A new study suggests political persuasions may be partially genetic in origin.
If this proves true, would you support or oppose aborting babies with a liberal genetic marker?
[HT: Mark Crutcher]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Oh ho ho ho ho ho.
That’s not tacky *at all*.
I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t abort if I was carrying a conservative baby. Nor would I abort if I had a gay baby or a Down’s Syndrome baby. I probably wouldn’t abort even if I were having a purple, green, and yellow baby (which would be kinda cool…I read Robert Munsch books too much as a child lol).
Anyway.
Rae,
You’re up early!
I doubt this was a serious question…just trying to show the absurdity of the reasons given for abortion…
we’re all up early. Rae, are you on Mountain time? MK, are you on Central?
Central. It’s 10:06 here right now. You?
Eastern.
MK, I shall eventually be e-mailing you.
OMG, I just read a terrific post from a guy named Jason. He put it on the blog of the lady who was complaining about the movie “Knocked Up.” He wrote: Nobody ever tells you what to do with your body? Then you must live in a town with no seat belt or helmet laws,and where cops don’t bust prostitutes. SLAM!
Well, I know some conservative friends who would abort a baby with a liberal gene.
I have stated before I wouldnt have an abortion unless I was raped or my life was in danger of ending.
Now, this is honestly a stupd @$s reason to have an abortion, but alas, one that maybe available in the future. Honestly, we need liberals, and we need conservatives to balance eachother out. I am not a republican, but I am not a democrat either. I am kind of sitting on the fence in between the two. Picking out pieces that I like from all parties (to make my own party one day hehehe). Any ways, just my two cents for everyone :-) ….
OOHHH, just thought of this: I know some liberal friends who would abort their child if a conservative gene was found. So the stick can swing both ways on this one…
http://www.fstdt.com
I’m pretty sure some of these people would.
Liberals are busy aborting their own, sadly…
Good point Jasper!
Ah, jasper, profound answer.
A new study suggests political persuasions may be partially genetic in origin.
Fascinating stuff.
If this proves true, would you support or oppose aborting babies with a liberal genetic marker?
I can’t imagine that people would actually do that, based on it alone. For one thing, even if “partially” determined by “nature,” there is a lot of imput from parents, teachers, friends, peers, one’s reading and study of history, the existing conditions – social, economic, etc., that go into one’s political feelings, so “nurture” is a component of it, too.
Hard for me to think this would tip the balance between a pregnancy being wanted or unwanted.
Doug
Doug, why do they make the babies if they don’t want them?
Rae: I probably wouldn’t abort even if I were having a purple, green, and yellow baby (which would be kinda cool…
Heather: Rae, are you on Mountain time?
Sounds like Rae oughtta be on New Orleans time – one of my favorite places in the world even though it’s too hot & steamy about ten months outta the year.
Doug
why do they make the babies if they don’t want them?
Heather, because the desire not to have a baby is not always the foremost thing in their mind. It’s like asking why people eat certain things if they don’t want to be fat. Louie went and spent $14 at McDonald’s and Jane ate the whole container of ice cream, but that doesn’t mean they “want to be fat.” It just means they were really hungry, wanted to pig out, etc.
Doug
Doug, you have lost me completely. You do have choices over your body. They should begin outside of the bedroom. You have the choice to abstain from sex. You have the choice to use a condom. Why aren’t these smart choices being made prior to sexual activity?
I don’t think there is a liberal or conservative gene, as there are more political viewpoints than just liberal and conservative. Your political leanings have everything to do with the opinions you develop from life experiences, how you perceive current events, and a lot of the times how you were raised. If Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter raised a kid together, I’m about 99.9% sure that the kid would grow up to be staunchly conservative and hate liberals, or else hate his overbearing parents. If you were, for example, the adopted kid of two gay parents, you might tend to be more liberal leaning, even if your birth mother was as conservative as, say, Ann Coulter.
Abort liberals?
Who would support this country?
The liberal Democratic blue states provide virtually all the federal tax revenue in this country, while the conservative Republican red states feed off the federal Welfare nipple. There are ten Republican red states that haven’t added a dime to the federal coffers in two generations? (Clue: eight lie along the Bible Belt) Who would support them if you abort the liberals?
The conservative Republican red states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, single motherhood, divorce, and violent crime. Why would you abort a nice liberal baby who could help America regain it’s glory?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
Doug, you have lost me completely. You do have choices over your body. They should begin outside of the bedroom. You have the choice to abstain from sex. You have the choice to use a condom. Why aren’t these smart choices being made prior to sexual activity?
Posted by: Heather4life at August 18, 2007 12:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don’t you have an out-of-wedlock “accident” baby?
I’ve NEVER had sex with the intention of procreating. I just like to romp.
I have a son who I love very much.
Laura, you clearly come here to provoke people. Instead of talking @ everybody, why not talk to us? PIP, do you see what I mean now?
OK, I see what you’re saying. You’re ticked off that I didn’t kill my son, right? You are so anti choice it’s unreal. You are such a phony. You call abortions “crotch goop.” Nice mouth.
Any woman who would keep writing about a$$ scratching, crotch goop and tooth scum is a piggish type.
“OK, I see what you’re saying. You’re ticked off that I didn’t kill my son, right? You are so anti choice it’s unreal. You are such a phony. You call abortions “crotch goop.” Nice mouth.”
Whoa, are you okay today heather?
I want to say I am happy you kept your son. How old is he? How is it being a mother. I myself can’t wait to be one. But I know thats a long ways away. However, if i were to happen to me before I was ready. I’d keep it anyway.
I support choice. I support women who decide to keep their baby. And I support those who decide to abort. Does abortion make me sad… I guess I could say yes to that question. But I still believe it should be a choice for the mother. Ahhh I am prepared to get many of comments for that one.
———————————————–
“Doug, why do they make the babies if they don’t want them?”
Usually people who are having an abortion aren’t wanting to “make a baby” sometimes it just happens. Birth Control fails something, condoms fail and well some people don’t want to abstain. If someone chooses to make a baby, then chooses to abort I say thats pretty crazy.
————————————————-
“Honestly, we need liberals, and we need conservatives to balance eachother out”
I agree completely.
————————————————–
“Liberals are busy aborting their own, sadly…”
While I see your point. I know plenty of people who consider themselves conservative that are pro-choice. I know plenty of liberals who consider themselves pro-life. I also know people who are conservative and have liberal children and people who are liberal and have conservative children. While children usually tend to follow what their parents believe that is not always the case.
————————————————-
Lastly, can everyone please keep my family in your prayers? Three of my aunts are having pretty serious health problems. And I am to far away to visit them. :( so please keep them in your thoughts.. thank you! :)
BTW- I am on AZ time… So I think that might be west coast time? I am not sure really.. All i know is AZ doesn’t observe “day light savings” So when everyone changes their clocks back an hour (whenever that is) AZ will not.
Heather,
I just saw what Laura wrote. I am sorry. You have a right to be upset.
JM,
Of course we’ll pray for your aunts.
It must be so hard being so far away…
My sister lives in Australia and my mother just had an episode that sent her to the emergency room. I thought my sister was going to have a meltdown. She felt so helpless! Be strong. Prayer travels fast and far…
Thanks JM. She’s probably just a troll. I sure haven’t forgotten Cameron. I hope your teaching job is coming along okay!
JM, I was in Vegas last year. I went to the Hoover Dam. It was so weird to see the 2 clocks with the 1 hour time change diffy. Ever been there? Did you say you needed prayer? I will do that for you.
JM,
You haven’t been around for awhile. You don’t know half of what our Laura has written. But we love having people like her on here. Sometimes she works in our favor. She is so crude and so vile, that even pro-choicers have to stop and reevaluate. Who knows, maybe some of you will see yourselves reflected by her, and come over to our side.
For the record, even tho we don’t believe most of you guys are as foul as she is, we do see your arguments and acceptance of abortion to be just as unpalatable. While her way of expressing herself may be more crass, you share the same ideas. Now you know why we can get so uptight. To us, it doesn’t matter if you are crude or as polite as the Queen. The fact that you have adopted these attitudes is repugnant to us.
No offense intended. You are extremely respectful here and I don’t want you to think we put you in the same “personality” category as Laura or Sally.
Kay?
MK, I second your beautiful post! Either Laura is a troll, or she is a very wounded soul. She doesn’t care to debate. Just here to hurl insults. I opened up and told my story. I was trying to show people I am a far cry from perfect. I made a mistake. Life goes on. Why does she come back with a nananananaaa post? I have to take into consideration that she hates the unborn. If she hates me too, then oh well. I’ll still pray for her soul.
Heather,
come and debate with Doug and me…I could use your help…
MK, I am sooooooooooo sorry. I have to go. I hate to leave you in the lurch! I cannot return until tomorrow. I’m sure you will be able to handle him just fine! :winks! I’ll e -mail you tomorrow too. Pressed for time, and I am logging off now. (hugs)
No Heather, I just find it EXTREMELY ironic that you rant about abstinance and self-control FOR EVERYBODY ELSE – even to the point of joining Rosie in a really “control freak” Fascist moment. I can just smell the self-righteousness:
Heather,
No kidding!!! Maybe we should be able to control them if they can’t
control themselves. Sheesh!!
Posted by: Rosie at August 13, 2007 5:16 PM
Rosie, excellent point! No mention of adoption whatsoever. Why is
abortion their only solution? Try abstinence!
Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 5:17 PM
Laura, So what? And goodbye!
This seems a rather simplistic view of genetics. If political leanings are indeed genetic, how much is genetics and how much is determined by environment and life circumstances? Additionally, I doubt a gene would be just discreet “liberal” and “conservative” because political views are so complicated. Not many people are one sided on all issues. For example, I have a friend that is conservative on all issues except gay rights. I am liberal on pretty much everything but abortion. So it would be very hard to say “your baby has the liberal genetic marker so if you don’t want a liberal you could abort.” If there is indeed a connection, there would be many genetic influences, not just one gene. The combination of all of these and how the dominant traits and environmental factors play out is what determines a political side.
I couldn’t explain everything besides the basic view I have gleaned from my studies so far. I am taking genetics this semester though so I would have a more detailed view of it later.
MK, Sorry I haven’t been on in awhile… I have been really really busy with teaching. Having 12 hour days and such. Please pray for me too. I am having a really really hard time with my new job. The kids are rude and mean sometimes. Not all of them. But the few that are sometimes bring me home in tears. I cried so hard yesterday that I almost hyperventilated. I ended up with a terrible migraine. I miss my boyfriend and my family and Minnesota.
I totally see where you are coming from. Not offended one bit. I feel as if I fall somewhere in between the two sides. (while the pro-life side will and does disagree with me) Abortion makes me sad. It really does. Do I wish people would choose not to have an abortion? Well, yes I guess I can say I do wish that. But the other part of me says, they should have that choice. Even if I don’t agree with it 100% I will still support their decision. I would never have an abortion. I know I have said this before. I can NOT WAIT to be a mother. Of course, I will wait till I am ready. hehe
MK, how have you been by the way? :)
Heather, I have never been to the hoover dam. I plan to see it someday though. Have a good weekend heather! I would love to hear about your story sometime. I promise I won’t bad mouth you or anything. :)
JM,
I’m so sorry the kids are brutes. A classroom full of Laura’s, eh?
Try humor. Sometimes it’s the only thing that gets respect from these guys. I remember once in a CCD class I was teaching, there was this one kid that was constantly acting up. One day I turned to him in front of everyone and said “Oooooh, so you’re going to be the kid that needs to constantly be paid attention to…well, there’s one in every class…Everyone, meet Robert, he needs you to constantly pay attention to him. So everyone turn around and stare at him…There, Robert. Do you feel better now? The whole class is paying attention to you!” Needless to say, he wasn’t quite the same troublesome young man after that.
I also used the approach that the kids needing the most attention acted out because nobody at home payed attention to them. Give them special jobs to do. Trust them to be the leaders. Let them pass out the papers. Listen to their opinions. Pick on them (in the good sense) first. They need you. If you are a good teacher, you’ll make them feel like Kings and Queens. Believe that they are good. And they will meet your expectations.
Tell them how hard it is to have moved away from home and how you are counting on them to help you. Let them know that grownups can be scared and lonely too. Ask them what makes them scared or angry. And listen, listen, listen…
And meanwhile, I’ll be praying…Go get ’em girl. You know you’ve got what it takes because you had the guts to up and start a new life all alone. So we know you’re tough. You gonna let a bunch of fifth graders have that kind of power over you…no way!
I don’t think many folks read Mark C’s blog … in the post set just below this one.
In it Mark makes some very interesting observations about abortion justification. We all realize that there is a justification for any action, whether quick or reflective – according to-law it does not matter when a woman desires to abort, that enough … she wishes to.
We all know what has happened to Downe’s Syndrome kids … over 90% of them are killed via abortion. Imagine if you will a genetic test for: homosexuality, [he believes this would finish gay people, the same way DS is used] … then how about sex-selection? [old-hat been done for decades]; other designer babies anyone – nix the non blue-eyed ones [a suit was won by a couple undergoing IVF. Their infant was black (a different race) than the parents.] There are all sorts of genetic markers …. for (breast) cancer/arthritis/genetic diseases and traits. All these can be used as a self-justification to abort.
Not found in Mark’s blog: Could a genetic screening test be used prior to an abortion to relieve some of the pregnant woman’s anxiety? She would then be armed with her reason to abort, even if it is self-justifying. A thorough genetic test should show up something.
Would this cause more or less anxiety?
The kid’s at fault then and should be killed before becoming a burden.
Hey Everyone,
No Heather, I just find it EXTREMELY ironic that you rant about abstinance and self-control FOR EVERYBODY ELSE – even to the point of joining Rosie in a really “control freak” Fascist moment. I can just smell the self-righteousness:
Laura’s gonna be that kid in class that needs to constantly be paid attention to…
Heather,
Pay no attention to the lady behind the curtain. She appears to be incapable of change. It is inconceivable to her that you might have actually learned something from the circumstances of your sons birth. This is because she herself is such an angry person that she is unable to learn anything new herself.
I think the fact that you conceived your son out of wedlock, admit it, learned from it, and try to live your life differently now, is quite admirable.
I think the fact that Laura has been trolling pro-life boards for years without ever learning a thing is, well, pretty pathetic.
I’d much rather make a mistake and learn from it than continue to believe the same lies and make the same mistakes over and over. Kudos to you Heather. Raspberries to you Laura.
John oh John,
Where the heck were you two hours ago. Doug and I have been going at it forever on the quadruplet post and I sure could have used you. He finally took his ball and went home. I’m pooped!
>i>Heather: Doug, you have lost me completely. You do have choices over your body. They should begin outside of the bedroom. You have the choice to abstain from sex. You have the choice to use a condom. Why aren’t these smart choices being made prior to sexual activity?
Yes, Heather, choices. But when you say “should” then that’s your opinion. Don’t want to have a flat tire? “Then you shouldn’t drive.” But of course people are going to drive, and if they get a flat tire they’re gonna fix it.
And of course people can abstain, use birth control, etc. All other things being equal, I think preventing unwanted pregnancies is better than having abortion. But once an unwanted pregnancy is fact, it’s too late for that.
Those “smart choices” are not always made because people don’t always have that in the forefront of their mind. They want to do other things more, or they’re just not thinking about it.
If I could just wave a magic wand and have all unwanted pregnancies not occur, I think that’d be better than all those women having abortions. In the real world, though, they do occur and sometimes the best thing for the woman to do is to have an abortion. I realize you disagree with that.
Doug
Lastly, can everyone please keep my family in your prayers? Three of my aunts are having pretty serious health problems. And I am to far away to visit them. :( so please keep them in your thoughts.. thank you! :)
Hi JM. Your family and aunts have my good wishes and hopes.
I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve been through similar times like that. My mom’s last remaining aunt died last year, and now there is only my paternal grandmother remaining in that generation for me. She’ll be 96 in Novemeber,and is going strong.
My parents’ generation are almost all in their 60s and 70s now, and while the health there is good, it’s still getting to the age where one wonders… I guess it’s that way for everybody, time passing and before you know it you’re “old” yourself.
Best,
Doug
MK: He finally took his ball and went home. I’m pooped!
Hey, you rascal, it wasn’t a ball, it was a tar brush I had to go pick up. Did the whole roof last week; today was just touching-up time, before it gets too late in the day.
We sure did use up some bandwidth, huh?
Doug
JM:I have been really really busy with teaching. Having 12 hour days and such. Please pray for me too. I am having a really really hard time with my new job. The kids are rude and mean sometimes. Not all of them. But the few that are sometimes bring me home in tears.
JM, is this your first year teaching? Or just teaching at that location?
Last year was my wife’s first year, with all 10th graders, and it was very tough in the beginning. She really didn’t think she could do it, several times, in the first couple months. Was better by Christmas, but still, pretty nasty at times.
Well, by the end of the year she was feeling so much better, and realizing that the next year would be SO MUCH EASIER. This week just past was when the kids were back in school, and indeed it’s a whole different world than last year.
Best,
Doug
MK to JM: You gonna let a bunch of fifth graders have that kind of power over you…no way!
Oh Geez… that can be rough, yes. I remember being a 5th grader, and we were some bad kids. Old enough to know what we were doing and really just plain malicious toward the poor teacher. Poor Mrs. Vieth – I remember her screaming, “CHILDREN!” – she was really getting out of control. Sad story there, in the end, and I still feel bad about it, and that was 1969.
I think that being firm and setting the rules right away is good, but that’s easy for me to say. It was good for my wife to talk to other teachers about it, to gain information and just blow off steam too.
Good luck.
Doug
John: We all know what has happened to Downe’s Syndrome kids … over 90% of them are killed via abortion. Imagine if you will a genetic test for: homosexuality, [he believes this would finish gay people, the same way DS is used] … then how about sex-selection? [old-hat been done for decades]; other designer babies anyone – nix the non blue-eyed ones [a suit was won by a couple undergoing IVF. Their infant was black (a different race) than the parents.] There are all sorts of genetic markers …. for (breast) cancer/arthritis/genetic diseases and traits. All these can be used as a self-justification to abort.
John, excellent topic. No big argument here from me – I know that you and I would “draw the line” at different places for abortion, perceived “deficiencies” or not.
Anyway, I am glad to have met you on this forum, and I value you very highly.
Doug
Hi MK,
right here, is where I’ve bee! As you know Doug and I have been doin’ battle for a bit now. And like you am a bit weary from the experience. While he seems more affable, Doug imo is more dangerous than SoMG! Perhaps, he’s here because he likes an audience and like Cam he is pro-choice because he likes female support????????
Anyway, I think I will end any lengthy discussion with Doug because he puts very little (almost nothing of consequence) of what he has learned here into practice. What Heather doesn’t like about most pro-choice web-sites (the cursing and swearing), Doug doesn’t like either. [He is fastidiously respectful.] But because we are civil to one another, does not mean that he will learn and listen.
Besides a huge case of indifference [which Jesus found THE most despicable, even more than hard-hearts], Doug has as his base what is called situation ethics. He believes there is no truth so morality is what you choose it to be. His mantra ‘all morality is relative’ [it means you are free to choose any morality you wish … You are the center of your universe, so you choose what is right … and it is right (for you)]. This sentiment is poor as a base, because the sentence itself is a true-ism. How can all morality with such an internally false base be considered true … such moral outlooks cannot. It can be seen if we change the words a little: ‘Some morality is relative!’ This is more accurate, but it also means that: ‘Some morality is true!’ ….. now which do you prefer? … to make up your own (as does Doug) or, to seek out the true?
“No Heather, I just find it EXTREMELY ironic that you rant about abstinance and self-control FOR EVERYBODY ELSE – even to the point of joining Rosie in a really “control freak” Fascist moment. I can just smell the self-righteousness:
Heather,
No kidding!!! Maybe we should be able to control them if they can’t
control themselves. Sheesh!!
Posted by: Rosie at August 13, 2007 5:16 PM
Rosie, excellent point! No mention of adoption whatsoever. Why is
abortion their only solution? Try abstinence!”
Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 5:17 PM
Yikes! I was only half joking!!!
Correction: JM teaches 7th graders…. full of hormones and all that fun stuff. Man if I could have a class of 5th graders! hehehe… I student taught in fifth grade… they were great!
To answer Dougs question it is my first year teaching. I am confident it will get better, although that is hard for me to see right now.
My students are very diverse, which I am NOT used to that. So it will be a good experience for me. I am used to an ALL white classroom with maybe one African American or Hispanic child. Now my class is primarily Hispanic probably 70-80% followed by African American, then White. My minority is white. I even have a student that speaks ZERO english. Eeeek… I am confident it will get better. Thank you for your prayers and advice!
Johh: While he seems more affable, Doug imo is more dangerous than SoMG! Perhaps, he’s here because he likes an audience and like Cam he is pro-choice because he likes female support?
@@ I like to argue, and it’s a great argument. And, some of my best arguments have been with pro-choicers, be they female or male.
……..
Anyway, I think I will end any lengthy discussion with Doug because he puts very little (almost nothing of consequence) of what he has learned here into practice. What Heather doesn’t like about most pro-choice web-sites (the cursing and swearing), Doug doesn’t like either. [He is fastidiously respectful.] But because we are civil to one another, does not mean that he will learn and listen.
I do not think I have ever not listened to you. Accepting unprovable assumptions just because somebody else likes them is not “learning.” There is that which is true for both us, and for all of us, and then there is that which you like to think.
……..
Besides a huge case of indifference [which Jesus found THE most despicable, even more than hard-hearts], Doug has as his base what is called situation ethics. He believes there is no truth so morality is what you choose it to be.
That is untrue. There is all manner of truth, but myth, fantasy and superstition is not that. I know there are things we don’t agree upon, but I don’t pretend that my subjective wishes constitute any external reality, and you do.
……..
His mantra ‘all morality is relative’ [it means you are free to choose any morality you wish … You are the center of your universe, so you choose what is right … and it is right (for you)]. This sentiment is poor as a base, because the sentence itself is a true-ism.
Yes, it’s relative. But it is not as you say – we live in society, so the “center of universe” is not true like that. We have the “social contract,” for one thing. If you just want to make up stuff about your opposition, then no wonder you don’t want “lengthy discussion.” Doggone it, John.
In some things we choose for ourselves – there being no perceived need to have it otherwise. In other areas society’s desire takes precedence over that of the individual.
……..
How can all morality with such an internally false base be considered true … such moral outlooks cannot. It can be seen if we change the words a little: ‘Some morality is relative!’ This is more accurate, but it also means that: ‘Some morality is true!’ ….. now which do you prefer? … to make up your own (as does Doug) or, to seek out the true?
Desire goes to valuation which goes to morality. That is what is true. Desire and everything hence is relative to the one who has it. And of course there are moral opinions among groups of people, societies in general, and even among almost everybody on earth. A given morality may be true for a given person, group, society, etc. It’s not “making up your own” to note that. John, beyond what is true for all of us is where this argument resides. You want to say that your take on it is “Truth.” I know that there is no such thing, because it is nothing more than assumption. I don’t blame you for having those assumptions – we all do – but they are not necessarily true for other people.
Doug
JM,
Your family are in our prayers…..be patient with the teaching, things will get better…maybe setup a reward system for good behavoir. If they don’t listen after 3 trys, send them to the principles office.
oh, I thought for some reason that JM taught 1st graders…
Oh man jasper, 1st graders would be sooo hard… hehehe. Teaching little kids scare me for some reason. My brother’s girlfriend teaches first grade. Perhaps I have mentioned her on here before and thats why you thought I taught them.
I am going to start being more strict with them, trying the principal thing and also calling home a lot more.
How have you been jasper?
JM teaches 7th graders
Heh heh – good, JM, from my perspective anyway. Yes, the hormones are kicking in, but my 5th grade class was so nasty…. Our teacher eventually quit and went into a mental hospital. Sounds like baloney but it happened. I feel better about saying it now.
Doug
Jill,
This is a great question to ask liberals but I like another question better which you posted on a previous thread.
I would like to ask liberals this…
Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?
http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2007/8/17/Gays-and-Baby-Killers-A-Shaky-Alliance#comments
JM,
I taught preschool for 12 years in a place called unincorporated Des Plaines. It was awesome, but most of the kids didn’t speak English. I had a class once where not one child spoke English. 18 kids from all over the world. Peru, Philippines, China, India (16 different languages there), Poland, Iraq, Albania, Korea…they couldn’t speak to each other, and I couldn’t speak to them…but somehow by the end of the year everyone of them knew every sound of every letter in the alphabet. The kindergarten was very pleased. We gave out a lot of “toys” that year…airplanes, bubbles, cards, dice, elephant stickers, fans, globes…well you get the idea.
It was tough. I can’t imagine what 7th graders would be like as they not only don’t speak English but they come with attitude.
Try trading learning experiences…you know, you’ll teach them English if they’ll teach you Spanglish…better yet ask them what they want to learn. What subject do you teach again?
They are all so busy posturing at that age…trying to be “cool” and whatnot…I sure don’t envy you!
JM,
Something else JM. It’s only the beginning of the school year. But try to get to know each kid individually as best you can. Try not to lump them all into a group in your mind. You know? Cuz each one is going to need something different, and I think a good teacher teaches the child not the lesson. Make sense?
I would love to see the question posed by Mark Crutcher to Political Candidates in a nationally televised political debate for United States President.
Can you imagine Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic Candidates trying to squirm out of this question??
I wish they asked this question when the Democratic Candidates were having a debate in front of the Homosexual Rights Organization they had just not long ago.
I believe the reason the Democratic Candidates refuse to have a debate on the Fox News Cable Channel is because very tough questions like this would be asked during the debates instead of the usual “softball” questions they were being asked on CNN and CNBC.
They would have no clue on how to answer the question.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2601439
Mike
Mike,
I can assure you that I’d tune in!
Imagine the ratings!?!?!?!
Imagine the polls the next day!?!?!?
But I’m afraid it will have to stay in our imaginations, as they are too smart to expose themselves this way…
MK,
Your right the Democratic Candidates are too smart to expose themselves to tough questions and forums (like Fox News Channel) which would ask them tough questions.
In High School football we had a term for those people – “wimps”.
In conclusion, the Democratic Candidates run away from the tough questions — but let’s see now, the American People somehow are to believe they can defend us from “terrorism”?
Heck, it’s been 33 years while over 45,000,000 babies have been murdered in their own mothers wombs and yet the Democratic Party has showed nothing to protect human beings from “terrorism” in their mothers wombs!
Mike
“I would like to ask liberals this…
Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?”
This will never happen outside of Foxnews Mike, because the MSM carries the water for the Democrat party (90% of them are Democrats from a recent poll) . The MSM are willing co-conspirators for the abortion industry as well….
“JM,
Something else JM. It’s only the beginning of the school year. But try to get to know each kid individually as best you can. Try not to lump them all into a group in your mind. You know? Cuz each one is going to need something different, and I think a good teacher teaches the child not the lesson. Make sense?”
I totally know what you mean! :) I hope it gets better. I really do.
@ Laura, Yeesh. Excuse me for telling a story. Would you have preferred that I made up a fairy tale for you? How about this? I have had a perfect life, and I live in a perfect world with my perfect children. My life has been perfect. I have perfect parents and a perfect brother. My cat is perfect too. Even a woman who has had an abortion can practice abstinence. Why not preach it? Would you rather see her back at the abortion clinic? People need to know that there is hope after you screw up. Now buzz off!
Doug, why are some of your posts signed Dawg? Are you also DC Law Dawg?
Doug, 12:01p, had a hard time imagining “liberalness” would be a good enough reason to abort, and genetic dispositions can be overcome by environment.
JKeller, 1:13p, said genetic dispositions can be overcome by environment.
Laura, 1:14p, said liberals shouldn’t be aborted because they grow up and contribute to our economy.
The point of the weekend question was to bring the abortion question home.
And when it’s brought home, you agree with pro-lifers.
The reasons you support for all other people to abort or be aborted are invalid when we’re talking about you and your kind.
I actually said that I believed it wasn’t a genetic disposition, but an ideology moulded by environment.
What about people who change their minds politically? Go from one party to another? If there were a political “gene” then no one would ever change their minds about an issue, which we all know, people DO change their minds about issues all the time.
So I think the question about whether you should abort a liberal or conservative is moot.
The reasons you support for all other people to abort or be aborted are invalid when we’re talking about you and your kind.
Doug and I were having an intense discussion on the “quadruplet” post. I wanted to bring it here and get everyone in on it…here’s where we left off:
MK: Doug, Poll all the pro lifers on this site. Every one of them will agree with me… Try it. Be amazed!
You could be right. I don’t know them all, nor even who they all are.
……..
I do see you putting a lot of emotional spin on it, but it’s nothing I haven’t seen a bunch of times already. Hmm… should I go fix the roof like I’ve been meaning to…?
MK: Taking our ball and going home are we? I didn’t run when every argument you gave lacked emotion did I?
Oh brother…. I did need to get that roof done before it got late in the day, the coating would not dry, etc. The “emotional spin” I refer to is stuff like saying “it’s a baby” as if that really matters.
……..
MK: The topic is all about emotion.
Agreed
……..
MK: And empathy. And compassion. If you choose to exclude these from arguments about the right to life then fail to understand the argument at all.
Not really. There is nothing there to have “empathy” with, to a point in gestation, but you pretend otherwise. You are not identifying with the feelings of the unborn, to a point in gestation, anyway, since there are no feelings on their part. Same for “connpassion.” You may personify the unborn in your mind, but if there are no feelings there, there are no feelings there. Bottom line again is that this is your desire against that of the pregnant woman.
……..
MK: If we approach this in a cold and calculated way, then we lower ourselves to lesser animals. Doing what we want to do with no regard for others. You said NAMBLA was wrong because it harmed a third party. Isn’t that emotional? Isn’t that based on your definition of “harm”? Sorry, but you can’t leave emotion out of a debate about killing babies. Unless your humanity has gone out the window…has it?
I say it’s more humane to have empathy for the pregnant woman, who most certainly can suffer, versus the unfeeling unborn. Your “suffering” due to people not doing what you want in this respect does not trump the desires of the pregnant woman, in my opinion. I believe that the rights of young boys prevent NAMBLAs stated ends from being permissable – it would involve too much suffering on the part of the boys. I don’t think it’s worth it. Same for your stated ends versus the pregnant woman. Sure it’s emotional. It’s valuation; it’s desire – and that’s what the abortion argument really is.
Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2007 7:07 PM
You can read the rest here:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/mom_delivers_ra.html#comments
One of the things we disagreed on is the definition of pro life. Doug claims that most people are pro life “except” and I claim that there is no “except” when it comes to pro life. I said that the minute you add an “except” you become pro choice.
I told him I’d poll the pro lifers here to see if they agreed.
So, Pro lifers, do you believe that to call yourself pro life you may not allow for exceptions, or is it possible to be pro life except for (ie: rape, incest, life of mother, early trimester…etc)
He also claims that a toenail clipping is a human being.
Says that every one on the pro choice side agrees that it is a human being that is being killed. No one believes that it isn’t human yet.
What do you guys think?
This is a never-ending argument. Heck, a toenail clipping can be a “human being” under a broad definition, since it can have existence (“being”) and be of human origin. You, for example, might favor a less-inclusive definition, like it has to be alive and able to develop, an organism, and that’s fine too. Many people favor a less-inclusive meaning yet, like being born and/or having consciousness, having legal rights, etc. I am not arguing that the unborn here are not human, not alive and not organisms. Again, the physical reality of the unborn is really not the main issue.
Doug
MK, Doug tried telling me that pro choicers don’t change their wording, after I told him that pro life is just one way. Shall we review? According to Doug and Sally, a baby is a toenail. According to Laura, an abortion is just “crotch goop.” There’s a fine one to add to our collection. A few more from the PC crowd: It isn’t a baby, because it hasn’t attained personhood yet. Diana claims that her bodily autonomy trumps “it’s” right to live. I’m not quite sure what “it” is yet. Then we have the ever popular feti, zygote, and embryo. Some say that the baby is only a baby @ certain stages Doug, is that enough for you?
Bethany, those little cartoon symbols are really cute! Keep up the good work!
Jill, did you see that Sonya posted here? See post ‘What women deserve.’
Doug, why are some of your posts signed Dawg? Are you also DC Law Dawg?
No, Heather – I just have gotten in the habit of doing that once in a while in e-mails and on message boards. Just a “play on words” or something like that.
Doug
Mike: Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?
Mike, I would like to see the responses to that one too.
My feeling is that elective abortion is okay to viability if the woman wants to end the pregnancy, so it wouldn’t matter whether “gay genes” were there or not.
But it would indeed be interesting to hear the politicians’ answers.
Doug
JM: My students are very diverse, which I am NOT used to that. So it will be a good experience for me. I am used to an ALL white classroom with maybe one African American or Hispanic child. Now my class is primarily Hispanic probably 70-80% followed by African American, then White. My minority is white. I even have a student that speaks ZERO english. Eeeek… I am confident it will get better. Thank you for your prayers and advice!
JM, my wife is half Italian (Sicilian) and half Mohawk indian, but she looks “white” – more than you’d think from my description.
The one class where I knew all the kids last year were all African American plus one Hispanic boy. The different “races” (if that’s the right word) did not make any difference in the end, and in this 2nd year of teaching for my wife, lots of last year’s kids come into her room between classes and hug her and talk to her.
Wanna see a picture of that class from last year? You can probably tell which one is my wife heh heh heh.
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7224/10thjv2.jpg
I do think it will get better for you, and I applaud you for being a teacher in the first place! Too bad about the one student who doesn’t speak English – Yikes. That is tough….
Best,
Doug
“My feeling is that elective abortion is okay to viability if the woman wants to end the pregnancy, so it wouldn’t matter whether “gay genes” were there or not.”
what is this world coming to….
Doug, 12:01p, had a hard time imagining “liberalness” would be a good enough reason to abort, and genetic dispositions can be overcome by environment.
No, Jill, that is not what I said. I said, “I can’t imagine that people would actually do that, based on it alone.”
I said nothing about “good” or “good enough.” That’s up to the woman or woman & man. A woman’s reason doesn’t have to be “good” in my opinion, nor in yours.
JKeller, 1:13p, said genetic dispositions can be overcome by environment.
That’s not what was actually said, as JK noted.
Laura, 1:14p, said liberals shouldn’t be aborted because they grow up and contribute to our economy.
That’s really not what Laura said either.
The point of the weekend question was to bring the abortion question home. And when it’s brought home, you agree with pro-lifers.
You can pretend anything.
……..
Jill: The reasons you support for all other people to abort or be aborted are invalid when we’re talking about you and your kind.
“My kind and I” don’t need to take things out of context, make up stuff, etc.
Doug
Doug, COME ON! Are you for real?
Heather: Doug tried telling me that pro choicers don’t change their wording, after I told him that pro life is just one way.
No, Heather, that is not what I said. How about if you quote me, rather than makin’ stuff up?
……..
Shall we review? According to Doug and Sally, a baby is a toenail.
You are being false. That is not what was said. The point is about how definitions can be broader or narrower, more-inclusive or less-inclusive.
……..
According to Laura, an abortion is just “crotch goop.” There’s a fine one to add to our collection.
There is probably some intent to inflame there. You probably have also heard “a blob of cells.” Well, we’re all “a blob of cells,” eh? To a point in gestation, “goop” and “blob” really do apply pretty well, but this is not a big deal in the real debate. Do you think it is?
……..
A few more from the PC crowd: It isn’t a baby, because it hasn’t attained personhood yet.
Some people feel that way, yes. And for being born, too. And others think it’s a baby from conception. And others think it’s a baby when it gets a recongizable shape, etc. This is not a big deal – people can argue back and forth about “is a baby” and “is not a baby” all day, and the entire abortion argument remains.
……..
Diana claims that her bodily autonomy trumps “it’s” right to live. I’m not quite sure what “it” is yet.
Considerinng that rights haven’t been attributed to the unborn, there, Diana is right.
……..
Then we have the ever popular feti, zygote, and embryo. Some say that the baby is only a baby @ certain stages Doug, is that enough for you?
Heather, zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are medical terms. Yes, – “baby” is a matter of many different opinions, and I’ve never said differently.
Doug
Doug, COME ON! Are you for real?
Yes, Heather. What prompts you to ask?
“With abortion it’s because the location is inside the body of the woman. It makes a big difference, and thus there is wide disagreement about abortion”
Jasper: Yes, I understand, but just because there is wide disagreement this does not mean the location makes a difference. (i.e. Slavery; there was wide disagreement, but now today everybody in this country believes it was wrong.)
Jasper, the difference in location makes a big difference to lots of people, because even aside from all the other differences between the born and unborn, there is the woman to consider. Not to everybody, of course, and there are enough people who don’t think it should that we have the large amount of disagreement.
……..
“To me, in that situation though there is still a living body there, the person they were is long gone.”
Doug, I guess that is where we break. From scientific evidence, there is a living body inside of the woman: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
:: laughing :: No, we agree on that one. I realize there is a living body inside the woman. It’s human and it’s alive in this argument. We really do agree about some things – amazing, eh? Again, I say the physical reality of the unborn is not what the abortion argument is about. The debate is about valuation, desire, and all the perceived “shoulds” and “should nots” that people feel.
I was talking about a Terri Schiavo situation, where a body has been kept alive by medical means. It’s a question then if there is consciousness, any hope of recovery, etc. In that case – a permanent vegetative state – there was said to be no hope of recovery. I know that some people disagreed with that, too. The autopsy confirmed that the brain had deteriorated to a huge extent, that the structures for consciousness were “trashed,” to put it bluntly. So, there was a body there, yes, a living body still using air and calories and other nutrients. But the personality, the things that made for the “her” that was Terri Schiavo, had long since departed.
Doug
If this proves true, would you support or oppose aborting babies with a liberal genetic marker?
We don’t have to. They do it themselves.
Doug, you have lost me completely. You do have choices over your body. They should begin outside of the bedroom. You have the choice to abstain from sex. You have the choice to use a condom. Why aren’t these smart choices being made prior to sexual activity?
Interesting thought. If a condom is 90% effective, and the fact that you can wear a condom leads to 10 times more illicit sexual encounters, then the chances of pregnancy are exactly the same.
If the number is actually 20 times more illicit sexual encouters, then using a condom causes twice as many babies.
The fact that people are humping like bunnies because they feel “safe” using a condom is actually leading to more out of wedlock births than when condoms weren’t easily available.
Now, when condoms fails and cause twice the unwanted babies, many of them are being aborted. That is why the acceptance of contraception has led to more abortions than less as liberals are wont to try and get us to believe.
Pope Paul VI had it right.
Doug,
I’m curious…you keep throwin’ around this “valuation” word. Why don’t you try something else?
You know what you mean, but I’m not sure we do.
Sometimes I think you mean it’s all how the individual sees it. Sometimes I think you mean it’s all how society votes on it. Sometimes I think you mean it’s all about an individual having value based on others perceptions of them…it’s a very vague term (for those of us not versed in philosophy) and yet you’re entire reasoning seems to be based on it.
We here, do not believe that value is given to something simply because a third party says so.
We believe that each human being has value simply by virtue of being a human being.
We believe that we are part spirit. We do not believe that our bodies are all there is to us. So when a Terri Schiavo’s brain stops working we don’t believe that what makes her, her, leaves.
When we express these notions you make snide remarks about pretending, or imagining, or living in a fantasy world. You say we have no proof. But many things that can’t be seen, also cannot be proved. You cannot prove that materialism is more reasonable than faith. And yet you imply that to think otherwise is infantile. You accuse us of trying to foist our way of seeing things on the rest of society and yet you do the same thing. “Surely, any reasonable person can see that you are right and we are wrong…of course you defend our right to be wrong. You defend our right to be “silly” but it is obvious to everyone that we are indeed, “silly”…”
Why Doug? Why isn’t in the realm of possibility that you are the one that appears silly?
You certainly appear silly to some of us.
We find the notion of believing only what you can see to be very silly. We think that the argument that you can’t use reason to prove abortion is wrong because “reason” is subjective to be extremely silly, mostly because you used your subjective reasoning to come to that conclusion! I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “valuation”. You claim that “valuation” has value, and yet by it’s very definition, valuation is subjective and therefore not reliable…therefore not valuable!
You simply can’t have it both ways. You lose your own argument.
By your reasoning it’s every man for himself, and I believe that leads to anarchy.
So, I’m asking you, to be clearer on what this word “valuation” means. Use the common man’s English. Assume we’re all really slow, and give it to us in words we can relate to…
Tony at August 19, 2007 11:28 AM
Tony,
Excellent post on the use of condoms leading to abortions. Another point — At some point, don’t these same people having sexual encounters with a condom rather have sex without the condom? Just another thought.
We already know the use of hormonal contraception can lead to chemical abortions.
——
Doug,
Did you realize abortion not only kills the baby inside the womb but it also hurts the woman having an abortion. There are over 750 Risks Caused by Abortion listed in Medical Literature.
Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is “LEGAL”?
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117
Mike
Tony, I would like to see more abstinence, but I was saying that if they cannot control themselves sexually, what do you think they ought to do? The only other option is permanent sterilization.
Doug, I am beginning to think that you are going round and round, just to go round and round. Some of the things you say are so off the wall, I’m beginning to wonder.
Doug, you DID TOO say something on that order. Okay. It’s settled then. We’re blobs of cells, because Doug said so! What makes you such an expert? Why should we take your word for it? Doug, Who loves abortion? Answer: Irresponsible women and Cowardly men. Case closed.
The liberal Democratic blue states provide virtually all the federal tax revenue in this country, while the conservative Republican red states feed off the federal Welfare nipple. There are ten Republican red states that haven’t added a dime to the federal coffers in two generations? (Clue: eight lie along the Bible Belt) Who would support them if you abort the liberals?
The conservative Republican red states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, single motherhood, divorce, and violent crime. Why would you abort a nice liberal baby who could help America regain it’s glory?
————————-
OK, I take this whole post as offensive. I am in a republican state (Alabama), that mainly is red during election time. Not to mention, I am right in the middle of the bible belt. My state does not consist of people mainly on welfare (yes there are a few), our teen pregnancy rates/single mothers/divorce rates are not higher than any other states that I am aware of. Yes Birmingham is a high crime area, but I live in a suburb outside of the city (Vestavia). In the past four years my fair city has had only two murders. Now then, I would love to see Gary, Indiana, Compton, Detroit, or even NYC have those low numbers. You should not stero-type every state based on how the people vote. I dont automatically assume that every blue state is full of die hard liberals, nor do I assume that they all support gun control. That is just a silly assumption, and I dont like looking silly.
Here are some statistics from my state:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/06prelim/t4al_ca.htm
^ Please compare any Alabama city listed to any city in Californina
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/06prelim/ucrtable2.htm
^ Interesting. Our murders maybe up +1.1, but alas, the NorthEast’s murders are up +2.5.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_04.html
^ Once again, the south is not looking that shabby.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html
^ The cities not in B’ham have lower crime rates than Birmingham itself.
http://ph.state.al.us/Chs/HealthStatistics/Tables/2004/mch%20table%204%202004.pdf
^ Compare this one to the one below
http://www.teenhealthfx.com/answers/General/5102.html
Yet, California, has a higher teen pregnancy rate than Alabama.
Doug, so in short, you actually do agree that pro choicers change their wording to suit themselves.
http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html
^ Well what do you know? There are states higher than Alabama (with only one other in the south) when it comes to divorces.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/caseload.htm
^ 21 states have a higher welfare rate than Alabama as well (and there is a fair number of Northern Democratic states higher as well).
—————————-
It would seem that there are Democratic States that meet your criteria as well there.
Doug, so are you saying that an unborn baby is like a toenail. Try to keep what you’ve said straight.
Doug,
I would like to add you to my Pro-Choicer Christmas Card list…
http://www.votelifeamerica.com/news/031221/
Mike
midnite, thanks for that makeup link the other day!
Hi MK. Valuation – deeming the value of something. It comes down to how much or how little it’s wanted. The worth of a thing is in the eye of the beholder. It may seem vague to you, but there are any number of valuations – that of the individual (what he or she likes, dislikes, etc.,) and of groups of people, and of entire societies, etc. Clearly, society values some things positively – like the life of born people. There are exceptions, of course – wartime, legal execution, self-defense, etc., but in general society makes a positive valuation on born lives. And there are plenty of things which society values negatively – things with laws against them, primarily.
……..
We here, do not believe that value is given to something simply because a third party says so. We believe that each human being has value simply by virtue of being a human being.
It’s really all the same thing. If you feel that “human beings have positive value,” that can be due to any number of things. It can be from just liking people and the idea of life and consciousness. It can be from what other people have said – your parents, peers, teachers, writers (including those of the Bible, etc.). Whatever the case, it is thinking that positive value is there. It is feeling that the thing should continue, should be present, etc. It’s liking it. It’s you giving value to the thing in your mind. Whatever the reason, it is what you desire, and whatever you would ascribe it to, it is your saying, it is your deeming of value. It is your opinion, your valuation. Bottom line = it is the reflection of our desire.
……..
We believe that we are part spirit. We do not believe that our bodies are all there is to us. So when a Terri Schiavo’s brain stops working we don’t believe that what makes her, her, leaves.
I understand such beliefs. And within your choices, it would be no surprise to see your actions reflect that. I do not think this is an argument. If it were me deciding, or if it was my body being like Terri Schiavo’s, I wouldn’t want to keep the body alive. I have no problem with you or anybody else wanting to, however.
………
When we express these notions you make snide remarks about pretending, or imagining, or living in a fantasy world.
MK, you are embellishing here. “Snide” is not the right word. There are some unproven things that people pretend about. Things they imagine which cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary. There are things which people have fantasies about, things which are also unproven. It is not being snide to note that. It’s not being mean-spirited to point out the difference between what is true for all of us and what are unproven assumptions on the part of some of us. Everybody knows there is disagreement about abortion. There are still things which have physical reality, things which are true whether or not a given person “sees” them. Those are not what the abortion debate is about. There are also things that both sides in the argument accept which are unprovable, and there too that’s not the debate. It is the differing assumptions that lead to the argument, and for anybody to say that their unprovable assumptions is necessary proof, or that it has to apply to anybody else, is false.
……..
You say we have no proof. But many things that can’t be seen, also cannot be proved.
Sure. You may have been intending to say that just because a thing can’t be seen doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Either way I agree.
……..
You cannot prove that materialism is more reasonable than faith. And yet you imply that to think otherwise is infantile. You accuse us of trying to foist our way of seeing things on the rest of society and yet you do the same thing. “Surely, any reasonable person can see that you are right and we are wrong…of course you defend our right to be wrong. You defend our right to be “silly” but it is obvious to everyone that we are indeed, “silly”…”
I’m really not just a materialist. And I have never said that to think otherwise is infantile. The question is if there is a good enough reason to forbid a woman from having an abortion. It is her individual desire against those who don’t want her to. We “all” are for letting people do what they want, to a point, to where their actions impose on the rights of others, or really just to where we want them to, and no farther. Your way imposes your will on the pregnant woman. My way does not. If there was a demonstrable, provable reason why we should deny her the abortion, it wouldn’t even be much of an argument.
“Reasonable” here is also in the eye of the beholder. I am not saying you are silly to believe as you do.
……..
Why Doug? Why isn’t in the realm of possibility that you are the one that appears silly? You certainly appear silly to some of us.
I have not said anybody was silly, due to their having beliefs. I have said that it’s silly to pretend that a semantic argument works here. And that acting like one’s subjective preferences necessarily apply to other people is silly. And it’s silly to quote out-of-context, make false generalizations, construcgt straw man arguments, etc.
……..
We find the notion of believing only what you can see to be very silly.
Well, I never have said that it’s not. I will put the rest in a separate post.
Doug
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Vestavia+Hills&state=AL
^ My City’s rates
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Gary&state=IN
^ Gary Indiana’s rates
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Compton&state=CA
^ Compton’s Rates
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Birmingham&state=AL
^ Birmingham’s rates (compare to Compton’s)
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Atlanta&state=GA
^ Atlanta’s Rates
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=New+Orleans&state=LA
^ New Orleans’ Rates
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Los+Angeles&state=CA
^ Los Angeles’ Rates
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Detroit&state=MI
^ Detroit’s Rates
Now please tell me where you would rather live?
Did you realize abortion not only kills the baby inside the womb but it also hurts the woman having an abortion. There are over 750 Risks Caused by Abortion listed in Medical Literature.
Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is “LEGAL”?
Mike, yes, I realize there are risks with abortion. There are also risks with continuing pregnancies and giving birth, greater risks in fact.
Doug
Heather:
Not a problem. I love sharing make-up tips! I’ve got oodles more if you ever need them! :-)
Mike, he realizes that abortion can hurt women. He just doesn’t care.
Midnite,
Go! Go! Go!
You’re starting to sound more and more like one of us!:)
It’s nice to see that you recognize a nasty pro-choicer when you see one. The difference between you, Rae, Leah and oh Lordy, even Less and pro choicers like Laura and Sally, is like, ohhhhh, lightyears.
Good work!
Mike, yes, I realize there are risks with abortion. There are also risks with continuing pregnancies and giving birth, greater risks in fact.
Doug,
Over 750 risks with continuing pregnancies??
Please name them Doug.
Mike
Doug, I am beginning to think that you are going round and round, just to go round and round. Some of the things you say are so off the wall, I’m beginning to wonder.
Heather, if you have an actual point to make, why not copy what I have said?
……..
Doug, you DID TOO say something on that order. Okay. It’s settled then. We’re blobs of cells, because Doug said so! What makes you such an expert? Why should we take your word for it?
Good grief, Heather – think about it. We are composed of cells. I said we all can be called a “blob” of cells. That was meant in humor, in the first place.
……..
Doug, Who loves abortion? Answer: Irresponsible women and Cowardly men. Case closed.
You are ranting.
Doug,
Also, you never did answer my question above. Let me ask you a second time…
Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is “LEGAL”?
Mike
“Mike, yes, I realize there are risks with abortion. There are also risks with continuing pregnancies and giving birth, greater risks in fact.”
Doug, Over 750 risks with continuing pregnancies?? Please name them Doug.
I don’t know them all by heart.
I do know that continuing pregnancies and giving birth is much more dangerous for women than is having abortions. The mortality rate for births is 7.1 per 100,000, while for abortion it is 0.7. Continuing pregnancies is also slightly more dangerous yet since deaths from miscarriages is not included in the 7.1 figure. So overall abortion is 10 or 11 times safer.
The 0.7 for abortion is all abortions, including late-term ones, which are more dangerous than early-term ones. When the vast majority of abortions are done, abortion is some 30 – 40 times safer, and when a majority are done, i.e. less than 9 weeks gestation, abortion is 70 – 100 times safer. These figures are easily available from the Centers for Disease Control, and from Birth: Henshaw, 2004 and from Abortion, Bartlett, et al, 2004 (the references the CDC gives).
If one is really objecting to abortion on the grounds that it’s dangerous for women, then one can only logically be much more against continuing pregnancies and giving birth.
Doug
Doug,
I will give you a third chance. Three strikes and your out!
Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is “LEGAL”?
Mike
Doug,
You say we have no proof. But many things that can’t be seen, also cannot be proved.
*
Sure. You may have been intending to say that just because a thing can’t be seen doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Either way I agree.
I meant what I said. There are many things that can’t be seen, that also cannot be proved.
Things like truth, beauty, justice. We can understand them, but we cannot prove them.
The mind. We know we have one. Not a brain, but what we call the mind. Or you’re example. Personality. Can you prove that the mind or personality exist? No. And yet you accept that they do.
You keep harping on semantics. We are not playing that game. We hold that at the moment of conception, a human being and all that that encompasses is created. Comes into being. And we believe that from that moment on, this new human being should be given every consideration, legal and otherwise that all human beings are given in our country. You are the one that insists we keep changing our “words”. You say the real argument is about the “right to life”…I agree. I believe that the human being that is created has a right to life. Just like all other human beings.
I would not argue for the same right for a toenail clipping, a kangaroo or a mullet. It is precisely because it is a human being that it must be afforded these rights. I can’t prove this to you, anymore than you can prove that born human beings should have these rights. It is common sense. I really don’t know what you are trying to say by turning this into an argument about semantics. Human Being=right to life. period. Your side is the one that comes up with a new way to define what to call the product of conception. Not us. We know what it is. We didn’t start calling them leeches, embryos, blobs of cells. We have always called them human beings in the stage of life know as embryo’s or fetuses. But ALWAYS Human Beings.
So, why does a woman’s right to “autonomy” trump a human being in the embryonic/fetal stage right to life. We already give human beings the right to life. So I don’t feel that I need to prove my point. You on the other hand have invented a new right, that of the right to bodily autonomy, and decided it is more important than the right to life.
Why should you be able to force your belief on the rest of society? I dare you to answer without using the word valuation!
We think that the argument that you can’t use reason to prove abortion is wrong because “reason” is subjective to be extremely silly, mostly because you used your subjective reasoning to come to that conclusion! I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “valuation”. You claim that “valuation” has value, and yet by it’s very definition, valuation is subjective and therefore not reliable…therefore not valuable! You simply can’t have it both ways. You lose your own argument.
Good grief, MK, what is all that? What I have said is that desire is subjective, that valuation is subjective, that morality is subjective. IF we begin with the stated desire for the unborn to live, then certainly we can use “reason” to say that abortion is wrong. Of course, not everybody has that desire, certainly not to the extent that we’d deny an abortion to a pregnant woman who wants one. Not everybody makes that valuation.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘ “valuation” has value.’ You’re setting up an imaginary hypothesis there, unrelated to what I’ve actually said. All morality can be traced right back to the desire at work. People have desires – that is objective fact. People and groups of people and societies make moral valuations – objective fact there too. But all the good/bad/right/wrongs in the moral realm are subjective because they arise in the minds of those entities. They do not exist outside the mind, independent of it. Pretty much right out of the dictionary for “subjective” and “objective.”
Some people think it’s okay to kill in self-defense. Some do not. Do you not see that this is their own personal saying of that? That it comes from their desire and their valuation? Whatever the case, whether they’re religious or not, etc., it comes down to what they want and don’t want. There is no “external truth” there, as with all morality. It’s a matter of what a sentient mind thinks.
……..
By your reasoning it’s every man for himself, and I believe that leads to anarchy.
Heh – it would lead to anarchy, but I have not said it’s every bloke for himself. Most people live in societies, and most people go along with society’s dictates because they want to live there. A person’s individual preferences may not be the same as that of “Society’s” – (the majority, the ruling class; heck, might even be that of a monarch) but if they want to stay in society they pretty much have to go along with respects to many things. And it doesn’t work too badly, all in all.
Doug
Can you name me 3 other medical procedures performed on women which have over 750 risks and is “LEGAL”?
Mike, how in the world does that really matter? I don’t know how many risks are associated with giving birth – it may be 150 or 1500 or 15,000. What difference does it make?
It is not how many separate things that can go wrong, it is the danger that actually exists that matters.
About 10 women per year die from induced abortion, while about 275 die from continuing pregnancy and childbirth, in the US. Childbirth is obviously legal.
What does it matter if in theory more things can go wrong with a Dodge, but a Ford breaks down eleven times more often?
Doug
P.S. my first vehicle was a Chevy.
Thanks MK (I think)?!
First the other day Heather cheered me on (including Bethany) and now you. WOW. I think I have hit an all time high. Who would have thought??
hahahaha…
But you believe that there is no objective morality. I do not accept this. You make it sound like I am perfectly within my rights to believe this falsehood. I find that condescending. I do not believe that moral code comes from an internal source. I believe that it comes from an external source. That people intuit it, is not the same as them imagining it.
I imagine Santa Claus and elves. I intuit good and evil. I may not get it right each and every time (which is why things like slavery are legal at one point, but not another)…
Murder has been considered wrong throughout history. Why? I’m sure you will say that it is because man has a desire to live. But I say, prove this desire. Prove that it is motivated by desire and not something put their by an outside force. Prove the will. Prove that we have a will. You can’t. Anymore than I can prove there is a God. So why are you right, and we are wrong?
Strike Three Doug. Your OUT!
You need to do more homework.
Mike
What are these 750 dangers associated with abortion?
(My guess is that IF they exist that they all apply to full-term gestation and childbirth, too…)
Doug,
Good grief, MK, what is all that? What I have said is that desire is subjective, that valuation is subjective, that morality is subjective. IF we begin with the stated desire for the unborn to live, then certainly we can use “reason” to say that abortion is wrong. Of course, not everybody has that desire, certainly not to the extent that we’d deny an abortion to a pregnant woman who wants one. Not everybody makes that valuation.
I thought it was pretty clear…
You say that every person makes value judgments. Places value on things, thereby giving them value.
I said that the very act of placing value on this system of valuation is subjective. I don’t value the idea of value being given by a third party. You do. Your value and mine are different. By your own definition, both things have been given value, and yet neither has any “real” value because they are both based on a subjective value system…and it cancels each others out. So where is the value in a value system based on subjective value?
What are these 750 dangers associated with abortion?
Laura,
Here’s a link to the short list…
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117
You can get the complete list through…
The Rutherford Institute
P.O. Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
1-804-978-3888
and request “Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion.”
My guess is that IF they exist that they all apply to full-term gestation and childbirth, too
No, actually they don’t.
Mike
MK: I meant what I said. There are many things that can’t be seen, that also cannot be proved. Things like truth, beauty, justice. We can understand them, but we cannot prove them.
The mind. We know we have one. Not a brain, but what we call the mind. Or you’re example. Personality. Can you prove that the mind or personality exist? No. And yet you accept that they do.
Okay, MK, gotcha. I have no problem, there. As I’ve said – we all make unprovable assumptions and it’s where they diverge that the arguing begins.
You or I could “wake up” later and find that what we have thought of as our whole life has been a “dream” and that reality is different. I don’t really think that will happen, and I assume that you are I are two separate consciousnesses, etc. When you really get down to it, what beyond the old “I think therefore I am,” is there, that can really be proven?
Anyway – no argument with you there. Whether or not it can be proven that mind and personality exist, I grant you that they do. We agree there.
……..
I don’t disagree that you hold the beliefs you do, either. And I understand them.
It is precisely because it is a human being that it must be afforded these rights. I can’t prove this to you, anymore than you can prove that born human beings should have these rights. It is common sense.
Okay, you say “must be afforded rights.” Prove it. You say “common sense,” well, how is it really common sense? I think there should be something logical there, something that can be demonstrated, for which a persuasive argument can be made.
I do not say that born human beings “have” to have rights. There is no external “should” or “should not” there that exists outside the mind. It is a fact of human nature that we tend to attribute rights at birth. But it doesn’t “have” to be that way. Likewise, I don’t see how you can prove your “must” or “common sense.”
……..
So, why does a woman’s right to “autonomy” trump a human being in the embryonic/fetal stage right to life.
Because there is the sentiment that going with the feelings of the woman is better than the non-existent feelings of the embryo/fetus. If the consensus was that we needed more life on earth, it wouldn’t be much of an argument – abortion would be illegal, or at least illegal in more situations. This all goes to the desire of the observer. You more want the unborn life to continue, I more want the woman to keep the freedom she now has.
……..
We already give human beings the right to life. So I don’t feel that I need to prove my point. You on the other hand have invented a new right, that of the right to bodily autonomy, and decided it is more important than the right to life.
No, that’s not true as stated. You include the unborn in “human beings,” and we don’t give the right to life to them. (After viabilility an argument can be made for some limited form of rights, though.) It is not that autonomy is more important than right to life, it is that right to life isn’t attributed to the unborn in the first place. If it were, I don’t think the woman would be allowed to have an abortion.
……..
Why should you be able to force your belief on the rest of society? I dare you to answer without using the word valuation!
I have to laugh, MK – point taken. And I still have yet to finish answering your first post to me today. “My belief” alone shouldn’t necessarily be forced on the rest of society. I mean, I think the Death Penalty should apply for going slow in the fast lane….
That “should” is going to be in the eye of the beholder. A monarch can sometimes force his will on the society, and there is good and bad to that, I imagine most people would agree. In the US, it’s society that forces its will on the individual, not the other way around. The individual can go against society’s dictates, but at his peril.
It’s not just me in society. It’s a whole bunch of people. When we are talking about the pregnant woman’s desire, I feel that society needs a very good reason to forbid it. If everybody or almost everybody felt one way or the other about it, it wouldn’t be much of an argument nor issue. As things are now – you and many other people want to ban or further restrict abortion. Okay, so convince the rest of us in society. Or at least enough of us that the debate isn’t much.
When it comes to subverting the will of a person (or “human being”) we don’t vote it – it’s not like the states were allowed to vote for slavery or not once the North prevailed in the Civil War. I realize that autonomy is not cast in stone, and that it’s not impossible that Roe would be overturned, etc.
Doug
Laura,
Medication Abortion
Possible risks include
* incomplete abortion
And Laura,
those numbers came from:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/risks-and-side-effects.htm
MK, I’d also like to know.
MK, YES!
MK, I’m fallin out of my chair! I can’t believe PP actually printed that up!
MK: So, I’m asking you, to be clearer on what this word “valuation” means. Use the common man’s English. Assume we’re all really slow, and give it to us in words we can relate to…
I take it that we can agree that people have desires. They want things, and don’t want other things. There are a multitude of reasons and factors that lie behind people’s desires, but in the end it’s what they want, it’s all likes and dislikes.
That which goes toward what we want, we think of as “good” or “right.” And “bad” and “wrong” go toward what we don’t want.
We have feelings of “should” and “should not,” again going toward what we want and what we don’t.
In the moral realm, the should/should not deal gets experessed as all the good/bad/right/wrongs. Those are our valuations. The “worthy” things – going toward what we want, are valued positively, and the “unworthy” things, going toward what we don’t want, are valued negatively. The abortion argument, IMO, commes down to the valuations being more positive for the unborn life against the woman’s desires, or vice-versa.
Doug
Doug,
Because there is the sentiment that going with the feelings of the woman is better than the non-existent feelings of the embryo/fetus.
Are you kiddin’ me? You want me to prove that unborn human beings must/should be afforded the same rights as we are, but you can get away with killing the same human beings based on sentiment?
No way! You prove that the feelings of the woman are “better” than the non-existent (while your at it, prove that they are non-existent…considering you just said “ no argument with you there. Whether or not it can be proven that mind and personality exist, I grant you that they do. We agree there.“) If the mind is different than the brain, then how can you prove that just because the brain is not completely working, the mind is not working either? You can’t of course, and so I say we must err on the side of caution. We know that every human being that is born has a mind and a personality. So wouldn’t it stand to reason that an unborn human being has the same? What makes you say otherwise?
Gee, all of those complications occur during pregnancy and childbirth.
There are fewer than one million abortions a year. There are more than four million births per year. If full-term pregnancy and delivery were as safe as abortion we’d see 40 pregnancy-related deaths each year – not 275.
MK, emotional problems made their list. Could that be PAS?
Doug,
If the consensus was that we needed more life on earth, it wouldn’t be much of an argument – abortion would be illegal, or at least illegal in more situations.
You speak as if it’s already been decided that we don’t need more life on earth…was I out of school that day?
Are you aware that there in NO population explosion. Quite the contrary, Europe and the United States are not even close to replacement value?
The problem has never been too many people. The problem is too many selfish people. The wealth is there. It’s just not distributed evenly.
Where is Mike when you need him?!?!…the population of the entire world could fit into the state of Texas…Mike will pop up and give you the statistic.
You seem to think that you are the consensus. As far as I know, most people do not believe that there are too many people on the earth, or that more would be a bad thing. It would certainly be good for the world in general…Read what Herb Meyer has to say…
http://www.superfactory.com/articles/meyer_what_in_the_world.htm
A woman I know had 7 abortions. She had to have a hysterectomy. The hospital doctors told her that the damage to her uterus was from the abortions.
Laura,
Really? Women giving birth have:
* incomplete abortion
Overall, the risk of death from childbirth is 11 times greater than the risk of death from abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. After 20 weeks, the risk of death from abortion is about the same as the risk of death from childbirth.
Agreed, MK – late abortions are much more dangerous than earlier ones.
…….
Note to Doug: The statistics you gave were for early abortions.
Well, some were, as I noted. The “ten or eleven times safer,” though is for all abortions versus giving birth.
……..
That means that a woman carrying her child to term has 7 months longer in which to have a complication. Comparing abortions in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy to a woman carrying a baby for 9 months is not accurate reasoning.
Sure it is. Those abortions won’t have the same risk as later abortions, or as abortions as a whole, but for a given individual, an abortion then is 100 or so times safer than continuing pregnancy and giving birth. Yes, not having the abortion means more time for complications, no doubt about it.
……..
Comparing the risks of an abortion given at 9 months gestation compared to a woman giving birth after nine months would be more sound.
No, because almost nobody has abortions then.
……..
You also said that 10 women will die from induced abortions in a year while 275 women will die from giving birth full term. Well 10 out of how many abortions, and 275 out of how many births?
I think it’s about 20 or 25% of US pregnancies that are aborted, so it’d be a 4 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio, births over abortions. That’d give us a ratio of 7 – 9 times more deaths for births, corrected for the varying numbers. Add in the deaths from miscarriages, etc., which are not counted in the death statistics for giving birth and you get to the “10 or 11 times safer” for abortion versus choosing to continue the pregnancy.
Doug
There are fewer than one million abortions a year.
I wish that were true…
Yes Doug,
But there aren’t as many late term abortions as births so the numbers don’t count. There are very few if any abortions done at 9 months. Except in mr. tillers office. So they aren’t comparable.
Gotta go for awhile…
be back in an hour or so…
There are 1.3 million abortions a year!
Really? Women giving birth have:
* incomplete abortion
Where is Mike when you need him?!?!…the population of the entire world could fit into the state of Texas…Mike will pop up and give you the statistic.
MK,
I had to eat some lunch. You know liberal college professors can’t stand when Pro-Life students bring this up in class. Here you are…
———
Can The Entire World Population Fit Within The Boundries of Texas?
LEGEND
1 Acre = 43,560 Square Feet
1 Square Mile = 640 Acres or 27,878,400 Square Feet (640 x 43,560)
“If the consensus was that we needed more life on earth, it wouldn’t be much of an argument – abortion would be illegal, or at least illegal in more situations.”
MK: You speak as if it’s already been decided that we don’t need more life on earth…was I out of school that day?
If the lesson was that the absence of a negative does not prove the positive, then perhaps you were. What I said is true. If enough people felt there was a real, demonstrable need to force women to continue pregnancies, even if unwanted, the law would reflect it.
……..
Are you aware that there in NO population explosion. Quite the contrary, Europe and the United States are not even close to replacement value?
There is immigration, of course, and there’s definitely a population explosion. In my lifetime alone it’s gone from in the 3s as far as billions of people past 4, past, 5, and past 6. Forecast is to go to over 9, then be fairly steady for a while with some little ups and downs.
…….
The problem has never been too many people. The problem is too many selfish people. The wealth is there. It’s just not distributed evenly.
It’s not human nature for wealth to be distributed “evenly.”
……..
Where is Mike when you need him?!?!…the population of the entire world could fit into the state of Texas…Mike will pop up and give you the statistic.
So what? Who would want to live like that? Can Texas support all those people? Of course not.
………
You seem to think that you are the consensus. As far as I know, most people do not believe that there are too many people on the earth, or that more would be a bad thing. It would certainly be good for the world in general…Read what Herb Meyer has to say…
http://www.superfactory.com/articles/meyer_what_in_the_world.htm
There are some things that nations with declining populations should be aware of, but there’s nothing in there that says we need to take away the freedom that women now have in the matter. With immigration, the population of the US is still increasing. I am indeed in the consensus as far as thinking we don’t need to increase the rate of population growth any faster than what it already is. That wasn’t the argument, though.
What I said was IF it “was that we needed more life on earth..” Seriously – enough sentiment for it, and abortion would be banned. Obvious, no?
Doug
Planned Parenthood printed this up. I’m gonna agree with them on this one!
MK: But there aren’t as many late term abortions as births so the numbers don’t count. There are very few if any abortions done at 9 months. Except in mr. tillers office. So they aren’t comparable.
:: laughing :: Oh come on, MK, how many 9 month abortions do you think Tiller has done?
The numbers “count.” There is more risk later on in gestation, no question about it. But if a women is going to have an abortion at 20 weeks, or 10, or 6, what does the risk at 9 months have to do with it?
Doug
How many 9 month abortions has Tiller done? Doug, Tiller was performing late term abortions on women so they could attend rock concerts and rodeos. Were their lives in danger? I was reading a quote from a former abortionist. He quoted “Abortion patients are lazy.” Yep.
The numbers “count.” There is more risk later on in gestation, no question about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If a woman is having a late-term abortion there’s a serious likelihood that it’s being performed BECAUSE of a serious risk to the woman’s life or health.
Lau, you are wrong!
I meant Laura. I don’t know what happened there.