Torture: the new abortion?
Liberal columnist Rosa Brooks wrote a column in the Los Angeles Times on November 8 lauding the Republican Party for deemphasizing abortion while condemning it for supporting what she called torture, specifically waterboarding. Wikipedia described waterboarding as:
… is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent.
ABC News (and other venues) reported waterboarding led to the confessions by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed….
A current CIA official says that KSM actually told interrogators the only reason he confessed was because of the water-boarding.
But what if that one episode of water-boarding KSM had not occurred?…
Would the agency have eventually worn KSM down? Would the confessions have poured forth about Daniel Pearl’s beheading, about his role in the 1995 plot by his nephew, master bomber Ramzi Yousef, to assassinate Pope John Paul II during a visit to Manila, and detailed information about his role as mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks?
I digressed on the topic of waterboarding to show for one thing it’s really not torture. No one is hurt by it. They just perceive they will be. At most it could be called virtual torture.
Compare that to abortion, which always kills, and sometimes by torture. Against that backdrop wrote Brooks:
The good news? Abortion isn’t nearly as divisive an issue as it used to be. The bad news? For the GOP, torture is the new abortion….
Today… the GOP’s interest in abortion appears greatly diminished. When President Bush nominated Michael Mukasey as attorney general, no one seemed clear about Mukasey’s views on abortion – and no one in the GOP seemed to care very much either.
These days, you can forget that old-style GOP rhetoric about “values,” “human dignity” and the “culture of life.” Because the GOP has a new litmus test for its nominees: Will you or will you not protect U.S. officials who order the torture of prisoners?..
Far more than the abortion debate ever did, the debate about torture goes to the very heart of what (if anything) this country stands for. Do we want to be the nation imagined by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, a nation with “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” committed to a vision of human dignity and unalienable rights, limited government and the rule of law?
To that, Mark Finkelstein at Newsbusters responded:
Liberals wouldn’t lift a finger to stop the torturing to death of an unborn child. But put a terrorist [or a baby seal, for that matter] in the block and watch them spring into sensitive-soul mode….
Brooks finesses the fact that we’re not talking about garden-variety “prisoners” here, but a select handful of terrorists….
[Brooks] cites the Declaration only for purposes of opposing torture, blithely ignoring the implications for abortion in that same Declaration’s acknowledgement of an unalienable right to life.
Let’s review the liberal moral compass:Waterboarding a terrorist: an affront to our fundamental values. Subjecting an unborn child to partial-birth abortion: we celebrate a woman’s right to choose!
To put things in perspective, and at the risk of being reductive, let me offer this challenge to Rosa Brooks. I’ll call water boarding “torture” if she’ll say the same about partial birth abortion.
I appreciate Finkelstein’s willingness to concede a point to get concession of a greater point from pro-aborts. I’d like to see what they have to say.
And back to the topic of waterboarding, Finkelstein linked to this question and challenge from the Patterico’s Pontifications blogger:
My simple question is this: based on these hypothetical facts, was the waterboarding session [of KSM] worth it?
Conservatives, your mission in this thread is simple: try to keep the liberals on point.
[HT: moderator jasper]
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.
You are aware that 99.9% of all information gleaned by torture is crap?
It’s just a melange of whatever facts the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear in order to make the pain stop. The 5-star generals who testified before congress declared that NO reliable information had ever been attained through torture.
You have no evidence that any z/e/f has EVER experienced any sensation during an abortion. yet you condone the torture of real live people. It’s that “life starts at conception and ends at birth” standard all over again.
Torture and False Confessions
Full Coverage: American Torture
There is a scene in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four where the torturer, identified as O’Brien, has rigged up would-be revolutionary Winston to a machine that creates unimaginable torment. “How many fingers am I holding up?” O’Brien asks him as he holds up one hand with four fingers extended. “Four,” Winston replies. “And if the party says that it is not four but five, how many?” O’Brien asks. “Four,” Winston responds again. O’Brien cranks up the machine and interrogates Winston over and over until he does, in fact, see five fingers.
And that’s how torture generates confessions.
Last week, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed allegedly confessed to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, coordinating planned attacks on 16 other countries, and personally killing Daniel Pearl. But he seems to have no real idea how the 9/11 hijackers were recruited, it is unlikely that al-Qaeda would have had one person orchestrate attacks in 17 countries from a single location, and there is videotaped evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did not, in fact, kill Daniel Pearl. So what are we to make of this? Reuters quotes the experts:Robert Baer, a former official at the Central Intelligence Agency, said Mohammed’s rambling testimony raised suspicions about his treatment by CIA interrogators.
He cited the alleged practice of “waterboarding”, a technique to extract confession by submerging a prisoner and making him think he is about to drown.
“Once you rough up a witness with waterboarding, they figure out what narrative you want and that’s the narrative they tell. And that suspicion is always going to be out there. That’s what we’re left with,” Baer said.Waterboarding has traditionally been referred to as water torture. President Bush admitted that the CIA had been using controversial “interrogation techniques” on Mohammed in a September 2006 speech, and Vice President Dick Cheney notoriously approved of water torture in a radio interview a month later. It seems reasonably certain that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has in fact been tortured in a secret CIA prison over the past four years, and it should surprise nobody that he is telling the CIA what he thinks they want to hear.
This is not to say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did not play a significant role in planning the 9/11 attacks. There is good intelligence suggesting that he did. But in his latest round of confessions, he took credit for planning the attacks “from A to Z”–something that he would probably not have been able to do from outside the United States. And to present himself as the global mastermind of al-Qaeda only serves to distract Americans from the real al-Qaeda leader: Osama bin Laden, who remains frustratingly beyond our reach.
It could also be helpful to President Bush’s sagging approval ratings–which leaves us to consider the disturbing possibility that the administration “amped up” the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to serve a political, rather than counterterrorism, agenda.
I have no sympathy for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but his confessions, which range from unlikely to demonstrably false, only serve to demonstrate why torture is as ineffective as it is inhumane. It is a sad testimony to what fear of terrorism has done to our government when officials can capture someone, stick him in a secret prison and torture him for four years until he says what the administration believes the American people want to hear, and tout this as a sign of progress. To quote from O’Brien’s speech in Nineteen Eighty-Four:The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had done … Before they exposed their victims to public trial, they deliberately set themselves to destroy their dignity. They wore them down by torture and solitude until they were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put into their mouths, covering themselves with abuse, accusing and sheltering behind one another, whimpering for mercy.This is not the American way. We were a better country than this before 9/11–and we must become that country again.
Torture is wrong in all circumstances all the time.
Likewise no one has proved that an unborn baby feels no pain.
Generally when there is a chance that someone may possibly feel pain, anesthesia or pain relief is supplied, with the exception of unborn children. Since they can’t complain, any pain is disregarded and ignored.
Torture should be prohibited at all times. It is wrong.
Abortion should be prohibited as well. It is wrong, too.
That “liberal” anon was me.
My definition of “torture” is watching the Jim Carrey movie “The Cable Guy.”
Laura said, “You have no evidence that any z/e/f has EVER experienced any sensation during an abortion. yet you condone the torture of real live people. It’s that “life starts at conception and ends at birth” standard all over again.”
Laura, do have any evidence they don’t?
The difference between the people tortured and babies tortured is this: The terrorists are monsters who have committed crimes and/or planning to kill as many as they can…the baby (or z/e/f, as you call it) is innocent…has not done anything wrong!
I don’t think Jill was condoning waterboarding but explaining that it doesn’t do permanent damage whereas abortion does to permanent damage.
Laura, do have any evidence they don’t?
The difference between the people tortured and babies tortured is this: The terrorists are monsters who have committed crimes and/or planning to kill as many as they can
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You KNOW that those people are terrorists and criminals? You KNOW that they are murderers?
I guess if you have that information there’s no need to torture anybody!
Hi Laura.
“You have no evidence that any z/e/f has EVER experienced any sensation during an abortion”
Here’s what I know. When my wife was pregnant with our baby at 12 weeks, the baby scurried away from the doppler. I don’t know what that means. But from that time on and every time on without fail, my baby would try and get away from the doppler. Is it annoying? Is it loud? I don’t know, but I do know that there was something about it that made my unborn 12 week old not want to be around it. I think this happens with most pregnant women, and so it must point to some feeling of undesirableness that the baby experiences. I don’t know, it’s just a thought.
Does anyone have a problem with Jasper’s Quote of the Day?
I’m trying to figure out why it’s notable.
Another reason to to keep torture illegal would be the Bush Administration’s penchant for failure and bad judgment:
U.S. lawmakers apologize to Canadian torture victim
Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:16pm ET
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. lawmakers on Thursday offered apologies to a Canadian citizen who was deported by U.S. counterterrorism officials to Syria, where he says he was imprisoned and tortured.
Lawmakers from both parties also called on the Bush administration to apologize to Maher Arar, a Syrian-born software engineer still barred from entering the United States even though the Canadian government has cleared him of any links to terrorist groups.
“Our country made a mistake and has been unwilling to own up to it,” California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said. “It reflects an arrogance I don’t like to see in our government.”
An administration official said she was not aware of any plans for the White House to issue an apology to Arar.
Arar described his ordeal to the House of Representatives Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees via video link.
“The America I see and hear about today is not the same America I admired when I lived there from 1999 to 2001,” he said.
Arar was arrested during a stopover in New York in 2002 on his way home to Canada from a holiday and was deported to Syria. He says he was tortured during the year he spent in Damascus jails. Continued…
Laura said, “You KNOW that those people are terrorists and criminals? You KNOW that they are murderers?
I guess if you have that information there’s no need to torture anybody!”
Really? So if they have info that they’re too “proud” or “stubborn” to give up, how, Laura, would you suggest we do it? What is torture to some, is not torture to all, as I’m sure you will agree.
“I don’t think Jill was condoning waterboarding but explaining that it doesn’t do permanent damage whereas abortion does to permanent damage.”
@Jacqueline: One could argue that the psychological abuse that occurs during waterboarding causes permanent psychological damage. Torture doesn’t always have to be physical.
I think it’s just a diversion the dems are using to take the heat off of the abortion issue. I can’t believe the GOP is falling right into its hands. Not surprising, though, with the zeal the dems have for embryonic stem cell research..bringing the “torture as the new abortion” into the forefront, it should send this research “under the radar”, if you will!
Terrorists have killed 4000 since 2001.
Abortionists have killed 4000 since yesterday.
Obviously one is a greater threat than the other.
Does anyone have a problem with Jasper’s Quote of the Day? I’m trying to figure out why it’s notable.
Laura, it may be one of the less notable ones, but I think it’s interesting, as if there’s no necessary advantage for Hillary in being female.
I wonder about that – there are lots of people who aren’t going to vote for her just on the basis of her being a woman, and others simply have a visceral attitude towards her, practically an instinctive “hate,” for whatever reasons.
However, I bet there are a whole slew of people who would vote for her just because it’d really be a change. After the Bush/Clinton regime we’ve had, I could understand that quite well; yes, even though she’s a “Clinton.”
Doug
Old Khalid Sheikh Mohammed looks like a Bulgarian woman I once knew.
Laura,
You are such a big talker. I think you should spend some time in an abortion clinic and count the pieces of the babies as they are pulled out.
Again, I will ask the question. If a baby survives an abortion attempt and is born alive would it be ok for the Dr. to then rip it apart limb by limb, decapitate it, or stab the back of his head and suck the brains out??
Would you be opposed to studying this method of abortion?? If this were done, then Dr.s’ would know more about babies responses as they are being murdered. Or maybe this would be considered torture.
If you are for ripping babies apart in the uterus, I would think you would ok with ripping babies apart outside the uterus. What is the difference??
Any PCer feel free to answer.
Doug,
A vote for Hillary would be a vote for
“Hill-Billy”…let’s keep that in mind!
A vote for Hillary would be a vote for
“Hill-Billy”…let’s keep that in mind!
Laura, in some ways, yes, but in many others nope.
I would just LOVE to know the secret to keeping organge makeup off of a high, white collar like that…how does she do it?
Laura- lots and lots of powder. That’s how we keep stage makeup from staining elaborate costumes.
Erin,
Thanks! I’ll have to invest in some (or keep wearing dark colors!) hey, “If the barn has to be painted…PAINT THE BARN!” ya’ know! :)
In regards to torture, I just want to put my two cents in.
I don’t know what 5-star general would testify before Congress about this since there are no 5-star generals in service. The last General to hold 5-star rank was Omar Bradley, who died in 1981.
When I was in the Marines I went to POW school in Warner Springs, CA. Among the many things they teach you in POW school is how to resist torture and interrogation sessions if you are captured in a time of war.
The principle to use in resisting torture is like a thin tree. When torture starts, you give just enough information to make them stop (the tree bends over)torturing you, then you “snap” back to normal when they are satisfied. Of course this pattern repeats as your torturers take the information you have given them and they match it up with other intel or resources they have and realize you have not told them everything.
The reason the American military is taught to use this method is because torture is effective almost 100% of the time and that your captors would eventually get all the information they need out of you anyways. This tree method is the best way to slow the amount of information the enemy has about you and the units you are fighting with. It has less to do with helping you out in a bad situation than it has to do with not compromising the overall security and mission of military units in the area. If I remember correctly, we were told that only 1 in a million men were able to resist torture.
Air Force pilots in the Vietnam war who were shot down were immediately dragged to a torture center so the NVA could learn where the next days bombing targets were. The Air Force finally figured out what was happening and started briefing the pilots about where they were going the morning of their missions.
I guess my point is that if anyone in the military is testifying that torture is ineffective and should not be used, then that person is testifying to political correctness more than anything else. Of course it’s effective. Why do you think so many regimes and governments use it?
Note that I am not commenting on the morality of such acts and whether or not the US should engage in them.
I would think you would ok with ripping babies apart outside the uterus. What is the difference?
Sandy, if a baby is viable and already born, then the woman not wanting to be pregnant is not an issue, the opposite of the case with the abortion issue.
I guess my point is that if anyone in the military is testifying that torture is ineffective and should not be used, then that person is testifying to political correctness more than anything else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are a few military men who disagree with you. I don’t think they’re very interested in “political correctness.”
http://www.essentialliberties.com/archives/000901.php
There is an alternative. A newer kind off lie detector makes lying impossible. The neural pathways any lie takes and the truth takes are different. It is this ‘difference’ that the device notes.
A person need not verbalize any answer. The machine will record the response even prior to verbalization. Described in the softcover edition of ‘The Brain: The Final Frontier’ by Richard Restack
Why should anyone have to admit to anything about abortion in order for Finkelstein to admit that waterboarding is torture? It either is or it isn’t (hint: it is. The U.S. used to recognize that, before our leaders decided this was something they wanted to do. Kind of like Planned Parenthood recognizing that “abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun” in 1963, before they decided they wanted to start doing it.)
The moral inconsistency of the anti-torture, pro-abortion stance doesn’t get anti-abortion, pro-torture advocates off the hook for their own inconsistency.
I’m also kind of amazed that conservatives, who claim to be mistrustful of government, trust the government to never torture the wrong person, or torture for anything less than the most lofty reasons.
By the way, KSM confessed to all kinds of stuff. How do you know that any of it’s accurate? And if you have enough information to verify whether his confessions are true or not, then you have enough information that you don’t “need” to torture him.
Erin,
Do you just do straight plays or do you do musicals as well? Which shows have you done? Sorry to be off topic..I just read that Erin is a theater person so I was just curious.
Considering the fact that Laura believes in karma, and “absolutely believes in what goes around comes around”, KSM got exactly what Laura believes in. What goes around came around for KSM. Or would more exact karma, would have been beheading him and putting it on video?
Did you torture KSM, soldier?
No sir,I was administering the principle of Laura the Lamia, what goes around comes around Sir.
So your reason was you were a karmic agent soldier?
Yes sir, nothing more and nothing less then a agent of Karma. Torture is niether right nor wrong sir.
Case dismissed.
John McDonell,
Great. So we can sense when they are lying about something, but how do we get the details out? For instance, dates, times, places, etc?
Elizabeth- I have primarily worked in musicals, but I’ve done a couple of straight plays as well. I played Katherina in Taming of the Shrew a couple years ago, and Laura in Glass Menagerie, but that’s it. Musicals…hah, I’ve done so much. My favorties have probably been playing the Witch in Into the Woods, Bonnie in Anything Goes(learning to tap dance for that was BRUTAL- but SO much fun), the time I got to sing in the chorus in a professionally produced La Traviata, Eponine in Les Miserables, and one of those millions times I’ve played Annie(actually, it’s only been 4, but boy does it feel like more than that).
The worst show I’ve ever been in was Wizard of Oz when I played Glinda and Auntie Em. I HATED it.
Andrew, that’s interesting b/c I always thought the government basically said “Don’t tell.” Which to me didn’t make much sense since I’d talk if they gave me a paper cut.
But I completely agree (without the moral right or wrong) that torture does work because, yes, why would almost every country use it?!
As an on-topic post, I will condone torture only in the most radically desperate circumstances. What’s going on at Guantanamo, for instance, is INSANE. It’s absolutely ridiculous and cruel. I think torture is all right in one circumstance- there are no other possible leads, there is a severe time constraint, and there is no doubt WHATSOEVER that the party is involved.
Also, the strains that torture causes physically and emotionally are dangerous. Stress positions, for example, can eventually lead to congenital heart failure.
Torture should not be the generic method of getting people to ‘talk’. It should be used with extreme prejudice and caution. There should never, ever be an instance where an innocent person is tortured.
Torture is wrong all the time.
If it is effective, it is wrong.
If it is not effective, it is wrong.
If the person is guilty, it is wrong.
If the person is not guilty it is wrong.
If the person is themself a torturer, it is wrong.
Likewise abortion is wrong.
It is wrong if mom is poor or rich or neither.
It is wrong if she is sane, stressed, distressed, or insane.
It is wrong if baby is healthy or unhealthy.
No one deserves torture or death at someone else’s hand, even if they are not “good”
Sandy, if a baby is viable and already born, then the woman not wanting to be pregnant is not an issue, the opposite of the case with the abortion issue.
Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2007 2:37 PM
Not at all Doug. It is a huge issue. If a mother decides to have an abortion she has decided to have her baby murdered. Viable or barely viable babies as in Jill’s story are born alive and left to die or they may survive an abortion attempt and be born alive. Either way their mother’s chose to have them murdered.
So why not instead of letting these babies live for 3-10 hours just to die anyway, just tear them apart limb from limb, decapitate them, or gouge scissors into their head once they are delivered. The medical profession could study this method as research to try and figure out if these babies really feel pain or not. Would you consider this type of research study torture? The same techniques to murder these babies are being used to murder them inutero.
What’s the difference if they are murdered inside the womb or outside the womb?
Not only is torture morally wrong and completely ineffective, but it also saddens me to no end when people try to make distinctions in order to sanction it.
“Torture but not really torture” IS STILL FREAKING TORTURE. Saying “…but it’s not like we are chopping heads off” is MORAL RELATIVISM. It’s TOTALLY hypocritical to be against the torture of the unborn but not the torture of the born.
I wonder why we think it is okay to torture people who are a different race than us. I mean, if our boys were being waterboarded, I have no doubt there will be outrages. Even our own criminals are not subject to them. Why is it different? Because they are arabic? Most of the people that are arrested aren’t even definitively linked to a crime. There is no evidence to the claim that these people are guaranteed terrorists.
We also send people off to countries that torture heavily–but that doesn’t count, right, because Americans aren’t the one doing it.
This is so sad to me. If you want to call yourselves pro-life, don’t try to justify torture. It’s an assault on your own character.
Jac,
” don’t think Jill was condoning waterboarding but explaining that it doesn’t do permanent damage whereas abortion does to permanent damage.”
No, she is absolutely condoning it.
“I digressed on the topic of waterboarding to show for one thing it’s really not torture.”
So it’s okay, because it only places a physical and emotional burden the person but it leaves no permanent damage, so, it’s sorta torture but not really, so it doesn’t matter whether we do it or not. Saying “okay” or “oh well” is similar to people who are pro-choice that say “well I wouldn’t do it, but it’s up to them!”
“Really? So if they have info that they’re too “proud” or “stubborn” to give up, how, Laura, would you suggest we do it?”
Emotional manipulation, using the jealousy or hatred of another jailmate against them, rewards systems, building rapport or promise in return…
We don’t waterboard in the US and for some reason we are still pretty good a catching criminals! What do you know!
“I guess my point is that if anyone in the military is testifying that torture is ineffective and should not be used, then that person is testifying to political correctness more than anything else. Of course it’s effective. Why do you think so many regimes and governments use it?”
In 1983, the CIA’s “Human Resource Exploitation Manual” said, “Use of force…can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.” Joe Navarro said that threats “taint information gained from sessions…the only thing that torture guarantees is pain, it never guarantees the truth.” Roger Bokroas, a retired military interrogator, tried to stop harsh treatment at Abu Ghraib and later testified, “Whenever you use harsh treatments you are more likely to get false information just to stop the treatment.” At Gurantanamo, an FBI interrogator wrote, “He was taken to the ‘dark place.’ At the ‘dark place,’ a hood was placed over his head and he was yelled at and beaten. [Name redacted] stated that because of this treatement at the hands of his captor, he provided interrogators with whatever information that they wanted to hear.” Craig Murray, then the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, sent a diplomatic cable protesting the harsh interrogations conducted for the US: “We recieve intelligence obtained under torture from Uzbek intelligence services via the U.S. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe…I repeat that this material is useless- we are selling our souls for dross.”
[Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror}
why do so many governments use it?
Which governments use it, and what does that say about the government? You know, because of torture, some torturing countries have said that the US has no right to call out the human rights abuses on others. We have lost much of our international credit because of it.
Kristen:
But I completely agree (without the moral right or wrong) that torture does work because, yes, why would almost every country use it?!
I don’t agree that almost every country does. And torture “works” in some ways. Not in the way that they’re trying to sell to us — gathering needed intelligence — but it does work to get people to confess (to things they may or may not have done) and to keep people scared by showing that we’re willing to be brutal. Unfortunately, it also works to deaden our own consciences and make people hate us.
Hi Laura.
“You have no evidence that any z/e/f has EVER experienced any sensation during an abortion”
Here’s what I know. When my wife was pregnant with our baby at 12 weeks, the baby scurried away from the doppler. I don’t know what that means. But from that time on and every time on without fail, my baby would try and get away from the doppler. Is it annoying? Is it loud? I don’t know, but I do know that there was something about it that made my unborn 12 week old not want to be around it. I think this happens with most pregnant women, and so it must point to some feeling of undesirableness that the baby experiences. I don’t know, it’s just a thought.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 12, 2007 12:07 PM
………………………………….
You have a vivid imagination Bobbie. Newborn babies are incapable of scurrying away from anything. To imagine a 12 week fetus capable of experiencing anything is a bit over the top.
War isn’t fair….there are no rules…when one is engaged in war, or warlike behavior, they need to understand this.
Abortion is not a war…it is torturous murder of an innocent person for self-centered reasons..
Hey Laura,”
use the device with … a series of maps – just closing in on the mark should be enough … and for timing how about pointing to a calendar + clock? No need for a verbal response.
PiP:
torture is like rape – just as rape has almost no sexual content for the rapist … accurate information is NOT why people torture. It is the main way of saying who is in charge. If you do not know, just ask a person broken by torture? Very similar to the abused child continuously returning to the parent-abuser.
Andrew, if Sally shows up, ask her about her perfect military organization.
Statement by Sally.
“If I join a military organization it’s PERFECTLY okey dokey to to kill anyone who’s life is deemed of no value”.
She might be a good xo for Laura, the five star general, who commanded the Big Red One at the battle of the Karmic forest.
I don’t think Jill was condoning waterboarding but explaining that it doesn’t do permanent damage whereas abortion does to permanent damage.
Posted by: Jacqueline at November 12, 2007 11:49 AM
………………………………………….
For a person who believes that choosing to have a medical procedure causes serious mental illness for the person choosing, this pronouncement is ridiculous.
Does anyone have a problem with Jasper’s Quote of the Day?
I’m trying to figure out why it’s notable.
Posted by: Laura at November 12, 2007 12:08 PM
………………………………..
It certainly makes no point.
Sally,
I want medical proof that this is not true.
How do you know?
I have heard the same thing Bobby experienced many times from parents who get ultrasounds done and their babies move away.
Care to answer my question regarding research to determine if babies feel pain?
“You have a vivid imagination Bobbie.”
Thank you kindly. What do you think she’s doing? Once we pick up the heartbeat, we can’t hear it about 3 seconds later. We find the heartbeat again, it’s gone 3 seconds later. I was just saying. I’m open to other conjectures. Certainly what I said was not scientific, it was just an observation.
“To imagine a 12 week fetus capable of experiencing anything is a bit over the top.”
Oh, I love Over the Top! Nothing like Sylvester Stallone winning the love and affection of his estranged son via arm wrestling.
I agree with the statements above that indicate that torture is immoral and should not be used. We went through this waterboarding technique at the POW School “Prison Camp” and I can tell you that it is insanely effective.
However, torture is not considered the ideal or best way to gather information. It is usually used as a means to corroborate or confirm something that the interrogator already knows or suspects. This is important in times of war when one side can make an educated guess about the movement of armies or the intentiosns of the enemy but is not 100% sure exactly what is going to happen.
When several people from the same unit are interrogated and their answers contain elements of commonality, this is intelligence that can be used, even if some of those being tortured give false answers. The interrogators will know who is giving false answers and continue to work on them. This can be easily done in a manner that does not let the person who is being tortured know what kind of answers are expected.
This is what we learned and experienced at POW school. If you can take the torture and continue to give fake answers, God bless you, but that would be the exception rather than the rule.
I think it’s just a diversion the dems are using to take the heat off of the abortion issue. I can’t believe the GOP is falling right into its hands. Not surprising, though, with the zeal the dems have for embryonic stem cell research..bringing the “torture as the new abortion” into the forefront, it should send this research “under the radar”, if you will!
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 12:40 PM
…………………………………………………….
I find your thinking to be quite ill. To even entertain the absolute impossiblity of an embryo to feel anything to torturing a living, breathing being is really sick in my estimation. Abortion is horrid but abusing the sensate is just groovy? How do you justify such thinking?
“War isn’t fair….there are no rules…when one is engaged in war, or warlike behavior, they need to understand this. ”
No rules, but we definately need to stop human rights abuses when they occur. See: the UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International.
“It is the main way of saying who is in charge.”
If the only reason we torture is just to say that the US is the bad boy in charge then I see no earthly reason to continue it.
prettyinpink said, “Emotional manipulation, using the jealousy or hatred of another jailmate against them, rewards systems, building rapport or promise in return…”
yeah, maybe we can give them a candy bar and a great big hug when we’re done, too! Are you forgetting what type of world we live in? PLEASE!
What the US needs to do is to shut it’s mouth on certain topics, leave them confidential, & don’t let other countries/liberals here know what the heck they’re doing!
prettyinpink also said, “This is so sad to me. If you want to call yourselves pro-life, don’t try to justify torture. It’s an assault on your own character.”
How? I don’t believe torture to get info out of them is killing anyone. Torturous abortion, however, is. My character is fine, thank you!
What the US needs to do is to shut it’s mouth on certain topics, leave them confidential, & don’t let other countries/liberals here know what the heck they’re doing!
So our government shouldn’t be accountable to anyone, including its own citizens? (Liberals *are* still considered citizens, right?)
Laura,
You are such a big talker. I think you should spend some time in an abortion clinic and count the pieces of the babies as they are pulled out.
Again, I will ask the question. If a baby survives an abortion attempt and is born alive would it be ok for the Dr. to then rip it apart limb by limb, decapitate it, or stab the back of his head and suck the brains out??
Would you be opposed to studying this method of abortion?? If this were done, then Dr.s’ would know more about babies responses as they are being murdered. Or maybe this would be considered torture.
If you are for ripping babies apart in the uterus, I would think you would ok with ripping babies apart outside the uterus. What is the difference??
Any PCer feel free to answer.
Posted by: Sandy at November 12, 2007 12:50 PM
…………………………………………
The vast majority of abortions are performed before there are ‘parts’ to rip apart. If you believe that vacuum aspiration is strong enough to tear an embryo to bits, imagine what it must do to the woman’s uterous! Or do you think uterii are made of steel?
You PL folk spend lots of time freaking over late term abortions that are performed to end wanted pregnancies for very sad reasons. LIke fetal demise.
Aboriton is the termination of a pregnancy. If a fetus survives the termination of a pregnancy it is called live birth. Do you realize that hydrocephalic fetii can have heads the size of basketballs? How do you propose the removal of such a non viable fetus? Ripping the woman open? Why do you have a problem with preserving the woman’s ability to deliver future pregnancies? How does your imagination allow you to equate abortion to dismembering living babies?
When is comes to war…absoluteley! I feel that too much info is being leaked out to people who make a big, friggin’ deal about something as physically harmless, like waterboarding. I would love to hear you far-left whackos on TV talking about the “right to kill” innocent babies, and then talk about how bad waterboarding is. It would make GREAT TV!
OK, so when it comes to war, no accountability. Government is to be trusted absolutely. Check.
P.S. Not all of us “far-left whackos” are for abortion. Some of us think that both babies and prisoners have human rights and dignity that should not be violated.
I find your thinking to be quite ill. To even entertain the absolute impossiblity of an embryo to feel anything to torturing a living, breathing being is really sick in my estimation. Abortion is horrid but abusing the sensate is just groovy? How do you justify such thinking?
Posted by: Sally at November 12, 2007 4:36 PM
Sally,
Does the picture of the aborted baby look anything like an embryo? This baby was a living being just like you. To think this aborted baby was not tortured and murdered is really sick in my estimation. How do you justify such thinking?
Care to answer my question on research to determine if babies feel pain while being dismembered or decaptited??
Gee everyone seems to keep ignoring it.
How do you justify such thinking?
Posted by: Sally at November 12, 2007 4:36 PM
By using a rational thought process that does not interpret waterboarding as physical torture..Emotional, yes..but I’m sure these big, bad boys can handle that, right? I mean, the next day they’ll just slice someone’s head off & have no emotional recourse.
Can you justify yours?
War isn’t fair….there are no rules…when one is engaged in war, or warlike behavior, they need to understand this.
Abortion is not a war…it is torturous murder of an innocent person for self-centered reasons..
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 4:26 PM
……………………………………………………….
Please demonstrate how an embryo is capable of being tortured. Or an early term fetus for that matter. Do you consider being squeezed through the birth canal to be an act of torture?
Some of us think that both babies and prisoners have human rights and dignity that should not be violated.
Posted by: Jen R at November 12, 2007 4:54 PM
OK, stand there with a straight face in front of the families of the 9-11 victims & tell them that. Then, make sure you duck…the stones will be flying!!!
The threat of violence from angry, grief-stricken people is a poor substitute for an argument.
You have a vivid imagination Bobbie.”
Thank you kindly. What do you think she’s doing? Once we pick up the heartbeat, we can’t hear it about 3 seconds later. We find the heartbeat again, it’s gone 3 seconds later. I was just saying. I’m open to other conjectures. Certainly what I said was not scientific, it was just an observation.
“To imagine a 12 week fetus capable of experiencing anything is a bit over the top.”
Oh, I love Over the Top! Nothing like Sylvester Stallone winning the love and affection of his estranged son via arm wrestling.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 12, 2007 4:32 PM
…………………………………………..
LOL! You are so cute Bobbie!
It really is impossible for a 12 week fetus to consciously do anything. When your baby arrives you’ll see what I mean. It’s a while before a baby is capable of acting upon any desire. A 12 week fetus is incapable of feeling desire.
Please demonstrate how an embryo is capable of being tortured. Or an early term fetus for that matter. Do you consider being squeezed through the birth canal to be an act of torture?
Posted by: Sally at November 12, 2007 4:58 PM
I’m not doing your homework for you… I believe Sandy asked you this question…yes, please answer!
Per Sally:
“You PL folk spend lots of time freaking over late term abortions that are performed to end wanted pregnancies for very sad reasons. LIke fetal demise.”
Again Sally, if a baby has died in the womb and needs to be removed this is not considered an abortion. Get your facts straight.”
Late term abortions occur all the time for unwanted pregnancies so quit propoganding the fact that they don’t.
Per Sally:
“If a fetus survives the termination of a pregnancy it is called live birth.”
So if it survives and the mother wants it dead, why not kill it by dismemberment or decapitation etc…. this method is used all the time when the baby is inutero. What’s the difference?
Per Sally:
“How does your imagination allow you to equate abortion to dismembering living babies?”
If they are dismembered inside the womb why not outside? I am just asking.
I find your thinking to be quite ill. To even entertain the absolute impossiblity of an embryo to feel anything to torturing a living, breathing being is really sick in my estimation. Abortion is horrid but abusing the sensate is just groovy? How do you justify such thinking?
Posted by: Sally at November 12, 2007 4:36 PM
Sally,
Does the picture of the aborted baby look anything like an embryo? This baby was a living being just like you. To think this aborted baby was not tortured and murdered is really sick in my estimation. How do you justify such thinking?
Care to answer my question on research to determine if babies feel pain while being dismembered or decaptited??
Gee everyone seems to keep ignoring it.
Posted by: Sandy at November 12, 2007 4:57 PM
………………………………………….
Care to post the actual circumstances of the photo? My niece had an abortion at 25 weeks a few years back. Umbilical cord accident. I imagine that the fetus looked much like the photo after the procedure. My niece’s ability to gestate a future pregnancy was preserved and she has the lovliest 1 year old now. Please prove that the ‘baby’ in the photo was ever capable of feeling anything.
The threat of violence from angry, grief-stricken people is a poor substitute for an argument.
Posted by: Jen R at November 12, 2007 5:02 PM
My point, Jen R, was that these are two seperate issues. One, is a terrorist, and one is an innocent baby. The terrorist should be coddled while the baby can be torn into shreds, or have a skewer stuck in its brain? I understand that you may be anti-abortion, but giving a terrorist dignity? Come on!
“When your baby arrives you’ll see what I mean. It’s a while before a baby is capable of acting upon any desire. A 12 week fetus is incapable of feeling desire.”
I realize that newborns do very, very little, but they certainly feel, say, cold. My friends 4 week old was noticeably quivering her upper lip after they took her out of the bath. Even though she can’t communicate directly to us, I assume she was cold.
I’m not saying I think a 12 week old fetus can feel desire, but she used to do something based on something else consistently. Yes, correlation does not imply causation, etc etc. It seems to point to something. I mean, can you either give a reason why it doesn’t point to something or an alternative explanation? I’m open to whatever it might mean, I don’t “need a 12 week old fetus to feel pain” in order to justify not supporting abortion. I have no ulterior motive in stating what I originally did. Just an observation.
How do you justify such thinking?
Posted by: Sally at November 12, 2007 4:36 PM
By using a rational thought process that does not interpret waterboarding as physical torture..Emotional, yes..but I’m sure these big, bad boys can handle that, right? I mean, the next day they’ll just slice someone’s head off & have no emotional recourse.
Can you justify yours?
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 4:57 PM
…………………………………………………………..
When the body is being used in the torture, it is physical torture. If there is any evidence that any of the tortured have actually murdered anyone the torture would be redundant. That is simple logic. Assumptions are your justification.
“yeah, maybe we can give them a candy bar and a great big hug when we’re done, too! Are you forgetting what type of world we live in? PLEASE!”
No, we give them prison privelages, extra food, etc.
But you know what? I agree. We should start torturing in our own prisons. That’ll be a way to get prosecution. Down with dignity!
“What the US needs to do is to shut it’s mouth on certain topics, leave them confidential, & don’t let other countries/liberals here know what the heck they’re doing!”
Yeah, because accountability about torture or human rights violations is totally consistent with the US’s ideals.
“How? I don’t believe torture to get info out of them is killing anyone. Torturous abortion, however, is. My character is fine, thank you!”
You believe in the inherent human dignity of unborn children, of Americans, but Arab suspects have no dignity or human rights.
I think there is an inconsistency here.
What kind of world are we living in when human rights only matter to the unborn? If pro-life is a philosophy, it must apply to everybody’s life.
“(Liberals *are* still considered citizens, right?)”
No, civil liberties are only for people who agree iwth their government. Those who don’t should be tried and hanged for treason.
“Aboriton is the termination of a pregnancy.”
And torture is the termination of human rights and dignity.
Sounds like a great connection to me.
“By using a rational thought process that does not interpret waterboarding as physical torture..Emotional, yes”
Then you admit it’s torture! Why don’t you tell that to the US Government!
” I mean, the next day they’ll just slice someone’s head off & have no emotional recourse.”
A. They will probably be recovering from their injuries in a damp, dirty, resistant TB-ridden prison the next day
B. Two wrongs make two wrongs. They don’t make a right. Revenge is not sweet. Revenge is not right. Justice is different. Justice does not include revoking the human rights and dignity of another person.
There are families who fight against the death penalty for someone who murdered a family member. Again, rage and wrath is different than justice.
“The threat of violence from angry, grief-stricken people is a poor substitute for an argument.”
Right on.
Laura, ever heard of Imago Dei?
oops, *non-accountability
If your nieces baby died inutero of an Umbilical cord accident and they removed the already dead baby, you can not call this abortion nor equate it to women who choose abortion to end the life of their baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HELLLOOOOOO?????? HHEELLOOOOOO???????
Not to mention the fact that many women choose to birth their babies naturally when this happens. You don’t need to perform a medical procedure to remove a baby who has died during pregnancy. And yes, Sally we all know about your mother in the 1960s who carried dead babies in her uterus for months. No need to go into that tired old argument.
Please prove that the baby in the photo didn’t feel any pain. Again, let’s try to prove your postion that these babies don’t feel anything. Would you agree to a research study on live aborted babies to try and determine this???? Answer the question. I would think you would be all for it since you don’t think they feel pain, what’s the harm?
Please demonstrate how an embryo is capable of being tortured. Or an early term fetus for that matter. Do you consider being squeezed through the birth canal to be an act of torture?
Posted by: Sally at November 12, 2007 4:58 PM
I’m not doing your homework for you… I believe Sandy asked you this question…yes, please answer!
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 5:05 PM
…………………………………………….
Umm ok. You know that embryos and early term fetii are incapable of recognizing the sensation of pain. Because you have done your homework.
The terrorist should be coddled while the baby can be torn into shreds, or have a skewer stuck in its brain?
I could have sworn I said that shouldn’t happen to a baby. And “not torturing” =/= “coddling”. Also, don’t assume that everyone we’ve tortured is a terrorist.
I understand that you may be anti-abortion, but giving a terrorist dignity? Come on!
Yes.
You know why? Because we’re supposed to be better than people who torture and kill. Because protecting everyone’s life and human dignity, even when it’s hard — especially when it’s hard — is the right thing to do.
Anybody can be decent to their friends. It takes real moral strength to be decent to your enemies. I’m not a Christian, but I understand Jesus had something to say on the subject.
Sandy: Not at all Doug. It is a huge issue. If a mother decides to have an abortion she has decided to have her baby murdered.
No – you may not like abortion but your opinion isn’t what makes for murder or not.
……
Viable or barely viable babies as in Jill’s story are born alive and left to die or they may survive an abortion attempt and be born alive. Either way their mother’s chose to have them murdered.
Honestly, that kind of silly rhetoric is not convincing. If a baby is viable and born, then the deal is not that the woman wants to end a pregnancy, while that most certainly is the deal with most of the abortion debate. I’m all for preventing pregnancies versus abortions, or earlier abortions versus later ones, but once the baby is out then it’s a whole new ballgame. If the baby is not viable then it’s not going to live outside, anyway. If it is viable, as I first said, then for pregnancy to be ended by inducing labor – if that is a good way to go considering everything else – then I say all fine and good.
……
So why not instead of letting these babies live for 3-10 hours just to die anyway, just tear them apart limb from limb, decapitate them, or gouge scissors into their head once they are delivered. The medical profession could study this method as research to try and figure out if these babies really feel pain or not. Would you consider this type of research study torture? The same techniques to murder these babies are being used to murder them inutero.
Good grief, are you auditioning for the lead in ‘Drama Queen III’? I am for less suffering. If an embryo or fetus is going to die, then I see no reason to prolong it. For that matter, I feel the same for a baby, convicted criminal, etc.
…..
What’s the difference if they are murdered inside the womb or outside the womb?
If you are actually now talking about murder, then that’s a whole different deal too.
Doug
Jen,
I think waterboarding should be added to Law and Order to show how are justice system doesn’t coddle.
Every suspect being waterboarded until they confess..that IS great TV! I can’t wait!
Isn’t that why we have 24? :)
Laura, are you Catholic?
Nothing like Sylvester Stallone winning the love and affection of his estranged son via arm wrestling.
Bobby, for sheer silly humor, I love the line in ‘Rocky Balboa’ where Paulie goes into Adrian’s after he got let go from his job. He gets asked, “Do you have a reservation?”
He responds: “Do I look like a freakin’ indian?”
Per Sally:
“You PL folk spend lots of time freaking over late term abortions that are performed to end wanted pregnancies for very sad reasons. LIke fetal demise.”
Again Sally, if a baby has died in the womb and needs to be removed this is not considered an abortion. Get your facts straight.”
Late term abortions occur all the time for unwanted pregnancies so quit propoganding the fact that they don’t.
…………………………………………………………………..
Please qualify ‘all the time’.
Per Sally:
“If a fetus survives the termination of a pregnancy it is called live birth.”
So if it survives and the mother wants it dead, why not kill it by dismemberment or decapitation etc…. this method is used all the time when the baby is inutero. What’s the difference?
…………………………………………………….
Please explain why anyone would gestate for 9 months if they didn’t want a baby?
Per Sally:
“How does your imagination allow you to equate abortion to dismembering living babies?”
If they are dismembered inside the womb why not outside? I am just asking.
………………………………………………
Dismembering inside the womb is done to remove the fetus in the least damaging way to the woman. What use would dismemebering a baby serve?
O hai, my first comment got out of moderation. It’s way up there at 3:04 PM.
LOL true that Jen!
“Bobby, for sheer silly humor, I love the line in ‘Rocky Balboa’ where Paulie goes into Adrian’s after he got let go from his job. He gets asked, “Do you have a reservation?”
He responds: “Do I look like a freakin’ indian?””
Awesome! I must have missed that line when I saw it. Have you seen Over the Top, Doug? It’s so great! Just to give you an idea of its awesomeness, I’ll tell you that it features a song by Kenny Loggins.
“The moral inconsistency of the anti-torture, pro-abortion stance doesn’t get anti-abortion, pro-torture advocates off the hook for their own inconsistency.”
Jen, I think we are soulmates.
I am a member of Amnesty International, how do you like their work?
Oh dear, Amnesty.
Well, I *used* to be a member. Not anymore. I’ve written about it a bit:
http://www.turntheclockforward.org/category/amnesty-international/
“When your baby arrives you’ll see what I mean. It’s a while before a baby is capable of acting upon any desire. A 12 week fetus is incapable of feeling desire.”
I realize that newborns do very, very little, but they certainly feel, say, cold. My friends 4 week old was noticeably quivering her upper lip after they took her out of the bath. Even though she can’t communicate directly to us, I assume she was cold.
I’m not saying I think a 12 week old fetus can feel desire, but she used to do something based on something else consistently. Yes, correlation does not imply causation, etc etc. It seems to point to something. I mean, can you either give a reason why it doesn’t point to something or an alternative explanation? I’m open to whatever it might mean, I don’t “need a 12 week old fetus to feel pain” in order to justify not supporting abortion. I have no ulterior motive in stating what I originally did. Just an observation.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 12, 2007 5:13 PM
……………………………………………………………..
Perhaps the ultrasound causes amniotic fluid to ripple and move the fetus away from the source? Perhaps your wife contracted her abdominal muscles and caused the movement? I don’t find any meaning involved.
This is an excerpt from an article written by Joseph Galloway, who has served as a war correspondent for many years:
“When you hog-tie a human being, tilt him head down, stuff a rag in his mouth and over his nostrils and pour water onto the rag slowly and steadily to the point where his lungs fill with water and he’s suffocating and drowning, that is torture.
Four decades ago in the field in Vietnam, I saw a suspected Viet Cong waterboarded by South Vietnamese Army troops. The American Army advisers who were attached to the Vietnamese unit turned their backs and walked away before the torture began. It was then a Vietnamese affair and something they couldn’t be associated with.
The victim was taken to the edge of death. His body was wracked with spasms as he fought for air. The soldier holding the five-gallon kerosene tin filled with muddy water from a nearby stream kept pouring it slowly onto the rag, and the victim desperately sucking for even a little air kept inhaling that water instead.
It seemed to go on forever. Did the suspect talk? I?m sure he did. I?m sure he told his torturers whatever he thought they wanted to hear, whether it was true or not. But I didn?t see the end of it because one of the American advisers came to me and told me I had to leave; that I couldn?t watch this interrogation, if that’s what it was, any longer.”
The remainder of the article can be found here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21200.html
That sure as heck sounds like physical torture to me, and it sure sounds like something that could cause lasting psychological damage. As a matter of fact, Dr. Allen S. Keller, M.D., the director of the Bellvue hospital center testified before the Senate that waterboarding can cause “Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD (post-traumatic stress) and poses a real risk of death.”
But let’s return to the subject of whether waterboarding causes permanent physical damage….for instance, heart attacks, or permanent damage to the lungs due to filling them with water.
This is Keller’s full quote on the topic:
Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse.
…and some of you “pro-lifers” are justifying and defending this practice? That’s beyond sick.
What, exactly, is your definition of being “pro-life”? It certainly doesn’t seem to have anything to do with protecting or defending the lives of those who have actually been born….
Laura, are you Catholic?
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 12, 2007 5:29 PM
No, I am not.
“Perhaps the ultrasound causes amniotic fluid to ripple and move the fetus away from the source? Perhaps your wife contracted her abdominal muscles and caused the movement?”
Okay, fair enough. But it wasn’t the ultrasound, Sally. It was the doppler, the instrument used to hear the heartbeat. I suppose your ideas still remain valid. But it seems to me that the simplest explanation is that she felt some sort of annoyance, possibly a loud noise. Again, though, total conjecture.
There is no proof that an unborn baby feels no pain.
If a heart functions early in pregnancy, so can another system.
The honest answer is we don’t know.
Some primative life forms are assumed to feel pain.
It is hard to prove. We think so. We don’t know so.
Plenty of bona fide scientists are still studying such things.
If they could explain it completely, they would.
They haven’t because they can’t because they don’t know.
You can’t know what you don’t know.
Oh BTW, PIP, I’m almost done with Kenneth Miller’s book. It’s been really good! I highly recommend it for you. He goes through a lot of examples that I don’t understand, but that I’m sure you will. So yeah, great stuff my friend! God love you.
Per Sally:
“You PL folk spend lots of time freaking over late term abortions that are performed to end wanted pregnancies for very sad reasons. LIke fetal demise.”
************************************************************************************************** Talk to George Tiller. He performs late term abortions on women, so they are able to attend proms and rodeos.
If your nieces baby died inutero of an Umbilical cord accident and they removed the already dead baby, you can not call this abortion nor equate it to women who choose abortion to end the life of their baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HELLLOOOOOO?????? HHEELLOOOOOO???????
Not to mention the fact that many women choose to birth their babies naturally when this happens. You don’t need to perform a medical procedure to remove a baby who has died during pregnancy. And yes, Sally we all know about your mother in the 1960s who carried dead babies in her uterus for months. No need to go into that tired old argument.
Please prove that the baby in the photo didn’t feel any pain. Again, let’s try to prove your postion that these babies don’t feel anything. Would you agree to a research study on live aborted babies to try and determine this???? Answer the question. I would think you would be all for it since you don’t think they feel pain, what’s the harm?
Posted by: Sandy at November 12, 2007 5:18 PM
……………………………………………………………………….
You are incorrect. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. My niece had an abortion procedure. The procedure does not change due to the circumstances. Carrying a dead fetus for 4 or 5 months can cause the death of the woman or possibly damage the woman’s ability to carry a future pregnancy to term. Not to mention the nastiness of delivering rotting pieces of dead fetus. And gestation has not changed since the 60s. Dead fetii are not miraculously diagnosed by the woman’s body and expelled or absorbed.
You are incapable of proving that the ‘baby’ in the photo was ever capable of feeling anything. It very well could be my niece’s fetus.
Carol,
I absolutely agree. Pro-life? Pro-Torture? The philosophy doesn’t fit.
Actually torture also increases the psychological damage of the person who tortures. Statistics have shown that the PTSD in soldiers who have tortured is much more severe than those who haven’t.
Jen-
While I agree that the Amnesty policy on abortion is a bit misguided, it is not being enforced at this time. It is relatively new and given the uproar it probably won’t last long. There are not urgent actions about abortions, and there won’t be for a long time.
I am not ready to revoke my membership. We have a voice as a part of the organization, and I have sent a letter to them expressing my disappointment. They do so many other good things and active campaigns for desperately needed human rights, and since no actions are being taken at this point, their help is needed and I am happy to be a part of it.
” So yeah, great stuff my friend! God love you.”
Awesome! I”m glad to hear it. He’s a great lecturer as well and makes things pretty simple-there are probably some good youtube videos out there.
Hi PIP. I think that the deceptive description of waterboarding that gets used in the MSM is a little bit to blame for people believing that it isn’t torture.
The media keeps saying that it “simulates drowning.” That is only sort of true; it “simulates” drowning by forcing the victim to inhale water. It can cause permanent lung damage, heart damage, and sometimes actual drowning.
Perhaps the ultrasound causes amniotic fluid to ripple and move the fetus away from the source? Perhaps your wife contracted her abdominal muscles and caused the movement?”
Okay, fair enough. But it wasn’t the ultrasound, Sally. It was the doppler, the instrument used to hear the heartbeat. I suppose your ideas still remain valid. But it seems to me that the simplest explanation is that she felt some sort of annoyance, possibly a loud noise. Again, though, total conjecture.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 12, 2007 5:48 PM
………………………………………………………………..
It’s a romantic thought Bobbie and quite understandable but I’m not sure if a 12 week fetus has a functional eardrum let alone a brain functional enough to register sound. Isn’t deafness and mental retardation a problem with very premature infants? I doubt that a 12 week fetus has more development than a 22 weeker. I may be wrong. Your fetus may have been a super fetus posessing very advanced development.
er Sally:
“You PL folk spend lots of time freaking over late term abortions that are performed to end wanted pregnancies for very sad reasons. LIke fetal demise.”
************************************************************************************************** Talk to George Tiller. He performs late term abortions on women, so they are able to attend proms and rodeos.
Posted by: heather at November 12, 2007 5:53 PM
……………………………………………..
Really now? Please do prove your assertion. Why do fantasize that pregnant women are not allowed to attend proms or rodeos?
“Your fetus may have been a super fetus posessing very advanced development.”
LOL, I like to think so!
Sally, the only person fantasizing here is you.
Sally, if a baby dies in utero, it must be removed! Abortion is an elective procedure for women who wish to kill their children. [ With the exception of maternal life endangerment]
“You PL folk spend lots of time freaking over late term abortions that are performed to end wanted pregnancies for very sad reasons. LIke fetal demise.”
wow! you do know what an abortion is and what it does to a baby right?(that’s right, it kills a baby) You need to do some research on abortion if you are seriously comparing those two things. My guess is that you are trying to push someone’s buttons and getting a sick thrill out of it.
Carol said,…and some of you “pro-lifers” are justifying and defending this practice? That’s beyond sick.
#1..Waterboarding, I believe, is NOT physical torture. Emotional, yes. (see#4)
#2..There is no death..just the “thought” of it
#3..Aborted babies ACTUALLY die..
#4..Your train of thought would eliminate the need for prisons..I mean, an 8×10 cell for life? In your mind, that would be torture, too! Let’s eliminate “time-outs” for young children…In your mind, that would have to be torture, too, right?
What about rape? I mean, rape doesn’t usually lead to permanent physical damage or death. It’s “just” emotional torture. So should it be OK for us to rape prisoners too? Especially if we make sure to call them “terrorists” first?
Jen R,
Absolutely not.
Why not?
Rape is a crime..waterboarding is not, nor should it be. Don’t you think it was worth doing to KSM to have hime give up the info he had?
The waterboarding deal and torture, to various degrees, is a tough one for me. It’s not a nice thought, but I can see the efficacy of it, as has been well-put by Andrew.
If we are talking about radical muslims who are bent on the destruction of the US, etc., and who aren’t too worried about dying in the process, then how do we defend against that?
I don’t dwell on this stuff much, but a part of me thinks the only real way is to kill them first or otherwise render then unable to attack, and that’s a tall order.
Doug
Waterboarding is, in fact, also a crime. Whether or not we can get Michael Mukasey to admit it.
No, I don’t think it was worth doing to KSM, for reasons I went into above at 3:04.
“Waterboarding, I believe, is NOT physical torture. Emotional, yes. (see#4)”
I’d like you to explain why this is true first of all, and second of all why emotional torture is allowable.
“There is no death..just the “thought” of it”
Much torture ends in death or severe problems that lead to death. Of course a person who dies from a heart attack from severe hypothermia is still “cardiac arrest” but who are we to make distinctions.
“Your train of thought would eliminate the need for prisons..I mean, an 8×10 cell for life? In your mind, that would be torture, too! Let’s eliminate “time-outs” for young children…In your mind, that would have to be torture, too, right?”
They are nowhere near the same. Although I will put your name down as the people who would like to reinstate torture as national practice to our own people. And as someone who engages in moral relativism.
“Rape is a crime..waterboarding is not, nor should it be”
OMG. This strongly mirrors a statement we pro-lifers are fighting to disprove.
“Murder is a crime..abortion is not, nor should it be.”
Btw, you never answered, have you heard of Imago Dei?
It’s a crime against humanity.
Sometimes there are higher laws than those the government sets out.
Have you seen Over the Top, Doug? It’s so great! Just to give you an idea of its awesomeness, I’ll tell you that it features a song by Kenny Loggins.
Hmm…. Bobby, I might have to reserve judgment on that Kenny Loggins recommendation. Lemme see what it was….
I haven’t seen that movie. Perhaps it didn’t have enough explosions (“that blowed up real good..”), car chases, and gratuitous nudity, sex, and violence.
Doug Ebert
Bobby: What do you think she’s doing? Once we pick up the heartbeat, we can’t hear it about 3 seconds later. We find the heartbeat again, it’s gone 3 seconds later.
Sounds like you’ve got a good quarterback on the way.
PIP,
I’m sorry I don’t agree with you. I just feel that emotional torture of “select terrorist groups” is ok. However, I do not want them killed. I don’t agree with abortion being legal, because I don’t believe anyone should be killed for any reason. I’m just not seeing the correlation between waterboarding and abortion!
However, it steams me that this form of “torture” is in the forefront of liberal’s minds when abortion, especially the intensely disgusting practice of partial birth abortions, is never anywhere close, unless, of course, they are defending it, or “celebrating choice”.
You stated, “This strongly mirrors a statement we pro-lifers are fighting to disprove.
“Murder is a crime..abortion is not, nor should it be.”
Again, with all due respect, I do not see the correlation between rape, waterboarding and abortion! Three totally seperate issues, at least in my head!
And no, I have never heard of “Imago Dei”.
Sally, if a baby dies in utero, it must be removed! Abortion is an elective procedure for women who wish to kill their children. [ With the exception of maternal life endangerment]
Posted by: heather at November 12, 2007 6:17 PM
………………………………………….
According to Sandy, removal of a dead zef is not necessary. Tell it to her. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy regardless of the reason.
“Your fetus may have been a super fetus posessing very advanced development.”
LOL, I like to think so!
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 12, 2007 6:09 PM
………………………………………..
I’m certain that it is! I know mine were. Still are.
“You PL folk spend lots of time freaking over late term abortions that are performed to end wanted pregnancies for very sad reasons. LIke fetal demise.”
wow! you do know what an abortion is and what it does to a baby right?(that’s right, it kills a baby) You need to do some research on abortion if you are seriously comparing those two things. My guess is that you are trying to push someone’s buttons and getting a sick thrill out of it.
Posted by: rosie at November 12, 2007 6:34 PM
……………………………
Rosie, it would be Jill attempting to compare an abortion to torture. Whether she gets a sick thrill out of it or not would be a question for her.
PIP (may I call you that?): I respect your decision to stay with Amnesty and try to change them from within. I can’t honestly say that I think it will work, though; my experience with their adoption of the new policy leads me to believe that the people who pushed the policy through aren’t open to honest debate or persuasion.
But good on you for trying!
For the sake of peace, I believe that you can, in fact, use the term abortion to describe the premature removal of a baby from it’s mother whether it is dead or alive.
But obviously, and this is directed to you Sal, we are talking exclusively about induced abortion.
If you can’t understand that then I suppose that we could use the correct term everytime when posting to you, but I’m pretty sure your just being a pain in the butt. :)
So from this point on, unless otherwise noted, when anyone here refers to abortion, we can assume they mean an induced one.
Sallie,
Jill never compared the two. On the contrary…I think she was portraying the notion that our country’s moral values are a bit out of whack. Please enlighten us as to where you think that she made the comparison, please.
Bobby, that Kenny Loggins song – certainly rather symphonic and orchestrally produced, but I gotta say “wimp music.”
Doug
” What’s going on at Guantanamo, for instance, is INSANE.”
Insane? Club Gitmo? Three square meals a day, soccer in the afternoon, a free koran and prayer rug. Not to shabby.
I prefer to call it a power ballad, Doug. Won’t you meet me half way on this?
DUCK, JASPER!!! Here it comes….
“I’m sorry I don’t agree with you. I just feel that emotional torture of “select terrorist groups” is ok.”
Who are these select terrorist groups?
“I’m just not seeing the correlation between waterboarding and abortion!”
They are both human-rights related. The right to life and the right to human dignity and respect.
“However, it steams me that this form of “torture” is in the forefront of liberal’s minds when abortion, especially the intensely disgusting practice of partial birth abortions, is never anywhere close, unless, of course, they are defending it, or “celebrating choice”.”
In my opinion, a human rights abuse is a human rights abuse is a human rights abuse. I want to fight against all of them. It seems like we are focused on it because we are so appalled that it is being openly supported, and called “not torture.”
“Again, with all due respect, I do not see the correlation between rape, waterboarding and abortion! Three totally seperate issues, at least in my head!”
They are all human rights abuses.
“And no, I have never heard of “Imago Dei”.”
We are made in the image of God, and as such should honor others as you would Him. Respect for human life is all over the Bible, and I don’t think drowning is a part of the respect.
“Insane? Club Gitmo? Three square meals a day, soccer in the afternoon, a free koran and prayer rug. Not to shabby.”
Wanna go? I’ll sponsor a free trip for you to hang out with those soccer-playing, free-wheeling cats.
Beat me to it. :)
Doug,
I think you’ll like this…
It should kill an hour or so and you’ll see pros at work…
http://www.tkc.edu/debate/
PL Laura,
“Rape is a crime..waterboarding is not, nor should it be.”
Go on. Go ahead and waterboard someone and see if the cops will let you off.
Oh, man, I love watching Hitchens own people.
“Wanna go? I’ll sponsor a free trip for you to hang out with those soccer-playing, free-wheeling cats.”
yes PIP, I checked it out, it looks pretty-good.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/clubgitmo.guest.html
pip,
I said, “I’m just not seeing the correlation between waterboarding and abortion!”
You said “They are both human-rights related. The right to life and the right to human dignity and respect.”
NO..two totally different things: 1=life, 1=death…dignity is a horse of a different color!
you said,
“and I don’t think drowning is a part of the respect.”
They are not drowning..they are not drowning…they are not drowning…They just THINK they are drowning!!! We don’t force them to think a certain way, do we? They do not die.
Did God ever lead his people into war to fight an enemy? Did he not have cities destroyed?
I remember countless times in the Bible when the above mentioned has occured. Of course, they were all part of God’s commands and His will..
I feel so bad for Hitchens. He’s very charming and eloquent, but wow, he doesn’t understand Christianity.
HAHAHAHA….yeah, jasper, I’m going to take something from LIMBAUGH totally seriously.
Also, Laura, how would you feel if the authority take you, or hell, your CHILD, off the street, for reasons you can’t even understand. You’re waterboarded for a couple hours as people scream at you demanding that you tell them something you don’t know. You’re sure you’re going to die. You make something up to tell them.
About a day later you’re released. You try to sue, to do something, to try and reconcile the fact that you have been permanently and irreversibly traumatized. The response? Oh. Too bad. They thought you were a terrorist. It’s not illegal or anything. Just go back to your life.
You’d be OK with the government having that kind of power? Where does it end? With anyone who says the war is or may be wrong being waterboarded just as a power show? It’s fascism.
PIP:”Although I will put your name down as the people who would like to reinstate torture as national practice to our own people.”
It already is the national pratice PIP, didn’t you notice the picture of the tortured baby in the picture above?
“You’d be OK with the government having that kind of power? ”
The government already supports and funds the torture and slaughter of millions of it’s own people. Whats a couple waterboards.
Erin,
Well, first, I would know that I wasn’t going to die, because WATERBOARDING DOESN’T KILL YOU!
Then, after a couple of days, I would probably have to make one of the most important decisions of my life: “Am I going to be the vitim or the victor”…I, Erin, would choose the latter.
I’d love to see you waterboarded, Laura. You seem to think, it’s no big deal. And waterboarding can kill you if someone messes up. Happens.
Well, first, I would know that I wasn’t going to die, because WATERBOARDING DOESN’T KILL YOU!
And you’d probably trust your captors, who are torturing you, to stop before they kill you, right? And you’d be able to think totally rationally about it while you were having water forced into your lungs?
You wouldn’t. Nobody does.
Carol on waterboarding: “It can cause permanent lung damage, heart damage, and sometimes actual drowning.”
It’s amazing how liberals refuse to give the same dignity to unborn babies as they do for suspected terrorists.
It blows my mind, Jasper!
When we were kids, we use to play waterboarding. It was basically a game to see who could hold their breath the longest under water.
Jasper, you and your friends tied each other down and forced water into each other’s lungs? Really? Or do you just not know what waterboarding is?
Yeah. So the government should be able to waterboard whoever they want whenever they want all the time.
That’s terrifying.
Carol on waterboarding: “It can cause permanent lung damage, heart damage, and sometimes actual drowning.”
It’s amazing how liberals refuse to give the same dignity to unborn babies as they do for suspected terrorists.
Posted by: jasper at November 12, 2007 8:07 PM
It blows my mind, Jasper!
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 8:09 PM
…and it amazes me that supposed “pro-lifers” point this out as an inconsistency in MY position, while refusing to recognize it as an inconsistency in their own.
And PL Laura, you keep saying that waterboarding is only mental, but it isn’t. It is the actual filling of a person’s lungs with water in order to make them feel on the verge of death, which has actual physical (not to mention psychological) effects. One of which is the actual risk of death.
In other words…it is torture.
Erin,
The government is not going to waterboard whoever they want whenever they want. As much as you would like to think that waterboarding is going to become an epidemic…it isn’t. It is a tool that is used in elite and justifiable situations. The real issue, is that abortion IS an epidemic, used in a vast and unjustifiable situations. That injustice to the unborn should make you scream out to your government and should make blood shoot out of your eyes!!!
And one other thing about the use of waterboarding on suspects…what the hell do you think that does to the persons who are directed to carry it out?
Any of you have sons or daughters in the military? You want them to be the one pouring the water over someone’s face? Or maybe the one holding the victim down? Or maybe the one pressing the rags into the victim’s mouth?
The ill effects aren’t just felt by the victim of the torture, but by the torturer.
Oh yes it damn well could, Laura. I’m sorry to be getting so harsh, but you don’t seem to get that once we start condoning torture at widespread levels, it is very, VERY difficult to regulate.
Carol said, “And PL Laura, you keep saying that waterboarding is only mental, but it isn’t. It is the actual filling of a person’s lungs with water in order to make them feel on the verge of death, which has actual physical (not to mention psychological) effects. One of which is the actual risk of death.
In other words…it is torture.”
Now let’s equate what you just said with abortion…PC’ers keep saying that it is only choice, but it isn’t. It is the actual shredding apart and murder of an unborn baby that has acutal physical (not to mention pshycological)effects on the (and I use this term loosely) mother. One of which is the actual risk of death to the mother.
In other words…it is murder and it is torture.
It is a tool that is used in elite and justifiable situations.
How do you know?
Erin said, “but you don’t seem to get that once we start condoning torture at widespread levels, it is very, VERY difficult to regulate. ”
Yes, kindof like abortion, huh?
No need to apologize for getting harsh…I’m not taking it personally! :) Just your point of view, & mine…I can agree to disagree.
You know, you guys were supposed to keep the liberals on topic, and you’re the ones going off on a different topic. Abortion isn’t what we’re discussing, and ever if we were, do you really think that two wrongs make a right? Just because our society tolerates abortion and you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean you should just blatantly sanction anything else.
We’re talking about torture and waterboarding, not abortion. That’s the topic.
I’m signing off for the night. This site just baffles me sometimes. Between the post the other day that celebrated the “pro-life” serial killer and cheered on the wife-hitting mafioso, and this one justifying and excusing torture…the cognitive dissonance is just overwhelming.
Per Doug:
“No – you may not like abortion but your opinion isn’t what makes for murder or not.”
Doug,
I am not going to debate “killing” vs. “murder”
The end result is that there is a dead baby.
Per Doug:
“Honestly, that kind of silly rhetoric is not convincing. If a baby is viable and born, then the deal is not that the woman wants to end a pregnancy,”
Doug:
It is not silly rhetoric. The babies that were aborted alive as in Jill’s story were aborted because their mothers wanted them dead. There have been other noted cases where babies have survived abortion in the womb.
Per Doug:
“but once the baby is out then it’s a whole new ballgame. If the baby is not viable then it’s not going to live outside, anyway.”
Doug:
So what would be the harm in killintg it by dismemberment or decapitation. The mother decided she wanted her baby dead.
Per Doug:
If it is viable, as I first said, then for pregnancy to be ended by inducing labor – if that is a good way to go considering everything else – then I say all fine and good.
Doug:
But the mother wanted the baby dead. So now what do you do with a live baby??
Per Doug:
“Good grief, are you auditioning for the lead in ‘Drama Queen III’?”
No Doug.
I didn’t make these methods of killing a baby up. Your side did that.
Per Doug:
“I am for less suffering. If an embryo or fetus is going to die, then I see no reason to prolong it. For that matter, I feel the same for a baby, convicted criminal, etc.”
Doug:
But how could the baby suffer?? You believe it has no value and feels no pain. It would be prolonging it’s death by letting it suffocate for lack of oxygen as in the baby Jill held for 45 minutes.
What’s the difference if they are murdered inside the womb or outside the womb?
Doug Responds:
“If you are actually now talking about murder, then that’s a whole different deal too.”
Doug:
So a baby can be killed inutero and your fine with that. But if the same baby survives an abortion attempt or is aborted alive you are against letting it die if there is a chance it can be saved??? And you are against any method to kill it even though that’s what the mother wanted. It is her “choice” right??
For the sake of peace, I believe that you can, in fact, use the term abortion to describe the premature removal of a baby from it’s mother whether it is dead or alive.
But obviously, and this is directed to you Sal, we are talking exclusively about induced abortion.
If you can’t understand that then I suppose that we could use the correct term everytime when posting to you, but I’m pretty sure your just being a pain in the butt. :)
So from this point on, unless otherwise noted, when anyone here refers to abortion, we can assume they mean an induced one.
Posted by: mk at November 12, 2007 7:27 PM
……………………………………………..
I think that making assumptions is sloppy thinking. It leads to inacuracies and misunderstandings. What on earth is an induced abortion? How do you induce a medical procedure? Does induced mascectomy, induced apondectomy make sense to you?An abortion is an abortion regardless of the reason it is performed. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it so.
Your problem with the abortion procedure is the reason why one might be performed. You wish to judge when and if one is appropriate. Am I wrong?
I know this is a really late post, but to Bobby Bambino, I had ultrasounds for 3 of my babies and none of them liked the procedure much. In fact when I had the ultrasound with the last one, she became so agitated that the technician had to stop the examination. The baby was very quiet prior to the exam. BEcause of my experiences with this procedure I am not in favour of using ultra sound unless there is a need to. As far as I’m concerned we know very little about the consciousness and sensations babies experience in the womb and some researchers have noticed that IVF babies exhibit differences from naturally conceived children in their memories prior to birth. I think therefore it is better to err on the side of life and caution. No matter how you slice it ripping the arm off a baby at 4 months is not going to be pleasant. If a person did this to an animal they’d be thrown in jail.
Sallie,
Jill never compared the two. On the contrary…I think she was portraying the notion that our country’s moral values are a bit out of whack. Please enlighten us as to where you think that she made the comparison, please.
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 7:28 PM
………………………………………………………
‘I digressed on the topic of waterboarding to show for one thing it’s really not torture. No one is hurt by it. They just perceive they will be. At most it could be called virtual torture.
Compare that to abortion, which always kills, and sometimes by torture. Against that backdrop wrote Brooks:’
She used the word compare to indicate what she was doing—–comparing torture and abortion. And there is definately something out of whack with a person that can compare the two.
What on earth is an induced abortion?
As opposed to a spontaneous abortion (i.e., a miscarriage).
Carol on waterboarding: “It can cause permanent lung damage, heart damage, and sometimes actual drowning.”
It’s amazing how liberals refuse to give the same dignity to unborn babies as they do for suspected terrorists.
Posted by: jasper at November 12, 2007 8:07 PM
…………………………………………
As if an embryo was capable of drowning. @@ It’s amazing how pseudo conservatives have no problem throwing legalities and morality out the window when it suits them.
Per Sally:
“You are incorrect. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. My niece had an abortion procedure.”
Whatever Sally:
*rolls eyes* As MK stated we are talking about abortion to end the life of a baby, not remove a dead one from the uterus. This is not what this debate is about. Try to keep up.
Per Sally:
“Carrying a dead fetus for 4 or 5 months can cause the death of the woman or possibly damage the woman’s ability to carry a future pregnancy to term. Not to mention the nastiness of delivering rotting pieces of dead fetus.”
Sally:
Duh. I think we are all aware of that and are not arguing your point (again) I might add.
Per Sally:
“And gestation has not changed since the 60s. Dead fetii are not miraculously diagnosed by the woman’s body and expelled or absorbed.”
Sally:
Yes they are. I had a miscarriage and deliverd my fetus in my home. Just like the umpteen millions of other women who naturally deliver their babies after a miscarriage diagnosis. Natural miscarriage is an option given to women.
Women who discover their babies into the second and third trimester are given the same option to deliver naturally. They are closely watched and if the body does not naturally go into labor within a window of time, they are induced.
Per Sally:
“You are incapable of proving that the ‘baby’ in the photo was ever capable of feeling anything. It very well could be my niece’s fetus.”
Sally:
You are incapable of proving that the baby in the photo was not capable of feeling anything.
It may very well have felt tremendous pain and suffering.
Per Sally:
“PMAccording to Sandy, removal of a dead zef is not necessary.”
Sally:
I never said it is not necessary. Read my posts.
If the woman does not expell it naturally it must be removed.
Erin “I’m sorry to be getting so harsh, but you don’t seem to get that once we start condoning torture at widespread levels, it is very, VERY difficult to regulate.”
yes, I know. Look at the abortion industry, we can’t seem to regulate that very well.
Sally,
According to the account in the Jewish World Review, a fetus once delivered can drown:
” Here’s how one body parts company — Opening Lines Inc. — disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: “Turn your patient’s decision into something wonderful.”
For its buyers, Opening Lines offers “the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it.” Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An “intact trunk” fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law’s prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to “perform the harvesting,” as well as to “offset [the] clinic’s overhead.” Opening Lines further boasted, “Our daily average case volume exceeds 1500 and we serve clinics across the United States.”
Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, “a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, ‘Got you some good specimens — twins.’ I looked at him and said: ‘There’s something wrong here. They are moving. I can’t do this. This is not in my contract.’ I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this.”
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
These babies probably also felt pain as they were drowned by
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen111099.asp
“NO..two totally different things: 1=life, 1=death…dignity is a horse of a different color!”
You are right. I think dignity and respect for human life is overrated.
“They are not drowning..they are not drowning…they are not drowning…They just THINK they are drowning!!! We don’t force them to think a certain way, do we? They do not die.”
You are right. “immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs” is nowhere near drowning and at no point threatens their health and safety. I would giggle at you but I’m too saddened by it.
“I remember countless times in the Bible when the above mentioned has occured. Of course, they were all part of God’s commands and His will..”
I couldn’t say under Jesus’ command torture, rape, and pillaging is on God’s list of things to do today.
“It already is the national pratice PIP, didn’t you notice the picture of the tortured baby in the picture above?”
I already addressed this, that it is somethign to be fought against, and I was referring in my quote to our own prisoners we have here. I would not be surprised to see people be in favor of waterboarding Arab suspects but not American ones. It would make Law and Order more interesting though.
” You seem to think, it’s no big deal.”
Well, it’s “not torture” so I don’t see a problem with waterboarding anyone on the street. As long as its “not torture.” Just like abortion is “not murder.”
“It was basically a game to see who could hold their breath the longest under water.”
That’s exactly it, Jasper. And abortion is just lightly placing a baby outside of the womb.
“It is a tool that is used in elite and justifiable situations.”
And just shutting up and letting the government “take care of it” is going to make this easier and better? How do you know this is what happens? I can give you a few cases where it didn’t. Of course most of it wasn’t necessarily waterboarding as straight up beating and killing, but torture is torture.
“This site just baffles me sometimes.”
Tell me about it :/
However you all like to justify it…it just doesn’t make any sense to me. If you don’t see the hypocrisy in condemning abortion while simultaneously supporting other human rights abuses is down right confusing to me. A “Culture of Life” doesn’t just apply to abortion. It applies to a broad aspect of things, and that includes no torture. Period.
Erin,
Well, first, I would know that I wasn’t going to die, because WATERBOARDING DOESN’T KILL YOU!
Then, after a couple of days, I would probably have to make one of the most important decisions of my life: “Am I going to be the vitim or the victor”…I, Erin, would choose the latter.
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 8:03 PM
……………………………..
Unless of course the terror kills you from a heart attack. You cannot simply decide to not be damaged by trauma. You can pretend you aren’t traumatized but that isn’t actually dealing with reality now is it. You would have made a great member of the Gestapo Laura. You certainly are an apologist for fascism.
There is no proof that an unborn baby feels no pain.
If a heart functions early in pregnancy, so can another system.
The honest answer is we don’t know.
Some primative life forms are assumed to feel pain.
It is hard to prove. We think so. We don’t know so.
Plenty of bona fide scientists are still studying such things.
If they could explain it completely, they would.
They haven’t because they can’t because they don’t know.
You can’t know what you don’t know.
Posted by: hippie at November 12, 2007 5:50 PM
……………………………………………
We know that a fetal heart does not function sufficiently to support life early in gestation. A scientist is not necessary to prove it. Very premature births are sufficient evidence of the lack of functional life support systems.
I prefer to call it a power ballad, Doug. Won’t you meet me half way on this?
To paraphrase Tom Hayden (Robert Duvall) in “The Godfather, “Sorry, Bobby, can’t do it.”
A “Culture of Life” doesn’t just apply to abortion. It applies to a broad aspect of things, and that includes no torture. Period.
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 12, 2007 9:25 PM
Thank you, PiP
Carol said,…and some of you “pro-lifers” are justifying and defending this practice? That’s beyond sick.
#1..Waterboarding, I believe, is NOT physical torture. Emotional, yes. (see#4)
#2..There is no death..just the “thought” of it
#3..Aborted babies ACTUALLY die..
#4..Your train of thought would eliminate the need for prisons..I mean, an 8×10 cell for life? In your mind, that would be torture, too! Let’s eliminate “time-outs” for young children…In your mind, that would have to be torture, too, right?
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 6:40 PM
…………………………..
What do you need time outs for? Just hold your kid’s head under water until they promise to behave.
Sally-
of course it’s not child abuse, it just might have an emotional tie to it. It’s “not torture.”
And there’s no death.
Haven’t you heard?
PIP,
Please remember that the “subject of waterboarding” does have the option of “confessing” before the waterboarding begins. This is used as a last resort. Obviously, the subject has made his choice.
I would not condone him being killed…just “coerced” into telling the truth.
I think I’m going to change my stance on being pro-life. If I am going to be condemned by fellow pro-lifers over a “monster’s dignity”, then maybe I should specify that I am no longer pro-life. I am anti-abortion! If the title “pro-life” makes me what you want to make me…I don’t want to be that. I have no problem wearing a leather coat, a fur-trimmed hat, and I eat meat…At the rate you’re going, you will call me a hypocrite for enjoying the things I specified above because all entail “life” and the dignity of it. Going forward, I am
AB Laura. Thanks, PIP for enlightening me!
Hippie,
I am beyond sad right now. If that were happening to animals these people would be in jail.
I can’t even imagine the horrible sick disgusting sickos who would beat an innocent baby to death with a pair of tongs or cut into a babies chest for parts and still see the heart beating just to sell it off to make money.
How could anyone go to work, conduct this type of behavior and then go home to their families and enjoy any type of a life.
Please remember that the “subject of waterboarding” does have the option of “confessing” before the waterboarding begins.
Not if he’s innocent. Well, I guess he could still confess to something. Anything, really. Then we’d have more evidence that torture works!
This is used as a last resort.
What makes you say that? And even if it were true, how could we ensure it, if the government is supposed to keep quiet about what it’s doing in wartime so as to avoid accountability?
Excuse me?
PL Laura, you wrote
“Rape is a crime..waterboarding is not, nor should it be. Don’t you think it was worth doing to KSM to have hime give up the info he had?”
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 6:51 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If I used waterboarding on my errant kids, I would be charged with a crime. Why? because it meets enough criteria to be called abuse and it certainly isn’t healthy.
If anyone else were doing this activity, it would be a crime.
I would be against it if for no other reason than I don’t want anyone in law enforcement or the military to be pressured into abusing unarmed prisoners even if the prisoners are bad guys.
I don’t want us to be monsters of the same level. We need to preserve our own conscience and dignity by extending common decency reasonably to those we incarcerate.
“”coerced””
In the middle ages they also “coerced” people. In China they “coerce” people do say and do things too. If only those people made up something to avoid torture nothing would have happened to them, Their fault!
“If the title “pro-life” makes me what you want to make me…I don’t want to be that.”
Its funny, we had a conversation about this before here.
We are simply pointing out inconsistencies. Letting someone be tortured but fighting for the rights of the unborn seems a *little* hypocritical to me, that’s all. Just telling you my opinion.
It took me to see how my pro-choice stance was hypocritical to change (thanks for that you guys). Sometimes the truth hurts, babe. That’s why this site exists.
” I have no problem wearing a leather coat, a fur-trimmed hat, and I eat meat”
We are talking about the “dignity and respect of human life” so animal rights is not in the discussion right now.
What we are talking about is…
If you fight for the rights of an unborn child, would it not be consistent to fight for the rights of a born one?
“Thanks, PIP for enlightening me!”
That’s what I’m here for!
Per Sally:
“You are incorrect. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. My niece had an abortion procedure.”
Whatever Sally:
*rolls eyes* As MK stated we are talking about abortion to end the life of a baby, not remove a dead one from the uterus. This is not what this debate is about. Try to keep up.
…………………………………………………………
Roll your eyes all you like. Be honest and state that you wish to pick and choose when the medical procedure of abortion should be available and to whom.
Per Sally:
“Carrying a dead fetus for 4 or 5 months can cause the death of the woman or possibly damage the woman’s ability to carry a future pregnancy to term. Not to mention the nastiness of delivering rotting pieces of dead fetus.”
Sally:
Duh. I think we are all aware of that and are not arguing your point (again) I might add.
……………………………………………………
Then why did you state otherwise?
Quote:
Not to mention the fact that many women choose to birth their babies naturally when this happens. Unquote
Per Sally:
“And gestation has not changed since the 60s. Dead fetii are not miraculously diagnosed by the woman’s body and expelled or absorbed.”
Sally:
Yes they are. I had a miscarriage and deliverd my fetus in my home. Just like the umpteen millions of other women who naturally deliver their babies after a miscarriage diagnosis.
…………………………………………………..
You are assuming that all miscarriages involve non viable fetii. This is not the case. A woman’s body can ‘choose’ to abort a perfectly viable embryo/fetus.
Natural miscarriage is an option given to women.
Women who discover their babies into the second and third trimester are given the same option to deliver naturally. They are closely watched and if the body does not naturally go into labor within a window of time, they are induced.
………………………………………………………………
Induced? Into labor? Not. That would be unecessarily endangering the life and health of the woman. An abortion would be performed.
Per Sally:
“You are incapable of proving that the ‘baby’ in the photo was ever capable of feeling anything. It very well could be my niece’s fetus.”
Sally:
You are incapable of proving that the baby in the photo was not capable of feeling anything.
It may very well have felt tremendous pain and suffering.
………………………………………..
You find value in the photo for your position. You support it with facts. Can’t do it, then consider it bogus and propaganda.
Per Sally:
“PMAccording to Sandy, removal of a dead zef is not necessary.”
Sally:
I never said it is not necessary. Read my posts.
If the woman does not expell it naturally it must be removed.
………………………………………….
Yes you did. And then tried to defend your statement with more voodoo logic.
Posted by: Sandy at November 12, 2007 8:58 PM
It is not silly rhetoric. The babies that were aborted alive as in Jill’s story were aborted because their mothers wanted them dead. There have been other noted cases where babies have survived abortion in the womb.
Sandy, the “murder” stuff and the more-loony rambling and ranting is.
….
“but once the baby is out then it’s a whole new ballgame. If the baby is not viable then it’s not going to live outside, anyway.”
So what would be the harm in killintg it by dismemberment or decapitation. The mother decided she wanted her baby dead.
If the baby is viable then there is the choice of adopting it out. The woman can have the pregnancy ended, and the state can “find it in its interest to protect the”….baby, just as per the Roe decision.
Now, if it’s really going to die no matter what, then I say the best procedure should be chosen, and that’s why I don’t favor the ban on D & X abortions – sometimes that’s the best way to go.
…….
“I am for less suffering. If an embryo or fetus is going to die, then I see no reason to prolong it. For that matter, I feel the same for a baby, convicted criminal, etc.”
But how could the baby suffer?? You believe it has no value and feels no pain.
Wrong. Are you deliberately lying? At a point in gestation/development, most can feel pain. And regardless of what the mother or couple or even the state feels about the matter, I see no reason for more suffering.
……
It would be prolonging it’s death by letting it suffocate for lack of oxygen as in the baby Jill held for 45 minutes.
Did I say I wanted that to happen?
……
“If you are actually now talking about murder, then that’s a whole different deal too.”
So a baby can be killed inutero and your fine with that.
No – once again you are generalizing incorrectly and over-simplifying things. Before viability is one thing, and after viability the pregnancy can be ended by inducing delivery.
The question of who is going to pay for the baby remains, but for the woman’s pregnancy to end, abortion is not the only option at that point.
……
But if the same baby survives an abortion attempt or is aborted alive you are against letting it die if there is a chance it can be saved?
Once it’s “out” it has right to life attributed to it, and I’m good with that. We are only talking about a very small percentage of abortions here, but yes – if viable I have no desire for it to die, per se.
……
And you are against any method to kill it even though that’s what the mother wanted. It is her “choice” right?
It’s her choice to end the pregnancy, but that does not necessarily mean the baby will die, since past a point it may survive outside the womb.
If we are discussing abortion methods then I’m for the one that is best for the woman in the given situation.
Doug
PIP said, “What we are talking about is…
If you fight for the rights of an unborn child, would it not be consistent to fight for the rights of a born one?”
I am a child activist…not a terrorist activist. Sorry, can’t wear two hats at once, nor do I want to.
I admire your zest for human rights, also. You have a good heart…mine just isn’t there for terrorists. I threw up when I saw them beheading Americans & journalists. I also cried…I do care, PIP…I just have no tolerance or compassion for evil, nor do I apologize for it.
Erin,
The government is not going to waterboard whoever they want whenever they want. As much as you would like to think that waterboarding is going to become an epidemic…it isn’t. It is a tool that is used in elite and justifiable situations. The real issue, is that abortion IS an epidemic, used in a vast and unjustifiable situations. That injustice to the unborn should make you scream out to your government and should make blood shoot out of your eyes!!!
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 8:20 PM
……………………………………………………………..
Let’s see. Abortion is an epidemic that harms millions of that which is incapble of feeling harm. It’s the gateway ‘drug’ to murdering elderly and the less than perfect in the imaginations of the PL. Yet torturing sensate human beings and finding it harmless to the human being tortured and society as a whole is rational thought? You’re off your rocker Laura.
we don’t support terrorism, Laura. We just want to follow the “golden rule” when it comes to POWs- the ones set out by the Geneva Conventions for example. We want to rid our country of hypocrisy, that’s all.
I know that war isn’t pretty, but I don’t think we should give soldiers carte blanche to abuse basic human rights, either.
I cried too. I don’t like to see any sort of violence. The other night I was at a party and a drunken brawl broke out. I wanted to throw up, it was so sickening to me. I can’t even talk about 9/11 out loud for very loud without wanting to tear up.
I don’t want you to get the idea that liberals support terrorism, no matter what everyone else is trying to tell you. We are trying to keep America the best it can be. We have great pride-we think patriotism includes improvement even at the behest of our leaders.
Thanks for the compliment, and I realize you care very much about your people and your country, I guess we just have a different idea what that means.
Carol said, “And PL Laura, you keep saying that waterboarding is only mental, but it isn’t. It is the actual filling of a person’s lungs with water in order to make them feel on the verge of death, which has actual physical (not to mention psychological) effects. One of which is the actual risk of death.
In other words…it is torture.”
Now let’s equate what you just said with abortion…PC’ers keep saying that it is only choice, but it isn’t. It is the actual shredding apart and murder of an unborn baby that has acutal physical (not to mention pshycological)effects on the (and I use this term loosely) mother. One of which is the actual risk of death to the mother.
In other words…it is murder and it is torture.
Posted by: PL Laura at November 12, 2007 8:25 PM
…………………………………………
You are being ridiculous.
PL Laura,
Sorry if my comments to you were to harsh.
In as much as I could not bear to think of my child killing an innocent baby, I also would not want him to be involved in “physically coercing” someone.
I think it would change him as a person. I don’t want that to happen to anyone’s child. If I can’t bear to do it myself, then I can’t bear for someone else to do it either.
If I imagine myself holding the hose while someone inhales, I shudder. I shudder also to picture my son with a hose in his hand forcing someone to inhale water. I don’t wish that role on anyone. It isn’t honorable.
What on earth is an induced abortion?
As opposed to a spontaneous abortion (i.e., a miscarriage).
Posted by: Jen R at November 12, 2007 8:54 PM
………………………………..
An abortion is induced/willfull ending of a pregnancy. It’s rather like describing the color blue as blue. Redundant.
I thought that there might have been an actual point to using the word induced as a qualifier to abortion.
If you read medical reports, CDC reports, research study reports, etc. they always use the terms, induced abortion or spontaneous abortion to be clear. However, most of the rest of us say abortion or miscarriage. Either way, there is a clear distinction.
I don’t agree with torture, in a perfect world we would never have to resort to it. That being said I would not want to be in a position to make the call to use it or not, nor am I so arrogant that I think I have all the answers. Our leaders (be they Repubs or Dems) have an extremely difficult decision to make where the use of torture is concerned and I don’t think anyone uses it lightly.
It should also be said that the CIA has only 4 cases of water boarding being used since 9/11. I mean they aren’t pulling any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street and doing this to them. They use it for KNOWN terrorist leaders like KSM. Could it have been used more than 4 times sure, but some of you are making it sound like this is the morning wake-up routine, which it is not.
And again, before you all go off on me, I don’t agree with it for anyone. But I also can see the other side of the coin and am thankful I’m not in the position of having to try to get information to foil another 9/11.
I believe that I am missing the connection between “waterboarding” and abortion….
My brain is hurting.
“It should also be said that the CIA has only 4 cases of water boarding being used since 9/11.”
Other documented practices:
Beating:
Fist
Truncheon
Kick
Slamming
Electrical shocks
stretching or suspension
Asphyxiation:
Water immersion
Obstructing airway
Chest compression
Suspension
Thermal burning
Ligatures
Rape
Painful Medical Procedures
Food and Water deprivation
toilet, shelter, medical care, sleep and sensory deprivation
Forcing victim to abase self:
Urinating on self
Masturbating
Renouncing religion
Falsely confessing or accusing
Applying urine, feces to others
Threats to prisoner
Threats against the prisoner’s family
Insults
Denigration of the prisoner’s religion
Mock Executions
Forcing a Victim to watch abuse or torture of a loved one
Loud noise, immobilization, bright lights/blindfolding, confinement
Dog bites
Disorienting drugs such as tranquilizers or Hallucinogens.
(Randall GR, Lutz L, Quiroga J, et al. Physical and psychiatiric effects of torture: two medical studies. In Stover and Nightingale, 62-63
Thomsen JL. The role of a pathologist in human rights abuses. Journal of Clinical Pathology 2000;53;569-72)
“I believe that I am missing the connection between “waterboarding” and abortion..”
Both are human rights abuses.
Urinating on self
Masturbating
Renouncing religion
Falsely confessing or accusing
Applying urine, feces to others
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow! Sounds like Thanksgiving at my house!
(Well, that and eating all the french-fried onions off of that green bean cassarole…)
Another one bites the dust for Sally.
Sally’s grandmother had a dead baby in her for months.
Sally had a dead fetus in her.
Sally’s niece had a dead fetus in her.
Sally was a eyewitness to a hot air ballon, “planned accident”, that resulted in death.
If Sally could join a miltary organization, it would be perfectly okey dokey to kill anyone, whose life is deemed of no value in her military organization.
Are you being treated for PTSD, Sally?
Admit your being treated for PTSD, for Laura’s sake, Sad Sally.
Admit your being treated for PTSD for your sake Sally.
Admit your being treated for PTSD and change Doug’s pessimistic personality(to optimism) , that appeals to the pessimism in a women’s life, so that women may choose abortion through Doug’s pessimistic value of that women. But, not the women in Doug’s personal life, who may not be soo pessimistic about life as to be allowed to choose abortion.
Admit your affair with Paris Hilton from hearing the Sinatra tune, Strangers In The Night, when you saw that selfish, shopping bag toting, lonley eyed young woman.
Over and over it goes.
Principle of Sally. A human being in the womb is a potential human, but it’s not deemed of any worth from not having developed personality, senses, and also being a parasitical human being. Potential must be killed. Greatest Ecstacy is Deathsex, that dies inside you. A Death worshipper.
Principle of Laura.
What goes around comes around. Karma explains all actions in life. A baby in the womb got what it deserves from the principle of what goes around comes around. This includes the mother who aborted the baby also from the law of Karma.
Principle of Doug.
Choice. Choice Choice.
Pick one, or pick the other.
Pick kill, or not to kill.
Spreads allowing the decision of killing through appeal to pessimism, known to Doug’s mind as
realism. Proud of being a realistic mind where killing is realistic life for others, but not his. The younger the life, the less worthy the life is deemed by Doug, from not being able to make realistic choices.
Sally,
I think that making assumptions is sloppy thinking.
Then why do you do it here?
Your problem with the abortion procedure is the reason why one might be performed. You wish to judge when and if one is appropriate.
I made no judgment call whatsoever. Simply pointed out that there was a difference between and induced abortion and a spontaneous one.
Sally,
Definition of Induced abortion:
Induced abortion: An abortion that is brought about intentionally. Also called an artificial or therapeutic abortion. As opposed to a spontaneous abortion (a miscarriage).
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=17775
induced abortion (or therapeutic abortion) surgical, pharmaceutical or other medical procedure used to end a pregnancy.
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/Index/I.htm
Sally,
You are being ridiculous.
You’re off your rocker Laura.
You would have made a great member of the Gestapo Laura. You certainly are an apologist for fascism.
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, “The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!”), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information — for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, “We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?” Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone’s arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate — such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing “My opponents are fascists” with “My opponents’ arguments are fascist.”
http://tinyurl.com/yphdhg
It’s hard to take you seriously Sal, when you have been arguing about something for an hour now, without knowing the definition of what you are arguing about.
And even harder to take you seriously when every post ends with a personal insult to the person you are refuting.
You can do what you want, but if you want to be on equal footing, you should probably try to eliminate the insults and get caught up on the terminology.
I think you are an intelligent woman. But it doesn’t always come across that way.
Here is a fun article about prisoner treatment.
It explains weight gain among prisoners at Guantanamo.
http://www.slate.com/id/2083612/
Could it be that sloth and gluttony could be a new weapon in the war on terrror? How about inducing video game addiction? Interesting strategy. They come in lean, mean, zealous holy warriors. They leave fat, apathetic, entertainment junkies.
Sorry for being flippant, but all the torture talk was creeepy.
Honestly though, if we could bestir ourselves to protect unborn children as much as we do about how we treat these prisoners, I would have more faith in our country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56ZZzz4meU
Now this is torture!
LOL “Poke her with the soft pillows! CONFESS! CONFESS”
Sally,
I realize that my posts possibly came across as condescending…but I’m actually trying to help here.
We have a few resident “nutballs” (loveable, but nutballs nonetheless) here on both sides. You’re side has Texas Red and SoMG (oh how I miss Cameron)and we have Zeke and Yllas.
You haven’t quite made it into that group yet.
I would hate to see you placed there. I think you have some good arguments and good ideas, but sometimes the way you present them makes us just want to skip over everything you have to say. Which means we miss your sincere thoughts as well as your more “colorful” ones.
I’d like to see you taken seriously. While our resident characters do make some good points, I know for myself when I read their posts I do it with a grain of salt. And they provide great entertainment. (Although to be fair to SoMG, his posts are getting more and more credible with time).
So you can do what you want, but I for one, would love to see you take the higher road and really join the debate…does that make sense without being insulting?
Bethany,
You should see when they pull out the rack!
Bethany,
What do you think happened to Enigma?
@Sally,
The core of the definition of ‘abortion’ is the ‘halting of a process’. So when applied to pregnancy(the process) the pregnancy DOES end with abortion. However, this process is the development of a LIVING being.
Both spontaneous miscarriage and induced abortion are abortions. Yet there is a large difference. Miscarriage it is the natural death of a very young child either because it could not proceed living; or, because the womb(its environment) was hostile to further development.
Induced abortion i an artificial method to cause the death of a living developing being. The word ‘abortion’ is not about expulsion, but about dying.
Under these circumstances, it seems your Mom had a miscarriage when her babies died + had to have a operation to remove ‘a blob’ of dead tissue. Her abortion was not the operation itself but had happened some months before.
The word ‘abortion’ is properly used at the sudden explosion of the spacecraft Challenger. I have also seen it used to describe the purposeful killing of a senior … who was ordered in to undergo his abortion.
…………
@Doug,
over and over you write that abortion is OK if its a woman’s perogative. Over the months I have attempted to show such a decision is suspect as being good .. let alone the best. It seems that this is not compelling enough …. what if such a decision was made on the same basis that someone with anorexia determines she is too fat? IS she the best arbiter of her decision?
*winces* I do not miss Cameron at all, but I thank Less for giving us the “clown car” laugh.
John, good one! Again, her body, her choice. So what if it’s killing her??
John,
I read this on another post, but didn’t really internalize it…it’s an excellent question.
Allowing someone in a crisis situation make a decision about theirs and someone elses well being when clearly the behavior that brought them to the situation is suspect, might not be the best way to go.
If a person gets pregnant through faulty judgment should she be allowed to continue making faulty judgments when a life is on the line.
Similarly, if a women is brought to near death through faulty judgment, (not eating because she believes, falsely, that she is fat) isn’t her judgment as to treatment (or no treatment) going to be under scrutiny?
Also interesting is the fact that it is her perception that is in question. According to Doug, isn’t her perception of her body size simply her “valuation” and shouldn’t she be left to make it without intervention?
Isn’t is the pregnant women’s perception that her life will be “ruined” if she continues the pregnancy? I know of no one’s life (sans a womens life being at stake) that has been ruined SOLELY by becoming pregnant and carrying her child to term. If her life is ruined it is usually because of many other factors, usually the same factors (irresponsibility, questionable lifestyle, poor choices) that brought her to the unwanted pregnancy to begin with. But the decision to end her child’s life is still based on her “perception” just like the anorexic woman.
Not to mention that societies perception is that the fetus is not a human being…just goes to show you how dangerous “perceptions” can be when they don’t jive with reality.
Excellent post John.
Bethany,
What do you think happened to Enigma?
I don’t know. Maybe she got tired of debating with us?
“To paraphrase Tom Hayden (Robert Duvall) in “The Godfather, “Sorry, Bobby, can’t do it.””
Doh!
John, that was such a good point. I hope it doesn’t get glossed over by the other side. It deserves to be given some thought.
“What do you think happened to Enigma?”
She was around last week. Are you asking because it’s been a week and when haven’t heard from her, or did something happen?
Hi Bethany. Yes. It must be awfully tiring trying to come up with different wording for the obvious……. Abortion is murder. It is today. It will be tomorrow, etc.
Bobby, Enigma and MK and I have been having a discussion here for a while…but Enigma stopped posting there Sunday.
Oops, forgot to post the link:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/11/twinseparable.html#comments
Heather good morning :)
Bobby,
Exactly as Bethany says. It was a really good discussion too. Don’t know if she’s busy or frustrated. But no, she’s fine as far as I know.
Jill’s mom is being operated on today…her carotid artery. Keep them both in your prayers, all.
Good morning Bethany. Prayers for Jill’s mom….indeed.
Amen to that.
I will do that for sure, MK. I hope she will be okay.
Jill,
Your entire family is in my prayers..
Jill, amen to what everyone’s said so far.
John,
I also discussed with Doug the deterioration of rationality of those who abort. I posted studies that included the entire population of California and of a European nation that showed the suicide rate among those who abort is 5-6 times that of those who deliver. He replied saying that was only some or not a good enough indicator, etc. He also posted some references about emotional consequences from the PP website. When I looked up the studies, they were small, participants were hand picked and in one, half the participants quit before the end.
We have also read the studies from NEJM and Archives of Internal Medicine which were posted by Laura and Somg about breast cancer that show abortion rates among those who abort are 30% higher, which the researchers attribute to the lower number of children of those in the group.
No matter how good, solid and accurate your info showing the detriment to women, folks like Doug, Laura, Somg will continue to say that no one should ever be discouraged from abortion.
Doug said recently better that thousands be aborted than a few be abused.
Bottom line, they like abortion. They think poor or handicapped kids are a drain on their mothers and the rest of us and we are all better off without them.
I consider this to be total opposite of liberal ideals.
It promotes concentrating power among the powerful rather than liberally giving rights to all, including the helpless and vulnerable.
I am a liberal, but not that kind of liberal.
I am not saying this to offend, but it is my honest assessment of the attitudes reflected in the comments I have read.
correction
“abortion” should be “breast cancer” as in caps below:
We have also read the studies from NEJM and Archives of Internal Medicine which were posted by Laura and Somg about breast cancer that show BREAST CANCER rates among those who abort are 30% higher, which the researchers attribute to the lower number of children of those in the group.
Pip,
Insane? Club Gitmo? Three square meals a day, soccer in the afternoon, a free koran and prayer rug. Not to shabby.”
Wanna go? I’ll sponsor a free trip for you to hang out with those soccer-playing, free-wheeling cats.
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 12, 2007 7:44 PM
It is not that prison life is a holiday, it isn’t.
However, imagine for a moment life in the hills and terrain of Afghanistan as a Taliban fighter. I’ll bet the food was meager and scarce. Free choice may have been quite limited as well. Of course compared to our luxurious lives with toilets and access to laundry facilities, we see the prison as a low standard, but living standards for an army on the move are much worse than the prison conditions.
No matter how good, solid and accurate your info showing the detriment to women, folks like Doug, Laura, Somg will continue to say that no one should ever be discouraged from abortion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s bulls***.
If I knew anyone who was on the fence on the subject, I would discourage them from taking any action until they knew in their heart what to do and were in a place where they could make a sound decision.
“I would discourage them from taking any action until they knew in their heart what to do and were in a place where they could make a sound decision.”
What, like a recording studio?
Sally wrote,
We know that a fetal heart does not function sufficiently to support life early in gestation. A scientist is not necessary to prove it. Very premature births are sufficient evidence of the lack of functional life support systems.
Posted by: Sally at November 12, 2007 9:32 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Heartbeat is a function of the heart. The heart beats early in gestation. That is evidence of at least some function. Similary nerves begin to form early. It is more difficult to assess that funtion. However, the baby moves around which has to be controlled by nerves. So there is evidence of some function. There is no proof the baby feels no pain. There is evidence that he might because the nerves function enough for him to move. I don’t know if he feels pain, but he might. Honestly that is all we know.
Laura said,”I would discourage them from taking any action until they knew in their heart what to do”
Sorry, Laura…but to abort is not a decision that comes from the heart…it only comes from the “heartless” from their self-centered little minds.
That’s bulls***.
If I knew anyone who was on the fence on the subject, I would discourage them from taking any action until they knew in their heart what to do and were in a place where they could make a sound decision.
Posted by: Laura at November 13, 2007 11:37 AM
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I am thrilled to hear that Laura. Truly, I never saw you write that before. I do remember your comment that a woman in an abusive relationship had an obligation to abort. I found that really disturbing. I hope it was hyperbole.
“Of course compared to our luxurious lives with toilets and access to laundry facilities, we see the prison as a low standard, but living standards for an army on the move are much worse than the prison conditions.”
Lieutenant General Mikolashek found that Abu Ghraib had a “deteriorating infrastructure that impacted the clean, safe, and secure working environmnet for soldiers and living conditions for the detainees. Poor food quality and food distribution, lack of laudry cabaitliy and inadequate personal hygiene facilities affected the detainees’ living conditions…Frequent enemny hostile fire and lack of in depth force protection measures also put soldiers and detainees at risk.”
Tuberculosis is common in prisons and the Army Inspector General in 2004 found that none of the 36 priosn in Iraq or Afghanistan even performed chest Xrays to screen for TB.
Regressed inmates were beaten at Guantanamo for being uncooperative. MPs at Bagram (Afghanistan) nicknamed a mentally ill prisoner who ate his feces and cut himself with concertina wire “Timmy” afer a disable child in “South Park.” They kicked and suspended him and made him cry out in a foice that mimicked his namesake.
The Defense Department concealed many suicide attempts under the jargon “manipulative self-injurious behavor.” This included most of 120 “hanging gestures” at Guantanamo, one of which caused “severe brain damage.”
At Kandahar in Afghanistan, food sanitation was deemed “extrmely poor.”
The US Army Muslim chaplain James Yee was regularly and inexcusably given pork meals while imprisoned in the US on a false charge of treason.
Major David Dinenna, of Abu Ghraib’s Military Police Battalion, engaged in this email exchange with a senior military police commander:
“Oct 27, 2003, 9:50 AM: Major Green…While I am addressing basic necessities; Contract Meals. Disaster…Short hundred of meals every feeding, bugs and dirt are found in the meals several times a week and for the past two days prioners have been vomiting after they eat. That coupled iwht the fact that their arrival time varies trmendously. This is of great concern as Ramadon has begun. We are now out of field rations for the prisoners.”
(army Inspector General in Greenber and Dratel, 648,712,710; Golden T. In US report, brutal details of 2 Afghan inmates’ deaths. New York Times May 20, 2005; Saar and Viveca, 66,103-104, 243, 101-102; Yee, 102-104; 143; Dinenna DW. Multimple emails, Oct 27, 2003, Taguba Annex 59;
Just because something is marginally better than living in the desert, does not make it acceptable. Neither would I want these conditions on our troops.
*multiple
I do remember your comment that a woman in an abusive relationship had an obligation to abort. I found that really disturbing. I hope it was hyperbole.
Posted by: hippie at November 13, 2007 12:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, what I said was that a woman who CHOOSES to remain in an abusive relationship has an obligation to abort rather than drag an innocent, vulnerable victim into her mess.
How many women do we know choose to stay in abusive relationships? Why would women like that ever have children?
What, like a recording studio?
Posted by: mk at November 13, 2007 11:45 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL. Yeah, bad verb tends to result in angry, confused children.
I do remember your comment that a woman in an abusive relationship had an obligation to abort. I found that really disturbing. I hope it was hyperbole.
Posted by: hippie at November 13, 2007 12:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, what I said was that a woman who CHOOSES to remain in an abusive relationship has an obligation to abort rather than drag an innocent, vulnerable victim into her mess.
How many women do we know choose to stay in abusive relationships? Why would women like that ever have children?
Posted by: Laura at November 13, 2007 1:06 PM
I remember exactly what hippie posted. You did say she had an obligation to abort. I very clearly remember but I’m sure you meant to say what you wrote above.
Maybe I’m simple. Abortion is evil. Torture is evil. End of story.
From the “Mr. Brooks” thread, Nov. 3rd:
Yup, if you chose to live with a violent man, I believe you have an obligation to abort your pregnancies.
You like that kind of misery? Fine, but you’re not entitled to drag tiny, vulnerable people into your particular brand of sickness, much less raise another generation of abusers and victims.
Once a man puts his hands on a woman, you know EVERYTHING you will ever need to know about him. Allowing a freak like that access to children makes you guilty of child endangerment – if not outright abuse.
Posted by: Laura at November 3, 2007 10:38 AM
Not if you escape the abuse.
yllas: The younger the life, the less worthy the life is deemed by Doug, from not being able to make realistic choices.
Nonsense, you’re just making up silly stuff again.
An obligation to abort? What happened to pro CHOICE?
John M: over and over you write that abortion is OK if its a woman’s perogative. Over the months I have attempted to show such a decision is suspect as being good .. let alone the best. It seems that this is not compelling enough …. what if such a decision was made on the same basis that someone with anorexia determines she is too fat? IS she the best arbiter of her decision?
John, if she’s not “in her right mind,” or not “of sound mind,” then I agree that her decisions and thoughts may be “suspect” as you mean. I’d say that if that’s the case, then the odds of her being sorry for her actions would increase – and of course that may mean she chose to continue a pregnancy and regrets it later on.
If a given woman is in a given state, I might think she’s making the wrong choice to have an abortion, or if she is choosing not to end one – it depends.
It’s still not my business to tell her she’s not thinking “right” and that she should not be allowed to choose, either way.
Doug
So, Doug would let her die, because it was her choice. @@
Laura,
I think you probably feel just as sorry for a woman in an abusive relationship as I do. Sometimes people need a lot of support and help to get out. She needs a friend commit to help her get out. Pregnancy might help her wake up and smell the coffee. I have metaphorically twisted a couple of friends’ arms to get out of bad relationships. And it worked. One came and stayed with me for a while, the other lived in Thailand but she took my advice after I really told her how much I loved her and reminded her what a great person she was. People often respond to love, support and a commitment to help.
Hippie: I also discussed with Doug the deterioration of rationality of those who abort. I posted studies that included the entire population of California and of a European nation that showed the suicide rate among those who abort is 5-6 times that of those who deliver. He replied saying that was only some or not a good enough indicator, etc. He also posted some references about emotional consequences from the PP website. When I looked up the studies, they were small, participants were hand picked and in one, half the participants quit before the end.
Hippie, you have a point about sample size and the way studies are done. But not all the ones I referenced were small or “hand-picked,” etc. And primarily, you haven’t demonstrated “deterioration” after abortion. That would be causation, and what you’ve posted don’t prove that.
……
We have also read the studies from NEJM and Archives of Internal Medicine which were posted by Laura and Somg about breast cancer that show abortion rates among those who abort are 30% higher, which the researchers attribute to the lower number of children of those in the group.
I’m not sure about this one. There are conflicting studies and statements.
……
No matter how good, solid and accurate your info showing the detriment to women, folks like Doug, Laura, Somg will continue to say that no one should ever be discouraged from abortion.
Wrong. You haven’t proven “detriment” – if anything you’ve showed that women who choose abortion may share certain characteristics more than women who don’t. And that may be true, but that’s no reason to “discourage” them from making their own best choice. Blacks have a higher chance of sickle-cell anemia. They tend to smoke menthol cigarettes more, too. Do you think that banning menthol smokes will make sickle-cell go away?
……
Doug said recently better that thousands be aborted than a few be abused.
Yes, because I’m looking at suffering. I would rather see women who have unwanted pregnancies end them, even in large numbers, versus having some of the suffering that some kids undergo around the world today.
Doug
John, good one! Again, her body, her choice. So what if it’s killing her?
Heather, if we see a person who is clearly doing things that are killing them or otherwise harming them to such an extent as anorexia, then I’d agree that they may not be “of sound mind” in thinking about the future. This could apply to people choosing to have abortions, and to people choosing to continue pregnancies. How many pregnant women are in such a state is a good question.
Doug
Doug said recently better that thousands be aborted than a few be abused.
Yes, because I’m looking at suffering. I would rather see women who have unwanted pregnancies end them, even in large numbers, versus having some of the suffering that some kids undergo around the world today.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 13, 2007 3:53 PM
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Where is the evidence that women with unplanned pregnancies are more abusive than other moms? Remember that while PP provides cheap abortions, the majortiy are private more expensive doctors implying that the women have resources.
So, Doug would let her die, because it was her choice.
Nope, Heather, “letting her die” came from your mind, not mine.
Laura, I think you probably feel just as sorry for a woman in an abusive relationship as I do. Sometimes people need a lot of support and help to get out. She needs a friend commit to help her get out. Pregnancy might help her wake up and smell the coffee.
Holy Crow, Hippie!
:: laughing ::
You gotta love Jill’s blog.
Doug,
you wrote,
And primarily, you haven’t demonstrated “deterioration” after abortion. That would be causation, and what you’ve posted don’t prove that.
……
I see what you are saying about my phrasing. I think the deterioration of rationality can be before during or after. Still post abortive women have a much higher suicide rate, and that implies a higher attempted suicide rate as well. Some of these women are truly at risk emotionally, whether before, during or after.
Doug,
Pregnancy might help her wake up and smell the coffee.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
She doesn’t get pregnant to get out. However, getting pregnant might jolt her enough to seek help, listen to her friends, whatever it is she needs to get out. Having the abuser drive her to PP and then ask how long till she can have sex again is not really that helpful to her in my opinion.
I don’t think getting a pregnant woman out of an abusive situation is funny. I think it is compassionate.
Doug, sometimes I can’t figure out what you find so amusing.
Hippie, I have also helped a woman escape an abuser. It isn’t always easy. Some women go right back. Don’t ask me why. However, this lady was more than willing to leave. I found an apartment for her. She already had a job. I took her food shopping..I paid for her food a few times, and I helped her shop to furnish her apartment. She ended up meeting a man who treats her like a queen. A happy ending:]
Doug:
Yes, because I’m looking at suffering. I would rather see women who have unwanted pregnancies end them, even in large numbers, versus having some of the suffering that some kids undergo around the world today.
That’s the problem — you’re only looking at suffering. Those kids aren’t all killing themselves, so isn’t it possible that they find something worthwhile about being alive? That they even experience some joy and love amidst the suffering?
That’s not to say that I’m for them suffering, only that killing them so they don’t experience either suffering or joy is just about the worst solution I can think of.
Hi Laura, other PC and PL,
it seems to me we are both talking about a populace (us) that does atrocious things to other people … our governments and other public people not only lie but are expected to lie … and we justify this behavior by excusing ourselves and faulting ‘the other side’. This kind of finger-pointing goes no where, except to entrap/convict us in our own biases … often called ‘preferences’.
Besides this constant repetition about the rightness of our own (side’s) views, I presented several times the involvement of zinc deficiency as a repeating fact in almost all North American pregnancies.
Should I ask if even one person has tried this route to mitigate depression? Why not???
Besides this constant repetition about the rightness of our own (side’s) views, I presented several times the involvement of zinc deficiency as a repeating fact in almost all North American pregnancies.
Should I ask if even one person has tried this route to mitigate depression? Why not???
Posted by: John McDonell at November 13, 2007 4:52 PM
John, where is the profit potential in your solution?
Personally, I take some supplements and when I forget, it makes a big difference. I eat a lot of fruits and veggies so I get lots of vitamins. I had depression during pregnancy but not after. Do you have a link to the zinc info? My friend is pregnant. I think she would like to read about it.
Hi hippie,
the main book is ‘Zinc and Copper in Medicine’ eds. Karcioglu and Sarper … this is a 300+ page biology text of prominent research teams.
The kicker is … while THE main mineral for structure seems to be calcium,THE main mineral for functioning seems to be zinc. If we are deficient in zinc (and most of us are), then we under-function. And vitamins do not replace the actions of minerals.
Sally wrote,
We know that a fetal heart does not function sufficiently to support life early in gestation. A scientist is not necessary to prove it. Very premature births are sufficient evidence of the lack of functional life support systems.
Posted by: Sally at November 12, 2007 9:32 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Heartbeat is a function of the heart. The heart beats early in gestation. That is evidence of at least some function. Similary nerves begin to form early. It is more difficult to assess that funtion. However, the baby moves around which has to be controlled by nerves. So there is evidence of some function. There is no proof the baby feels no pain. There is evidence that he might because the nerves function enough for him to move. I don’t know if he feels pain, but he might. Honestly that is all we know.
Posted by: hippie at November 13, 2007 12:19 PM
…………………………………………………………………….
Knee jerk movements are not conscious movement. Not intentional or controlled. We know in what portion of the brain that pain is recognized and we know at what stage of development this is functional.
The type of heart pulsating early in gestation is not the type of heart necessary for sustaining human life. A conceptus is not a tiny baby with all it’s necessary parts just needing to grow. Functional life support systems must be ‘built’ and the woman must supply the ‘materials’ for there to be a functional human being. No woman should be demanded to do so.
Sally,
You are being ridiculous.
You’re off your rocker Laura.
You would have made a great member of the Gestapo Laura. You certainly are an apologist for fascism.
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, “The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!”), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information — for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, “We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?” Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone’s arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate — such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing “My opponents are fascists” with “My opponents’ arguments are fascist.”
http://tinyurl.com/yphdhg
It’s hard to take you seriously Sal, when you have been arguing about something for an hour now, without knowing the definition of what you are arguing about.
And even harder to take you seriously when every post ends with a personal insult to the person you are refuting.
You can do what you want, but if you want to be on equal footing, you should probably try to eliminate the insults and get caught up on the terminology.
I think you are an intelligent woman. But it doesn’t always come across that way.
Posted by: mk at November 13, 2007 6:33 AM
………………………
Sorry if I offend you mk. but I find PL Laura to be quite off her rocker and ridiculous in her defense of torture.
I stand corrected about the prequalifier of induced to the word abortion. I can see that it is more precise terminology to many. I beg everyone’s parden over my sloppy use of terminology. : )
Doug said recently “better that thousands be aborted than a few be abused.”
“Yes, because I’m looking at suffering. I would rather see women who have unwanted pregnancies end them, even in large numbers, versus having some of the suffering that some kids undergo around the world today.”
Hippie: Where is the evidence that women with unplanned pregnancies are more abusive than other moms? Remember that while PP provides cheap abortions, the majortiy are private more expensive doctors implying that the women have resources.
Hippie, I didn’t say there was any direct “trade-off.” Not saying that having 1000 more abortions “makes up” for the suffering that some individuals undergo – I don’t think it does and I wouldn’t relate the two anyway.
If we are looking at disadvantaged and/or unwanted pregnancies, I am saying it is reasonable to think that on average kids from wanted pregnancies do better than those from unwanted pregnancies, just as they do better from two-parent homes versus one-parent homes, etc. The economic means of the women with unwanted pregnancies is not going to change that.
You could say that among women with unwanted pregnancies, it is reasonable to think that wealthier women, if they give birth, will have kids that do better. But that is not comparion wanted with unwanted.
Doug
Doug, sometimes I can’t figure out what you find so amusing.
Well doggone it, Heather, let my buy you that steak sometime, and we’ll hash it out.
Hippie: I see what you are saying about my phrasing. I think the deterioration of rationality can be before during or after. Still post abortive women have a much higher suicide rate, and that implies a higher attempted suicide rate as well. Some of these women are truly at risk emotionally, whether before, during or after.
You can also say that some women who give birth are more at risk emotionally (obviously).
I am not ruling out causation from having abortions, but that is a far cry from it being proven. It’s like finding something “bad” among women who choose to continue pregnancies and give birth, and projecting that it’s “bad” to give birth.
Doug
“Yes, because I’m looking at suffering. I would rather see women who have unwanted pregnancies end them, even in large numbers, versus having some of the suffering that some kids undergo around the world today.”
Jan R: That’s the problem — you’re only looking at suffering. Those kids aren’t all killing themselves, so isn’t it possible that they find something worthwhile about being alive? That they even experience some joy and love amidst the suffering?
That’s not to say that I’m for them suffering, only that killing them so they don’t experience either suffering or joy is just about the worst solution I can think of.
Jan, agreed – they aren’t all killing themselves or even wishing to die. Of course some of them find life worthwhile. I wasn’t saying they “should” die, only that I’d rather have none of them suffer as some of them do, versus, say, a thousand women with unwanted pregnancies being forced to continue them, or otherwise not being allowed to have abortions.
I see no need for more people on earth for the sake of “more,” certainly not to the extent that we deny the desire of a pregnant woman to end her pregnancy.
Doug
John M: Should I ask if even one person has tried this route to mitigate depression? Why not?
John, I’d say that pro-choicers and pro-lifers both would be for fixing mineral deficencies, etc., if they are present.
Let me ask you – I think that the possibility of emotional influence from such deficencies is entirely possible – so are not doctors aware of this? It seems farfetched that such a thing, in this day and age, would not be known/acknowledged.
Doug
Oops, sorry, Jen. I just misread your name as “Jan.” No good explanation or excuse for that.
Doug
P.S. I have good glasses too.
Sally: “Sorry if I offend you mk. but I find PL Laura to be quite off her rocker and ridiculous in her defense of torture.”
Sorry if I offend you Sally. but I find you to be quite off your rocker and ridiculous in your defense of torture and murder of unborn babies.
You can also say that some women who give birth are more at risk emotionally (obviously).
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 13, 2007 9:14 PM
I don’t know that much about depression and pregnancy and birth. However the California study and the Finland study showed that women who give birth have a lower suicide rate than the average for all women.
So I can’t really say that those who deliver are more at risk, they appear somewhat lower risk emotionally.
ally,
I realize that my posts possibly came across as condescending…but I’m actually trying to help here.
We have a few resident “nutballs” (loveable, but nutballs nonetheless) here on both sides. You’re side has Texas Red and SoMG (oh how I miss Cameron)and we have Zeke and Yllas.
You haven’t quite made it into that group yet.
I would hate to see you placed there. I think you have some good arguments and good ideas, but sometimes the way you present them makes us just want to skip over everything you have to say. Which means we miss your sincere thoughts as well as your more “colorful” ones.
I’d like to see you taken seriously. While our resident characters do make some good points, I know for myself when I read their posts I do it with a grain of salt. And they provide great entertainment. (Although to be fair to SoMG, his posts are getting more and more credible with time).
So you can do what you want, but I for one, would love to see you take the higher road and really join the debate…does that make sense without being insulting?
Posted by: mk at November 13, 2007 8:25 AM
………………………………………………………………..
mk, yllas is Sally spelled backwards. The freak is a stalker. If something should happen to me, Jill might be complicit by lack of notification to the propper authorities. Yawn. Oh well.
What is your problem with me mk? Using the terms of sillyhead and off your rocker might drive pl folks to deep depression and suicide? Or can you simply not answer to my opinions and points?
Censor me mk. It’s a blog protected from freedom of speech.
Sally: “Sorry if I offend you mk. but I find PL Laura to be quite off her rocker and ridiculous in her defense of torture.”
Sorry if I offend you Sally. but I find you to be quite off your rocker and ridiculous in your defense of torture and murder of unborn babies.
Posted by: jasper at November 13, 2007 10:44 PM
……………………………………
Why do you never have anything of intellect to say Jasper? Attempted insult is all you have.
mk? where are you?
Why do you never have anything of intellect to say Jasper? Attempted insult is all you have.
mk? where are you?
Posted by: Sally at November 14, 2007 1:01 AM************************* Say WhAAAAt?
Sorry if I offend you mk. but I find PL Laura to be quite off her rocker and ridiculous in her defense of torture.
You don’t offend me Sally. I’m just pointing out that you are an intelligent woman, and have much to offer, but that when people read insults, they tend to skip over that post.
I was thinking of you, not me. Pretty much, we put our posters into different categories whether consciously or not.
Some we think of as formidable opponents, some we think of as trolls.
I’d like to think of you as a formidable opponent. But when insults get flung around, you run the risk of being labeled a troll.
You can post anyway that you like. It all depends on how you wish to be responded to. That’s all.
Sorry if I offended you.
Sally,
Censor me mk. It’s a blog protected from freedom of speech.
This isn’t about “censoring” Sal. I have no intention of censoring you. And you know that this is one of the “most free” blogs you have ever posted on. That’s not a fair statement.
It’s not that you have “crossed any lines” or that I’m threatening to delete you…this wasn’t meant as a “warning”…
I want people to read what you’re saying because I think it has merit. I fear they ignore you because they can’t get past the insults or tone of your posts.
You can continue to post that way, but you’ll get the same results.
On the freakonomics thread, you have totally argued your points brilliantly, and everyone has responded in kind.
Does this make any sense?
Mk, I agree. It was good to “talk” with Sally on the Freakonomics post without the insults. I hope this continues..
Thanks for backing me up Carrie. I think Sally has a lot to offer. I hate to see her dismissed or ignored.
Sally is getting better, and I like her better this way:}
@Doug,
for decades now I and many thousands of folks have wondered the same thing. This is likely the main driving force behind ‘alternate’ medicine … the very large amount of bad science that is promoted by orthodox medicine. Some people believe that modern ND’s will replace MD’s as a health promoter. The incorporation of minerals like zinc has mainly to do with preventative medicine. http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php
The way the system is structured now, a doctor gets paid for how SICK you are … the more people sick = the more he/she gets paid. For example, the authors of one article says that 90% of all genetic diseases would stop if sufficient zinc and vitamin B6 were taken during pregnancy. How come most MD’s have never told you about it? Perhaps studying nutrition for 1/2 course in 7 years of med-school (this is an option and many MD’s do not even have this amount) – explains the widespread disinterest.
There is the very poor notion that because we are rich, throwing enough money at some problem ‘fixes’ it. We believe in this notion and it is precisely wrong-headed. For example, this same view can easily be applied to electric power generation … http://www.cheniere.org In this view also: voting republican (conservative) vs democrat (liberal), is all that is needed. Instead of being all-growed up, we are more like a catepillar in a cocoon.
Me too! I’ve noticed it as well.
I’m anonymous, BTW.
Doctor John M: for decades now I and many thousands of folks have wondered the same thing. This is likely the main driving force behind ‘alternate’ medicine … the very large amount of bad science that is promoted by orthodox medicine. Some people believe that modern ND’s will replace MD’s as a health promoter. The incorporation of minerals like zinc has mainly to do with preventative medicine. http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php
John – agreed that there is much we are only now finding out, if we’re even that far. There have also been endless cases of “natural” or “alternative” things being seen as “miracle cures” only to be proven false. Tell you what – I keep an open mind to new stuff, but it’s not like there is a big conspiracy among “normal” doctors to do less than their best for patients.
……
My MD is an osteopath and he’s a young guy, lots younger than me, and a really good guy. Sure, he needs to run lots of people through the office each day just to break even, let alone make a living or a good living or a great living. I’ve never had a complaint against him. I know what to ask, and I’m not shy about doing it. “One article” about nutrition? Who knows? My personal opinion is that supplementation is a good thing unless there is pretty good evidence against it. Some days I have a terrible diet, and some days I do fairly good, but I still take a multi-vitamin each day just in case it does me some good. Have also seen arguments against doing that, but on balance I still keep taking the vitamins….
…….
There is the very poor notion that because we are rich, throwing enough money at some problem ‘fixes’ it. We believe in this notion and it is precisely wrong-headed. For example, this same view can easily be applied to electric power generation … http://www.cheniere.org In this view also: voting republican (conservative) vs democrat (liberal), is all that is needed. Instead of being all-growed up, we are more like a catepillar in a cocoon.
Woo Hoo! No argument there, John. “Throwing money” is just the way to say it, too, like with Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” programs in the US. We bought into poverty, and poverty was what we got. Afterwards, a higher percentage of Americans were below the poverty line than before.
My big thing is economics/investments/ and energy. Sure – Democrat versus Republican means almost nothing there. I wondered if $3 per gallon gasoline would make a meaningful impact on the amount of driving that people did. Sure doesn’t look like it thus far. I bet that $5 or $6 will, though.
Iiam all for nuclear energy. Very little if any “greenhouse gas” emissions and very efficient, though the “not in my backyard” syndrome is really holding the US back. China and India and other countries are going full-blast ahead with building and planning new nuke plants and I’m all for it.
Alternative evergy – in the US, it provides roughly 0.1% of our energy. A drop in the bucket. Okay, let’s say we really go nuts and increase it a hundred-fold. That’d bring it up to 10% of our current consumption. Well, it would take some years to achieve that, and during that time the overall energy usage would increase by more than that 10%, so even if that happened we’d still be using more coal, oil, and natural gas. In the very long run, perhaps nuke plants will help out but that’s a long way away, given the social and regulatory environment in the US.
Bottom line – wer’re going to be burning a crapload of coal, and continuing to use a bunch of oil and natural gas. There are more and more people in North America (as well as in the whole world) and the per-capita energy usage is going up.
I think that we should conserve on energy to save money. That’s the real deal that people will respond to, when the savings become large enough. Don’t think concern for the environment will do much; and China and India have 3 billion+ people who are only now getting into the “middle class” and starting to consume and desiring the same things that we use, have, and take for granted. I am saying there is no “going back” and that hope of “the good old days” is fruitless. Energy usage will continue to increase as wil carbon emissions, for the foreseeable future, even if there’s a depression in the US.
Along these lines, I’m “all in” as far as Canadian investments and other countries foreign to the US – our weakening Dollar and heinous fiscal policies have made us a bad, bad, place to be, financially. Gotta love those Canadian royalty trusts.
Doug
Hi Doug,
there’s a reason I gave you Tom Beardon’s site. This guy has brains coming-out-his-ears and thinks so far outside the box … he very much revolutionizes our concepts of power. And he doesn’t take piecemeal measures … study and read some on his site …
Go check out the wonderful new movie Bella, in theatres this weekend. It’s an uplifting story of the unmitigated value and dignity of human life.
John, I’ll check that site out more in the future – amazing stuff.
Vriginia, “No Country For Old Men” is the one you want to see now.
Doug