Lake of Fire
Over the course of 18 years, director Tony Kaye filmed a 2-1/2 hour documentary about abortion called Lake of Fire, released on a limited scale 1 week ago. By limited I mean one theater in NY. It will open in LA this Friday, likely on just as small a scale.
I first read about Lake of Fire when it debuted at the Toronto Film Festival last September. I had hoped to personally review it, but this now appears unlikely until it is released on dvd. Instead, I will piece together a review based on reviews, all by pro-abort movie critics as far as I can tell. All who identified their positions were such. Before I go on, here’s the trailer:
Despite anticipating skewed reviews, I was interested to read their take since I knew the movie was bookended by footage of two abortions – the first late-term and the last early-term. Most pro-aborts avoid the truth of abortion like the plague that it is. But because Kaye, one of their own, made the documentary, reviewers let down their guard and agreed with the need to sit through them for balance and objectivity’s sake.
Sniffed TV Guide’s Ken Fox:
Showing the torn arms and legs and crushed skulls of aborted fetuses as they’re washed and reassembled on a steel tray (the only way to ensure a late-term abortion is complete) simultaneously reveals a plain, painful truth about abortion while defusing one of the radical pro-life movement’s favorite tactics of displaying graphic photos of aborted babies by finally putting them into their proper context
I can’t imagine how showing an abortion “defus[es]” our “tactics” by putting abortion in its “proper context.” But whatever.
LOF’s title comes from Scripture quoted by a pro-lifer in the movie, Rev. 20:12-15. Kaye shot the film mostly throughout the 90s, using footage of the 2006 SD abortion ban battle to reflect back.
Almost every reviewer thought LOF was important. How important? Tom Hall:
I believe that in 20 years time, as our nation’s political landscape changes in whatever ways it will, we will return to Lake of Fire… as an essential documentary; A piece of the cinematic puzzle of our nation. I knew Lake Of Fire would be difficult (any responsible film about the issue of abortion must be), but I was not prepared for the film’s epic complexity; I have used the word masterpiece on this site before, but Lake of Fire is one of the most important documentary films ever made. Shot entirely on gorgeous black and white film and utilizing extreme close-ups of many of his interview subjects to tremendous effect, Kaye… has crafted what is, both aesthetically, politically, and cinematically, what I can only imagine will be remembered as the film of record about our battle over a woman’s right to choose an abortion….
[T]he film is much more than a simple roll-call of the names and faces that have lead the fight over abortion rights in the last two decades; it is, quite simply, a devastating chronicle of America’s slow and steady slide into political intolerance. With unimaginable access to people on both sides of the issue, Kaye refuses to flinch from the comprehensive presentation that the subject requires…. Most difficult of all, two abortion procedures are shown in detail.
Against that backdrop, reviewers had a hard time stomaching the film. Kenneth Morefield:
Watching it… comprised two of the most grueling hours of my life.
… sprawling, scary, nearly unbearable film….
It’s certainly not the heated debate they had a hard time with. Still, reviewers agreed Kaye was evenhanded. By that they meant he devoted much footage to pro-life extremists. According to John Horn of the LA Times:
[H]e clearly is drawn to people on the fringes of the debate, chiefly religious activists who feel they are called by God to demonize and even kill abortion providers.
I couldn’t help but think that nearly all the pro-lifers interviewed came across as deeply disturbed, with a couple of exceptions.
Even so, there was still truth in the cliched debate for those with eyes. The New York Post’s Kyle Smith:
While Kaye portrays nearly all abortion defenders as eloquent and reasonable, he doesn’t seem to notice how often these activists change the subject to things no reasonable person supports, such as racism and gay bashing.
Because he offput pro-lifers while devoting so much time to offputting pro-aborts by the graphic display of abortion, reviewers wondered who would want to watch the film, and which side was more convincing?
We don’t know who will watch the film, but I do know which side had the greatest impact, and it was the pro-life side, because, thank God, Kaye showed the reality of abortion. That’s all it takes. Pro-lifers are used to being called nutcases and most let it roll off. But pictures are worth a thousand words and make stereotyping of pro-lifers worth it.
The New York Times’ Manohla Dargis:
Not everyone will agree about the abortion visuals, including, perhaps, those who worry that such explicit imagery can speak louder than any pro-abortion-rights argument. It’s an understandable concern.
Because they are filmed (the dead woman is immortalized in a still photograph), the abortions are unnerving, which is why I suggest that the faint of heart skip the rest of this paragraph. After the first operation, a second-trimester abortion, the doctor sorts through a tray of fetal parts, including a perfect-looking tiny hand and a foot, to make sure that nothing has been left inside the patient, which might lead to poisoning or even death. The doctor then holds up the severed fetal head. One eerily bulging eye looks as if it’s staring into the camera and somehow at us….
It’s possible that Mr. Kaye opted to show several abortions because he wanted viewers, particularly those sympathetic to a woman’s right to abortion, to understand what stirs some people not just to action, but also to kill doctors. If nothing else, the first abortion in the film (of a 20-week-old fetus, though that information is not in the film) reinforces what an abstraction the term pro-choice really is. Abortion does end the life of something.
It’s disconcerting, after all, to see what abortion actually looks like; if your beliefs around abortion are based on holding it firmly in your mind that a fetus is just tissue and an abortion a medical procedure no more morally meaningful than an appendectomy, you may be a little turned off by seeing a doctor measuring a tiny severed foot. The more graphic dead-baby abortion footage in the film is mostly from later-term abortions, but we also see abortion from the doctor’s perspective, planted firmly between the stirrup-splayed legs of naked women….
No matter where people stand on the issue, the abortion Kaye presents just 20 minutes into the film will certainly become indelible to many: Concerned that he leave no fragments of an aborted fetus in his patient’s uterus, a doctor reassembles the body parts — tiny feet, arms, a head with a clearly discernible face — into a nearly intact whole. And the camera never blinks.
NPR’s Bob Mondello:
Still, when the focus narrows to the personal – to the story of a woman undergoing first counseling and then the actual procedure of terminating her pregnancy, for instance, or to the transformation of Roe v. Wade’s original “Jane Roe” into a fervent right-to-lifer – the film becomes undeniably powerful in its specifics.
And the two most memorable portions of the film are powerful propaganda for pro-lifers. The scenes of shredded bloody fetuses at a clinic contain some of the most shocking, revolting footage I’ve ever seen.
Chris Cabin of FilmCritics.com:
None of the footage outweighs the sight of the actual procedure, which is shown twice as a set of bookends for the film. At first rather faceless, easy-going and clinical, the first procedure only becomes shocking when the doctor explains how he must put together the aftermath to make sure they got it all, holding the gelatinous beginnings of a head between his thumb and forefinger. By actualizing the event early, Kaye guides us into the argument with fresh eyes.
Fresh eyes. Sick pun.
Read more reviews here.
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.
Pray. I’m considering approaching somebody about something I think is long, long overdue. Pray that regardless of whether this person says yes or no, the point is gotten across. I know what the abortion lobby’s response to “Lake of Fire” is going to be. And it’s about time we stopped letting them get away with it.
Showing the torn arms and legs and crushed skulls of aborted fetuses as they’re washed and reassembled on a steel tray (the only way to ensure a late-term abortion is complete) simultaneously reveals a plain, painful truth about abortion while defusing one of the radical pro-life movement’s favorite tactics of displaying graphic photos of aborted babies by finally putting them into their proper context.
I’d echo your “Whatever.” But you gotta wonder — why does this guy think there can be any “proper” context for shredding what’s clearly a baby? And how can he sleep at night, having seen those images and knowing that he supports and endorses doing that to baby after baby after baby, that he endorses society telling women that such a desperate act is an exercise in “freedom”.
I’m only reading the second review and I”m already wanting to smack these guys upside the head: “the film’s heart and soul are the conversations with advocates for a woman’s right to choose and those opposed to abortion.”
If there is any justice in the universe, Larry Lader is roasting in Hell for having painted abortion as being about “a woman’s righ to choose”. You have to grant, it was brilliant. Diabolical but brilliant. Screwtape no doubt is at the head table of the banquet where they’re chowing down on Lader.
How can you look at a shredded fetus, a baby torn limb from limb, and calmly say, “Yeah. A perfectly legitimate choice.”? What moral universe do these guys live in, where ANYTHING is worth buying at that cost?
I posted this response to Tom Hall:
“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature – that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance – and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth?”
– Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Brothers Karamazov
“They must find it difficult- those who take authority as the truth rather than the truth as the authority.”
From Morefield:
The glibness of so many of the advocates from early in the film is totally absent when she speaks, and in the post-procedure recovery room she says she is tired but relieved
I have to stop reading the reviews for a while.
I get absolutely livid when I encounter person afer person after person who keeps insisting on painting abortion as a matter of conflicting rights — woman versus fetus — and about people who sympathize with women verses those who have empathy only for fetuses.
I was pulled into the whole fray by what the prochoice movement did to my babysitter. What the prochoice movement did to me, and nearly did to me. And I’ve stuck with it because of what it continues to do to women, needlessly robbing them of choice, of children, and of life.
I think that it’s far more accurate to characterize the prolife/prohcoice divide as being between those who sympathize with women who love their children, and those who sympathize with women who view them as vermin.
If you care about women who love their children, the sight of a crying woman approaching an abortion clinic moves you to pity and compassion. You want to offer her some other way out. If you don’t, you can only see that she’s upset about pending surgery. You don’t get it.
I know that this is from a different thread, but it went into archives so I’m posting it here.
Valerie,
“a child is a potential adult. Here it is in a nutshell: A zygote is a potential embryo; an embryo is a postential fetus; a fetus is a potential baby; a baby is a potential toddler; a toddler is a potential tween; a tween is a potential teenager; a teenager is a potential young adult; a young adult is a potential middle aged adult; and a middle aged adult is a potential senior citizen. There are no guarentees that from one stage to the next that we will make it to the next potential stage.”
You didn’t answer my question. You attempted to sidestep it cleverly, but you didn’t answer. If a fetus, which has the potential to become a baby, is a baby, why isn’t a child, which has the potential to become an adult, an adult?
“From conception to death we are constantly developing; constantly changing, but we are all still human beings.”
I may seem to deny the humanity of the fetus by arguing that it does not have human life (based on the brain), I do not deny that it is potential human life. What I deny is that any individual has a right to forcefully impose on another’s body against that other’s consent.
“The DNA says that we are human beings at all stages.”
The DNA also says that we are humans even after death. So what?
“If the mother says that her baby is not worthy enough to be wanted by her and her alone then it is okay for her to terminate the development of a human being.”
As she should be. The fetus has a right to life (after it obtains life) but not a right to impose on another.
“Why is it considered infanticide when someone terminates the development of a human while that human is still in the womb? Why did Scott Peterson get charged with 2 murders?”
Believe it or not, I support this type of legislation. Why? Because the fetus either has potential or actual human life. Other people shouldn’t simply be able to arbitrarily end that life. But the mother is in a different situation. The only thing that allows a fetus to retain its potential for life is its access to a woman’s body. A woman is under no obligation to continue said access if she never consented to it.
Was that Paul Hill? Abortion has been wrong, and it will remain wrong. The PC crowd is always going for shock value. Please put that picture of Gerry Santoro away PCers. Let that woman R.I.P. Also, put away your pictures of Becky Bell. She did not die of an illegal abortion. How many documented cases of coat hanger abortions were there? Can anyone post proof?
Valerie,
“However, nothing about that child has changed, just the perception of worth.”
Not true. The only thing that has changed is whether or not the fetus can legitimately infrigne upon another’s body.
Heather,
Oh yes. Please give me a moment..gotta get some coffee. Enigma, how many documented cases are there of coat hanger abortion? Can you tell me? I’ll be back.
Enigma,
Why should lives be worth any less simply because they have different views?
OR:
Why should lives be worth any less simply because they have no views?
Heather,
First off, those were illegal. I’d hardly be surprised if we didn’t have accurate numbers on them. Very few people broadcast their illegal activities to the very government that made them illegal.
Secondly, I’ve never researched this topic and I don’t have time at present. So basically I can’t tell you.
Enigma, I was being somewhat sarcastic when I’d written that. Here was my point. Over 1 million women showed up to the DC death march. How many of these women [past or present] have since become infected with or died from HIV/AIDS? Your message is this: WE DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT MAKING CHOICES FOR US. This translates to: We will have sex with whomever, whenever, and however much we want. We will not have anyone tell us what to do with our bodies. This means the government, and you guys are the only ones out there complaining. Okay, it’s my opinion that women who abort aren’t making good or healthy reproductive choices, so when that woman gets sick from her poor choices, do I have a say so in paying for her health care?
Where is my choice?
Enigma, The PC slogans don’t make sense to me anyway. Why are you guys abusing abortion? One slogan: Keep your laws off of my body. Abortion has been legal, on demand, for 34 years. Another: Keep your hands off my vagina. Who put their hands on your vagina? Did you report that? Is that directed at the guy who got you pregnant? Another: We will not go back to this *waves coat hanger* Well, let’s see a single documented case of a coat hanger abortion, and then we’ll talk.
MK,
“Why should lives be worth any less simply because they have no views?”
I argue that human lives (or potential human lives) all have value. The majority of my posts support this view.
I’m not arguing that fetuses are worthless and should be killed arbitrarily. Rather, I am arguing that fetuses should not be given rights that humans as a whole do not possess and should not be permitted to forcefully impose upon another bodily.
Enigma,
You said: The only thing that allows a fetus to retain its potential for life is its access to a woman’s body. A woman is under no obligation to continue said access if she never consented to it.
She consented when she decided to have sex!! If she didn’t want the consequences of the possiblity don’t engage in the activity. Again PC’s want all the benefits of sex without the responsibility. Well the two go hand and hand.
Let’s remember the the top 4 reasons a girl or woman have abortions has nothing to do with the life of the mother. They are interferring with school, career, social life, and embarressment. The majority of Americans believe these are not sufficient reasons for aborting a child. And lets remember that viability is 20 weeks.
I don’t normally cut and paste but here is a study by a PC Researcher from New Zealand that makes the case abortion hurts women. It’s from Feb 2006.
Abortion Causes Mental Disorders: New Zealand Study May Require Doctors To Do Fewer Abortions
Pro-Choice Researcher Says Some Journals Rejected Politically Volatile Findings
By The Elliot Institute
February 10, 2006
A study in New Zealand that tracked approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age has confirmed that young women who have abortions subsequently experience elevated rates of suicidal behaviors, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems.
Most significantly, the researchers–led by Professor David M. Fergusson, who is the director of the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study–found that the higher rate of subsequent mental problems could not be explained by any pre-pregnancy differences in mental health, which had been regularly evaluated over the course of the 25- year study.
FINDINGS SURPRISE PRO-CHOICE RESEARCHERS
According to Fergusson, the researchers had undertaken the study anticipating that they would be able to confirm the view that any problems found after abortion would be traceable to mental health problems that had existed before the abortion. At first glance, it appeared that their data would confirm this hypothesis. The data showed that women who became pregnant before age 25 were more likely to have experienced family dysfunction and adjustment problems, were more likely to have left home at a young age, and were more likely to have entered a cohabiting relationship.
However, when these and many other factors were taken into account, the findings showed that women who had abortions were still significantly more likely to experience mental health problems. Thus, the data contradicted the hypothesis that prior mental illness or other “pre-disposing” factors could explain the differences.
“We know what people were like before they became pregnant,” Fergusson told The New Zealand Herald. “We take into account their social background, education, ethnicity, previous mental health, exposure to sexual abuse, and a whole mass of factors.”
The data persistently pointed toward the politically unwelcome conclusion that abortion may itself be the cause of subsequent mental health problems. So Fergusson presented his results to New Zealand’s Abortion Supervisory Committee, which is charged with ensuring that abortions in that country are conducted in accordance with all the legal requirements. According to The New Zealand Herald, the committee told Fergusson that it would be “undesirable to publish the results in their ‘unclarified’ state.”
Despite his own pro-choice political beliefs, Fergusson responded to the committee with a letter stating that it would be “scientifically irresponsible” to suppress the findings simply because they touched on an explosive political issue.
In an interview about the findings with an Australian radio host, Fergusson stated: “I remain pro-choice. I am not religious. I am an atheist and a rationalist. The findings did surprise me, but the results appear to be very robust because they persist across a series of disorders and a series of ages. . . . Abortion is a traumatic life event; that is, it involves loss, it involves grief, it involves difficulties. And the trauma may, in fact, predispose people to having mental illness.”
JOURNALS REJECT THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT RESULTS
The research team of the Christchurch Health and Development Study is used to having its studies on health and human development accepted by the top medical journals on first submission. After all, the collection of data from birth to adulthood of 1,265 children born in Christchurch is one of the most long-running and valuable longitudinal studies in the world. But this study was the first from the experienced research team that touched on the contentious issue of abortion.
Ferguson said the team “went to four journals, which is very unusual for us — we normally get accepted the first time.” Finally, the fourth journal accepted the study for publication.
Although he still holds a pro-choice view, Fergusson believes women and doctors should not blindly accept the unsupported claim that abortion is generally harmless or beneficial to women. He appears particularly upset by the false assurances of abortion’s safety given by the American Psychological Association (APA).
In a 2005 statement, the APA claimed that “well-designed studies” have found that “the risk of psychological harm is low.” In the discussion of their results, Fergusson and his team note that the APA’s position paper ignored many key studies showing evidence of abortion’s harm and looked only at a selective sample of studies that have serious methodological flaws.
Fergusson told reporters that “it verges on scandalous that a surgical procedure that is performed on over one in 10 women has been so poorly researched and evaluated, given the debates about the psychological consequences of abortion.”
Following Fergusson’s complaints about the selective and misleading nature of the 2005 APA statement, the APA removed the page from their Internet site. The statement can still be found through a web archive service, however.
STUDY MAY HAVE PROFOUND INFLUENCE ON MEDICINE, LAW, AND POLITICS
The reaction to the publication of the Christchurch study is heating up the political debate in the United States. The study was introduced into the official record at the senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Also, a U.S. congressional subcommittee chaired by Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has asked the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to report on what efforts the NIH is undertaking to confirm or refute Fergusson’s findings.
The impact of the study in other countries may be even more profound. According to The New Zealand Herald, the Christchurch study may require doctors in New Zealand to certify far fewer abortions. Approximately 98 percent of abortions in New Zealand are done under a provision in the law that only allows abortion when “the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger (not being danger normally attendant upon childbirth) to the life, or to the physical or mental health, of the woman or girl.”
Doctors performing abortions in Great Britain face a similar legal problem. Indeed, the requirement to justify an abortion is even higher in British law. Doctors there are only supposed to perform abortions when the risks of physical or psychological injury from allowing the pregnancy to continue are “greater than if the pregnancy was terminated.”
According to researcher Dr. David Reardon, who has published more than a dozen studies investigating abortion’s impact on women, Fergusson’s study reinforces a growing body of literature showing that doctors in New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere face legal and ethical obligations to discourage or refuse contraindicated abortions.
“Fergusson’s study underscores that fact that evidence-based medicine does not support the conjecture that abortion will protect women from ‘serious danger’ to their mental health,” said Reardon. “Instead, the best evidence indicates that abortion is more likely to increase the risk of mental health problems. Physicians who ignore this study may no longer be able to argue that they are acting in good faith and may therefore be in violation of the law.”
“Record-based studies in Finland and the United States have conclusively proven that the risk of women dying in the year following an abortion is significantly higher than the risk of death if the pregnancy is allowed to continue to term,” said Reardon, who directs the Elliot Institute, a research organization based in Springfield, Illinois. “So the hypothesis that the physical risks of childbirth surpass the risks associated with abortion is no longer tenable. That means most abortion providers have had to look to mental health advantages to justify abortion over childbirth.”
But Reardon now believes that alternative for recommending abortion no longer passes scientific muster, either.
“This New Zealand study, with its unsurpassed controls for possible alternative explanations, confirms the findings of several recent studies linking abortion to higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization. depression, generalized anxiety disorder, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, poor bonding with and parenting of later children, and sleep disorders,” he said. “It should inevitably lead to a change in the standard of care offered to women facing problem pregnancies.”
SOME WOMEN MAY BE AT GREATER RISK
Reardon, a biomedical ethicist, is an advocate of “evidence- based medicine”–a movement in medical training that encourages the questioning of “routine, accepted practices” which have not been proven to be helpful in scientific trials. If one uses the standards applied in evidence-based medicine, Reardon says, one can only conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the view that abortion is generally beneficial to women. Instead, the opposite appears to be more likely.
“It is true that the practice of medicine is both an art and a science,” Reardon said. “But given the current research, doctors who do an abortion in the hope that it will produce more good than harm for an individual woman can only justify their decisions by reference to the art of medicine, not the science.”
According to Reardon, the best available medical evidence shows that it is easier for a woman to adjust to the birth of an unintended child than it is to adjust to the emotional turmoil caused by an abortion.
“We are social beings, so it is easier for people to adjust to having a new relationship in one’s life than to adjust to the loss of a relationship,” he said. “In the context of abortion, adjusting to the loss is especially difficult if there any unresolved feelings of attachment, grief, or guilt.”
By using known risk factors, the women who are at greatest risk of severe reactions to abortion could be easily identified, according to Reardon. If this were done, some women who are at highest risk of negative reactions might opt for childbirth instead of abortion.
In a recent article published in The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Reardon identified approximately 35 studies that had identified statistically validated risk factors that most reliably predict which women are most likely to report negative reactions.
“Risk factors for maladjustment were first identified in a 1973 study published by Planned Parenthood,” Reardon said. “Since that time, numerous other researchers have further advanced our knowledge of the risk factors which should be used to screen women at highest risk. These researchers have routinely recommended that the risk factors should be used by doctors to identify women who would benefit from more counseling, either so they can avoid contraindicated abortions or so they can receive better followup care to help treat negative reactions.”
Feeling pressured by others to consent to the abortion, having moral beliefs that abortion is wrong, or having already developed a strong maternal attachment to the baby are three of the most common risk factors, Reardon says.
While screening makes sense, Reardon says that in practice, screening for risk factors is rare for two reasons.
“First, there are aberrations in the law that shield abortion providers from any liability for emotional complications following an abortion,” he said. “This loophole means that abortion clinics can save time and money by substituting one- size-fits-all counseling for individualized screening.
“The second obstacle in the way of screening is ideological. Many abortion providers insist that it is not their job to try to figure out whether an abortion is more likely to hurt than help a particular woman. They see their role as to ensure that any woman who wants an abortion is provided one.”
“This ‘buyer beware’ mentality is actually inconsistent with medical ethics,” Reardon said. “Actually, the ethic governing most abortion providers’ services is no different than that of the abortionists: ‘If you have the money, we’ll do the abortion.’ Women deserve better. They deserve to have doctors who act like doctors. That means doctors who will give good medical advice based on the best available evidence as applied to each patient’s individual risk profile.”
Fergusson also believes that the same rules that apply to other medical treatments should apply to abortion. “If we were talking about an antibiotic or an asthma risk, and someone reported adverse reactions, people would be advocating further research to evaluate risk,” he said in the New Zealand Herald. “I can see no good reason why the same rules don’t apply to abortion.”
Tara
All vain words spoken in the wind…mostly what you say Enigma. Ignorance shrouded in false intelligence. It’s so predictable, it can be chronicled in a handbook entitled, “Stupid Things Supposedley Intelligent People Think and Say”.
Satan himself is your guide and you will spend eternity with him in the “Lake of Fire” unless you awaken to repentance. The sad thing is that the “Lake of Fire” was not created for human beings. What a tragic waste that most will go there by their own ignorant choice.
What would that repentance look like? Realizing who you are and who He is and your utter hopelessness and need for Him.
Arise my friend, arise.
Tara, fantastic!!
His Man is back!!! Yay!
The video doesn’t work. It says it’s not there.
Jill-
I did have a chance to see the film in April. Here’s a few observations I jotted down after the screening:
————————————————-
6 RFLers (myself included attended) the screening of “Lake of Fire” at the Philadelphia Film Festival on Saturday. We were the youngest attendees, and all wore pro-life t-shirts/hoodies (which definately made us targets for stares and glares from other attendees). The MC gave a short speech before the movie started, saying that it was one of the highest rated movies (according to its reception at other film festivals) that has ever been shown at the Philly Film Fest, with it being hailed as the most expansive and complete abortion documentary ever made. The film was shot over the course of 16 years, and was entirely financed by the director (Tony Kaye, who also directed “American History X”). The film was shot entirely in black and white.
The film started with a few short interviews with South Dakota folks (including Leslee Unruh), talking about the ban. It then went through the opening credits, and moved onto a scene of the “Children of Hillary’s Village” cross cemetary at the Washington Monument. A few minutes were spent discussing the very basics of the debate, with Alan Dershowitz proclaiming that while he was pro-choice, he realized how twisted a position it was because while when his wife was pregnant, he began thinking of the child as a separate person the moment he saw the ultrasound. Nat Hentoff spoke about being a pro-life atheist, and how anything other than complete defense of pre-birth life was hypocritical.
There was a full hour devoted to the killings and bombings, and interviews with Paul Hill (before he killed) and other Army of God figures. Because of the style of documentary (subjects speak with no commentary by the filmmaker), many arguments (and even several lies) made by pro-choice figures were left uncontested. Many of the pro-lifers were shown saying things that made them appear to be crazy (the audience was very vocal in their laughing and jeers), but several of the pro-choicers were shown as crazy as well (a band that simulated a coat hanger abortion on the lead singer, who played with about 1 square foot of cloth and tape covering her body, and a clinic worker who claimed that all the men that protest abortion clinics are child molestors who are sexually stimulated by watching women enter the clinic).
There was footage from two abortions shot exclusively for the film, both very graphic in nature. The audience was visible shaken (loud responses and even some crying) as one doctor went through and pieced together the parts of the baby (the scene looked EXACTLY like the images used in pro-life materials). Parts of video “The Hard Truth” were also shown.
There was almost no recognition of the youth in the pro-life movement (something we stressed to people after the film in the lobby discussions – Danielle, Rev Johnny Hunter’s daughter, was especially adament that youth have and are making a difference, and the film was not complete without that aspect).
Overall, the film was excellent and horrible. Every unfolding minute had me either angry at the work of the filmmaker, or ecstatic, and that seems to be the general response from people. There were many errors in the film (misspelled names, outright lies that go uncontested, and the characterization of Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles as a rabid pro-lifer), but also many excellent points made by pro-lifers (particularly Norma McCorvey, who really got a good response from the audience).
Chances are high that this documentary, once released nationwide, will be causing quite a controversy.
Enigma wrote,
” The only thing that allows a fetus to retain its potential for life is its access to a woman’s body. A woman is under no obligation to continue said access if she never consented to it.”
Posted by: Enigma at October 11, 2007 8:04 AM
She absolutely consented when she invited the child to begin its development within her.
Sex causes peolple. That is why we have sex. It is basic biology.
If you consent to a face lift, you probably won’t die from it, but you absolutely consent to risk of death when you sign the form.
Phil, all men who protest abortion clinics are child molesters? *gasp* It’s the other way around. The child molesters are taking the girls TO the abortion clinic. Their tracks are covered.
“Unborn in the USA” is released to home video on Oct. 23rd. (You can reserv it on Netflix):
Weaving together 70 exclusive interviews and rare archival footage, this exhaustive chronicle of the U.S. pro-life movement investigates the inner workings and deep pockets of the influential group. The filmmakers examine the movement’s icons, fundraising machines and inroads among college students. Documentarians Stephen Fell and Will Thompson traveled across 35 states in one year to capture this controversial story.
Releases on DVD Oct 23, 2007
Enigma,
You wrote,
“I’m not arguing that fetuses are worthless and should be killed arbitrarily. Rather, I am arguing that fetuses should not be given rights that humans as a whole do not possess and should not be permitted to forcefully impose upon another bodily.”
Posted by: Enigma at October 11, 2007 9:00 AM
What force?
A man and woman together create the child. The child is the result of their actions, not its own action. It is natural.
The child doesn’t force anything on either of them.
However, an abortionist forces him out. That is definitely force.
It is not natural.
Over 1 million women showed up to the DC death march. How many of these women [past or present] have since become infected with or died from HIV/AIDS?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unless you have proof otherwise, I’d say none of them…
Heather,
“Enigma, I was being somewhat sarcastic when I’d written that.”
I’d certainly hope so.
“Over 1 million women showed up to the DC death march.”
It’s not a death march. No one is pro-death.
“How many of these women [past or present] have since become infected with or died from HIV/AIDS?”
I assume the ratio is no higher than the infection rate among the rest of the population.
“Your message is this: WE DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT MAKING CHOICES FOR US.”
Do you want the government making choices for you?
“This translates to: We will have sex with whomever, whenever, and however much we want.”
That’s a really loose interpretation.
“We will not have anyone tell us what to do with our bodies.”
And what is wrong with this? The government has no right to my body.
“Okay, it’s my opinion that women who abort aren’t making good or healthy reproductive choices, so when that woman gets sick from her poor choices, do I have a say so in paying for her health care?”
So do I get to refuse to pay taxes to support family families who have way more children than they can afford? Do I get to refuse to pay the salaries of representatives and senators that I don’t agree with? Why should you be given special privileges?
People in this society pay taxes to the government. They don’t get to decide what they will and will not pay for. If they did, it would create an incredible mess and the country likely would fall apart because people would choose not to fund things that they don’t feel directly effect them.
Okay, it’s my opinion that women who abort aren’t making good or healthy reproductive choices, so when that woman gets sick from her poor choices, do I have a say so in paying for her health care?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fine, as long as those women cranking out Wefare brats don’t make me pay for their obstetric care, delivery, or feedinf, housing and educating their kids.
Tara,
“She consented when she decided to have sex!! If she didn’t want the consequences of the possiblity don’t engage in the activity.”
A woman does not consent to pregnancy whenever she consents to sex. Simply because one has consented to one action does not mean that one has consented to all the possible consequences of that action.
“Again PC’s want all the benefits of sex without the responsibility. Well the two go hand and hand.”
First off, having an abortion is taking responsibility.
Secondly, who are you and why do you get to dictate what responsibility is and who should take it?
“The majority of Americans believe these are not sufficient reasons for aborting a child.”
Really? Then why is abortion still legal?
“And lets remember that viability is 20 weeks.”
Most abortions occur before then.
“I don’t normally cut and paste but here is a study by a PC Researcher from New Zealand that makes the case abortion hurts women. It’s from Feb 2006.”
It would be more convincing if people never came down with psychiatric problems when they had previously shown no signs of them.
Tara,
The New Zealand study you cited is typical. When you show people scientific evidence that something they want to do is unhealthy, they generally reject it. I was convinced by science that eating meat and dairy products is generally less healthy than just eating plant products. I am looked at as a fanatic by my overweight, diabetic friends with colon cancer who just can’t stop the cheeseburgers.
People don’t want the truth sometimes.
Enigma,
While I strongly disagree with the concept that the unborn are not persons, I understand where that argument comes from.
But saying that the unborn, at any given stage, is not “Human Life”…well, that is simply not true.
If we took the DNA from an embryo, zygote or fetus without knowing where it came from, we would know that it was human. Likewise, the fact that it is growing and changing tells us that it is, indeed, alive.
Human Life. Period. Now if you want to argue whether or not that human life has value, rights, or personhood, okay. But to claim it is not human life, really makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously.
You have presented fair arguments here before, but this is just not one of them…
Enigma, abortion patients sleep around. This is how you contract STDs. So, don’t even go there. Where is your own responsibility for your own body? God gave you free will. Use it wisely. The poor pregnant woman isn’t going to rallies and scoffing at the government. YOU GUYS ARE! So, you want a choice, and I want one too.
Laura,
You wrote,
Fine, as long as those women cranking out Wefare brats don’t make me pay for their obstetric care, delivery, or feedinf, housing and educating their kids.
Posted by: Laura at October 11, 2007 9:30 AM
Those welfare brats will be supporting you someday.
hippie, LOL!
Enigma, abortion patients sleep around. This is how you contract STDs. So, don’t even go there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Didn’t you crank out an illegitamate child after boinking some moron?
Should you really be making value judgments?
Married women have abortions and get STDs too.
Tara,
You wrote,
A woman does not consent to pregnancy whenever she consents to sex. Simply because one has consented to one action does not mean that one has consented to all the possible consequences of that action.”
————-
Well actually she does consent because she knows the risk.
You sign acknowledging risk when you go bungee jumping.
You can’t say you didn’t consent to break your neck, because you consented to the risk.
“Lake of Fire” made DrudgeReport!
Enigma, It’s simple. You take responsibility for your own actions. You don’t have sex with a man who you don’t want a child by. That’s it. Stop whining and making this everyone elses’ problem.
Posted by: Laura at October 11, 2007 9:30 AM
Those welfare brats will be supporting you someday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, yeah! I’m counting on Social Security to be there when I retire (she said, preparing her Ramen and adding to her 401k…)
I pay to educate and incarcerate them, and I don’t expect to see a dime.
Everyone should make value judgements, it helps you clarify your values.
If Laura, or Heather, or Enigma says that child molesters should go to jail, that is a value judgement.
It doesn’t matter who says it, if it is true.
See, I just made a value judgement.
Laura, I don’t see why you’re even here. You will never have children. You claim that you have never aborted. You are just plain sour on children. I’m not even going to respond to you anymore. You always try to get everyone “off topic.” So, you had your tubes tied at a young age. Why don’t you go and do something to better society since you will never have “brats” of your own.
Did I crank out a “welfare brat?” No. I work for a living, but I don’t mind my tax dollars going for welfare. You hate children. I hate abortion. There. We are even.
Laura,
You wrote,
“I pay to educate and incarcerate them, and I don’t expect to see a dime. ”
Posted by: Laura at October 11, 2007 9:42 AM
I worked with adolescents from the lowest echelons of society. I can tell you that they know they are stigmatized for their parents’ behavior, but the vast majority are wonderful people. They are energetic and optimistic and fun and funny. They have dreams. They can be very resourceful and pragmatic. They are just like everyone else. I know I sound mushy, but I can tell you that it is the kids from well to do families that are more coniving and deceitful and rude. They are the ones who expect something for nothing. The children of the poor very often know what it means to work and go without.
If anything, I blame a great deal of of society’s problems ON abortion. You guys are paving the way for the culture of death. Kill, kill, kill. That’s your message. Why do we have girls getting a slap on the wrist for infanticide? Amy Grossberg should have done double life. She actually drew sympathy from the PC crowd after she killed her son. Is it any wonder?
You hate children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny, I’d go back to bed but I have two kids in the living room watching “Blades of Glory” for the 800th time. I have 5 – count ’em FIVE – godchildren.
Yes, you are a “medical professional” aren’t you?
Please note only 3% of the federal budget is for welfare,
30% is for the military.
15-20% is interest payments on our debt.
That 3% goes to meet basic human needs like food and shelter.
The other 97% we spend on stuff we want and running the gov’t.
I don’t want the gov’t to waste my money either. But be realistic, if you eliminate all the welfare, it would not lower your taxes.
It is all the other stuff that we overspend on.
I’d also like to comment about the “access to a womens’ body” argument, because it’s a good one, Enigma. Unless I’m mistaken, I think that the main part of your argument is that even though the developing fetus is a human, it does not have the rights of person because it is dependent on the women (mother) for life, correct? Without the women supporting the fetus, it will die, and hence cannot be considered a person on equal footing with other people who can survive on their own. Again, I do not want to misrepresent you, so let me know if I’m off.
If what is said above is the argument, here is my response. In order to really understand whether or not being dependent upon someone else for life is in fact a good enough reason to end the life of the dependent person, we should look at a similar example. Now there is almost nothing in real life that is even close to having the same conditions as pregnancy, but I would suggest comparing being pregnant to conjoined twins. Consider the following. Two twins are conjoined and share a circulatory system. One of the twins has a recently acquired illness that has caused damage to her renal system, causing her kidneys to deteriorate so that they no longer have the ability to remove impurities from her bloodstream. The only reason she is able to stay alive is because of the interconnection that exists between her circulatory system and her sisters’. Now suppose that thanks to medical treatment, her condition is improving, and it will take 9 months for her to be completely healed. However, science has also made it possible to separate the twins. The healthy twin wants to be separated. Now we have a situation where one of the girls is dependent on the other for her life, and I think if we meditate on this situation, it is very much like a pregnancy. The life of one is dependent on another. Neither person asked to be in this situation (as in the case of rape), and there is a very strong familial relationship between the two people involved (sister and sister vs. mother and child). Now does the healthy sister have the right separate herself from her sister? I would imagine that almost everyone would say “no.” Yes, her life will be inconvenient, but in 9 months her sister can survive on her own. I think this models pregnancy so well that one must conclude that the “right to another’s body” in the case of pregnancy does not exist.
This is just an outline of a wonderful argument I read in a paper in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Winter 2006 issue by Brian Parks. I highly recommend the article, as he presents this case in a much more coherent way than I can. But that’s the idea. Something to think about. Good Journey, Enigma.
The kids are in the living room? Why don’t you go take them somewhere?
Enigma,
A woman does not consent to pregnancy whenever she consents to sex. Simply because one has consented to one action does not mean that one has consented to all the possible consequences of that action.
Read that, reread that and reread that again…
Do you realize how illogical that sounds? Of course you consent to all possible consequences. Even if you are unaware of said consequences. Every action has a reaction, whether you embrace the reaction or not. You might prefer that it didn’t happen, but by choosing a certain path, you most certainly are consenting to all that that choice entails.
It is all the other stuff that we overspend on.
Posted by: hippie at October 11, 2007 9:59 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(I actually don’t mind paying for WIC, Welfare, Headstart, or any other childnren’s program. I just have to drag it out every time someone whines about having to pay for the occasional, inexpensive abortion. Someday ask me about my ROP work.
SILENCE HIPPIE! I have to go back to being a bitch, and you’re not helping!)
Maybe the PC crowd felt guilty for programming Amy Grossberg into thinking that she could have gotten away with a “do it yourself” abortion. That girl was rich. I thought this only happened to the poor.
Laura,
I’ve asked you this before, and I’m not being sarcastic. I just don’t get it. If you are not Christian and you don’t believe in God (perhaps I’m wrong?) then how are you a Godmother?
I think it’s great if you mean honorary Aunt, but Godmother? You don’t even capitalize the word “God” when you type Godmother…
Clarification, please?
I don’t usually post articles but this is not too long.
This is about a college student with a baby who coordinates activities at her college for parenting students and families.
Many college women turn to abortion because of lack of social and family support. I feel this is an example of a college that supports women who start their families while they are in college.
I found it on the BYU website.
I am not nor have I have I ever been affiliated with the LDS.
I do think that this college has a very welcoming attitude toward college students with children and tries to accomodate their needs.
Stephanie Bystrom
Vice President of Family Life
Brigham Young University Hawaii’s Vice President of Family Life for the 2006-2007 school year, Stephanie Bystrom, is the daughter-in-law of lifelong Rockford, IL residents Colin and Lisa Bystrom.
She and her husband, Jared G. Bystrom, are both attending school on the Hawaiian island of Oahu-she at BYU-Hawaii in Laie, and he at Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu.
Bystrom grew up in a military family, so the fact that she lived in Hawaii from 1997 until she graduated from high school there is an accomplishment. As a senior she became aware of the BYU-Hawaii campus and applied. Three years ago she was admitted to the university as the recipient of a two-year half-tuition scholarship, given to selected high school graduates in Hawaii.
As a new mother, serving in the Brigham Young University Hawaii Student Association was not something Bystrom planned to do. However, encouraged by friends, she applied for the job of Vice President of Family Life. She was offered the position and accepted it, with the proviso that she was able to take her new baby along as she did her duties.
Those duties include organizing and planning campus-wide events for the married students on campus. Temple View Apartments (TVA), the BYU-Hawaii on-campus married student housing where most of the married BYU-H students live, is a close community.
As she works on different events Bystrom said, “I try to actually keep their faces, their names, and their personalities in mind when I’m doing this because it makes it more worth it.”
Planned events, past and future, include a family barbeque, a water play day, and a Valentine’s dinner for couples (with a babysitting service). “It’s good to have the fun stuff,” Bystrom shared, ” but I really want to try to do more awareness and information kinds of things.”
To that end, a series of monthly seminars and workshops called Family First, is being organized. Workshop topics will include basic finances, cooking, and child care. Activities that include both married and single students are also being planned.
“I look at it not only as a job, but as a calling. I have a stewardship over the families at BYU-Hawaii,” said Bystrom. “If I had to sum it up in one sentence, creating a nurturing environment for the families at BYU-Hawaii is my goal.”
Summing up her experience at BYU-Hawaii, Bystrom said, “This is a wonderful place to be. I’ve grown more here in the last three years than I have any other three year period of my life. I’m going to miss it when we leave.”
Laura,
SILENCE HIPPIE! I have to go back to being a bitch, and you’re not helping!)
Oooooooh, I’m telling….
Laura has a heart…Laura has a heart…Laura has a heart…
Laura, dare I admit this, but there was a time in my life where I couldn’t stand children. If other people’s children would approach me, it made me cringe. I found children to be a nucience. [sp?] When I had my own, that changed.
I think it’s great if you mean honorary Aunt, but Godmother? You don’t even capitalize the word “God” when you type Godmother…
Clarification, please?
Posted by: mk at October 11, 2007 10:11 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, I’m using “godparent” as a colloquialism. I’m the little monsters’ designated guardian should something happen to the parents.
Maybe the PC crowd felt guilty for programming Amy Grossberg into thinking that she could have gotten away with a “do it yourself” abortion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NO!
No pro-choicer ever encouraged Amy Grossberg to murder a child.
Just… quiet…
Laura has a heart…Laura has a heart…Laura has a heart…
Posted by: mk at October 11, 2007 10:14 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is dark, wizend and wreched, but it’s there!
Laura,
Oh, I’m using “godparent” as a colloquialism. I’m the little monsters’ designated guardian should something happen to the parents.
That makes sense. Thought maybe I’d missed something along the way.
And I don’t think you’re nearly as dark or wretched as you make out to be. You have quite a few people on this site fooled, but I try to read between the lines. I think you’re a big old softie (although I wouldn’t want to “really” tick you off…while you’re bark is worse than your bite, I’ve not doubt that there is a bite!)
Sometimes, I even wonder if you aren’t more pro-life than you let on. But, you’re secrets are safe with me. Mum’s the word!
Laura, you seem a bit flustered with the welfare system. Hey, join the club. I was talking to a woman the other day. I know her sister quite well, and I talk to her in passing. She is an African American woman, and she has had 5 abortions. She also has 5 living children. She will tell you whatever you want to know. So, what do you think I thought when she exclaimed: “I told the hospital that I had no idea who my babies daddies were.” She knows. Okay, this IS frustrating, and I agree that we need a solution. What do you guys think?
It would be nice if the PL and PC crowd could come together with a solution. We are always so busy doing battle. I really hate it at times.
BTW, hello MK!
The deliberate taking of innocent human life through abortion is always wrong. In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II explains (#58):
I want to add a comment about the article I posted.
Even though Bystrom is at a private college, student associations and public colleges would do well to be inclusive of parenting students.
Notice that Bystrom says she has been there three years and is currently parenting. While her exact age isn’t known, she must have become pregnant in her first or second year of college. With appropriate resources and support college students can be good parents and deserve the support of college administrations.
Heather: “His Man is back!!! Yay!”
I agree. I had almost given up hope…
It seems to me that the argument of economics has lost sight of one very important cultural shift. Prior to legalized abortion two things were undeniable: women took MORE responsibility for their actions, (and society expected them to do so) by largely remaining chaste until marriage. (Yes I know there were exceptions…I’m talking about the general rule here
The bodily autonomy argument is a crock. It’s like shaking your fist towards God and saying, “I am God, I am in control and You have no say in the matter, go f…. yourself”.
The truth is we are very fragile creatures that are all dependent on more things than we can count on for survival. Food, air, gravity, relationships, shelter, etc., etc., etc.
If your heart stopped beating for just a little while you would die and you would have no say in the matter. Would you?
Does anyone have any idea who keeps our hearts beating?
Well, it’s God Himself at the control.
In fact, it’s God Himself who causes a human being to be concieved in the womb of a mother as an act of love and desire to give life and a directive of His Almighty will. There is no more direct statement by God Himself to us creatures than for Him to allow a baby to be conceived. Can you think of one? Abortion is a direct affront to that desire and an insult to an awesome God. All you pro-aborts should be mightily fearful of your destiny unless you change your ways.
So, all you pro-deathers who think they are in control of life itself, think again. You are a wink of an eye away from eternity and meeting a God who is described as a consuming fire.
Be careful what you say on this website representing it as truth because you will be held accoutable to a Holy God.
They say ignorance is bliss. No, ignorance is not bliss, it’s deadly.
Thanx Theresa,
I have many adopted friends, friends who have adopted and friends who gave children for adpotion and an uncle who was adopted as a child.
Adoption is love.
Theresa, that summed it up perfectly!
Theresa, I agree. Make abortion illegal, and maybe they will think twice before having reckless sex. Like it or not, the government does have a say so in a lot of things that we do. Some states require helmets for motorcycle riders. What about seatbelt laws? You aren’t allowed to drive drunk either. You cannot legally boot heroin or smoke crack. How about the new smoking laws? Now that that is in effect, you would be surprised at the compliance I’ve seen.
The government is controlling your body by telling you that you can’t use drugs. Do you think that we ought to legalize crack and heroin use?
When you attach consequences to an action, you would be surprised at how it will snap some folks right into reality! Some will not break that law. My state enforced stricter and tougher laws on DUI offenders. They lowered the legal BAL. As a result, I have noticed this. Some people have stopped drinking all together. Some walk to the bars. Others surrender their keys to a sober person, and a lot of people have a designated driver. Will people stop drinking and driving? No. However, you can sure put the fear of God into someone, and you can make them think twice before they take the wrong action.
heather, it’s spelled “nuisance”.
Laura, it’s spelled “wizened”.
Thanx anaon. My spelchek si nwod..lol!
One more thing. Without abortion, you have a choice. You abstain from sex, and if you become pregnant, you deal with it, or place the baby up for adoption. That’s it. Those are enough choices.
That’s it. Those are enough choices.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to whom?
Or you have an illegal abortion. Which were always, and still would be, easy to obtain- just like drugs.
“I am God, I am in control and You have no say in the matter, go f…. yourself”
you finally understand me.
I say “take your chances then.”
Heather, you wrote: “The government is controlling your body by telling you that you can’t use drugs. Do you think that we ought to legalize crack and heroin use?”
Yes.
Hal,
“”I am God, I am in control and You have no say in the matter, go f…. yourself”
you finally understand me.”
LOL.
Somg, Dare I ask, will that do us some good?
I am a radical lifestyle libertarian. I think we should shut down the war on drugs–all of it. What’s the point of jailing heroin addicts? It doesn’t stop them.
I think spraying herbicides on opium-poppy fields is a grave error. We need all the opiate drugs we can make, for cancer patients. If you ever get bone cancer or ovarian/testicular cancer or something like that, you will agree with me. All of you.
I believe patients should be able to buy all medications without prescriptions. Doctors should be givers of advice, not part of law-enforcement, gate keepers who decide who may own which chemical compounds.
I would vote for Ron Paul, but I cannot support a right-to-lifer (except against other right-to-lifers–I supported Casey against Santorum.)
Jailing heroin addicts doesn’t stop them…That is true.
Hey there SoMG. Do you also support legalization of steroids like human growth hormone and all these other ones for use in male and female bodybuilding? Just curious. BTW, what is SoMG? Is it an acronym or your initials or something like that? God love you.
SoMG,
Heather, you wrote: “The government is controlling your body by telling you that you can’t use drugs. Do you think that we ought to legalize crack and heroin use?”
*
Yes.
“I know some good games we can play” said the mischievous creature. “I will show them to you. You’re mother will not mind at all if I do.”
Dr. Seuss
Somg stands for Spirit of Martin Gardner. Right?
Oh, Martin Gardner! He does some math. But he’s not dead, is he?
He does more than “some math”. He is a debunker of junk science. He would have a field day with the abortion-breast-cancer “link”.
I think that should be up to the people who arrange the athletic contests. Ultimately, I’d say anyone should be able to take any compound for any reason or for no reason (basic human liberty) but the agencies arranging the athletic contests are also free and can impose whatever requirement on the athletes they want, and exclude those athletes who fail to meet their requirements, including being drug-free if the agencies so wish.
“He does more than “some math”.”
Well, he does recreational mathematics. So I was just saying he doesn’t engage in serious mathematics. He’s classically trained as a philosopher, though.
SoMG,
Are you a boy or a girl?
To Phil (right?)
You saw the film. It made people weep. A little too graphic for some.
Do you think some folks walked in Pro-choice and 2 hours later walked out Pro-life?
Do you think that this film might backfire on the PC movement now that we have the chance to expose an abortion in progress? Fr. Pavone has always repeated that america will not reject abortion until it sees abortion. What’s your take?
And to end my twenty questions: what was wrong with the baby/fetus/vermin/parasite/child/cancer/oversized blueberry that warranted a late term abortion? Mom just didn’t want him/her anymore? Or was there an imperfection?
The following link also has CHOICE BLUES (Abortion Video) Choice Blues is the update to Harder Truth. Chapter one shows abortions in progress (2 1/2 minutes). Chapter two contains footage of aborted embryonic and fetal tissue (5 minutes) . Warning: This video is extremely graphic… Parental discretion advised.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/audiovideo.html
Ana, thank you for posting that. I have seen this video many times. I recommend that all PCers view it.
They don’t have the guts to watch it Heather.
jasper, I know.
I would be especially interested in seeing what Hal thinks about it.
I saw it. There is an awful lot of bleeding. That kind of bleeding often comes with a miscarriage gone terribly wrong.
Perhaps that D&C saved that women’s life.
Ana,
Thank you for posting that link….I watched the videos, and as disturbing as they are what struck me most was the comments section posting post-abortive women’s thoughts….
Based on those comments I’d say the bumper sticker is right:
Abortion: one dead, one wounded.
I hope these women have the courage to scream it from the mountaintops. Or at least say it in front of the local clinic….one who’s been there is the most qualified to speak to one who’s GOING there.
I saw it. There is an awful lot of bleeding. That kind of bleeding often comes with a miscarriage gone terribly wrong.
*
Perhaps that D&C saved that women’s life.
Oh Laura,
You are such a character!
Off topic–has anyone heard any new developments in Aurora since the city council meeting?
Perhaps that D&C saved that women’s life.
Well, Laura, we’ll never know, will we?
But we can know for sure, that it ended the babies.
Well, Laura, we’ll never know, will we?
But we can know for sure, that it ended the babies.
Posted by: mk at October 11, 2007 3:20 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If it was a D&C for a miscarriage, that fetus was already toast.
“I saw it. There is an awful lot of bleeding.”
Is that all you have to say Laura?
Well, those D&C’s take place 4000 times a day in America. It’s good to see what really happens. We can safely say that bloodclots don’t have tiny hands….Brutal, yet done in about 10 miutes.
Hisman,
“All vain words spoken in the wind…mostly what you say Enigma. Ignorance shrouded in false intelligence.”
Funny. I’d say the exact same thing about everything that you say.
“Satan himself is your guide and you will spend eternity with him in the “Lake of Fire” unless you awaken to repentance.”
Satan doesn’t exist and there’s no such thing as hell.
“The sad thing is that the “Lake of Fire” was not created for human beings. What a tragic waste that most will go there by their own ignorant choice.”
Then what, pray tell, was hell created for? To torture the righteous?
“What would that repentance look like?”
I have nothing to repent for.
“Realizing who you are and who He is and your utter hopelessness and need for Him.”
There’s nothing to recognize.
“Arise my friend, arise.”
I’m not your friend.
“The bodily autonomy argument is a crock.”
In your opinion. Not mine.
“It’s like shaking your fist towards God and saying, “I am God, I am in control and You have no say in the matter, go f…. yourself”.”
Well, since there’s no one up there, there’s no one to shake your fist at.
“The truth is we are very fragile creatures that are all dependent on more things than we can count on for survival.”
True.
“If your heart stopped beating for just a little while you would die and you would have no say in the matter. Would you?”
Are you honestly arguing that since we can’t control everything that happens to us in life that we shouldn’t be able to exert control over the things that we can effect?
“Does anyone have any idea who keeps our hearts beating?”
Mitochondria, fuel, and muscle contractions.
“In fact, it’s God Himself who causes a human being to be concieved in the womb of a mother as an act of love and desire to give life and a directive of His Almighty will. There is no more direct statement by God Himself to us creatures than for Him to allow a baby to be conceived. Can you think of one? Abortion is a direct affront to that desire and an insult to an awesome God.”
God was a creation of humanity. People couldn’t explain things and were fearful, so they created the concept of an omnipresent being that loved us and had a plan for each of us in order to comfort themselves.
“All you pro-aborts should be mightily fearful of your destiny unless you change your ways.”
Destiny, fate, predetermination, kmara, and all of those other concepts were created by humanity. None of them exist.
“So, all you pro-deathers who think they are in control of life itself, think again.”
No one is pro-death.
“Be careful what you say on this website representing it as truth because you will be held accoutable to a Holy God.”
Truth is self-created.
“They say ignorance is bliss. No, ignorance is not bliss, it’s deadly.”
Agreed. And the antidote is rational thought.
My friend aborted a couple weeks ago. I asked her about it, and she told me “They went so fast.” She didn’t act too pleased about that. She also c/o of lower back pain, as well as pain radiating down the back of both legs. She seemed frightened. I didn’t have much to say. I told her to f/u without hesitation at the ER if the pain persisted. I thought to myself “of course they went fast, they had about 12 other girls to scrape that day.
Enigma, your view. Not mine.
Hippie,
“She absolutely consented when she invited the child to begin its development within her.”
She only invited the fetus in if she had sex with the intent of becoming pregnant. Otherwise, she never consented. If there is no consent, there is no obligation.
“Sex causes peolple. That is why we have sex. It is basic biology.”
It is basic biology that one of the purposes of sex is procreation. That is true. But that is hardly the only purpose that sex has. If procreation were the only purpose of sex, humans would never have sex except for when the woman is fertile.
“If you consent to a face lift, you probably won’t die from it, but you absolutely consent to risk of death when you sign the form.”
You sign a consent form. There’s no consent form for sex. Last time I checked, there wasn’t a lawyer crouching behind the bed and popping out with his little form whenever anyone had sex.
Consent forms are also a matter of legal liability. Simply because one signs one doesn’t mean that one consents to the risks it lists. All that signing means is that one is aware of the risks and agrees not to sue if anything happens.
Enigma,
have you watched the video that Ana posted above, do you have the guts to watch it?
Heather–
Tell me more about this situation with your friend. Did you talk with her about it before hand? Has she shared any other thoughts besides what you mentioned since? I’m just wondering how you approached this situation as her friend.
Don’t you guys love the way the media whitewashes the abortion issue? Just this morning, some anchor on CNN, I think her name is Kiran, stood in front of the camera like a feminist militant and proudly declared of Rudy Giuliani “he supports a woman’s right to choose”. Choose what, Kiran? Abortion? What’s the matter, don’t want to say the word abortion? Is that word too stressful for you? I’m tired of the liberal media and their feminazi news reporters.
yes Pinker, I know what you mean, the MSM is a disgrace when it comes to abortion. They basically work for Planned Parenthood, they’re a fraud, the MSM is comprised of 90% Democrats (from a recent poll). The only outlet that will discuss it is Foxnews.
Hi Pinker.
“he supports a woman’s right to choose”.Choose what, Kiran?”
It’s like Jasper and my hero Father Corapi says, (paraphrase) “That’s the only time in the English language where it’s acceptable to not finish the sentence.” God love you, Pinker.
SoMG,
Bobby is a mathmetician. He’s a doctoral candidate in mathematics. FYI…
Theresa, sorry. I’m back and forth to the bathroom trying to get ready for work. I tried to talk her out of it. This pregnancy was the result of an affair. [Go figure] I could tell that her mind was made up. She really doesn’t make eye contact with me now. She claimed that her mom was pressuring her into it. She’s in her 20’s. I guess her mom then had a change of heart, and she begged her not to do it. She just kept saying “I have to” “I have to.” So, she did.
I would be especially interested in seeing what Hal thinks about it.
Posted by: heather at October 11, 2007 2:42 PM
______________________________________
Heather,
Given that Sally called Choice Blues “pro-life porn” I think Hal’s opinion would be mild by comparison.
carder, right. Thank you for that report, Pinker.
Oh Heather…I’m so sorry for her. It sounds like she’s going to be one of the walking wounded. I had a fiance when I was 20–he was 31. We broke up before the wedding, but his story is so sad. He and his high school sweetheart got pregnant at 17. Both sets of parents pushed for an abortion, which was done. After high school they got married and had 2 daughters then divorced. The little girls were like 8 and 4 when he and I met. I never knew about the abortion until one day I came over to his house and he wouldn’t get out of bed. It was the anniversary of the abortion and he shared the story with me. He’s in his 50’s now and I see him once a year at the local county fair without fail so we catch up. To this day he spends that day in bed wracked with guilt. My mom and I have always commented on his general state of melencholy….he always seemed a little sad all the time…even all those years ago when we were engaged. After this last time I saw him at the fair it dawned on me….it’s not just that one day a year that he thinks about it…..he thinks about it all the time.
Theresa, I hear you. It’s just one more woman to add to the long list of women I know who have aborted. Truthfully, my turn from PC to PL was d/t story after story like the one you’ve just shared. I had met so many men who had NO choice. 2 come to mind @ present. It was the same thing. One guy just cried over and over again “She killed our kid.” Another told me that his ex wife never even told him she’d been pregnant. In a heated fight she screamed to him “I was pregnant, and I went and had the little bastard sucked out of me!” He slapped her.
Please save your domestic violence comments PCers. No. I don’t condone him slapping her.
Is it me, or is Heather’s fantasy life a low-end telenovela?
It just goes to show you that abortion brings out the worst of the worst in people. Most of those couples don’t stay together.
I don’t condone it either…but if that’s really what she said and how she said it she shouldn’t be suprised that she got slapped. Sounds like a lovely lady. Let me guess…everything was always his fault. All the time.
Well, if you have some positive stories about abortion, please share. Do I know a few women who say they DON’T have regrets. Yes. 2 of them.
Laura,
It’s you.
Thresa, yes. I thought the same thing. A real class act.
With 1.3 million abortions a year, how could I NOT know them? To tell you the truth, I wish I didn’t. I try to distance myself from the ones who aren’t sorry.
okay, gotta roll. See you all later, and have a nice evening.
I knew one. Worked with a woman who had 6 abortions and was now sterlie from it. She saw nothing wrong with her “choice” to use it as birth control because (I swear I’m not making this up!) the pill would make her butt fat, and she didn’t want a fat butt. Abortion won’t make your butt fat so it’s the best way to go.
Now for the kicker: she was adopted.
Yes, some of us are born blissfully free from reason.
*waves at Heather* 3!
Heather: nice chat–thanks!
*rolls eyes at Theresa* I was adopted, and I have had an abortion. Maybe the best choice for my birth mother was to give me up for adoption, and my best choice was an abortion. Different people, different situations, different choices.
Enigma:
You spew canned stupidity.
Any idiot looking honestly at creation can see a designer’s hand. It is evidence that needs no advocate.
The sad part is that you are willing to allow yourself to be deceiverd and believe such damnable lies when your very existence is immersed in God’s appeal to your heart.
Let me ask you this, if one will allow himself or herself to be open to such looniness what other things would that person allow themselves to do or believe? Oh, I know, the notion that abortion is OK.
Ah darkness, who can understand?
Phil, thanks for the review. And thanks for mentioning Drudge picked it up!
“Any idiot looking honestly at creation can see a designer’s hand.”
Someone above the level of idiot knows it’s more complicated than that, and more wonderous.
Enigma, Laura, Hal,
Have you watched the abortion video? please let us know what your thoughts are.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/audiovideo.html
(..geez, they’ll do anything to avoid the truth….)
“Have you watched the abortion video? please let us know what your thoughts are.”
can’t right now, too busy debating the creation of existance with Hisman. (thank God he’s back)
Seriously, though, I’m at work and would prefer to watch it later. I promise i will and get back to you all.
Enigma,
You wrote,
“I’m not arguing that fetuses are worthless and should be killed arbitrarily. Rather, I am arguing that fetuses should not be given rights that humans as a whole do not possess and should not be permitted to forcefully impose upon another bodily.”
Posted by: Enigma at October 11, 2007 9:00 AM
What force?
A man and woman together create the child. The child is the result of their actions, not its own action. It is natural.
The child doesn’t force anything on either of them.
However, an abortionist forces him out. That is definitely force.
It is not natural.
Posted by: hippie at October 11, 2007 9:22 Am
…………………………………………………………….
A man contributes a sperm. Nothing else. The woman’s body creates a child if she wants it to.
I don’t usually post articles but this is not too long.
This is about a college student with a baby who coordinates activities at her college for parenting students and families.
Many college women turn to abortion because of lack of social and family support. I feel this is an example of a college that supports women who start their families while they are in college.
I found it on the BYU website.
I am not nor have I have I ever been affiliated with the LDS.
I do think that this college has a very welcoming attitude toward college students with children and tries to accomodate their needs.
Stephanie Bystrom
Vice President of Family Life
Brigham Young University Hawaii’s Vice President of Family Life for the 2006-2007 school year, Stephanie Bystrom, is the daughter-in-law of lifelong Rockford, IL residents Colin and Lisa Bystrom.
She and her husband, Jared G. Bystrom, are both attending school on the Hawaiian island of Oahu-she at BYU-Hawaii in Laie, and he at Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu.
Bystrom grew up in a military family, so the fact that she lived in Hawaii from 1997 until she graduated from high school there is an accomplishment. As a senior she became aware of the BYU-Hawaii campus and applied. Three years ago she was admitted to the university as the recipient of a two-year half-tuition scholarship, given to selected high school graduates in Hawaii.
As a new mother, serving in the Brigham Young University Hawaii Student Association was not something Bystrom planned to do. However, encouraged by friends, she applied for the job of Vice President of Family Life. She was offered the position and accepted it, with the proviso that she was able to take her new baby along as she did her duties.
Those duties include organizing and planning campus-wide events for the married students on campus. Temple View Apartments (TVA), the BYU-Hawaii on-campus married student housing where most of the married BYU-H students live, is a close community.
As she works on different events Bystrom said, “I try to actually keep their faces, their names, and their personalities in mind when I’m doing this because it makes it more worth it.”
Planned events, past and future, include a family barbeque, a water play day, and a Valentine’s dinner for couples (with a babysitting service). “It’s good to have the fun stuff,” Bystrom shared, ” but I really want to try to do more awareness and information kinds of things.”
To that end, a series of monthly seminars and workshops called Family First, is being organized. Workshop topics will include basic finances, cooking, and child care. Activities that include both married and single students are also being planned.
“I look at it not only as a job, but as a calling. I have a stewardship over the families at BYU-Hawaii,” said Bystrom. “If I had to sum it up in one sentence, creating a nurturing environment for the families at BYU-Hawaii is my goal.”
Summing up her experience at BYU-Hawaii, Bystrom said, “This is a wonderful place to be. I’ve grown more here in the last three years than I have any other three year period of my life. I’m going to miss it when we leave.”
Posted by: hippie at October 11, 2007 10:12 AM
………………………………………
The school allows her to be accompanied by her infant while she organizes social activities. The are not providing day care while she attends school, obviously. How does this provide support for this woman?
Her husband is a Mormon from Rockford? That must have been rough.
OK.
The doorbell at my house CAUGHT ON FIRE.
Isn’t that NUTS??
Per Erin:
“*rolls eyes at Theresa* I was adopted, and I have had an abortion. Maybe the best choice for my birth mother was to give me up for adoption, and my best choice was an abortion. Different people, different situations, different choices.”
Erin’s birth mother unselfishly gave her life so she could eventually pursue her dreams on stage. Erin then selfishly ends the life of her baby so she can pursue her dreams on stage.
Go figure.
Erin said: “OK. The doorbell at my house CAUGHT ON FIRE. Isn’t that NUTS??”
Perhaps the Holy Spirit came calling, but nobody answered the door.
Hal said: “Someone above the level of idiot knows it’s more complicated than that, and more wonderous.”
I guess Albert Einstein was an idiot, then, as he was convinced that some kind of intelligent force must have created the universe.
Isn’t it interesting that both Geri Santoro and her unborn child would most likely be alive today if not for the abortion performed on her child, illegal or otherwise?
It’s also interesting that Santoro felt compelled to take part in the abortion as a means of covering up an extra-marital affair because she was afraid of what her husband would do about it.
How is any of that pro-woman? How is any of that pro-choice? It’s all sad, sorry, and pathetic. Quite an image to be used to promote “choice” – a woman who felt that she had no choice but to kill her child.
Amen John.
Hippie, “natural” does not equal “good for you”.
Cancer is natural; the medicine that cures it, unnatural.
You spew canned stupidity.
Hisman, invective in debate is the refuge of a weak mind.
Any idiot looking honestly at creation can see a designer’s hand. It is evidence that needs no advocate.
Can you be more specific about your evidence? From my perspective, ONLY an idiot (to use your word) sees a “designer’s hand.”
The true miracle of creation is in the physics of our universe that allows matter to coalesce, and in our planet, whose temperature allows the presence of liquid water and whose atmosphere and magnetic fields shield the surface from the deadly radiation of space. I look around me and I marvel at the home we evolved to take advantage of, but I don’t see the slightest shred of evidence that a paternalistic deity designed cows, jellyfish, bananas and mosquitoes. In fact, the preponderance of scientific evidence (fossil records, DNA analysis, etc.) suggests that these things evolved, more or less per the thinking of our friend, Charles Darwin.
Theresa, Wow! your friend was left sterile from 6 abortions? You may not believe this either, but I know a woman who is now sterile after 7 of them. I also know a woman who has had 9 of them. That’s shocking!
B/C pills give you a fat butt? Well, perhaps she should have had a tubal ligation. Same attitude from the woman who aborted 7 times. “My choice.” and “Don’t you dare judge me for them.” She never even used a condom.
Hal, Ray (and what the heck, Doug, too),
“Any idiot looking honestly at creation can see a designer’s hand.”
*
Someone above the level of idiot knows it’s more complicated than that, and more wondrous.
One truth stands firm. All that happens in world history rests on something spiritual. If the spiritual is strong, it creates world history. If it is weak, it suffers world history.
Albert Schweitzer
“Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.”
There is no more fundamental challenge than protecting a woman
“2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner AL GORE!”
Ah, sharing a prize once won by a murderer like Arafat, a fraud like Rigoberta Menchu and a communist apparatchik like Le Duc Tho…Gore would be in the sort of company he’s earned. what a joke.
Ah, sharing a prize once won by a murderer like Arafat, a fraud like Rigoberta Menchu and a communist apparatchik like Le Duc Tho…Gore would be in the sort of company he’s earned. what a joke.
Posted by: jasper at October 12, 2007 7:14 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…And MK’s hero Albert Schweitzer.
This possibly the strangest comment yet
…………………………………………………………….
A man contributes a sperm. Nothing else. The woman’s body creates a child if she wants it to.
Posted by: Sally at October 11, 2007 6:25 PM
Huh, what do you mean ” if she wants it to” ?
If all that were needed to prevent pregnancy were the woman’s will, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Enigma,
Of course there is consent for sex.
The lack of it is the basis for rape case.
The legal term is consensual sex.
States even have laws that say at what age someone may consent to sex.
No document is necessary for consent.
Have any of the Pro choicers watched “The Choice Blues?” Laura, I know you did, but you never aborted before. Any comments? I just couldn’t help but notice that Hal never came back.
“Have you watched the abortion video? please let us know what your thoughts are.”
can’t right now, too busy debating the creation of existance with Hisman. (thank God he’s back)
Seriously, though, I’m at work and would prefer to watch it later. I promise i will and get back to you all.
Posted by: Hal at October 11, 2007 5:41 PM
Hal, *shakes finger* are you making excuses? Okay, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Hi Ray.
“In fact, the preponderance of scientific evidence (fossil records, DNA analysis, etc.) suggests that these things evolved, more or less per the thinking of our friend, Charles Darwin.”
This is irrelevant to the existence of God debate. So many people create this false dichotomy between “evolution” and God’s existence. Evolution, whether it be the Stephen Jay Gould kind or Richard Dawkins kind is entirely compatible with orthodox Christianity, not to mention Theism. People also confuse Christianity with Theism, or Deism. I’m reading a book right now called “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller, who is a biologist at Brown. He shows how there is no contradiction, and how his study of evolution has increased his personal faith. We need to make sure that we understand both sides. God love you.
Laura,
2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner AL GORE!
Congrats Boyfriend!
Take away the Peace Prizes and what are you left with?
I rest my case.
Laura,
Take away the Peace Prizes and what are you left with?
Oh yes, that’s right, the inventor of the internet!
The human body has a structure that is inherent, not socially changeable, and the laws of its health are equally inherent and unchangeable, objective. The same is true of the soul. Virtue is simply health of soul. Justice, the overall virtue, is the harmony of the soul, as health is the harmony of the body. Justice is not just paying your debts, not just an external relationship between two or more people, but also and first of all the internal relationship within each individual among the parts of the soul.
The harmony is hierarchical, not egalitarian. When World follows Man, when within Man Body follows Soul, when within Soul Appetites follow Will and Will follows Reason (Wisdom), we have justice. When the hierarchy is inverted, we have injustice. Will leading Reason is rationalization and propaganda; Appetites leading Will is greed; Body leading Soul is animalism; World leading Man is unfreedom.
Peter Kreeft
“Back to Virtue”
Laura,
2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner AL GORE!
Congrats Boyfriend!
Take away the Peace Prizes and what are you left with?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The guy who won the Emmy, the Oscar, and the most votes in 2000.
Oh yes, that’s right, the inventor of the internet!
Posted by: mk at October 12, 2007 8:59 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where did Al Gore ever claim to have invented the internet? Certainly you have the quote.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
“I am God, I am in control and You have no say in the matter, go f…. yourself”
you finally understand me.
Posted by: Hal at October 11, 2007 12:57 PM********************** LOL! Hal, I know you were joking, but if you’re God then you shouldn’t have any problems telling us what you think about that abortion video.
There is no more fundamental challenge than protecting a woman
Do we make illegal acts legal in order to protect and accomidate the person breaking the law? Nevermind the flawed data and ancedotal evidence backing it nor the social-economical impact.
“Any idiot looking honestly at creation can see a designer’s hand.”
*
Someone above the level of idiot knows it’s more complicated than that, and more wondrous.
MK, here’s a good quote from Arthur C. Clarke:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
The bodily autonomy argument is a crock. It’s like shaking your fist towards God and saying, “I am God, I am in control and You have no say in the matter, go f…. yourself”.
The truth is we are very fragile creatures that are all dependent on more things than we can count on for survival. Food, air, gravity, relationships, shelter, etc., etc., etc.
If your heart stopped beating for just a little while you would die and you would have no say in the matter. Would you?
Does anyone have any idea who keeps our hearts beating?
Well, it’s God Himself at the control.
In fact, it’s God Himself who causes a human being to be concieved in the womb of a mother as an act of love and desire to give life and a directive of His Almighty will. There is no more direct statement by God Himself to us creatures than for Him to allow a baby to be conceived. Can you think of one? Abortion is a direct affront to that desire and an insult to an awesome God. All you pro-aborts should be mightily fearful of your destiny unless you change your ways.
So, all you pro-deathers who think they are in control of life itself, think again. You are a wink of an eye away from eternity and meeting a God who is described as a consuming fire.
Be careful what you say on this website representing it as truth because you will be held accoutable to a Holy God.
They say ignorance is bliss. No, ignorance is not bliss, it’s deadly.
Posted by: Hisman at October 11, 2007 12:08 PM
…………….
Mother is a Bible studied Christian descending from a long line of Reformationist ministers and theologians. She wanted lots of children. She ended up with 3 from her 9 prenancies. Deeply dissapointed and twice horrified by what she gave birth to, should she shake her fist and curse god for so obviously killing her ‘babies’?
Damn a woman for aborting but praise God for the same? Excuse me?
And give me a break. This web sight does not have some signifigance to anyone let alone a god. This is America. I will speak my own truth. Nothing you can do about it but censor me.
Heather, you asked for documented cases of coat hanger abortions – here’s two:
J Emerg Med. 1993 Jan-Feb;11(1):105-12. Related Articles, Links
Comment in:
J Emerg Med. 1993 Jan-Feb;11(1):94-5.
J Emerg Med. 1993 Jan-Feb;11(1):95-6.
Reemergence of self-induced abortions.
Honigman B, Davila G, Petersen J.
Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.
Two cases of adolescent females attempting self-induced abortions are presented. Many ramifications and complications of illegal abortions are discussed as they affect the patient and society. In addition, we discuss the future of medical education as well as the economic aspects of health care in relationship to illegal abortions.
PIP: Two case studies are presented which show the damaging effects of self-induced abortion. Both cases involved adolescents who were recently treated in the Emergency Medical Department of the University of Colorado Hospital. Case I involved a 16-year-old indigent girl who arrived with vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain. The self-induced abortion had been attempted with a coat hanger inserted into the cervical os some time in the 3 days before admission to the hospital. The reason for the attempt was lack of money for a therapeutic abortion. The patient presented with a blood pressure of 110/70 tore, pulse of 80 beats/min, respiration of 20 breaths/min, and temperature of 37.5 degrees Centigrade. Pelvic examination revealed muco-purulent drainage with marked cervical and bilateral adnexal tenderness. Laboratory white cell count was 6400 mm, hematocrit was 40.7, and a beta subunit human chorionic gonadotropin pregnancy test was negative. The patient may indeed not have been pregnant. Treatment involved administration of 250 mg ceftriaxone intramuscularly and oral doxycycline for pelvic inflammatory disease. The recovery was uneventful. Case II involved a 17-year-old female who had run into walls, hit herself in the abdomen, and bathed in vinegar and water. Her vital signs were good, physical examination revealed a well-nourished, well-developed gravid female in no acute distress. She was referred to Planned Parenthood, psychiatric counseling, and told to return if pains developed. She had the therapeutic abortion which she thought she could not afford. Of the 6 million pregnancies in the US, 56.5% are unintended. Figures on attempted self-induced abortion are unknown. These 2 cases of low income adolescents draw attention to issues that have not been addressed in medical literature in 15 years. A brief summary is provided on abortion availability and the history of self-induced abortion methods. Discussion is also directed to morbidity and mortality trends, the psychologic impact on the mother, the fiscal impact of illegal abortions and their complications, and future prospects in the US. Concern is raised that restrictive legislation on abortions will lead to increases in unwanted pregnancies and illegal abortions with their inevitable complications. These issues place emergency medicine and physicians in the center of the policy debate.