continue to hide behind the hubris of "mislead the city" while trying to deny vital health care choice to your fellow Aurorans?

OneMan said...

Ok

I think abortion is morally wrong.


Do I think if they got the city to ok it with all of the facts and the city approved it the would have the right to be there. Yes

Do I support the clinic. If it offered just the services they offered in Naperville I would.

But they don't so no I don't


Is the permit thing something I am hiding behind.

No look at my Blog and the stuff I wrote about the drive in. I have had an issue with how the city deals with development for a while. This is another example.

But for me the right for them to open comes down to the city stuff.

All sorts of things I may object to have the right to operate. That's the difference between legal and moral.


So now a question for you. If it was something else there that you had a problem with and there were protesters who agreed with your viewpoint would you still want them to mind their own business?

ArchPundit said...

===I don't recall anyone protesting their BC clinic in Naperville.

Scheidler and gang does it every summer in Naperville and several of the other express locations. Many of the Aurora folks showing up don't care about contraception, but the leaders of the effort are very explicitly against it holding a Contraception is not the Answer conference earlier this year.

And we've talked about this over at AP, but zoning isn't about choosing exactly what business can go into a spot. It is about choosing the general class of use that can go into a particular spot and a health clinic performing legal procedures is a health clinic performing legal procedures.

I understand and respect that you are pro-life, but I don't think that allows a city to pick and choose what particular tenant occupies a property if they meet the zoning of the property.

Midwestern Progressive said...

"If it was something else there that you had a problem with and there were protesters who agreed with your viewpoint would you still want them to mind their own business?"

If there was something else there of which I did not approve, say, a horse slaughtering factory, that was perfectly legal and approved by the SCOTUS, and people were protesting, then, yes, I would tell them to mind their own business as well.

Take another example: say, for whatever reason, I disapproved of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Would I have any right at all to protest in front of an oncology doctor's office?

Would you not condemn such a protest?

In my example, I have absolutely no right to comment on the patient's medical treatment.

Would that the protesters at New York Street and Oakhurst Drive felt the same way.

For the record: I am also morally opposed to abortion. I just don't think my morals should dictate the perectly legal medical treatment available to others.

That's why I love America. Pity the protester cannot make the same simple claim.

OneMan said...

"If there was something else there of which I did not approve, say, a horse slaughtering factory, that was perfectly legal and approved by the SCOTUS, and people were protesting, then, yes, I would tell them to mind their own business as well."

Well I guess that is a difference we have. I might think PETA is a pain and disagree with them. But if they want to exersize their rights, that is their right.


"Take another example: say, for whatever reason, I disapproved of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Would I have any right at all to protest in front of an oncology doctor's office?"

Yes, you would have the right. That's the way America works. You might be wrong and missguided about it. However last time I checked you can't make someone shut up and sit down because you they are stupid.


"For the record: I am also morally opposed to abortion. I just don't think my morals should dictate the perectly legal medical treatment available to others. "

See we have common ground and I didn't have to call on you to state that....

Suffice to say to some extent I would like to influence things so my moral standards to some extent a refelected in US law. Also I have the right to work to promote political candidates who help move those ideas forward. Many of my moral standards are already reflected in law. (For example, you cant kill someone even if they ask you to do so. You can't run around New York Street naked as a jaybird)

Is a candidates abortion stnad a litmus test for me. No.

When we stop legal protest because we disagree with it or may find it stupid, that scares me.

OneMan

OneMan said...

== Arch

Yeah I understand where you are coming from on the zoning thing.

I guess my issue with is, if it is a legal use (and my guess is it is) then why hide it. Why not work with the city so tweaks could have been made to address the fact protesters would likely appear and do it in such a way that the impact on the residential folks a block away was minimal.

They could have (and should have) worked with the city better. It's not like the city has not had providers like this even in the recent past.

That is not my only issue with this but it is the one the city can address.

As for the protests in front of the BC centers. I did not know that. I don't really get that but those protests are their right.

ArchPundit said...

Because I can't help myself,

What the difference between a horse slaughterhouse and a cattle slaughterhouse?

So-Called Austin Mayor said...

AP,

The difference between a horse slaughter house and a cattle slaughter house is the difference between horses and cattle.

Horse slaughter houses are standard industrial slaughter houses at which horses are butchered. Generally, there have been few provisions made to compensate for the different natures/behaviors of horses and cattle.

Cattle, being cattle, are herd animals that that can be -- I said can be -- calmly fed through the shoot to their slaughter. Cattle will quietly follow the tail ahead of them straight to their doom.

Horses are skittish, jumpy and panic in a shoot. They go bat-shit crazy thrashing about etc. While cattle are almost universally handled -- "handled" such a nice word for castrated, dehorned, ear-tagged and branded -- in shoots, I have never heard of doing so with a horse. They are wound too tight for shoots.

Although slaughter in both cases ends with a butchered animal, the cruelty involved in industrialized horse slaughter is significantly and substantially greater, imho.

-- SCAM

ArchPundit said...

So, it's more like slaughtering hogs...;)

So-Called Austin Mayor said...

AP,

But while horses are more charming and noble than hogs, hogs are much more intelligent than horses or dogs or cats.

Of course, hogs and horses are both far more intelligent than a zygote.

-- SCAM

Followers

Blog Archive