Christina Aguilera: pregnant pin-up
The January 2008 issue of Marie Claire magazine sports pregnant and mostly naked Christina Aguilera on the cover.
I spotted it on the newstand and was mostly thrilled, despite misgivings of the pose. I love when the pop culture promotes pregnancy, particularly of the rare married celebrity, although this promotion was indeed a bit disconcerting. The accompanying story included more risqué shots. See one on page 2.
I also love to read the altered language when the pop culture promotes pregnancy. Were Aguilera discussing her abortion, names would have been changed to deflect from the innocent. Words like “child,” “baby,” and “roommate” would have been nixed for “fetus” and the generic “pregnancy.”…
When reading these quotes, bear in mind Aguilera’s last known position was pro-abortion, and the writer is MC’s executive editor, Lucy Kaylin, and MC is decidedly pro-abortion, with easy evidence on its last page, when it wishes “Happy 35th, Roe v. Wade” (click graphic to enlarge)….
“May I?” I say, reaching out – actually copping a feel of icon tummy. Under normal circumstances, breaching the electric fence that surrounds stars of her magnitude would be unthinkable. But this glowing – dare I say earthy? – version of Aguilera is hard to resist….
“We were planning on starting to try after the tour,” she says…. “And so I had gone off the Pill to prepare my body, because I didn’t know how much time it would take….
“By the time I was supposed to get my period, I was like, It’s not coming – and I’m never late. And there were emotions coming up that I’d never felt before – I was already starting to get emotional. So I did a test. And when the double lines came, my jaw dropped; I started shaking. I couldn’t help but smile, and I started to tear up.”…
Well and good. Only problem was she still had a month left on an 8-month world tour…. “There are so many things that could go wrong – somebody could slip, somebody could fall, I could fall…. There was no way in hell I was going to jeopardize my baby for my show.”…
“Because I hadn’t said anything, people thought I was trying to keep it this big, bad secret, and that’s not the case at all. I just wasn’t commenting…. I’m not going to announce my child. Why do I have to announce something that’s personal?…
Now the woman who made a public fetish of control and self-determination is happily giving herself over to the unplumable mysteries of procreation. She seems humbled by the knowledge that this whole thing is bigger than she is – that she’s just not alone in the universe anymore. “Some days when you’re pregnant, you just don’t feel like doing a show, but I’d be like, ‘Come on, little one,'” she says, gazing down at her belly and giving it a stroke. “I really did feel like I had a teammate. It felt like my little roommate in there. Like, little one was egging me on and encouraging me to do it….”
With the dazed smile of a lottery winner, [husband Jordan Bratman] says how excited he is about the baby – that they’ve actually started to feel him kick….”
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.
WOW! No one should look that good pregnant!
The March for Women
“There was no way in hell I was going to jeopardize my baby for my show.”…
That makes me smile.
The March for Women
Bethany,
Exactly, the point is what? This isn’t exactly a gathering of great thinkers, but a collection of rich, spoiled celebrities, to whom our society gives entirely too much credence. Isn’t Alec Baldwin the one who was recorded verbally abusing his daughter, and Jane Fonda the notorious traitor? By the way, did Sarah Weddington ever acknowledge if she knew Norma McCorvey was lying when she claimed she was a gang rape victim? Certainly Ms.Weddington could have easily had this investigated if she was interested in the truth to begin with.
The point is, she’s still pro-choice. One can have children and not say that everybody else has to, you know.
And it’s very likely that she DOESN’T look that good pregnant. Any magazine shoot is going to be Photoshopped beyond recognition. While I agree that Aguilera is a beautiful woman, what you see in these shoots doesn’t say a whole lot about reality.
I would like to look as good as Christina, and I’m not even pregnant!
The March for Women
Holly,
A valid point. Makeup artists and photographers can do wonders.
Its like we hear how Madame Celebrity can look so gorgeous 2 weeks after having a baby. Unlike the rest of us peasantry, she has a private chef, a nanny, and a household staff that enables her to spend time with a personal trainer, plus get all the rest she needs, not to mention the staff of professionals who see to it she always looks gorgeous.
That’s the beauty of establishing a successful career before you start a family.
Laura,
No surprise. Keep in mind these are the same people who preach to us about using clotheslines, while they travel in private jets, and who think mass transit is five people in a limousine.
Holly,
Do you think unborn children should be killed depending on whether or not they are wanted?
Laura,
Well honestly, my career was established before my first baby but my husband got laid off after she was born and I lost all my weight going back to work after 6 weeks, breastfeeding, keeping up a house, and caring for a baby, not to mention getting very little sleep. I’m afraid I wasn’t very glamorous. That’s why all this gushing as to how Madame Celebrity “manages” a career and motherhood still sets my teeth on edge!
With all the help she has, how can she not?
The second name on the list?
Yes, I saw it…but I still fail to see the point. Did someone claim she was anti-abortion?
That’s the beauty of establishing a successful career before you start a family.
Posted by: Laura at January 3, 2008 3:01 PM
Here is an article about women quitting high powered careers to stay home.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/08/60minutes/main648240.shtml
An excerpt from the article:
It’s just as it was supposed to be 40 years after women got in the front door.
But look for the women of the next generation — the ones everyone assumed would follow in droves behind them, and you’re likely to find many of them walking right back out and staying at home.
Lisa Beattie Frelinghuysen was on her way to the very top of the legal profession. At Stanford Law School, she was president of the law review. She went to work for a top law firm, and she clerked at the Supreme Court for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
But after she had her first baby seven years ago, she left, and never went back. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.
“I know myself, and I know that when I’m working at something, I work hard. When I was at the law review, I was working until midnight every night. And my husband started a surgical residency where he was completely unavailable,” recalls Frelinghuysen.
“I was afraid that if I was working, there would be no parent there with the children. And I wanted to experience getting to know my children, being there in a consistent way.”
Motherhood can be the greatest career of all according to those who have played both games.
Careers are often overrated and motherhood is generally underrated at least by those who haven’t tried it.
Here’s the beauty of my following society’s advice to have a career first. I married later, was on the pill for five years and didn’t give birth to my first baby till 30.
Of course now my breast cancer risk is 300% higher than what it would have been had I got married and had my first baby by 20. No doctor ever warned me, nor did I ever hear that in years of public education. Isn’t that beautiful.
keeping up a house, and caring for a baby, not to mention getting very little sleep. I’m afraid I wasn’t very glamorous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You were in charge of the house and the baby while your husband was unemployed?
My friend Kelly did that for three weeks. Then she picked up her baby and moved. They’re very happy and don’t seem to miss him…
PC feminists aren’t for choice at all. I constantly hear them railing against younger women who want to stay home to raise their children. Like they are traitors to the “cause” because they prefer home over a career.
Same with abortion. Even in the reviews for “Juno” some were saying the movie should have spent more time talking about abortion because it was such a hard won battle. Please!
Laura, ever hear that looking for a job IS a full time job?
Laura,
My husband did help out, I’m just saying I didn’t have a household staff to attend to my home and baby so that I could be free to make myself glamorous. Also, at that time, maternity leaves were only 6 weeks. You should have seen the flak I got at work for wanting to drop one day a week, my response was they could kiss my derriere.
I consider myself a PC feminist, and I would never have an abortion and I want to stay home with my children. I have never been to this site, so I don’t know exactly what it is all about, but is this article just about showing that Christina Aguilara is pro-choice and has now flip-flopped? I’m sure she is still PC. The way I view abortion is that until that baby can survive on it’s own, outside the womb, it should be the woman’s choice whether to keep it in her body or not. From a scientific/ecological standpoint, aborted babies will actually help the human species survive longer. With population growing at alarming rates, the planet will not be able to support us forever. Why not help the millions of babies and children who are already born who do not have homes or loving families or food before you worry about the ones who cannot even survive outside the womb yet.
I consider myself a PC feminist, and I would never have an abortion and I want to stay home with my children.
Welcome to the blog, Shannon :-)
… why would you never have an abortion?
Welcome Shannon! Here you will be treated with respect AND intellectually challenged…so be prepared to back up what you say!!
Hello Shannon! Premature babies have been known to survive with as little as 21 weeks gestation. Would you support a law that outlawed abortion in all circumstances after 21 weeks? After all, by your definition, the little one is a baby by then. What about as the number of weeks of gestation needed for survival goes down? It used to be 27 weeks, but medicine is continually making strides on this point. Is the moment of “baby-hood” also continually changing?
Oh please. This is not a pro-choice/pro-life debate. It’s about what’s hot.
Pregnancy is SO in this year! It’s like it’s the new black. Or something. Seriously, they all have nannies raising their kids. It’s just a fad. It’ll be over soon, and then abortion will be in again. That’s just how trends go.
Edyt, are you saying that abortion isn’t “in” at the moment?
Hi Shannon. Please explain how aborted babies help save the planet. If less children help save the planet, then should you not have children? How does the state of being unwanted make a baby more of a drain on the planet?
Picture two babies(one wanted and the other unwanted). Why should one be sacrificed to save the planet and the other one get to live? The fact that an unborn baby is not wanted by her parents should not make her a sacrificial lamb.
Now abortion is a “fad” that comes and goes with the fashion of the moment?
Good Lord, at least when you guys “pretend” that it’s a life and death matter I can take you seriously.
Shannon,
The point of this article I believe was simply to show that when a “fetus” is wanted it suddenly becomes a “baby”…even by someone who is pro choice.
Laura,
Jill states early on in the article that Christina IS pro choice. Never claims she isn’t. Was pointing out the hypocrisy of someone that would quit her tour for her “baby” simply because she wants it. But would kill the same “baby” (calling it a fetus then of course) is it didn’t fit into her plans…
Hi Shannon,
About so-called overpopulation. That threat has been sounded since I was a teenager and I will not elaborate on how long ago that was. I’m just willing to wager it was long before you were born.
According to the great thinkers of that time, we were all supposed to be non-existent by now.
I’ve spent my life listening to this “crisis” and that and the human race and planet earth are still here.
It makes me think of ancient cultures who felt they had to perform certain rituals or the rains would not come or the sun and moon would not rise and set. We, like they, think we actually control the planet and forces of nature.
The planet goes on in spite of us, not because of anything we do, and will be thumbing its nose at us long after we are all gone.
Laura, I could care less what Swoozie Kurtz thinks about abortion(I did like her on Sisters though). My prolifers expect Hollywood to be proabort.
*edit* should read Most instead of My
Carrie,
Not to mention Cheryl Crow, who want to limit us to one piece of toilet paper. Oh, and Jennifer Anniston who brushes her teeth and showers simultaneously to save water.
How can our planet go wrong with these great thinkers at work?
I didn’t say abortion was a fad, I said pregnancy was. Arm candy isn’t defined by the man you’re carting around anymore … it’s all about looking sexy and round, and having a baby to cart around …
Come on, who doesn’t want to watch episodes of Pimp My Stroller?
(To the oblivious out there: I’m not mocking abortion or your pro-life ideas. I’m mocking celebrities. Stop taking everything as an insult and laugh a little.)
OH and guess what! You can be PRO-CHOICE and CHOOSE not to have an abortion.
Not all pro-choicers have abortions, and some even CHOOSE to have children!! Some have never had an abortion in their life!
Compare to feminism: People THINK it’s about women being able to work rather than stay home and babysit, but in actuality, feminism is the ability to CHOOSE whether you stay home and parent or go out and get a career.
Oh my. Radical, isn’t it?
“Oh, and Jennifer Anniston who brushes her teeth and showers simultaneously to save water.”
How in the world is that helping? Is she simultaneously brushing her teeth AND washing her back? She’s letting water run while she stands there and brushes her teeth. Don’t most normal people just turn off the water while brushing? Sheesh!
Edyt,
Please, women do not stay home and “babysit”, they stay home and WORK.
Also, women have always worked outside the home, by choice and otherwise. My mother desperately wanted to stay home with her children, she didn’t have that option.
Feminism did not introduce the concept of women working outside the home. My grandmother and great grandmother were working outside the home long before these feminists were ever born, and not because they wanted to, but because their children would go hungry if they didn’t.
Compare to feminism: People THINK it’s about women being able to work rather than stay home and babysit, but in actuality, feminism is the ability to CHOOSE whether you stay home and parent or go out and get a career.
Oh my. Radical, isn’t it?
Posted by: Edyt at January 3, 2008 6:49 PM
Are stay at home moms a threat to civilization? Those of you who are shocked by this question should take note of the fact that ABC’s “Good Morning America” program devoted segments to this question on two successive days, featuring the arguments of Linda Hirshman, a prominent feminist thinker.
“I am saying an educated, competent adult’s place is in the office,” Hirshman told Good Morning America. “In other words, moms who stay at home with their children have given themselves to a calling that no educated or competent adult should desire or accept.”
Right Edyt, she sounds like she just LOVES the “Choice.”
Kristen,
I didn’t call them “great thinkers” for nothing!
What is really frightening is how much credence we actually give these people.
Holly: And it’s very likely that she DOESN’T look that good pregnant. Any magazine shoot is going to be Photoshopped beyond recognition. While I agree that Aguilera is a beautiful woman, what you see in these shoots doesn’t say a whole lot about reality.
Ha! Have to laugh, Holly. This is an extreme example, but a good one.
If all the makeup on her face was taken off, it’d make a pile bigger than her belly.
Nothing against Christina and I wish her good luck, but this is one woman who you would hardly recognize without makeup.
Doug
Okay Mary, feel free to disregard the “people think” and substitute “Edyt thinks” in its place.
I’m very much aware about women working outside the home, and I’m very much aware that staying home is a full-time job in itself.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but believe me, I do understand the difficulties of raising children. I helped my mother raise my three little brothers (particularly when she was in the hospital) and I get it.
What I said was that people don’t understand what feminism is … and then you “corrected” me by repeating what I said.
I hear you Mary! Their stupidity is astounding!
You know, I can’t help but to notice how since PP was exposed for what they are, which erupted from the Aurora “incident”, how Hollywood has been somewhat promoting pregnancy since that. We’ve been praying worldwide, and I just see that our Lord is working in mysterious ways!!!
Until recently, a young teen would have only thought about abortion if she was scared. Now, she can’t help but to consider ALL options (hopefully, not abortion, though!) because she has been BOMBARDED by pro-life messages! The light has definately been turned on! Just think how many babies have been saved and how many more will be because of the exposure of PP & the evils of abortion!
Praise God!
Mary, we’ll have to add Linda Hirshman to your “great thinkers” list for the quote I posted above. We aren’t worthy to walk in her shadow…
Well, I don’t know what Linda Hirshman is all about, but I do know that one of the principles of feminism (true feminism, anyhow) are about the freedom to choose whether to work outside or inside the home. Additionally, feminism is about equal opportunity, pay, treatment, etc. for any work done.
I realize a lot of feminists look down on women who work in the home, and I DON’T CONDONE THAT BEHAVIOR. Any true feminist would be proud to do a job she felt worthy of her, whether that’s raising kids, fighting fires, teaching, or being a CEO of a major company.
In fact, I think people like Hirshman help push the stereotype that feminists are man-hating, mother-bashing jerks.
Honestly, I don’t think most feminists are like that. But you know, the loudest person always seems to be the representative of the group. *shrug*
Mary: Keep in mind these are the same people who preach to us about using clotheslines, while they travel in private jets, and who think mass transit is five people in a limousine.
Mary, I often feel that way. It’s like, “Do this, do that, (even though I don’t usually do it), and mainly – keep on buying my records and seeing my movies!”
Pregnancy is SO in this year! It’s like it’s the new black. Or something.
Edyt, love it! Give us more!
Happy New Year,
Doug
Edyt,
I stand corrected concerning the “babysit” response. My apologies.
I must disagree though that feminism is about the ability to CHOOSE to stay home and parent or go out and get a career.
As I said Edyt feminism has had nothing to do with this. Women have always worked outside the home, and still do. Sometimes its a choice, sometimes it isn’t. For me it wasn’t a choice, I had to work, as did my mother, grandmother, and great grandmother.
If another woman truly has such a choice, I couldn’t be happier for her.
Doug,
You were so right when you said you and I are on the same page more often then not.
:: laughing :: Mary, maybe we’re just getting to be old curmudgeons heh heh heh.
Best,
Doug
Doug,
Please enlighten me. Who is this man?
Doug,
(Laughing)I have been an “old curmudgeon” for quite some time now! You’re just starting to catch up.
Mary, that’s Christina Aguilera’s husband.
Shannon,
From a scientific/ecological standpoint, aborted babies will actually help the human species survive longer. With population growing at alarming rates, the planet will not be able to support us forever.
Posted by: Shannon at January 3, 2008 4:26 PM
Wake up and smell the coffee, virtually every economist and demographer on the planet is warning about what “family planning” has done to the populations of the industrialized world. Russia is losing 700,000 a year. The population of Europe will decrease 75% by 2100. Japan’s economy is already in deflation and we are only holding our own because of immigrants who have a higher birthrate. “Family planning” is a short sighted social experiment that will be followed by the lower prosperity of our posterity.
Check out The Empty Cradle by Phillip Longman. He is an atheist from the old school, an intelligent skeptic, not just a product of secular education utterly lacking critical thinking skills.
Why Holly, you just gave me a fabulous idea!
I scrolled through the link you provided via your name and found something that is sure to bring it on: In honor of the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, make a video about WHAT ROE VS. WADE MEANS TO YOU.
I don’t have the equipment to create such a commercial, but I’ll provide the script, ‘k?
“What Roe vs. Wade Means to Me 35 Years Later by carder:
Ahem. *fiddles with microphone*
Ask Norma McCorvey.
The End.”
Kristen,
Thank you. Shows what I know!
Edyt,
Honestly, I don’t think most feminists are like that. But you know, the loudest person always seems to be the representative of the group. *shrug*
Posted by: Edyt at January 3, 2008 7:04 PM
I consider myself a feminist and think women should be able to choose their careers whether at home or in business. They should also be told that delaying childbirth is an established risk factor for disease because it is a scientific fact.
I also think that some loud feminists definitely look down on women who choose motherhood.
Here is one for you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601766.html
Everybody started hating Linda, apparently, when I published an article in the progressive magazine the American Prospect last December, saying that women who quit their jobs to stay home with their children were making a mistake. Worse, I said that the tasks of housekeeping and child rearing were not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings. They do not require a great intellect, they are not honored and they do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings. Oh, and by the way, where were the dads when all this household labor was being distributed? Maybe the thickest glass ceiling, I wrote, is at home
Okay, I’m judgmental. That’s what CBS’s Lesley Stahl called me on “60 Minutes.” But I’m a philosopher, and it’s a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives. We’ve been doing so since Socrates. And yet, even though I knew the Greeks made Socrates drink poison, the reaction to my judgment took me by surprise.”
I think the author is very condescending and thinks material gain is a more worthy goal than bringing up responsible folks to take up where we leave off. I think that careers both in and out of the home are honorable and should be honored.
Sorry to change the topic, but what do you guys think of Huckabee and Obama most likely winning Iowa?
“From a scientific/ecological standpoint, aborted babies will actually help the human species survive longer.”
That is just so warped to me. Please don’t use science to support mass killing of people. Let’s not make the same mistake the Nazis did.
We can say scientifically we can take advantage of vulnerable people to “help the species survive longer,” but we want to be ethical here.
Dan- wooo!
PIP, I also found her comment to be very disturbing.
PIP, I completely agree, lol. I’m completely psyched Obama got Iowa, and wouldnt mind a race against Huckabee.
I am INCREDIBLY glad/grateful Romney did not win.
I am not sure how I feel about it yet Dan. I am amused that the queen-apparent didn’t win. As far as the Repubs, I am glad Romney lost. I haven’t really decided who I like yet. I more know who I don’t like-Romney and Thompson.
Do you think Huckabee would be easy to beat?
Dan, if we had an Obama-Huckabee race I would go absolutely crazy. Maybe then we can argue the greater of two goods rather than the lesser of two evils (aka 2004).
I’ve been praying all day that Obama would win, he is infinitely better than Hillary. I don’t understand how someone could trust her!!!
Carrie, overall, yes. But it all depends, in a way, if people who say they like barack and will vote for him actually do. Not to mention, it depends on the campaign tactics each end up using, etc.
Its really too early to tell overall.
Then again, I think Dems have a good shot at the election unless hillary is nominated, at which point itll be a much more difficult fight.
“I am INCREDIBLY glad/grateful Romney did not win.”
Dan, I wouldn’t get to excited about Obama, once super tuesday hits, I think Hillary will pass him. This guy avoids every serious interview with real questions but has the time to go on Ellen D’s show.
Obama!! Hucklebee is having his best day, it’s all down hill from here.
I see McCain moving up
yeah Carrie I don’t see how someone would root for Thompson or Romney. It blows my mind. I have watched the debates, they are terrible!
PIP, I dont understand how she totes experience when shes only held her own office for 2 terms. Being first lady shouldnt count towards that total. Im sure she influenced, but she didnt make the final solutions, etc.
Not to mention, she just seems, like, insane to me
Yeah I would also love an Obama- McCain election. I would also go nuts, a greater-of-two goods kind of thing. I like McCains mostly centrist outlook.
jasper, I wouldnt necessarily count on that. Obama is showing himself as a more and more viable candidate to undecided and wavering voters. Conversions can and do happen, and I think tonights victory will gain him more votes.
Dan- OMG I completely agree. Did she really do a lot as first lady? It seems all they do are really fluff jobs- like tour schools and countries. And promise to goad their husbands into passing certain laws.
and Hal, I dont know, huckabee may be able to garner a decent amount of votes in the bible belt, evangelicals essentially handed him the victory in Iowa
PIP,
please don’t tell me your still voting for Obama.
Obama!!!
say hello to your worst nightmare jasper.
ITS OFFICIAL, OBAMA GOT IOWA, YESSSS
Say no to Obama, Osama and Chelsea’s Moma! LOL!
Dunno Jasper, seems like even a lot of republicans think Obama is the best overall democratic candidate from their view. Speaking, of course, as if they HAD to vote for a Dem.
And Iowa did show people genuinely want change, the main point of Obama’s campaign.
Dan, stop watching CNN, they’re biased. Switch to Fox…
If I hear John Edwards say “corporate greed” one more time..I’m gonna ……This ambulence chaser is a main reason why health insurance is so high.
Edwards speech is very good. Obama/Edwards
Frankly, I’m just happy that this part will all be over on February 5th.
People bemoan “Tsunami Tuesday,” but I’m fairly thrilled with the idea of having candidates picked by then…
I think some one written here before that Hollywood actions contradict their words. They speak for abortion but when it comes down to their own lives they are more pro-life than they think.
Whoooo, go Obama!!
I’m so glad that list at the top of this thread appeared. Now I have the names of several more celebrities I wouldn’t walk into the next room to see or listen to.
See, I don’t get that, Mike. There are some celebrities- like Tom Cruise- who I think are freaking NUTS. I hate his guts as a person. Think he’s a moron. But he is a FANTASTIC actor, and I’m going to watch him anyway because he is a master of his craft. I don’t care about the politics or mindsets of most people I let entertain me. I mean, if they’re a murderer or something, yeah, small problem, but little things like politics, psh. If I want to see a movie it’s because I think the movie is going to be good, not because I approve of the political stances of the actors.
Erin,
We(at least I) see pro-abortion more than just a mere political stance though, we see them as people who have disregard for innocent human life and it just turns us off.
Do you think Huckabee would be easy to beat?
Carrie, good question. Yes, I do think that, as of now. Due to some of his positions, some of the things he has said, the fact that he’d be painted with the “Bush brush” to some extent, etc.
However, prior to the last year, I’d have never said that a woman or a black guy could get the nomination either, so ya ne’er know…..
Doug
Ask Norma McCorvey.
Carder, McCorvey may have been an insecure nutball way back when, needful in her own way, but she surely is now.
Doug
Edyt,
Please, women do not stay home and “babysit”, they stay home and WORK.
Also, women have always worked outside the home, by choice and otherwise. My mother desperately wanted to stay home with her children, she didn’t have that option.
Feminism did not introduce the concept of women working outside the home. My grandmother and great grandmother were working outside the home long before these feminists were ever born, and not because they wanted to, but because their children would go hungry if they didn’t.
Posted by: Mary at January 3, 2008 6:55 PM
…………………………………….
Really Mary? What did your great grandmother do for work outside the home? Clean other people’s houses? If you are nearly as old as you profess to be, your mother had few choices in how to earn money.
About so-called overpopulation. That threat has been sounded since I was a teenager and I will not elaborate on how long ago that was. I’m just willing to wager it was long before you were born. According to the great thinkers of that time, we were all supposed to be non-existent by now. I’ve spent my life listening to this “crisis” and that and the human race and planet earth are still here.
Mary, much like those who think “the sky is falling” because of legal abortion.
That said, there are some profound effects upon our world due to the sheer numbers of people on earth at this time. In the long run, we don’t yet know just how bad they will be, but some of them are already quite bad, and others have at the least a great potential for harm.
Doug
Erin,
We(at least I) see pro-abortion more than just a mere political stance though, we see them as people who have disregard for innocent human life and it just turns us off.
Posted by: jasper at January 3, 2008 10:41 PM
………………………………………………
I don’t think that anyone is interested in you being turned on Jasper. Is everything about sex to you?
Erin: I used to have the same feeling about these celebrities as you do. However, by patronizing their films, and the money they receive from them, it makes us supporters of their agendas when they support the likes of choice, PP, and everything I am against. Cruise, like the rest of them, is just a whack job.
Ahoy, all! ‘Tis I, Leah, back for one of my very last posts–the countdown is down to 12 days!
I like the photos. I don’t think they’re obscene or pin-uppy at all. I LOVE photos of nude pregnant women–I love it when people embrace the beauty of pregnancy instead of going thinking that pregnancy=fat=ugly. Yes, I understand that the photos are Photshopped out of recognition, but the most important detail–Christina’s pregnant belly–remains. These are some of the best photos I have ever seen of her.
“I don’t think that anyone is interested in you being turned on Jasper. Is everything about sex to you?”
Good one Sally. LOL.
Hooray Obama!!! With one of the highest voter turnouts in the history of the Iowa caucus – a significant number of previously undecided/independent voters, and most importantly the highest percentage of YOUNG voters (IE – THE FUTURE OF AMERICA)
Next stop New Hampshire!
(Now if only he could pick McCain as a VEEP, I’d be giddy as could be)
Amanda,
Are you still working at the abortion mill?
Ahoy, all! ‘Tis I, Leah, back for one of my very last posts–the countdown is down to 12 days!
Leah, like in “The Beverly Hillbillies,”
Ya’ll come back now, hear?
Jasper, I didnt get that from CNN, I got the idea of republicans thinking hes the best Dem candidate via websurfing. Granted given the anonymous nature of the net it could be Dems pretending to be republican, it could be young republicans, or it could just be right. But hey, you never know.
Amanda, that is a possibility, but I feel as if the reaching across the aisle would come in his cabinet more than choosing a vp, but you never do know.
I wonder if McCain would accept the offer if he got it, lol
Doug 19:49PM
Norma McCorvey may have been an “insecure nutball” but that did nothing to stop Weddington and Coffee from expoloiting her to promote their cause, the elimination of all state abortion laws. Nor obviously, did they see any need to investigate her charge of gang rape. The story was made to order for their purposes and why ruin anything with the truth.
Doug, 10:53PM
Sorry Doug, but it was your side who warned of imminent doom and gloom unless abortion was legalized.
Sally, 10:52PM
Yes Sally my great- grandmother was a domestic and had to farm her children out to foster care which was more like indentured servitude. You see, she was entirely too proud to take any kind of charity though she had been left a destitute widow after her husband committed suicide.
My grandmother, who by the way was educated in, and could speak, read, and write in two languages, worked for the welfare department during the Great Depression. She demanded a job of some sort rather than have them hand her a welfare check.
My mother was in fact better educated than my father. Unfortunately because of the Great Depression, she never had the opportunity to return to college. Its not that she couldn’t have gone, in fact many of her female friends did, its that if the money wasn’t there, you didn’t go, plus she had to help support her family. She went to work as a secretary initially when my father’s drinking was getting out of control and then went on to work for the county, though I’m not sure in what capacity.
She loathed working outside the home but had few options.
By the way Sally, my mother who is approaching 90 finds it amusing that feminism takes so much credit when she points out women were attending college for generations before feminism, were entering medical school, taught in universities, etc. In fact, there is a landmark women’s college in my hometown that opened in 1910.
“Norma McCorvey may have been an “insecure nutball” but that did nothing to stop Weddington and Coffee from expoloiting her to promote their cause, the elimination of all state abortion laws.”
True Mary, the sneaky pro-abort lawyers used her as a tool.
Erin and Amanda,
I’m less thrilled with Obama’s win than I am with Hillary’s loss. To see the Queen Bee denied her crown gives me great satisfaction. While I do not support Obama, I would agree he is an extremely likable man and I can certainly see his appeal.
Dan – Its mostly a fantasy – that politicians AND voters would see that extremism on one end or othe other is getting us, and will get us absolutely no where. I believe with little doubt that if we were to truly choose two candidates who best represented the MAJORITY of Americans, rather than the loudest or the richest, it would be Obama and McCain.
I dislike Hilary for the same reasons I dislike Romney – dishonesty, a campaign rooted in negativity, and a lot of heavy involvement in lobbyists and old-timer politics. At the same time, I like Obama for many of the same reasons I like McCain – neither have allowed themselves to become a part of the political machine, both of them have avoided negative ads and fear mongering, and neither of them are religious fanatics. Republican or Democrat, Pro Choice or Pro Life, they both strike me as smart, thoughtful, and unifying individuals who would handle issues in a way that even if I disagreed, I could still respect.
What really cracked me up was Romneys speech, where he called himself “an unknown governor in a field of household names”. Unknown? Really? Who does he honestly think he’s kidding??? I guess the same people he’s made to honestly believe he went from being a pro choice pro gay rights liberal who didn’t care to look in to the fact that his landscaping company was under multiple investigations for hiring illegal immigrants, to a complete, all issue hardline conservative in the time span of an election-year decision time epiphany.
I knew that Christina Agulara was PC, but maybe she’ll have a change of heart….I think she’s lovely looking, and I have been told a time or 2 that I look a bit like her:]
Heather,
Well you could certainly do worse than resemble Christina Aguilara, pregnant or not.
I’ve been told I bear a resemblence to “Ginger” on Gilligan’s Island, Amanda Blake(Miss Kitty) on Gunsmoke as well as Daffy Duck.
Mary, lol! Ginger was a fox! No complaints about the Agulaira resemblance. I also get Heather Locklear sometimes. My namesake.
Amanda,
Where did Romney run a negative campaign? Just because he is contrasting his record to John McCains pitiful conservative record? How is that negative?
I often wonder if the person needs glasses. @@ LOL!
Jasper-
Apparently you haven’t been watching the debates. Romney has had nothing but biting, sardonic, and cynical things to say about pretty much EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. He does this to cover up for his piles upon piles of contradictions and inconsistencies.
He has ads attacking both McCain and Huckabee running constantly on TV – he has spent more than ANY other candidate on advertising, and despite that, I’ve seen ONE positive ad – and its vague and self righteous. America is “the hope of earth”?? seriously? *eyeroll* Now THERES an attitude that will help change the global perceptions of Americans that inspires terrorism and hatred towards us!!!
I voted for him for MA governor, and was dissapointed in him long before his miraculous epiphany on gay rights and reproductive rights. He is an opportunist and a hypocrite. And just like Hillary, he spent less than 1/4 of the year before he announced his presendential aspirations in the state which elected him. For that reason alone, neither of them would EVER get my vote.
I wonder how many of these PC celebrities would actually have an abortion. Some of them are killers, but some of them have adopted.
Mary, Daffy Duck? LOL!
There is nothing more beautiful than a pregnant woman.
Besides, a lot of these celebrities have these ideas that their movies/T.V. shows will actually be remembered. “Judging Amy” is a stupid and pathetic show.
I thought Jennifer Aniston wanted to be this HUGE movie star. What happened? Her movies have all flopped, and her marriage crumbled. Rod Stewart’s daughter took a pop shot at her in a Rolling Stone magazine article. She said “Jennifer Aniston is homely.” I don’t think she had the look of a really great movie star. She isn’t even that great of an actress.
I agree Heather..I don’t have alot of respect for these Hollywood types, most of them are selfish and egotistical.
Are you just trashing and ripping on random celebrities you’ve never and will never meet just because they’re pro choice?
Nice.
Hippie,
I agree with you about the declining birth rates and that some countries population pyramids are starting to be diamonds or even inverted pyramids. Our aging population will out number the younger generation, but after they die, what is wrong with a smaller population? I’m sure that book you suggested will tell me. I will definitely check it out, it looks interesting.
I have to bring up that if the current administration actually supported competent sex education, that more young women/teenagers would not get pregnant and have to face this choice in the first place. Abstinence is not sex education. Teens need info about birth control, contraceptives, and exactly how getting pregnant works.
It is interesting that although many people took issue with my comment about babies and the environment, no one commented on the millions of children who are suffering right now because of hunger, or who live in group homes, or are unwanted. I hope that many here are foster parents or have adopted children, since you care about children so much.
I would never have an abortion because I am now in my mid twenties and want children; and because I had to face the choice. When I was younger I assumed I would have an abortion if by some mistake I got pregnant. Then I got pregnant by an ex boyfriend when I was 21 and he pressured me into having an abortion. I scheduled the appointment, but had a spontaneous abortion before I could go through with it. So I lost my baby naturally. I am actually thankful that it happened that way, because if I went through with it I would not have ever forgiven myself. The way it happened though, it was my body telling me that it was not ready to have a baby.
I do want to have a child of my own and will start trying in about a year or so. It is a selfish thing, I want to continue my lineage and have a baby that looks like me and my soon to be husband. But I do plan on adopting as well.
I believe that more education is needed for women who do have an unplanned pregnancy, so they know the choices they have, and also as I said, with sex ed there would be less unprotected sex, but ultimately it should be the womans choice because it is her body. Would you want all women who have unwanted pregnancies forced against their will to carry to term and then forced to monetarily care for their baby? We have personal freedoms for a reason, and I don’t think there is any law that would denying abortion that will not take freedom away from women.
Amanda, did you ever find a place in Mass. ?
I’m back at my parents in Andover saving up. I decided I wanted to go back to Africa before I had to worry about a mortgage – the travel bug has not left my system yet.
Mary: Norma McCorvey may have been an “insecure nutball” but that did nothing to stop Weddington and Coffee from expoloiting her to promote their cause, the elimination of all state abortion laws. Nor obviously, did they see any need to investigate her charge of gang rape. The story was made to order for their purposes and why ruin anything with the truth.
Mary, letting women have the freedom they now do in this matter was a good cause, regardless of McCorvey or not. In the end I don’t think she even had the abortion.
Sorry Doug, but it was your side who warned of imminent doom and gloom unless abortion was legalized.
Once again, you saying that does not make it so. Legal abortion has meant millions less abused and unwanted kids, but as long as there are kids some will be abused.
Doug
Heather: Ginger was a fox!
Yes, but….
Wait for it….
Mary Ann was better.
Good for you Amanda, travel now while you can :)
mortgages are not cheap in Mass. Actually its good that you didn’t buy earlier this year because the housing prices have dropped a lot since.
Legal abortion has meant millions less abused and unwanted kids, but as long as there are kids some will be abused.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp
Mary Ann was TOTALLY better. And man, heather, I don’t know who said that, but I think Aniston is gorgeous. Oh, oh! You know who’s even sexier, though? Jessica Alba.
I actually like Judging Amy… :/
Shannon, excellent comments, 11:04 a.m. I too look at suffering, and I agree with you on the millions of children who are suffering right now. While there are often arguments about fetuses in the weeks in the 20s being able to suffer or not, when we look at the vast majority of abortions, i.e. 94% at 15 weeks or less, and 78% at 10 weeks or less, I’d rather have a thousand such abortions versus some of the cases of suffering we see.
Doug
Bethany, Reardon?
Uck uck uck uck uck (Popeye laugh).
Experts agree that during the past 25 years the rate of child abuse has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 1987 alone, there was a 330% increase in reported cases of child abuse. While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.
I’ve seen this over and over, and even if we accept figures from the highly-doubtable Reardon, then of course abortion was legal before that time, during, and afterwards. Indeed, increased reporting is the cause of much of the statistical change.
Other than that, economic conditions, etc., contribute to such changes.
Erin, Jessica Alba is really pretty!! Kimberly Stewart made that remark about Aniston. She is the daughter of Rod, and she is a model. I do think it was rather mean spirited, and Aniston said that she was “very hurt” by Kimberly’s comment. Kimberly went on to apologize, but I’m not sure if Aniston accepted or not.
It is interesting that although many people took issue with my comment about babies and the environment, no one commented on the millions of children who are suffering right now because of hunger, or who live in group homes, or are unwanted. I hope that many here are foster parents or have adopted children, since you care about children so much.
If it makes you feel better, I volunteer at a CPC where we donate food, clothing, diapers, formula, even housing and refer to free medical care, to young women who have are pregnant or have had children. There are more than twice as many of these CPC centers as there are planned parenthoods, and we offer our services for absolutely free to help women.
A great deal of pro-lifers you will notice are actually foster parents or adoptive parents. I know several who are adoptive and even more who are foster parents. I have also considered adoption and fostering myself, although I know that to see a wrong in something, you don’t have to provide the solution.
For instance, you see that there is a wrong when there are children suffering …but do you have to provide the solution in order to be able to say it is wrong? Of course not.
I would never have an abortion because I am now in my mid twenties and want children; and because I had to face the choice. When I was younger I assumed I would have an abortion if by some mistake I got pregnant. Then I got pregnant by an ex boyfriend when I was 21 and he pressured me into having an abortion. I scheduled the appointment, but had a spontaneous abortion before I could go through with it. So I lost my baby naturally. I am actually thankful that it happened that way, because if I went through with it I would not have ever forgiven myself. The way it happened though, it was my body telling me that it was not ready to have a baby.
Why would you never have forgiven yourself for a choice that is “right”?
And do you feel that other women are pressured into abortion against their will? What actions would you take to prevent this from happening to someone else? To prevent them from going through the pain that you were able to avoid by not aborting?
I believe that more education is needed for women who do have an unplanned pregnancy, so they know the choices they have, and also as I said, with sex ed there would be less unprotected sex, but ultimately it should be the womans choice because it is her body. Would you want all women who have unwanted pregnancies forced against their will to carry to term and then forced to monetarily care for their baby?
There is adoption. No one has to be forced to monetarily care for a child. There are 1.3 million couples waiting for a child to adopt, For every 1 couple who gets to adopt a child, there are 40 more on the waiting list.
We have personal freedoms for a reason, and I don’t think there is any law that would denying abortion that will not take freedom away from women.
Is it really a freedom for women when boyfriends are pressuring their girlfriends into abortion every day?
Coincidence is not causation. Does Reardon want to ban NASA, the World Bank, etc?
I don’t know, Doug. Did NASA claim that going to the moon would greatly minimize the child abuse cases in the US? Does Nasa kill little children?
If not, probably not.
There are studies which show that women are more likely to be abusers of drugs and alcohol after having an abortion, and also to be child abusers. It is much more than just correlation.
There are studies which show that women are more likely to be abusers of drugs and alcohol after having an abortion, and also to be child abusers. It is much more than just correlation.
Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2008 12:56 PM—————- And I believe those studies.
Typical. Shannon, I see you are one of prochoicers who likes to lecture the prolifers about what we should spend our time on. We need to expend our energies on more “important” issues,right Shannon? Since you care about children so much, I am sure that you forgo all but life’s absolute necessities so you can devout all your time and money to saving the world.
Carrie, lol!
Doug 11:27am
You’re the one who called McCorvey an “insecure nutball”. I only pointed out this did nothing to prevent abortion advocates from exploiting her pathetic situation to further their cause. Nor did they much care enough about the truth since they never investigated her rape charge before taking her case to the Supreme Court.
Also Doug, you saying that abortion has resulted in fewer abused children doesn’t make it so. some studies please.
It was your side who lied about the number of illegal abortions, promoted bigotry against Catholics, and wailed as to how poor children would flood the welfare rolls and poor women die like flies from illegal abortion when the Hyde Amendment went into effect. Don’t talk to me about falling skies.
Mary
“I am actually thankful that it happened that way, because if I went through with it I would not have ever forgiven myself”
Why not? It’s just tissue, right?
And shannon, those darn babies are just overpopulating the world, right? So you getting an abortion would be just one less baby to worry about?
Hey All,
Long time no “see”.
Just curious for those of you who support Obama,
why????
Thanks.
, I’d rather have a thousand such abortions versus some of the cases of suffering we see.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at January 4, 2008 12:06 PM
Kill a thousand to save a couple?
It may be some sort of reasoning process but it isn’t logic nor decent.
Hippie, I’d rather have a thousand or ten thousand abortions where the pregnancies were unwanted, versus having one or two of the cases of extreme suffering we do with certain kids in the world, yes.
It’s more decent to allow women to have the freedom they do, versus wanting their will subjugated to yours.
Doug
Mary, my point is that what McCorvey says is hardly meaningful, especially to another given woman. Not saying she was necessarily “perfect” or even “better” in the past, but as of now I see her as a sad person desperate for some type of acceptance as well as wanting other people (Pro-Lifers) to pay her way. I don’t think she even had the abortion, but she has been free in the years since Roe, as have all US women, more free than they would have been without Roe.
Tens of millions more kids would be here had there been no legal abortion. It’s not rocket science to see that there would be vast additional numbers of cases of abuse among them.
You often mischaracterize the Pro-Choice side, but I am not saying there have never been lies, etc. Same for the Pro-Life side.
My point about “the sky is falling” is that there are always people who feel that way, regardless of the times and issues. In reality, things are rarely as bad or as good as they look.
Doug
“Coincidence is not causation. Does Reardon want to ban NASA, the World Bank, etc?”
Bethany: I don’t know, Doug. Did NASA claim that going to the moon would greatly minimize the child abuse cases in the US?
No, NASA didn’t say that. There have been millions and millions less cases of abuse than there would have been without legal abortion, regardless.
Does Nasa kill little children?
If you see little children being killed, call the cops.
……
If not, probably not. There are studies which show that women are more likely to be abusers of drugs and alcohol after having an abortion, and also to be child abusers. It is much more than just correlation.
I don’t doubt that some or all of that is true. But so what? That is still not causation.
Believe me – there are some people who I’d think much more prone to drug abuse, child abuse, etc., whether or not they have kids or have had abortions. And, if a woman is likely to be abusive, that’s hardly a good argument for her not to end an unwanted pregnancy.
Tens of millions more kids would be here had there been no legal abortion.
It’s not rocket science to see that there would be vast additional numbers of cases of abuse among them.
Well, maybe the best solution for all abused children is to kill them then. Doug, what say you?
Let’s get a couple of guns, and take them and kill all the abused children, because it’s much better for them to be dead than to be here to be potentially abused again.
No, NASA didn’t say that. There have been millions and millions less cases of abuse than there would have been without legal abortion, regardless.
So does that mean if we finish our shooting spree, and kill a million abused children, then that means that we have reduced the child abuse in the world by a million cases? Yippie, let’s get to it, Doug! We’re going to free the world of child abuse by killing the victims of child abuse!
Bethany: Is it really a freedom for women when boyfriends are pressuring their girlfriends into abortion every day?
Sure, that remains a fact even while there are also many people who pressure some women/girls to continue pregnancies.
Doug
Sure, that remains a fact even while there are also many people who pressure some women/girls to continue pregnancies.
That’s not the same thing and you know it, Doug.
Not allowing someone else to come in and by force remove an unborn child from one’s body is NOT the same as forcing a baby to die!
I don’t doubt that some or all of that is true. But so what? That is still not causation.
Why not? If it is proven by NUMEROUS studies that abortion INCREASES THE RISK OF SUBSEQUENT CHILD ABUSE, how in the heck is that not causation??
And, if a woman is likely to be abusive, that’s hardly a good argument for her not to end an unwanted pregnancy.
no, doug. In the studies the woman did not show those tendencies before the abortion, except in about 10 percent of cases.
So does that mean if we finish our shooting spree, and kill a million abused children, then that means that we have reduced the child abuse in the world? Yippie, let’s get to it, Doug! We’re going to free the world of child abuse by killing the victims of child abuse!
Bethany, you’re taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but as I’ve said, as long as there are kids, there will be some child abuse. Nobody ever seriously promised that abortion being legal would “cure” all child abuse.
……
Well, maybe the best solution for all abused children is to kill them then. Doug, what say you?
No, I do not think that. There are still some cases of suffering so horrible that it far outweighs any objection to ending an unwanted pregnancy, IMO.
……
Let’s get a couple of guns, and take them and kill all the abused children, because it’s much better for them to be dead than to be here to be potentially abused again.
Nope, not saying that. I am saying the suffering of one child can far outweigh the suffering involved in a great many abortions.
Bethany, you’re taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but as I’ve said, as long as there are kids, there will be some child abuse. Nobody ever seriously promised that abortion being legal would “cure” all child abuse.
Doug, you are lying. They did. There are probably still bumper stickers and articles, etc today that exist today which claim it. I’ll find them for you and prove it.
And why in the world is that a ridiculous extreme, doug?
Isn’t it be the same end? Just imagine it, Doug…you could preven child abuse …a million cases, so easily! Just kill a million victims of child abuse, and there you go! 1 million less children being abused! What’s the difference?
“Sure, that remains a fact even while there are also many people who pressure some women/girls to continue pregnancies.”
Bethany: That’s not the same thing and you know it, Doug. Not allowing someone else to come in and by force remove an unborn child from one’s body is NOT the same as forcing a baby to die!
@@ Yes, it is really a freedom. That is what I said.
You’re talking about other stuff. About that other stuff – it if is against the will of the woman, then in general I am not for forcing abortion nor for forcing the continuation of pregnancy.
Doug
No, I do not think that. There are still some cases of suffering so horrible that it far outweighs any objection to ending an unwanted pregnancy, IMO.
If they’re going through so much, wouldn’t euthanizing them be the best way to ease all of their suffering, Doug? Wouldn’t it be the way to reduce suffering the most, Doug?
Let’s euthanize all children who are being seriously abused, and that will solve the problem with child abuse! See how easy it is.
Can you tell me what the flaw in my argument is, Doug? What is the flaw in saying that killing children will prevent child abuse?
“Hippie, I’d rather have a thousand or ten thousand abortions where the pregnancies were unwanted, versus having one or two of the cases of extreme suffering we do with certain kids in the world, yes.”
Doug, why not make it a million or 2 million abortions? would that be Ok too?
Why not? If it is proven by NUMEROUS studies that abortion INCREASES THE RISK OF SUBSEQUENT CHILD ABUSE, how in the heck is that not causation?
Bethany, then let’s see at least one of those studies. You are claiming “increases the risk,” but I doubt that. I’ve seen some of this stuff before, and while some “surprising” conclusions can be drawn from some of it, they’re obviously not applicable to all people in reality.
……
“And, if a woman is likely to be abusive, that’s hardly a good argument for her not to end an unwanted pregnancy.”
no, doug. In the studies the woman did not show those tendencies before the abortion, except in about 10 percent of cases.
How about I read it, then?
Doug
“Hippie, I’d rather have a thousand or ten thousand abortions where the pregnancies were unwanted, versus having one or two of the cases of extreme suffering we do with certain kids in the world, yes.”
Jasper: Doug, why not make it a million or 2 million abortions? would that be Ok too?
Jasper, I guess you could say that. Again, if it’s a case of an unwanted pregnancy where there never will be “anyone” there to suffer, then I see that as much preferable to some of the cases of suffering on earth that we have, be it for one abortion, a thousand, or a million.
If they’re going through so much, wouldn’t euthanizing them be the best way to ease all of their suffering, Doug?
Bethany, sadly, some of them probably want to die, or just don’t care anymore. Perhaps you should ask them. My point remains that the suffering in one such case can outweigh the suffering of many abortions.
I am not saying “kill them.” I am saying that had their mother chosen to have an abortion because she wanted to, it would not be any great tragedy. I am saying that for all the objections of Pro-Lifers, I see much more suffering in one such case than among many Pro-Lifers.
……
Wouldn’t it be the way to reduce suffering the most, Doug? Let’s euthanize all children who are being seriously abused, and that will solve the problem with child abuse! See how easy it is. Can you tell me what the flaw in my argument is, Doug? What is the flaw in saying that killing children will prevent child abuse?
Again, a ludicrous extreme, but yes – the only way to end all child abuse would be to have no kids at all. But who wants that? That has nothing to do with being Pro-Choice. Pro-Choice leaves it up to the pregnant woman, and most of them are already willingly continuing their pregnancies.
Doug, 3:22PM
McCorvey never had an abortion. She was treated as bothersome white trash by PC leaders who she wrongly assumed would treat her with more respect. Face it, they owed her. After a prolonged period of time she went over to the pro-life side.
While McCorvey, who never made any claim to sainthood, is reviled by the PC crowd they were only too happy to exploit this pathetic and tragic woman to further their cause.
Doug you are making an assumption concerning child abuse. If there are more people there will be more crime. Not necessarily. If more people have guns there will be more gun violence. Not necessarily. We cannot assume more people automatically means an increased incidence of anything. One could just as sensibly argue that if we killed more engaged women, we would have less spousal abuse and murder. Solve an abuse problem by eliminating the possible future victims.
I often “mischaracterize” the PC side? Exactly how do I do this?
Things are rarely as bad or as good as they look?
Now THAT we can agree on.
Ehhh… the problem with these “studies” is that they are never scientifically sound.
Studies of that nature, from either end of the debate, have SO many other factors playing in to them that its really unfair to see the results as “proof” in one direction or the other. Are they both plausible hypothoses? Sure. But its a perfect example of how easily data can be interpreted in different ways, without it neccesarily being dishonest.
I hate hearing overgeneralizations like “abortion prevents suffering” just as much as I hate hearing “abortion is NEVER the right decision”. The fact is, its the right decision for a lot of women, and its not the right decision for a lot of women. Would it be SO hard and unrealistic to just be supportive and nurturing to ALL pregnant women, no matter what they decide to do?
Bethany 1:52PM
My own icon! I’m flattered, thank you.
“Bethany, you’re taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but as I’ve said, as long as there are kids, there will be some child abuse. Nobody ever seriously promised that abortion being legal would “cure” all child abuse.”
Doug, you are lying. They did. There are probably still bumper stickers and articles, etc today that exist today which claim it. I’ll find them for you and prove it.
No, I’m not lying. While I agree that “every child a wanted child” is a worthy goal, I think it’s silly to say that anybody ever seriously claimed that legal abortion would cure all child abuse.
Even “end child abuse – support legal abortion” is not saying there will be no children, and thus no abuse; it’s a bumper-sticker. If somebody actually says that legal abortion would stop all child abuse, then I would argue with them myself. Nobody could actually promise any such thing, seriously.
……
And why in the world is that a ridiculous extreme, doug?
Because there isn’t any sigificant amount of sentiment for it. Who wants to end unwanted pregnancies, and who wants women to have the freedom they do – vast numbers of people. Who wants to kill born children? Not at all the same thing.
……
Isn’t it be the same end? Just imagine it, Doug…you could preven child abuse …a million cases, so easily! Just kill a million victims of child abuse, and there you go! 1 million less children being abused! What’s the difference?
The difference is that I don’t want to do that. I would rather see less suffering versus more, sure, and I see much more suffering in some born kids than in huge numbers of abortions, yes, but that does not mean I want to kill anybody.
Heather 8:40am
Heather Locklear? A definite step up. Actually I was tooting my own horn(well someone has to) when I mentioned Ginger. That was about 15years ago. I’m now told I have a resemblence to Miss Kitty on Gunsmoke, minus the orange hair and fake eyelashes.
Doug you are making an assumption concerning child abuse. If there are more people there will be more crime. Not necessarily. If more people have guns there will be more gun violence. Not necessarily. We cannot assume more people automatically means an increased incidence of anything. One could just as sensibly argue that if we killed more engaged women, we would have less spousal abuse and murder. Solve an abuse problem by eliminating the possible future victims.
Mary, as far as 46 million (or whatever the exact number would be) more children, then yes, there necessarily would be many cases of abuse among them. That’s just a fact, and it has nothing to do with our desire for legal abortion or not. Who wants to kill engaged women? Has nothing to do with it.
I also didn’t claim anything about “increased incidence.” I am just saying there would be a lot of abuse on a raw-numbers basis. On the rate of incidence, I think it’s reasonable to assume a higher rate of abuse among kids that would result from pregnancies where the woman was forced to continue them against her will. Women often have abortions due to feelings of them not being ready for the responsibility, not enough money, in an already-abusive relationship, etc., things that logically would tend to increase the chance of abuse rather than reduce them.
Pro-Choice is also not saying that it’s necessarily “good” for a given amount of abortions to occur. Pro-Choice is saying leave it up to the pregnant women.
……
I often “mischaracterize” the PC side? Exactly how do I do this?
For one thing, your insistence that the PC side actually “promised” no child abuse, etc.
Jessica Alba – oh Yeah.
The young Barbara Eden. (Heck, even the old Barabara Eden.)
Jennifer Aniston – sort of “unusual” looking but she sure appeals to a lot of guys, me included.
I hate hearing overgeneralizations like “abortion prevents suffering” just as much as I hate hearing “abortion is NEVER the right decision”. The fact is, its the right decision for a lot of women, and its not the right decision for a lot of women. Would it be SO hard and unrealistic to just be supportive and nurturing to ALL pregnant women, no matter what they decide to do?
Amanda, well said. Quite true that sometimes abortion is the wrong decision. And yeah – I say leave it up to the pregnant woman.
Abortion will not always prevent suffering, but I would argue that it often does, i.e. the woman would suffer or suffer more were she legally prohibited from having an abortion.
Doug
Doug,
It would equally stand to reason that the greater the population of a city, the greater the crime rate. Not so.
You’re making an assumption that more children would mean more children being abused. Like the above mentioned, its only an assumption. You even admit that fact Doug, when you state “it is reasonable to assume a higher rate of abuse among kids that would result from pregnancies where the woman was forced to continue them against her will”.
I certainly have no desire to see engaged women killed. You’re the one who argued that eliminating potential abuse victims means less abuse, I’m just applying your argument across the board.
One of the most vociferous supporters of legal abortion, Ann Landers, adamantly maintained abortion would end child abuse, though she never pointed to any studies to support this.
I’ve told you a hundred times Doug, abortion advocates appealled to emotion, not common sense, on the child abuse issue. It was assumed abused children resulted from unwanted pregnancies. Abortion advocates milked this for all it was worth.
Every Child a Wanted Child
Stop Child Abuse, Promote Abortion Reform
I remember those slogans only too well on posters, bumper stickers, and advertisements. You couldn’t listen to a debate without child abuse being brought up. One feminist nearly bit my head off about pictures of abused children being just as horrible as pictures of aborted babies. That was another favorite. I read articles by abortion advocates, all arguing that abortion would mean an end to child abuse. After all, planned, perfect, and wanted children aren’t abused, right?
You know what Doug, for a brief period I suckered for it as well. It just made so much sense.
Mary and Doug:
Been following the volley. Want to point out one glaring missing fact in Doug
It would equally stand to reason that the greater the population of a city, the greater the crime rate. Not so.
Mary, no – I never have said anything like that. Agreed with what you say, there. It is a separate thing to note that tens of millions of people there would be some cases of abuse. Rate or incidence doesn’t even come into that.
……
You’re making an assumption that more children would mean more children being abused. Like the above mentioned, its only an assumption. You even admit that fact Doug, when you state “it is reasonable to assume a higher rate of abuse among kids that would result from pregnancies where the woman was forced to continue them against her will”.
It’s still two separate things. You mentioned the rate, and if anything it’s reasonable to assume that unwanted kids will be abused at a higher rate (especially as with fostered kids), same as for kids in one-parent families, same as kids in one-parent families tend to do worse in school, engage in more crime, etc. So, yes, per what you added to the discussion, I do think the rate would be even higher than for kids resulting from wanted pregnancies, but that is not what I first said, nor is the truth of it dependent on the rate.
……
I certainly have no desire to see engaged women killed. You’re the one who argued that eliminating potential abuse victims means less abuse, I’m just applying your argument across the board.
Okay, but once again, “less abuse” may not be a desired end in itself, not compared to what achieves it, as with the killing engaged women example. Heck, nuke the whole world and no humans would suffer anymore, but who wants that? I was comparing the suffering of kids today – suffering that is fact, with abortions where no suffering takes place.
……
One of the most vociferous supporters of legal abortion, Ann Landers, adamantly maintained abortion would end child abuse, though she never pointed to any studies to support this. I’ve told you a hundred times Doug, abortion advocates appealled to emotion, not common sense, on the child abuse issue. It was assumed abused children resulted from unwanted pregnancies. Abortion advocates milked this for all it was worth.
Well, I question that she actually did say that, but even if so, then obviously there will still be abuse as long as there are kids, and the Pro-Choice argument, that it’s better to let women have the freedom they do, remains.
……
Every Child a Wanted Child
Well good grief, what is wrong with that?
……
Stop Child Abuse, Promote Abortion Reform
Stopping child abuse is also a worthy goal. However, I grant you that legal abortion can do nothing for born kids. Some of them will be abused, legal abortion or not.
……
I remember those slogans only too well on posters, bumper stickers, and advertisements. You couldn’t listen to a debate without child abuse being brought up. One feminist nearly bit my head off about pictures of abused children being just as horrible as pictures of aborted babies. That was another favorite. I read articles by abortion advocates, all arguing that abortion would mean an end to child abuse. After all, planned, perfect, and wanted children aren’t abused, right?
You know what Doug, for a brief period I suckered for it as well. It just made so much sense.
I’ve noted before that both sides engage in hyperbole. Would legal abortion actually stop all child abuse? Of course not, and I’ve said that I would argue with anybody who was truly claiming that. Same as for Pro-Lifers talking about “genocide” and other “sky-is-falling” stuff. I would never have thought that legal abortion would somehow magically stop all child abuse, including for born children, back in 1972, and I was just 14 years old then.
Doug
Hey Doug:
Take on my last post.
I dare you.
I double dare you.
I double DOG dare you!
I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU!!
Yes, I know…a slight breech of etiquette by skipping the
Hooves: The whole point of his argument is it
Hooves, I was working on it all along….
Heh.
Doug
Oh Doug…you dissapoint me. Thought you would do better than that.
Yes, I know…I was just having some daring fun!
Still, most women know full well enough to make their best choice, regardless of which it is.
Yes, I suppose that MUST be why my full scale fetal models nearly without fail draw gasps from post abortive girls/women who see them and say they were NEVER TOLD that that is what their baby looked like at that gestation when they aborted
Hooves,
You’ve got to understand some of Doug’s premises before you can get him to answer your actual questions.
One: He “claims” it’s all about avoiding suffering. He doesn’t want the women to suffer and doesn’t believe that before 24 weeks that the baby suffers.
Two: Everything anyone does is based on desire. The unborn have no desire, so the women, who does have desire, gets what she wants.
Three: When cornered he will say you desire one thing and he desires another and that for now the law is on his side.
Four: He believes the whole thing comes down to one word. Personhood. He will deny this and say that it isn’t about the word, it is about rights being attributed to the unborn. But will follow that up with saying that they aren’t attributed to them because they haven’t been granted “personhood”. When pushed on what personhood means he will fall back on the law. He has no definition of personhood outside of the law. He believes we attain personhood, when we attain sentience. (I argue with him that he really means sapience, but he won’t budge). You must be A. able to “sense” things and B.outside of the womb.
If you are able to sense things but inside the womb you are not a person. If you are outside of the womb but unable to sense things…well, he hasn’t committed to that yet, but I think he would say that it would be okay to put you down like a bad dog if you were non-sentient, but out of the womb.
Doug,
Have I misrepresented you?
mk,
But that still doesn’t address the issue of PP/abortionists withholding critical information from their clients…
How can his personhood argument cover that?
(And thank you for the Cliff Notes on Doug!)
Doug 8:47PM
I know you never said that. I only use that as an example. We cannot assume more people mean more crime, just as one cannot assume more children mean more child abuse.
Doug, you keep saying its reasonable to assume. No it isn’t. You have to look at facts. One can assume anything they darn well want.
Ann Landers said it Doug, I heard her say this loud and clear myself. The host of the talk show she was on didn’t ask for such trivialities as studies to back her claim.
What’s wrong with every child a wanted child? Well, what’s wrong with every old person a wanted old person, every spouse a wanted spouse, every teenager a wanted teenage? Wanted by who? It implies that being “unwanted” somehow makes the life less desirable and the person of less value. Wouldn’t this be the perfect world if we were all loved and wanted by everyone? We don’t live in a perfect world, and the unwanted, born and unborn, are disposed of all the time.
I agree stopping child abuse is a very worthy goal. There is just no simplistic solution, abortion or otherwise. This is a deeply complex problem, a point pro-lifers argued over 40 years ago. Yes, sadly children will be abused, just as spouses and old people will be abused. The problem is with the abusers, not the existence of the abused.
Well Doug, if you would argue with anyone claiming abortion would solve the problem of child abuse, the pro-life forces could certainly have used you in the early days of the movement to legalize abortion.
Again Doug, about the sky is falling stuff. As I said previously, it was your side wailing about women dying from illegal abortion(a falsehood) abused children, the increased costs of unwanted children on welfare rolls, overpopulation, and promoting anti-Catholic bigotry and hysteria.
Or we could just emulate the Eskimos and stick all unwanted people on ice floes…
At least then the polar bears wouldn’t starve.
Hooves, you’re too much.
MK, very succinct. Thank you.
*bow*
Well shucks…”too much” can’t be a bad thing! ;)
“Still, most women know full well enough to make their best choice, regardless of which it is.”
Hooves; Yes, I suppose that MUST be why my full scale fetal models nearly without fail draw gasps from post abortive girls/women who see them and say they were NEVER TOLD that that is what their baby looked like at that gestation when they aborted.
Doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it. Even if a given person does not know the facts of fetal development – a somewhat more farfetched thing in this day and age of computes, Google, etc. – that is not to say they don’t know darn well whether they want to end or continue a pregnancy, no matter what the embryo or fetus looks like.
……
I don
Hooves, I also appreciate the “A Christmas Story” references. Love that movie.
MK: Doug, Have I misrepresented you?
Yeah, but you did better than at some other times, in this post, MK.
……
MK, to Hooves, You’ve got to understand some of Doug’s premises before you can get him to answer your actual questions.
No. You could say that one might not understand the response, but it’s not true to say I won’t answer. Heck, I almost always answer. Not that I post on every thread on Jill’s blog, but I try my darndest to reply to any and all questions, and the threads where things have been asked or posted to me, and where I have not answered, are exceedingly few, if they exist at all.
……
One: He “claims” it’s all about avoiding suffering. He doesn’t want the women to suffer and doesn’t believe that before 24 weeks that the baby suffers
Well, sort of true, there. What I look at is suffering. That is not to say that “it’s all about suffering” beyond what I think, nor in the opinion of another given individual or group. In general I don’t think that before 24 weeks the fetus is sentient, sensate, etc., though I allow for the possibility that some fetuses would be at that stage, or even slightly before. Likewise, some fetuses aren’t that way before 30 weeks, or they never become so.
……
Two: Everything anyone does is based on desire. The unborn have no desire, so the women, who does have desire, gets what she wants.
Not too bad, MK. To a point in gestation, the unborn have no desire – that’s the correct way to say it. So, the issue there is the desire of women with unwanted pregnancies against the desire of those who would try and force those women to continue pregnancies. In my opinion, the desire of those other people does not trump the desire of the pregnant women.
……
Three: When cornered he will say you desire one thing and he desires another and that for now the law is on his side.
Oh please, when have I ever been “cornered”? In almost every case, in almost every thread, I answer, and in the end the other person just quits. Yes, the law is currently on the side of those who want abortion to be a legal choice to a point in gestation. That is a given.
I never say it “has to be that way,” nor that such represents anything imaginary as far as external “right” and “wrong.” If somebody else wants to pretend like that, so be it – I don’t do it. I am not saying it’s impossible that Roe would ever be overturned nor that abortion would not be illegal. It’s obvious to me that without Roe, some states would make almost all abortions illegal.
……
Four: He believes the whole thing comes down to one word. Personhood. He will deny this and say that it isn’t about the word, it is about rights being attributed to the unborn. But will follow that up with saying that they aren’t attributed to them because they haven’t been granted “personhood”. When pushed on what personhood means he will fall back on the law. He has no definition of personhood outside of the law. He believes we attain personhood, when we attain sentience. (I argue with him that he really means sapience, but he won’t budge). You must be A. able to “sense” things and B.outside of the womb.
You’ve just contradicted yourself. Yes – personhood is very important, and I guess you could say that that status is what the debate is about. But in no way does this argument only come down to that one word. There are other things at work, as well, including that very “desire” that you mention, above.
At any rate, what you want changed IS the law. Good grief, don’t try and downplay that. It’s not “falling back on the law” to note the way things are, human nature, etc. Agreed that granting personhood and granting rights is largely the same thing. My opinion of what personhood is does not necessarily equal the societal application of rights (it’s not up to me where rights are attributed), though you seem to frequently forget that. And of course you are wrong about me having no definition of personhood outside the law – I’ve given it to you numerous times.
……
If you are able to sense things but inside the womb you are not a person.
No. To a point, that applies, but that is not the end-all of it.
……
If you are outside of the womb but unable to sense things…well, he hasn’t committed to that yet, but I think he would say that it would be okay to put you down like a bad dog if you were non-sentient, but out of the womb.
Nope, absolutely false. I’ve said that “out is out.” I don’t argue with that.
Doug
No. You could say that one might not understand the response, but it’s not true to say I won’t answer. Heck, I almost always answer. Not that I post on every thread on Jill’s blog, but I try my darndest to reply to any and all questions, and the threads where things have been asked or posted to me, and where I have not answered, are exceedingly few, if they exist at all.
Yes, Doug, I am aware that you like to get the last word, even if the post has dropped down and no one will see that you’ve responded in the archives.
It is possible to answer a question without actually answering a question. And you do this quite frequently.
For example,if I said, “Do you like oranges?”
You could respond, without really answering the question by saying, “I believe that many people enjoy oranges greatly, and I think that many people do not like oranges. Oranges can be an enjoyable fruit”
You would have responded, but not answered my question. You do this very thing to our questions all the time.
You love to get the last word, but you very rarely answer the actual questions we are asking.
What you do is answer questions that you suppose we mean to ask.
Doug,
If you are outside of the womb but unable to sense things…well, he hasn’t committed to that yet, but I think he would say that it would be okay to put you down like a bad dog if you were non-sentient, but out of the womb.
Nope, absolutely false. I’ve said that “out is out.” I don’t argue with that.
So Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live? After all, you can’t prove she was suffering.
But she was non-sentient according to some and outside the womb.
So according to what you’ve just said, she should not have been starved to death?
Doug,
MK, to Hooves, You’ve got to understand some of Doug’s premises before you can get him to answer your actual questions.
*
No. You could say that one might not understand the response, but it’s not true to say I won’t answer. Heck, I almost always answer. Not that I post on every thread on Jill’s blog, but I try my darndest to reply to any and all questions, and the threads where things have been asked or posted to me, and where I have not answered, are exceedingly few, if they exist at all.
While it is true that you answer almost ALL posts, and for that I give you credit, you will notice that I said “if you want him to answer your actual (emphasis on the word “actual”) questions). There is a difference between responding to posts, and actually answering what was asked. You tend to say the same things over and over, without really addressing the question.
ie: Why do we have similar desires. Where do these desires come from.
And you respond, we all have them. They are universal.
And I say where do they come from?
And you say society shares the same desires.
And I say why? Where do these desires come from…
and on and on…
You answer the post, but not the question.
Doug,
Oh please, when have I ever been “cornered”? In almost every case, in almost every thread, I answer, and in the end the other person just quits. Yes, the law is currently on the side of those who want abortion to be a legal choice to a point in gestation. That is a given.
As you can see, no one here has quit. Taken a break? Yes. Quit? No.
Doug,
You’ve just contradicted yourself.
How did I contradict myself? You claim that personhood is something granted by the law and the law says if your not sentient or outside the womb you are not granted personhood.
We’ve been over the personhood thing, yes, but it always comes back to “the law hasn’t granted it”…and I thought we had settled that according to you personhood is a legal term.
Doug,
And of course you are wrong about me having no definition of personhood outside the law – I’ve given it to you numerous times.
Refresh my memory.
Doug,
Because I’m pretty sure you’re going to say when the fetus becomes sentient and/or is outside the womb.
And when I disagree and say that at the moment of conception, personhood is attained, you’re going to say that no, the law has not granted personhood at that point.
Bethany,
LOVE the orange thing…
Oh my God that is exactly what he does!
Isn’t it, though??
I’d say that Pro-Choicers don’t want women/girls to be denied any facts. If the appearance of the fetus makes a given woman want to continue a pregnancy, then Pro-Choicers are fine with that. Pro-Choicers are for leaving it to her.
Of course, Doug. Of course.
That’s why the pro-choice website you linked to to “warn” me about CPC’s who might *gasp* share information about fetal development with a woman, or explain the pros and cons of an abortion procedure, stated, “If you realize you’re in a CPC, leave the building immediately and don’t turn back.”
I know, I know, they do that because they really, really want women to be fully informed about EVERYTHING. Because they really, really want women to hear ALL sides of the issue. Not just the abortion clinic’s perspective. They’re soooo open to other choices, Doug.
Never mind the fact that neither they or you have any evidence or proof of their adamant claim that CPC’s give out false information, or “scare” women into doing anything, or “force” them to continue pregnancy.
The only thing I have EVER seen from anyone who makes claims against CPC’s are anecdotal stories from the people who work at an ABORTION CLINIC or in some way are monetarily motivated by abortion. No court cases cited, nothing. You have anything substantial?
And I also loved their statement, “for unbiased information about your pregnancy, please check out the National Abortion Federation.” hahahahahahhahaha That still gets me, every time I think about it.
Bethany:
Go GO Speed Racer!!!!!
:)
Mornin,’ B. Hey, are you all ganging up on me? ; )
Bethany: It is possible to answer a question without actually answering a question. And you do this quite frequently.
No, I try to give complete answers, not “bumper-sticker” mentality answers.
……
For example,if I said, “Do you like oranges?” You could respond, without really answering the question by saying, “I believe that many people enjoy oranges greatly, and I think that many people do not like oranges. Oranges can be an enjoyable fruit” You would have responded, but not answered my question. You do this very thing to our questions all the time.
I disagree. You may not like the answers, because I don’t make the same unprovable assumptions you do, but I do indeed answer your questions.
……
You love to get the last word, but you very rarely answer the actual questions we are asking.
It’s not about “getting the last word.” Why not pick an actual, true, specific example where I supposedly did what you are talking about?
……
What you do is answer questions that you suppose we mean to ask.
Well, I think that’s somewhat true – because often there is a larger context, one that reflects not just one belief set, but all. I could certainly just say “no” or “yes” to more things, but that would often lead to you (or most pro-lifers in general) just saying the opposite, and there’s not much real discussion there.
Ok
My Latin teacher used to use the duck analogy to help our class memorize our declensions ^_^
Keep up the good work, Doug!
I agree with much of what you said. I am a pregnant woman and I’m pro-choice. I love my baby–and, yes, I called it a baby. It could now live outside my womb and it is my body so I can call it what I want. One commenter said that babies can survive at 21 weeks–I take issue with that. I am not sure where you read that but at 21 weeks it is HIGHLY unlikely that an infant will survive without intense suffering and lasting mental and physical problems. Would you want that for your baby? I doubt it. Babies are known to survive at 24 weeks–with MULTIPLE issues. I know this b/c my baby will likely be premature. There is NO chance of them surviving outside the womb at 10 weeks so I really don’t understand why it is even being brought up. Pregnancy is very hard on the body and mind and I don’t think any woman should be forced to continue such a pregnancy by an outsider. Bethany, have you adopted any children? Do you foster? Have you ever worked at an orphanage? Do you support programs for women who decide to raise their children such as AFDC type programs or WIC type programs? If not, why would you care so much about a child prior to birth but so little about it afterwards. There is also a myth that there are plenty of people waiting to adopt children. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt healthy, white infants. Not children of mixed backgrounds, not toddlers, not children that may have been exposed to drugs or alcohol. Those are the children waiting for homes. Those are the children whose mothers chose not to abort…and now they can’t or won’t care for them. Who will care for them now? I”m not saying they are better off. I, for one, have worked in an orphanage. I have worked with those children. They are precious, but their lives are very very very very hard. Very. Let me emphasize again: it will be an uphill battle. All I am saying is that if you want them to be born so much support programs that will enrich their lives. It is not right to demand that a woman go through 9 months of pregnancy (which, for some, can be painful and difficult…I have been on bed rest for the majority of my pregnancy and have been in a lot of pain) for any reason. It is her body and her decision. The baby could not survive without her. It is not a “person” until it can. How could you recommend that she suffer through it and then deny her any programs (like WIC or AFDC or sub daycare) to care for the child once its born?
If you are outside of the womb but unable to sense things…well, he hasn’t committed to that yet, but I think he would say that it would be okay to put you down like a bad dog if you were non-sentient, but out of the womb.
“Nope, absolutely false. I’ve said that “out is out.” I don’t argue with that.”
MK: So Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live? After all, you can’t prove she was suffering.
Whoa – “out is out.” Sentience does not even come into that. My feelings are that Terri was long gone. There was a body there, but the person she had been wasn’t present any longer. In that case, I don’t see suffering one way or the other – I don’t think the capacity to suffer was there. My opinion.
I don’t think “allowed to live” is the question. Just allowing the body to live would have meant it dying. Should the medical measures to keep the body alive have been continued? There’s the argument, and I can see both sides. I don’t blame those who wanted continuance, nor her husband for wanting it over.
……
But she was non-sentient according to some and outside the womb. So according to what you’ve just said, she should not have been starved to death?
Sentience matters to me, but I wasn’t the one deciding. There is a point where I think all of us would not want to be kept “alive” by medical means. MK, you and I aren’t going to agree on “Terri” as being there or being gone.
Doug
Teresa,
It is not a “person” until it can. How could you recommend that she suffer through it and then deny her any programs (like WIC or AFDC or sub daycare) to care for the child once its born?
Where in heaven’s name are you getting that idea from? You assume because we are prolife we must therefore be anti-WIC or anti-AFDC?
You’re the second person in an hour to come here and accuse us of stuff that you know nothing about! I’m glad you think you agree with Doug, but I’m sure he’d be the first to tell you that he doesn’t agree with you…he has heard story after story of how we work with women after their children are born…so get over yourself. Please.
Doug,
And what exactly is the difference between Whoa – “out is out.” Sentience does not even come into that. My feelings are that Terri was long gone. There was a body there, but the person she had been wasn’t present any longer. In that case, I don’t see suffering one way or the other – I don’t think the capacity to suffer was there. My opinion.
And someone being out buy not sentient being labeled as a non person and therefore being euthanized?
They are saying the same thing.
If you are out of the womb, but unable to sense anything then you believe, that like Terri Schiavo, you lose your personhood status? Where am I wrong?
Doug,
Should the medical measures to keep the body alive have been continued?
What medical measures? There were no medical measures. They were feeding her. Period. And then they stopped feeding her which caused her to die. To me, that’s killing her.
Whoa is right Doug,
Talk about contradicting yourself…
Sentience does not even come into that. My feelings are that Terri was long gone.
Where did she go? She was lying there, breathing, digesting food…You could see her, touch her. Nothing magical there. Just a living, breathing body. So what do you mean by “Terri was long gone”? Where exactly did she go?
MK: While it is true that you answer almost ALL posts, and for that I give you credit, you will notice that I said “if you want him to answer your actual (emphasis on the word “actual”) questions). There is a difference between responding to posts, and actually answering what was asked. You tend to say the same things over and over, without really addressing the question.
I disagree, but continue:
ie: Why do we have similar desires. Where do these desires come from.
And you respond, “we all have them. They are universal.”
You answer the post, but not the question.
Wrong. I have said that it’s just a fact that people have desires. That we want things. Why do people have emotions? You answer me that. It’s just a fact, a physical fact if you will, though of course the nature of “thought” is still somewhat unknown to us.
Do you not agree that people simply have thoughts, emotions, desires?
Let’s not forget that the judge forbade anyone from trying to administer food or water orally…because if it was proven that she could swallow (as multiple nurses of hers claimed) then her husband, his demonic lawyer and that slimy swamp judge couldn’t have killed her off.
Doug,
MK, you and I aren’t going to agree on “Terri” as being there or being gone.”
Once again, you’ve missed the question. I didn’t ask you to agree with me that Terri was gone or not…I already know that you thought she was gone.
She was “gone” and out of the womb. Does that or does that not qualify her to be euthanized?
I claimed that you believe that personhood is notafforded to those who are not sentient/in the womb OR not sentient/out of the womb…and should be afforded only to those who are sentinet/in the womb or sentient/out of the womb…
Do you agree or not?
Terri Schiavo, was in your words “gone” and my words “out of the womb”. Did third parties (and I don’t care here who they were) have the right to end her life?
Geez Teresa….did you just pull up the PC apologetics handbook off the PP website??
Remember the child in handcuffs who was trying to bring Terri a bottle of water? If she was only alive by artificial means…what was the harm in offering her water to swallow?
When cornered he will say you desire one thing and he desires another and that for now the law is on his side.
“Oh please, when have I ever been “cornered”? In almost every case, in almost every thread, I answer, and in the end the other person just quits. Yes, the law is currently on the side of those who want abortion to be a legal choice to a point in gestation. That is a given.”
MK:As you can see, no one here has quit. Taken a break? Yes. Quit? No.
Fine and dandy, but I’m not the one complaining here. My point is that I’m never “cornered” and that I am responsive, despite what you claim. I’ve said “I don’t know,” and I’ve given any number of specific asnwers. Once gain, rather than just go into “innuendo mode,” why don’t you actually quote me on something specific.
Doug,
Do you not agree that people simply have thoughts, emotions, desires?
Of course I agree…again, duh!…and we both know where I think they come from.
I am asking YOU where YOU think they come from.
And once again you say they are there because they are there.
Why do we have similar desires. Where do these desires come from.
Wrong. I have said that it’s just a fact that people have desires. That we want things
How am I wrong? Again, all you have done is stated that we HAVE them…but you will not answer the question.
WHERE DO THESE THINGS COME FROM??????????????????
Just admit you don’t know….hell, admit you don’t care!
I already said I don’t believe you are a “deep” thinker. You don’t seem at all interested in the why’s of things…
Doug,
Once gain, rather than just go into “innuendo mode,” why don’t you actually quote me on something specific.
You’re kidding right? Please tell me you’re pulling my leg! For two solid days now, I have been trying to get you to answer one question. Just one. And you won’t or can’t do it…you want an example? Okay, how about this one…I know you’ll be shocked because you don’t remember me asking this 3,791 times, but here goes.
WHERE DO THESE UNIVERSAL DESIRES COME FROM???????
MK: He believes the whole thing comes down to one word. Personhood. He will deny this and say that it isn’t about the word, it is about rights being attributed to the unborn. But will follow that up with saying that they aren’t attributed to them because they haven’t been granted “personhood”. When pushed on what personhood means he will fall back on the law. He has no definition of personhood outside of the law. He believes we attain personhood, when we attain sentience. (I argue with him that he really means sapience, but he won’t budge). You must be A. able to “sense” things and B.outside of the womb.
“You’ve just contradicted yourself. Yes – personhood is very important, and I guess you could say that that status is what the debate is about. But in no way does this argument only come down to that one word. There are other things at work, as well, including that very “desire” that you mention, above.”
How did I contradict myself? You claim that personhood is something granted by the law and the law says if your not sentient or outside the womb you are not granted personhood.
The contradiction is that first you say He “claims” it’s all about avoiding suffering. Then you say He believes the whole thing comes down to one word. Personhood. Not the same thing.
You are also again misrepresenting what I say. Personhood granted by the law, yes, but the law does not say that “not sentient” = no personhood. I think the law – the restrictions on late-term abortions – does impart a limited form of personhood and rights to the fetus at that point, per what Roe said – that the states, if they wanted to, could see it in their interest to protect the unborn lives there. As the law protects born lives, to some extent it protects those unborn lives, thus I feel that way. Still, also to some extent the law does say “not outside the womb, then no (full) personhood.” That is not dependent on sentience. And of course the law does not say that a born baby has to be sentient to have personhood.
……
We’ve been over the personhood thing, yes, but it always comes back to “the law hasn’t granted it”…and I thought we had settled that according to you personhood is a legal term.
You have asked different things at different times. My own personal feeling is that personhood is becoming in the weeks in the 20s, usually. That is in line with my view that the presence of sentience, personality, etc., is part-and-parcel of being a person. Likewise, while there may be a born human body that is still “alive,” when the personality is gone, when that which made for “them” isn’t there any longer, then I think it’s not a person. Heck, cut off the head, and it’s possible to keep the tissue alive by mechanical respiration and artifical blood circulation, but isn’t the “person” gone, then?
There is my opinion, as above, and then there are the answers to questions as you, Bethany, and John M often ask, i.e. stuff like, “If so-and-so, then why isn’t personhood applied to the unborn,” (paraphrasing). And there the answer is the law, society’s position, etc.
Doug
For the record Doug,
I think you are amazing to stick with us this long, and to take the time to answer all our posts (even if not the actual questions *wink*). I don’t know that I’d do the same!
“And of course you are wrong about me having no definition of personhood outside the law – I’ve given it to you numerous times.”
MK: Refresh my memory.
The living human organism having sentience, emotions, and personality.
MK: Because I’m pretty sure you’re going to say when the fetus becomes sentient and/or is outside the womb.
Yes, that’s my opinion.
……
And when I disagree and say that at the moment of conception, personhood is attained, you’re going to say that no, the law has not granted personhood at that point.
Wrong. That’s your opinion. Mine is different.
I think you are amazing to stick with us this long, and to take the time to answer all our posts (even if not the actual questions *wink*). I don’t know that I’d do the same!
Thank you, MK. Tell you what, if you really think I’m not giving straight answers, just keep on me. Even just pick one specific thing; and again – I will try to do my best.
“I’d say that Pro-Choicers don’t want women/girls to be denied any facts. If the appearance of the fetus makes a given woman want to continue a pregnancy, then Pro-Choicers are fine with that. Pro-Choicers are for leaving it to her.”
Bethany: Of course, Doug. Of course. That’s why the pro-choice website you linked to to “warn” me about CPC’s who might *gasp* share information about fetal development with a woman, or explain the pros and cons of an abortion procedure, stated, “If you realize you’re in a CPC, leave the building immediately and don’t turn back.”
That refers to “CPCs” that try to give false information and put their own emotional spin on things. I do not agree with the “in a CPC, then leave” deal – I realize that not all CPCs are bad. I am impressed with what you and Mary have said about how you treat pregnant women. Im not for false information either way, and that includes the “just a bunch of cells” stuff, too. (Heck, we’re all “a bunch of cells, after all.)
……
I know, I know, they do that because they really, really want women to be fully informed about EVERYTHING. Because they really, really want women to hear ALL sides of the issue. Not just the abortion clinic’s perspective. They’re soooo open to other choices, Doug.
If they’re trying to put their own spin on it, then I’m not for that, either. There is the physical reality of the unborn, and in no way do I want or need anybody to be false about that.
Doug
Hooves: Question: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, what is it?
Answer: Oh come on, that
Doug,
No worries, I’ll ride your butt…
Just thought it was sounding a little tense there and wanted to let you know, I’m keeping it in perspective…
And when I disagree and say that at the moment of conception, personhood is attained, you’re going to say that no, the law has not granted personhood at that point.
*
Wrong. That’s your opinion. Mine is different.
Then tell me what yours is…
I am a pregnant woman and I’m pro-choice. I love my baby–and, yes, I called it a baby. It could now live outside my womb and it is my body so I can call it what I want. One commenter said that babies can survive at 21 weeks–I take issue with that. I am not sure where you read that but at 21 weeks it is HIGHLY unlikely that an infant will survive without intense suffering and lasting mental and physical problems. Would you want that for your baby? I doubt it. Babies are known to survive at 24 weeks–with MULTIPLE issues. I know this b/c my baby will likely be premature. There is NO chance of them surviving outside the womb at 10 weeks so I really don’t understand why it is even being brought up. Pregnancy is very hard on the body and mind and I don’t think any woman should be forced to continue such a pregnancy by an outsider. Bethany, have you adopted any children? Do you foster? Have you ever worked at an orphanage? Do you support programs for women who decide to raise their children such as AFDC type programs or WIC type programs? If not, why would you care so much about a child prior to birth but so little about it afterwards. There is also a myth that there are plenty of people waiting to adopt children. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt healthy, white infants. Not children of mixed backgrounds, not toddlers, not children that may have been exposed to drugs or alcohol. Those are the children waiting for homes. Those are the children whose mothers chose not to abort…and now they can’t or won’t care for them. Who will care for them now? I”m not saying they are better off. I, for one, have worked in an orphanage. I have worked with those children. They are precious, but their lives are very very very very hard. Very. Let me emphasize again: it will be an uphill battle. All I am saying is that if you want them to be born so much support programs that will enrich their lives. It is not right to demand that a woman go through 9 months of pregnancy (which, for some, can be painful and difficult…I have been on bed rest for the majority of my pregnancy and have been in a lot of pain) for any reason. It is her body and her decision. The baby could not survive without her. It is not a “person” until it can. How could you recommend that she suffer through it and then deny her any programs (like WIC or AFDC or sub daycare) to care for the child once its born?
Hi Theresa!
I’ve no problem with calling the unborn “babies,” and agree that 21 weeks is hardly “viability.” It’s almost sure death to be born then. The 50/50 chance for survival is around 23 weeks, now, but only in the very best hospitals for preemie care. Other places it’s 24, 26, or even later in gestation. And you’re right – even later than that (23 weeks) and severe issues are likely.
On the 10 weeker, some people believe that the life is sacred and/or that it continuing to live is more important than the woman being able to choose to end the pregnancy if she wishes. That’s why it comes up.
Agreed that pregnancy can be hard on the body, but if the woman wants to do it or keep on with it, then what, really is wrong with that? One thing that’s been discussed before is a woman with the very unusual circumstance of risking her life to give birth. What if she has a few children already? There are some people who would still go through with it, even at the potential cost of depriving their kids of the mother. I do not think I’d choose that myself, but I can understand others feeling differently, and there too, I’m Pro-Choice – I’d leave it up to the individual.
When the problems are such that the woman does not want to continue the pregnancy, then I’m on her side. The exception would be after viability, if the reason is just that she no longer wants to be pregnant. On one hand delivery could then be induced, solving her problem while the baby would still live (although there are somme serious issues there). On the other hand, I think she should have decided to end it before viability, if she’s going to do that, or better yet prevented the pregnancy in the first place.
As for Bethany, etc., not caring about children after they are born, I think you are wrong, way wrong there. Bethany loves kids, all kids.
Doug
Doug,
Okay, let me see if I have this right:
Doug: no sentience/in the womb…non person.
Law: in the womb/sentience or no…non person with limitations.
Doug: out of the womb/no sentience…nonperson.
Law: same
Doug: In the womb/sentience…personhood
Law: In the womb/sentience…no personhood, but possible value as in fetal homicide law…
Doug: Value=wantedness if non person.
Doug: Value=wantedness/unwantedness if sentient.
Doug: Non sentience means no objective value.
Law: Same
MK: And what exactly is the difference between “Whoa – “out is out.” Sentience does not even come into that. My feelings are that Terri was long gone. There was a body there, but the person she had been wasn’t present any longer. In that case, I don’t see suffering one way or the other – I don’t think the capacity to suffer was there. My opinion.”
And someone being out but not sentient being labeled as a non person and therefore being euthanized?
They are saying the same thing.
If you are out of the womb, but unable to sense anything then you believe, that like Terri Schiavo, you lose your personhood status? Where am I wrong?
I really agree here – it is the same thing.
One point – “euthanize” sounds more “positive action” as in “causing death.” There is that, as opposed to letting death come. This is also somewhat separate from the personhood issue, i.e. some infants are allowed to die, without intense medical life-support, and there’s no necessary saying of “no personhood is present.” It can be a person who was allowed to die.
Doug
That refers to “CPCs” that try to give false information and put their own emotional spin on things. I do not agree with the “in a CPC, then leave” deal – I realize that not all CPCs are bad. I am impressed with what you and Mary have said about how you treat pregnant women. Im not for false information either way, and that includes the “just a bunch of cells” stuff, too. (Heck, we’re all “a bunch of cells, after all.)
……
Okay, I appreciate that, Doug. Sorry for getting worked up there, but that is a pet peeve of mine.
I just am really offended by the insinuation that CPC’s are some kind of evil place to stay away from. There is not one court case, not one legitimate news source verifying any of these alleged lies, etc. I haven’t seen it, and I don’t know why you would have assumed that these places are so bad without looking into it first. If you’ll look into it, you’ll realize that virtually all CPC’s are the same as the ones that Mary volunteered for and the one that I volunteer at. CPC’s are run by volunteers. They take time out of their day, to freely dispense information to women about abortion and to give them the things they need throughout pregnancy and afterwards. We are not in it for the money…I don’t know of any CPC’s that charge for their services…I don’t think there are any. If you can provide me some solid information about some CPC out there that gave you this idea that they’re places that women need to stay away from, then please do post it and I’ll appreciate it… but until then, dont you think your assumption that they’re lying (based on an abortion clinics’ opinion -organizations which make money selling abortions and therefore do have monetary reason to want to direct women away from the opposition), instead of actually checking it out for yourself is a little presumptuous? I challenge you, Doug, to take a few minutes and stop at your local CPC. Ask them questions…test them, see how they talk to you. Bring your wife in and see how they treat her. See what the place is really like. If any CPC you visit is anywhere near the stories that you linked to, I would be very surprised. But I am confident enough to know that if you do go in there, you will find that it is a much different place than what you expected. In fact, you may find yourself supporting CPC’s instead of downplaying them.
Know what I mean?
Talk about contradicting yourself...
“Sentience does not even come into that. My feelings are that Terri was long gone.”
There’s no “contradiction” there, MK. We were talking about “out is out,” and sentience is not required for that. If birth means personhood, that’s not necessarily being sentient.
……
Where did she go? She was lying there, breathing, digesting food…You could see her, touch her. Nothing magical there. Just a living, breathing body. So what do you mean by “Terri was long gone”? Where exactly did she go?
I mean that her sentience, her personality, etc. was no longer there. There is that which made her “Terri” and not just a living, metabolizing human body. My opinion, of course, and probably akin to some people’s idea of the soul.
Well, you made up a bunch of stuff, rather than actually replying to anything I’ve said.
Ummm, Doug? That was a joke…..I think maybe your mind is so open your brains have fallen out.
Bethany, have you adopted any children? Do you foster? Have you ever worked at an orphanage? Do you support programs for women who decide to raise their children such as AFDC type programs or WIC type programs? If not, why would you care so much about a child prior to birth but so little about it afterwards.
Yes, we at the CPC refer women to programs just like WIC every day. We also refer to teen mother support groups, give out formula, clothing, food, baby accessories, baby carseats, strollers, cribs, etc etc etc on a daily basis.
We give the mothers emotional support and refer to free medical care. I have a book chock full of local resources for pregnant women and young mothers.
As for Bethany, etc., not caring about children after they are born, I think you are wrong, way wrong there. Bethany loves kids, all kids.
Doug thank you
“MK, you and I aren’t going to agree on “Terri” as being there or being gone.”
Once again, you’ve missed the question. I didn’t ask you to agree with me that Terri was gone or not…I already know that you thought she was gone.
MK, I did say it’s not up to me. I have my opinion, but I wouldn’t apply it to “Terri.” That is for others to decide.
……
She was “gone” and out of the womb. Does that or does that not qualify her to be euthanized?
Again, there’s a difference between “euthanized” and “allowed to die.” I don’t know if it matters to you, but it does to me, somewhat. Had all of the family been for letting “Terri” die, we’d likely have not heard of it. I can fully understand some family members wanting the feeding, etc., to continue, and I can also understand the husband wanting it to be over. My opinion – if it was my body there, then let me die.
……
I claimed that you believe that personhood is not afforded to those who are not sentient/in the womb OR not sentient/out of the womb…and should be afforded only to those who are sentinet/in the womb or sentient/out of the womb…
Do you agree or not?
No, because personhood is said to be there at birth. Sentience is not required. I also don’t think it’s a big deal in such cases, often. With an anencephalic baby, for example, sentience is not there and death is going to come. There is the question of how much life-support, if any, to use, but I sure think that personhood is still deemed to be there, by birth alone.
……
Terri Schiavo, was in your words “gone” and my words “out of the womb”. Did third parties (and I don’t care here who they were) have the right to end her life?
There’s still the difference between “end her life” and “allow her to die,” but yes – I feel that in such cases it’s okay to let the body die. I also think it’s okay to keep it alive, and too bad that there was the disagreement between the family and the husband.
Bethany and Doug,
I have also mentored and volunteer as needed at two mother’s and infants homes in our community. This includes child care, and transporting the mothers and children to school and appointments.
There is also a large donation center for supplies for low income mothers.
By the way, you might find out if PP offers any such services. I know they never donated a dime toward helping us provide these mothers with assistance and the young women came to us for such assistance, not the local abortionist.
Doug, you might want to find out how much of the money the abortion industry rakes in is donated to drug and alcohol rehab centers for pregnant women, is donated for baby supplies to low income mothers, or is donated to establish mother and infant homes.
“Wrong. I have said that it’s just a fact that people have desires. That we want things”
How am I wrong? Again, all you have done is stated that we HAVE them…but you will not answer the question.
MK, where you are wrong is that I have answered it. It is simply a fact that we have desires. It is physical reality that we have electrical activity in our brains, as do dolphins, dogs, whales, apes, etc. It is our nature, plain and simple. Human beings of a certain development normally have brain activity that includes emotion, same as for many other species.
……
WHERE DO THESE THINGS COME FROM?
Asked and answered. It’s like me asking you “why do we have cells?” It’s our nature, it’s physical reality.
……
Just admit you don’t know….hell, admit you don’t care!
@@ Oh please. Consciousness just “is.” That is the one thing that a consciousness can be sure of. Beyond that, it’s all assumption.
……
I already said I don’t believe you are a “deep” thinker. You don’t seem at all interested in the why’s of things…
Nonsense. You could ask yourself, “Why does God have consciousness?”
Doug
MK: No worries, I’ll ride your butt… Just thought it was sounding a little tense there and wanted to let you know, I’m keeping it in perspective…
No prob….
……
And when I disagree and say that at the moment of conception, personhood is attained, you’re going to say that no, the law has not granted personhood at that point.
“Wrong. That’s your opinion. Mine is different.”
Then tell me what yours is…
The living human organism with sentience, emotion, and personality.
MK: Okay, let me see if I have this right:
Doug: no sentience/in the womb…non person. Law: in the womb/sentience or no…non person with limitations.
Yes. (For the Law, I’d say not a person, but with limitations on that late in gestation.)
……
Doug: out of the womb/no sentience…nonperson. Law: same
Yes – I think sentience is necessary, i.e. merely a living body is not sufficient. But no, for the Law – a born baby, even without a brain – isn’t personhood still said to be there?
……
Doug: In the womb/sentience…personhood. Law: In the womb/sentience…no personhood, but possible value as in fetal homicide law…
Yes for me, again. The Law – no, sentience doesn’t matter either way. The Law – I think a limited form of personhood/rights is attributed when the restrictions on abortion take place, and while that is when sentience is normally there in the fetus, it’s not required. I’m not sure on the “value” as with fetal homicide laws. There, it’s really not any valuation but rather saying that some people are not allowed to end the life of the unborn against the will of the pregnant woman. The problem area there is in the case of a boyfriend causing an abortion, and even though it can be with the assent of the woman, the boyfriend is still charged. I don’t know the whole deal, there, i.e. is it just that he wasn’t authorized to do it, while a doctor would have been?
……
Doug: Value=wantedness if non person.
I assume you mean “non person” per the Law. If not, then I’d say it’s the same thing, i.e. the feeling of “person” equates to positive valuation, usually. If so, then yes of course, wantedness = (positive) valuation. (And that’s the case anyways, even per the law.)
……
Doug: Value=wantedness/unwantedness if sentient.
Yes, although sentience or not doesn’t matter, there. The wanted or not/positive or negative valuation is the same thing.
……
Doug: Non sentience means no objective value.
Yes, but not only that. Nothing means “objective value,” in the first place.
……
Law: Same
Yes, but that’s because the law reflects sentiment and opinion, not anything “objective.” Looking at it another way, the Law does apply some positive value, at times, late enough in gestation, and sentience is not required for that.
Doug
Hi Theresa.
Check out Democrats for Life. We are people who care for and support programs that enrich life from conception until natural death.
I just am really offended by the insinuation that CPC’s are some kind of evil place to stay away from.
Bethany, understood. To generalize, here are some of the things one thinks of:
Putting an emotional spin on it, as with saying, “It’s a baby!” Overstating the risks of abortion. Overstating the chances of emotional upset to the woman later on. Refusing to refer women to abortion clinics and real doctors. CPCs being advertised and marketed as legitimate women?s health clinics, yet having staffs consisting of abortion opponents rather than medical professionals.
Here’s some quotes:
http://contraception.about.com/od/unplannedpregnancy/a/crisiscenter.htm
Be Cautious of Crisis Pregnancy Centers:
Many of these facilities try to attract pregnant women who are at risk for abortion. They often advertise and name themselves to give the impression that they are neutral healthcare providers. For example, they may use names like: Crisis Pregnancy Center, Pregnancy Counseling Center, Pregnancy Care Center, Pregnancy Aid, or Pregnancy Resource Center. Many of these facilities have an anti-abortion philosophy. Though some do provide an open and honest and offer neutral support and information to women facing unintended pregnancies, many of these clinics may be coercive and could potentially overwhelm women with their anti-abortion philosophy.
These clinics often promise free services and support. Many have been sued due to deceptive advertising or for failing to provide advertised services.
Quite a few references are given, and it’s hard for me to think it’s an outright lie that many CPCs have been sued.
Doug
“Well, you made up a bunch of stuff, rather than actually replying to anything I’ve said.”
Hooves: Ummm, Doug? That was a joke…..I think maybe your mind is so open your brains have fallen out.
:: laughing :: Yes, Hooves, could be…..
@Doug,
“Do you not agree that people simply have thoughts, emotions, desires?”
Yipee, hand-stand time … finally, finaly understand a little of where Doug’s mindset is. Many moons ago, I pictured you operating from a Cartesian-box but did no realize (until now) just how deeply entrenched you are in this ‘box’.
In this system, there is no ‘objective’ anything. ‘All’ is subjective … so it is MY car, MY house; MY family; MY job…. MY feelings; MY desires; etc … there can only be MY God because like Santa Claus, I made him up!
Doug desires are important only within this ‘box’ because of necessity ‘I’ am at the epicenter of MY universe, kinda strange for a guy that sides with Galileo … it is especially strange for someone claiming moral relativism … if such is really understood, the Truth which is vastly superior exists but apart from you … ie. the notions of ‘best’ or ‘worst’ cannot rightly be part of a moral relativist’s lexicon because ‘the best’ is outside his mindset.
There are no ‘desires’ in a sense of anything in reality being ‘mine’ …. especially my wife; my kids; my relatives. In objective reality emphasis goes on the noun and not the pronoun ‘my’. Guess the closest to the feeling ‘my’ is MY property?
There are classically two things that are not handled in the ‘box’. One is pain … a good swift kick in the groin and a person learns quickly that no amount of intellectualizing can account for the experience of pain. The other thing that people inside a ‘box’ have great difficulty handling is disability. ((It is no wonder then, that you and MK perceive Terri Schiavo differently. For you (since disability is not desired) your lone position is to pass judgment. MK saw a hurting person and wondered how to help.
The very same split happens in every ‘life’ situation like abortion. Its a matter of control and ownership …. is inflicting death ‘responsible’?
Quite a few references are given, and it’s hard for me to think it’s an outright lie that many CPCs have been sued.
I’m sorry, Doug. I looked at the link and saw absolutely no sources cited for the claims. Are you sure you gave me the right link?
************************************
*Putting an emotional spin on it, as with saying, “It’s a baby!”
*I’ve no problem with calling the unborn “babies,”
John, I’m so happy you understand his thought process…. I sure don’t. :-)
Quite a few references are given, and it’s hard for me to think it’s an outright lie that many CPCs have been sued.
Also, I find it strange that upon seeing case after case regarding Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics, of actual lies, fraud, deception, molestation, protection of rapists, even things like fetus-eating, and other horrible things that have ACTUALLY be sourced by legitimate references, actual court cases, and you say, “Well, just because some of them do this stuff doesn’t mean that ALL of them should be judged this way”.
Yet, without even having anything, any proof whatsoever, of CPC’s lying or deceiving at all (just a few supposed women’s anonymous testimonies), or any court cases, etc… you assume they’re truthful and that it speaks for the majority of CPC centers!
I mean, the double standard is horrific.
lol Bethany,
don’t quite know how to respond to that one. The only reason I ‘get it’ is because I too lived in my own ‘box’. Even hough I know it from the inside, I would not wish it on anyone! Be very, very happy that you do not understand.
John, thanks…I am actually pretty happy that I don’t understand- but I am thankful to have you here to sort of “translate” Doug’s thinking for those of us who have not experienced that “box”. :)
Doug, another thing. Guess who wrote the article you linked to, about CPC’s?
Dawn Stacey is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and former Planned Parenthood employee.
Bethany, If I knew how to do emoticons, mine would be of one lying on its back laughing hysterically at your discovery.
For Pete’s sake.
Doug,
Again, there’s a difference between “euthanized” and “allowed to die.” I don’t know if it matters to you, but it does to me, somewhat. Had all of the family been for letting “Terri” die, we’d likely have not heard of it. I can fully understand some family members wanting the feeding, etc., to continue, and I can also understand the husband wanting it to be over. My opinion – if it was my body there, then let me die.
So you don’t feel qualified to form an opinion on whether Terri should have been “Left to Die” (which is ludicrous, because anybody that was locked up and not given food or water would die, and it would not be this passive act that you are purporting) but you feel perfectly qualified to state that Terri was no longer sentient or “there”?
Interesting. When it suits you and your purposes, you feel perfectly justified saying that a human being is just a body without “something” that makes them a person. (oddly enough you can’t even name what this “thing” is that has left Terri), but you cop out when it comes to making a judgment call on whether Terri or unwanted children should be killed.
You have no problem making the moral judgment call that a woman has the right to decide to kill her unborn child or let it live.
But you cringe at the idea that we have the right to make a moral judgment…ie that killing the unborn is wrong.
So while you claim that morality is subjective and that no one has the right to make moral judgments, you make one yourself by claiming that a woman has the right to choose to end her child’s life…
hmmmmmm…somethin’ just ain’t right there!
Doug,
Nonsense. You could ask yourself, “Why does God have consciousness?”
Yes, I could, and my answer would not be “God has consciousness because God is a conscious being…”
My answer would be “Hey, good question, and one that I don’t have an answer to. I simply don’t know.”
Here you go, Carder! :) Happy to help. ;-)
lol!
“Do you not agree that people simply have thoughts, emotions, desires?”
John M: Yipee, hand-stand time … finally, finaly understand a little of where Doug’s mindset is. Many moons ago, I pictured you operating from a Cartesian-box but did no realize (until now) just how deeply entrenched you are in this ‘box’.
John, it’s actually looking at what we really know to be true, the basic “a priori” stuff where assumptions are not involved. I’ve said many times that we all make unprovable assumptions, and that it’s where our assumptions diverge that the arguments begin.
……
In this system, there is no ‘objective’ anything. ‘All’ is subjective … so it is MY car, MY house; MY family; MY job…. MY feelings; MY desires; etc … there can only be MY God because like Santa Claus, I made him up!
Oh Geez, you’re zooming off into left field. As far as what a consciousness can be truly sure of, it’s only the fact of its own consciousness. After that, and given that we make certain assumptions, at least MK and I can perhaps agree on some things, and go forward from there.
……
Doug desires are important only within this ‘box’ because of necessity ‘I’ am at the epicenter of MY universe, kinda strange for a guy that sides with Galileo … it is especially strange for someone claiming moral relativism … if such is really understood, the Truth which is vastly superior exists but apart from you … ie. the notions of ‘best’ or ‘worst’ cannot rightly be part of a moral relativist’s lexicon because ‘the best’ is outside his mindset.
No, desires are where motivation comes from, whether you think them important or not.,
……
There are no ‘desires’ in a sense of anything in reality being ‘mine’ …. especially my wife; my kids; my relatives. In objective reality emphasis goes on the noun and not the pronoun ‘my’. Guess the closest to the feeling ‘my’ is MY property?
Ahem – differing desires are why we have the abortion argument in the first place.
……
There are classically two things that are not handled in the ‘box’. One is pain … a good swift kick in the groin and a person learns quickly that no amount of intellectualizing can account for the experience of pain. The other thing that people inside a ‘box’ have great difficulty handling is disability. ((It is no wonder then, that you and MK perceive Terri Schiavo differently. For you (since disability is not desired) your lone position is to pass judgment. MK saw a hurting person and wondered how to help.
Not at all, John – pain is usually unwanted. Certainly no problem understanding the motivation from desire not to feel pain. MK and “Terri’s” family may have had different desires with respect to keeping the body alive, versus that of the husband, but there’s nothing mysterious there.
……
The very same split happens in every ‘life’ situation like abortion. Its a matter of control and ownership …. is inflicting death ‘responsible’?
Depends on one’s viewpoint, obviously, and that will vary as the pre-eminent desire varies. You more want the unborn life to continue, with less regard to what the pregnant woman feels, and I more want the pregnant woman to be free to do what she feels is best.
Doug
“Putting an emotional spin on it, as with saying, “It’s a baby!”
“I’ve no problem with calling the unborn “babies,”
Bethany, yes, I’ve said that. Yet talking about “unborn babies” is not the same as telling a pregnant woman or girl “It’s a baby!” with the intent to try and persuade her not to have an abortion.
MK: I already said I don’t believe you are a “deep” thinker. You don’t seem at all interested in the why’s of things…
“Nonsense. You could ask yourself, “Why does God have consciousness?”
Yes, I could, and my answer would not be “God has consciousness because God is a conscious being…”
My answer would be “Hey, good question, and one that I don’t have an answer to. I simply don’t know.”
Okay, so it’s a pointless question, really, isn’t it? Thus it’s silly to say that somebody isn’t a “deep thinker” because they accept the fact of consciousness. What sense would it make in the first place to be interested in the “why”?
That’s the *only* thing a conscious being has that isn’t questionable.
Doug
Bethany, yes, I’ve said that. Yet talking about “unborn babies” is not the same as telling a pregnant woman or girl “It’s a baby!” with the intent to try and persuade her not to have an abortion.
Uh, I don’t see a difference, Doug.
Telling the truth about unborn babies is somehow different than telling the truth about unborn babies?…. uh, nope. I don’t agree.
What? I should call them unborn babies sometimes, but only in debate, and then I should avoid calling it a baby, when speaking with a pregnant woman, to protect a woman from hearing another side of the issue, just in case she might like to abort her baby? Don’t think so. How is that informed consent? How is that “choice”, Doug?
Why should she not hear all sides and all perspectives before making her decision, Doug? Unless you desire for all women to have abortion, there is no reason for you to insist on her staying away from the other information that is out there, simply because it doesn’t conform to what “Doug wants” or what “Doug believes”.
I think every woman has a right to know that her baby’s heart starts beating at 18 days after conception, and not to be shielded from this truth just so that abortion providers can cash in on her body. I think a woman has a right to know that the unborn baby’s fingers and toes are developing and are almost completely developed about the time my baby miscarried. I think a woman has a right to know what an unborn child looks like. I think a woman has a right to know that a baby has brainwaves from 42 days.
If this changes her mind, and she desires to keep her baby after having heard and seen this scientifically correct information, why do you have a problem with it, Doug? I thought you were for “choice”?
Also, I still would like to see some valid sources for any of those claims about CPC’s.
Bethany: John, thanks…I am actually pretty happy that I don’t understand- but I am thankful to have you here to sort of “translate” Doug’s thinking for those of us who have not experienced that “box”. :)
The point is that a being’s consciousness is the *one* thing that’s unquestionable. Beyond that lie assumptions, and we all make them. That’s not thinking “in the box,” that’s realizing what are assumptions and what are not.
……
Doug, another thing. Guess who wrote the article you linked to, about CPC’s?
Dawn Stacey is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and former Planned Parenthood employee.
Yes, B, I know. Shouldn’t be any surprise that a Licensed Mental Health Counselor worked at PP. I don’t think she should be rejected out of hand any more than you or Mary should be for being associated with CPCs.
……
“Quite a few references are given, and it’s hard for me to think it’s an outright lie that many CPCs have been sued.”
I’m sorry, Doug. I looked at the link and saw absolutely no sources cited for the claims. Are you sure you gave me the right link?
Darn it, you’re right. I must have seen a different website. Tonight I’m on a $@%#^&*?! dial-up connection because this motel’s wireless isn’t working worth a diddly. I can certainly search later, but do you really think it is simply untrue that many CPCs have been sued for giving false information, etc.?
Doug
“Again, there’s a difference between “euthanized” and “allowed to die.” I don’t know if it matters to you, but it does to me, somewhat. Had all of the family been for letting “Terri” die, we’d likely have not heard of it. I can fully understand some family members wanting the feeding, etc., to continue, and I can also understand the husband wanting it to be over. My opinion – if it was my body there, then let me die.”
MK: So you don’t feel qualified to form an opinion on whether Terri should have been “Left to Die” (which is ludicrous, because anybody that was locked up and not given food or water would die, and it would not be this passive act that you are purporting) but you feel perfectly qualified to state that Terri was no longer sentient or “there”?
It’s not up to me. It’s up to her family and in this case they had opposing opinions. Yes, it would be passive with “Terri.” Go ahead are let her out of the hospital, etc., if you’re really thinking “locked up.” The body would die without medical life-support intervention.
……
Interesting. When it suits you and your purposes, you feel perfectly justified saying that a human being is just a body without “something” that makes them a person. (oddly enough you can’t even name what this “thing” is that has left Terri), but you cop out when it comes to making a judgment call on whether Terri or unwanted children should be killed.
Oh please. I am saying that the loss of personality, consciousness, etc., makes a different to me. I realize the presence of consciousness or not can be argued in that case. I have no problem with the husband wanting the body to be left to die, and I also have no problem with other family members wanting the body kept alive. As far as unwanted pregnancies, I am certainly for letting the pregnant woman end them, to a point in gestation. Unwanted children don’t come into it.
……
You have no problem making the moral judgment call that a woman has the right to decide to kill her unborn child or let it live.
Aside from your emotional spin on it, yes – to a point in gesation I think she should have the freedom in the matter that she does now.
……
But you cringe at the idea that we have the right to make a moral judgment…ie that killing the unborn is wrong.
Nonsense. I freely admit that you don’t like abortion and think it’s wrong. Make all the moral judgments you like, but don’t expect them to automatically be applied to everybody.
……
So while you claim that morality is subjective and that no one has the right to make moral judgments, you make one yourself by claiming that a woman has the right to choose to end her child’s life.
Yes, morality is subjective. No, I’ve never said that on one has the right to make moral judgments.
……
hmmmmmm…somethin’ just ain’t right there!
I’ve answered, so hope that helps.
Doug
“Bethany, yes, I’ve said that. Yet talking about “unborn babies” is not the same as telling a pregnant woman or girl “It’s a baby!” with the intent to try and persuade her not to have an abortion.”
Uh, I don’t see a difference, Doug. Telling the truth about unborn babies is somehow different than telling the truth about unborn babies?…. uh, nope. I don’t agree.
The point being that “It’s a baby!” can be said with voice inflection, body language, etc., implying that abortion is wrong. That’s “leaning” on the pregnant woman.
……
What? I should call them unborn babies sometimes, but only in debate, and then I should avoid calling it a baby, when speaking with a pregnant woman, to protect a woman from hearing another side of the issue, just in case she might like to abort her baby? Don’t think so. How is that informed consent? How is that “choice”, Doug?
No, do what you want in debate, but don’t try and coerce pregnant women one way or another.
……
Why should she not hear all sides and all perspectives before making her decision, Doug? Unless you desire for all women to have abortion, there is no reason for you to insist on her staying away from the other information that is out there, simply because it doesn’t conform to what “Doug wants” or what “Doug believes”.
Information is one thing, and emotional spin is another.
……
I think every woman has a right to know that her baby’s heart starts beating at 18 days after conception, and not to be shielded from this truth just so that abortion providers can cash in on her body. I think a woman has a right to know that the unborn baby’s fingers and toes are developing and are almost completely developed about the time my baby miscarried. I think a woman has a right to know what an unborn child looks like. I think a woman has a right to know that a baby has brainwaves from 42 days.
Sure, physical fact is fine, but the coercive stuff is bad. Actually, though, the “brainwaves at 42 days stuff” is just plain silly. That’s stretching the real meaning so far out of whack that it’s really just propaganda.
……
If this changes her mind, and she desires to keep her baby after having heard and seen this scientifically correct information, why do you have a problem with it, Doug? I thought you were for “choice”?
No problem if it’s without coercion.
……
Also, I still would like to see some valid sources for any of those claims about CPC’s.
I’ll look into it further, B.
Doug,
I can certainly search later, but do you really think it is simply untrue that many CPCs have been sued for giving false information, etc.?
So you’re definition of rare is fine when applied to late term/post viability abortions, and you’re definition is the one we should accept for “many” when applied to lawsuits against CPC’s?
I don’t know Doug, it seems to me that the understanding of terms like rare and many are in the eyes of the beholders.
I consider a thousand viable babies being killed because the mom didn’t realize she was pregnant to be a lot, and you thinks it’s rare.
Whereas I think 5 lawsuits against a CPC is rare and you thinks it’s many.
You also have no problem with using the term baby in one context and then balk at it’s being used in another context…then say that it doesn’t matter what you call it because this isn’t about semantics…suddenly the term baby takes on a whole new meaning when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
Doug,
Let’s try this one more time, tho I doubt if you’ll get it even then..
It’s not up to me. It’s up to her family and in this case they had opposing opinions. Yes, it would be passive with “Terri.” Go ahead are let her out of the hospital, etc., if you’re really thinking “locked up.” The body would die without medical life-support intervention.
TERRI WAS NOT, NOT, NOT ON LIFE SUPPORT!
And her family wanted to take her out of the hospital but they weren’t allowed to. If they had been allowed to, she’d still be alive today, because unlike you’re erroneous notion that she needed life support, her family would have FED her.
By your logic, we are all on life support as we all eat!
Doug,
If a guy is holding a gun to my daughters head and about to shoot her after having raped her and I say “Please don’t shoot her, she is my DAUGHTER,
am I using the word incorrectly because I might be putting pressure on the scum and coercing him to put the gun down and let my daughter live?
If it is a baby, and you have no problem admitting that it is a baby, then where do you get off telling us that we can’t use a term that might persuade someone to stop and think before ending this babies life? I mean for heaven sake, not only are you going to tell us what words we can use, but now you’re telling us what inflection you find acceptable?
If we honestly believe that these are human beings, persons, babies, individuals, then what kind of people would we be to just stand by and close our eyes?
If these were 10 year olds instead of the unborn, wouldn’t you be a despicable human being if you just stood by and let them be slaughtered (NO DOUG, no one here is saying that killing ten year olds is fine)…We believe the unborn are every bit equal to 10 year olds…so logically, we will fight for their lives exactly as I hope you would fight for a 10 year olds…
“Putting an emotional spin on it, as with saying, “It’s a baby!”
“I’ve no problem with calling the unborn “babies,”
Bethany, yes, I’ve said that. Yet talking about “unborn babies” is not the same as telling a pregnant woman or girl “It’s a baby!” with the intent to try and persuade her not to have an abortion.
Amazing. Now you must control the inflection of my voice when I simply speak the truth!
Now, how would you suggest I say the word “baby” when I say the word “baby”, Doug?
What tone of voice should I use when I say “baby”?
Should I mumble it? Stutter it?
What?
Okay, so it’s a pointless question, really, isn’t it? Thus it’s silly to say that somebody isn’t a “deep thinker” because they accept the fact of consciousness. What sense would it make in the first place to be interested in the “why”?
Isn’t that what science is all about, Doug? Asking the basic question, “Why”?
Would we have any of the technology we have today, would we have any of the scientific knowledge that we have today, if someone had not cared enough to ask a simple question, “why?”?
“Why” is how we understand the reason the sky is blue. To you, perhaps, asking such a question as “why is the sky blue” would be pointless, because you might not have the answer. But someone has asked this question before, and searched and has found the answer.
No question is pointless, Doug. The only thing that is pointless is continually avoiding answering that you don’t know the answer to.
I wrote:
Dawn Stacey is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and former Planned Parenthood employee.
Yes, B, I know. Shouldn’t be any surprise that a Licensed Mental Health Counselor worked at PP. I don’t think she should be rejected out of hand any more than you or Mary should be for being associated with CPCs.
Doug, Doug, Doug. So trusting of your own, yet so skeptical of others.
I have yet to see anything other than assumption, and that only from Planned Parenthood employees or other people involved in political action supporting abortion. Abortion is a business, Doug, and the sooner you realize that, the better.
Planned Parenthood doesn’t want those nasty CPC’s driving away their business, their bread and butter, those woman’s bodies.
And by the way, there is evidence of abortionist after abortionist after abortionist molesting patients, raping patients, lying to patients, giving patients abortions when they’re not even pregnant, killing patients, etc… and yet, you still support abortion clinics. Yet, you can’t support a CPC, because an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood employee says that they “lie” about something. And not only that, but their claims have not even been verified by any sort of objective source whatsover? lol
These are some really pitiful attempts to discredit CPC’s, Doug.
Darn it, you’re right. I must have seen a different website. Tonight I’m on a $@%#^&*?! dial-up connection because this motel’s wireless isn’t working worth a diddly. I can certainly search later, but do you really think it is simply untrue that many CPCs have been sued for giving false information, etc.?
Yes, I absolutely do. And I seriously doubt you will get back to me on this with proof of these claims, dial up or not, because there is none.
It’s not up to me [terri schiavo being killed]. It’s up to her family and in this case they had opposing opinions. Yes, it would be passive with “Terri.” Go ahead are let her out of the hospital, etc., if you’re really thinking “locked up.” The body would die without medical life-support intervention.
yeah, yeah, Doug. And it’s also not up to you whether we at CPC’s tell people they have “babies” when they’re pregnant. Yet, that doesn’t stop you from telling me I can’t call them “babies” even though you agree they can be called “babies”). It’s laughable.
mk wrote:
Interesting. When it suits you and your purposes, you feel perfectly justified saying that a human being is just a body without “something” that makes them a person. (oddly enough you can’t even name what this “thing” is that has left Terri), but you cop out when it comes to making a judgment call on whether Terri or unwanted children should be killed.
Oh please. I am saying that the loss of personality, consciousness, etc., makes a different to me.
Duh.
I realize the presence of consciousness or not can be argued in that case. I have no problem with the husband wanting the body to be left to die,
Would you have a problem with me leaving a 15 month old baby in a room with no food and water for 13 days, Doug? What if it was “my child”. Since you think that Terri’s family had the right to starve her to death, based on their being “her family” shouldn’t I also have that right with a 15 month old that belongs to me? I mean, a child’s consciousness is “arguable” at that point, isn’t it?
The body would die without medical life-support intervention.
Terri’s body only required food and water to live. No other medical intervention was required.
The sooner you stop believing those lies the better, Doug. Terri Schiavo’s body was perfectly healthy. She simply needed food and water, which is all you or I need to survive.
“The body would die without medical life-support intervention.”
Bethany: Terri’s body only required food and water to live. No other medical intervention was required.
The sooner you stop believing those lies the better, Doug. Terri Schiavo’s body was perfectly healthy. She simply needed food and water, which is all you or I need to survive.
The feeding tube is medical life-support intervention.
……
Would you have a problem with me leaving a 15 month old baby in a room with no food and water for 13 days, Doug? What if it was “my child”. Since you think that Terri’s family had the right to starve her to death, based on their being “her family” shouldn’t I also have that right with a 15 month old that belongs to me? I mean, a child’s consciousness is “arguable” at that point, isn’t it?
No, not arguable like for “Terri.” Were the baby anencephalic, for example, or otherwise so deficient, it would often be allowed to die. I do not have a problem with parents and doctors allowing death to come in such cases.
Amazing. Now you must control the inflection of my voice when I simply speak the truth! Now, how would you suggest I say the word “baby” when I say the word “baby”, Doug? What tone of voice should I use when I say “baby”? Should I mumble it? Stutter it? What?
Bethany, if you’re not being deliberately obtuse, then I am surprised. No, no “control” on my part, but you can see the difference between shouting it, as with the exclamation point, and being calm, neutral, non-coercive, etc.
…….
“Okay, so it’s a pointless question, really, isn’t it? Thus it’s silly to say that somebody isn’t a “deep thinker” because they accept the fact of consciousness. What sense would it make in the first place to be interested in the “why”?”
Isn’t that what science is all about, Doug? Asking the basic question, “Why”?
Yes, but only where valid questions exist.
……
Would we have any of the technology we have today, would we have any of the scientific knowledge that we have today, if someone had not cared enough to ask a simple question, “why?”?
O’ course not, but the fact of consciousness cannot be question.
……
“Why” is how we understand the reason the sky is blue. To you, perhaps, asking such a question as “why is the sky blue” would be pointless, because you might not have the answer.
Heh – not remotely the same thing.
……
But someone has asked this question before, and searched and has found the answer. No question is pointless, Doug. The only thing that is pointless is continually avoiding answering that you don’t know the answer to.
That’s silly. There are matters of logic that “science” has nothing to do with. No, science had not “found the answer” to consciousness – if there is a lack of knowing here, it’s certainly not on my part.
……
“I can certainly search later, but do you really think it is simply untrue that many CPCs have been sued for giving false information, etc.?”
Yes, I absolutely do. And I seriously doubt you will get back to me on this with proof of these claims, dial up or not, because there is none.
I will – I promise. I e-mailed myself a reminder last night.
……
And it’s also not up to you whether we at CPC’s tell people they have “babies” when they’re pregnant. Yet, that doesn’t stop you from telling me I can’t call them “babies” even though you agree they can be called “babies”). It’s laughable.
What’s laughable is you pretending what I said. Either there is “spin” or not. If not, then fine, and “baby” or not does not matter. Acting like the woman would be a monstrous monster while yelling, “It’s a baby!” at her would be vastly difference, and even you can see that.
MK: I don’t know Doug, it seems to me that the understanding of terms like rare and many are in the eyes of the beholders.
Often, sure.
……
I consider a thousand viable babies being killed because the mom didn’t realize she was pregnant to be a lot, and you thinks it’s rare.
Again, most of those are from 16 weeks to viability. What does it matter how long the woman thought she was pregnant at that point.
As for the post- viability abortions, then it’s a valid question. In the context of millions of abortions, the number is relatively “few,” yes.
……
Whereas I think 5 lawsuits against a CPC is rare and you thinks it’s many.
Now hang on, here – I don’t know what the number is. I will check into it. Considering the rhetoric and inflammatory things some pro-lifers say, it would not surprise me if there was attempted coercion of some women and girls at some CPCs – but it remains to be seen if there actually were lawsuits and what was claimed.
MK: You also have no problem with using the term baby in one context and then balk at it’s being used in another context…then say that it doesn’t matter what you call it because this isn’t about semantics…suddenly the term baby takes on a whole new meaning when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
No, no, no – sheesh. Semantics doesn’t really matter, no, but emotional “spin”, false information, refusal to refer to real medical personnel, and coercion in general does.
TERRI WAS NOT, NOT, NOT ON LIFE SUPPORT!
I disagree, MK. Maybe that’s all we can do there, disagree.
……
And her family wanted to take her out of the hospital but they weren’t allowed to. If they had been allowed to, she’d still be alive today, because unlike you’re erroneous notion that she needed life support, her family would have FED her.
By your logic, we are all on life support as we all eat!
:: laughing :: Okay, pretty good one there. I realize we also disagree on PVS or not, here. I think the brain was so atrophied that “she” was gone. However, had the family taken the body home, that would have been okay with me. In no way am I saying it “had” to be one way or the other. Yet I also understand the husband’s desire to have it all over with.
If a guy is holding a gun to my daughters head and about to shoot her after having raped her and I say “Please don’t shoot her, she is my DAUGHTER, am I using the word incorrectly because I might be putting pressure on the scum and coercing him to put the gun down and let my daughter live?
Heh – not according to me. I ain’t worried about “the scum.” I do hope that pregnant women are not coerced either way, though.
……
If it is a baby, and you have no problem admitting that it is a baby, then where do you get off telling us that we can’t use a term that might persuade someone to stop and think before ending this babies life? I mean for heaven sake, not only are you going to tell us what words we can use, but now you’re telling us what inflection you find acceptable?
Well, that’s not it. I don’t have a problem saying “baby” or other people saying it. It’s an understood term, to me, it’s okay. But that is not the same as necessary being it. It’s subjective, in the eye of the beholder, not strictly defined as correct as are the medical terms.
Yes, inflection, etc, could well make a difference to me. There could be all degrees of emotional spin put on things, but – to use a rather extreme example – saying, “How could you think of having an abortion? It’s a baby!” could have women getting the heck out of there….
……
If we honestly believe that these are human beings, persons, babies, individuals, then what kind of people would we be to just stand by and close our eyes?
I’m not saying, “Do that,” MK. I believe that Mary and Bethany are really good and caring people, and I don’t think they go too far on “spinning” things if they do any at all.
……
If these were 10 year olds instead of the unborn, wouldn’t you be a despicable human being if you just stood by and let them be slaughtered (NO DOUG, no one here is saying that killing ten year olds is fine)…We believe the unborn are every bit equal to 10 year olds…so logically, we will fight for their lives exactly as I hope you would fight for a 10 year olds…
Sigh – I do understand what you mean, MK. Yet 10 year olds are suffering mightily in many places around the world, and dying too.
I’m not trying to cut you down, but it feels to me like you’re reducing them to “numbers,” i.e. there’s no difference in “human being” between a 10 year old and a 6 week embryo – to pick one where there’s no real debate about suffering, emotion, etc. To me there’s a world of difference. Just one more place where we simply will disagree, I reckon.
Doug,
Yes, but only where valid questions exist.
That’s a joke right? Wouldn’t a “valid” question be any question where the answer wasn’t known????
Doug,
O’ course not, but the fact of consciousness cannot be question.
Oddly enough, while I was taking down the Christmas tree today, I watch “Awakenings”…
Every doctor except Doctor Sayer took your point of view…these people had NO brain function. But Doctor Sayer saw it differently. And he was right.
The response of one scientist to his queries?
Dr. Sayer: I wonder what they think about.
Scientist: Nothing.
Dr. Sayer: Are you sure?
Scientist: Yes.
Dr. Sayer: It’s been proven?
Scientist: Yes.
Dr. Sayer: So you’re positive?
Scientist: Yes.
Dr. Sayer: Why?
Scientist: Because the alternative would be unthinkable…
The real doctors name is Oliver Sacks.
You might benefit from reading some of his works.
It appears that those without “consciousness” might be more aware than you about what it means to be “awake”…
http://www.oliversacks.com/subject.htm
Doug,
Again, most of those are from 16 weeks to viability. What does it matter how long the woman thought she was pregnant at that point.
It matters because I don’t consider this a “serious” reason for ending a pregnancy at 16 weeks or later.
You argued that these abortions are rare and for “good” reasons. I’m arguing that rare is a subjective term and not realizing you are pregnant at 20 weeks is not a “good” reason to kill your child…duh! try to keep up.
Doug,
Yet I also understand the husband’s desire to have it all over with.
Have what all over with? No one was asking HIM to do ANYTHING! He was already with a new woman with whom he had fathered 3 new children.
Her parents and siblings were perfectly willing to let him have it be all over…THEY wanted to take over Terri’s care…
Tell me something…is feeding a baby a bottle, life support? Because they can’t feed themselves and a nipple isn’t that much different from a tube!?!
Doug,
No, no, no – sheesh. Semantics doesn’t really matter, no, but emotional “spin”, false information, refusal to refer to real medical personnel, and coercion in general does.
My, my, my…all that from one little word? Baby.
Sounds like semantics to me.
No, not arguable like for “Terri.” Were the baby anencephalic, for example, or otherwise so deficient, it would often be allowed to die. I do not have a problem with parents and doctors allowing death to come in such cases.
If it were simply a matter of “letting her die”, Doug, then why did it take 14 days before she expired after having no food or water? Wouldn’t she have died much sooner?
MK great point about the bottles. I guess all babies could be killed on the basis that they are also on life support (the bottles)- oh wait, I mean “allowed to die”. Cause if I refuse to give them their “life support” for 14 days, they would probably die too.
Bethany, if you’re not being deliberately obtuse, then I am surprised. No, no “control” on my part, but you can see the difference between shouting it, as with the exclamation point, and being calm, neutral, non-coercive, etc.
So what then? Are you trying to imply that I shout or scream “It’s a baby” at every woman who walks in the center? Do you really think that’s how it works? My goodness, Doug. If anyone’s being obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse, it’s you. Like I have said before, take your wife to a pregnancy center. Have her take a pregnancy test. See how they treat you. Record it and play it for me. I dare you.
Isn’t that what science is all about, Doug? Asking the basic question, “Why”?
*************
Yes, but only where valid questions exist.
There are no invalid questions, Doug.
What’s laughable is you pretending what I said. Either there is “spin” or not. If not, then fine, and “baby” or not does not matter. Acting like the woman would be a monstrous monster while yelling, “It’s a baby!” at her would be vastly difference, and even you can see that.
Doug, I didn’t put a spin on it at all. I simply repeated what you said back at you and you realized how silly it sounds, so you’re backtracking now. Just admit it already. I mean, do you think you know everything and are infallible or something? Just admit you’re wrong about something every once in a while.
What you wrote, and I quote:
“”Putting an emotional spin on it, as with saying, “It’s a baby!”
How is simply saying the words “It’s a baby” putting an emotional spin on things? It’s not.
And you know it.
You did NOT imply that it had to be screamed or shouted in your first quote.
You only added that part later because you realized how controlling it sounds to say what words I could and could not use, and you wanted to make yourself sound better after I called you on it.
If am wrong, then are you saying that you don’t have a problem with me saying the word “baby” at the CPC, in the calm and natural tone that I normally tell them? Do you have a problem with me showing pictures of babies in the womb, to show them what babies look like at the different stages of life?
This is from my CPC training manual, the same one that is in the hands of many CPC volunteers, nationwide:
Who is she? A look at the woman in a crisis pregnancy.
To be an effective CPC counselor demands understanding the needs of the woman in a crisis pregnancy. Often a counselor can put the focus of her concern so much on “saving the baby” that she can become insensitive and blind to the deep felt needs of the woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy. This will tend to only alienate the woman and reinforce her sense of worthlessness that no one really cares for or loves her. Often she comes to the CPC with hopes for love crushed, her boyfriend having left her with the degrading reality that his words of love were merely a means to use her for his sexual pleasure. If she senses your main concern is for a baby which she cannot see, feel, or appreciate, and that you don’t really care about her and her problems she can see and feel, you will only isolate her in deeper hopelessness. Abortion then will only become more attractive as the easy expedient way out of a mess.
Crisis pregnancy crosses all ethnic, social, educational, and religious backgrounds. Crisis pregnancy is no respecter of persons and there is no group that is immune from this problem. Although we must be careful not to stereotype, and each woman must be dealt with ats a unique individual, we will attempt to give some general characteristics and basic patterns we have observed among women in a crisis pregnancy. This material should greatly aid you in developing an understanding of the women we serve and an ability to identify with her in love, thus gaining her trust and an opportunity to minister to her deep needs.
That is the first page.
By the way, I googled “Crisis Pregnancy Center Lawsuits” and came up with…nothing.
Doug,
Furthermore, a lawsuit pending is not a lawsuit one.
Anyone can claim anything.
When I looked at the “Resource” list from your link?
NARAL, Planned Parenthood, but NO list of these imaginary lawsuits…
You’ve got your work cut out for you Doug.
@Doug,
I’ve had some computer woes for the past few days, but had some intriguing thoughts: hope you might comment –
a) re. the notion of ‘desires’. We have little problem with ‘desires’, but have a huge problem with ‘intent’. A person can desire ’til the cow comes hope but intent is making desires into actual terms – when a person intends/makes-plans to kill her child that things get strained. It seems that many PC’ers have the ‘intent to kill’ and are using this rationalization to find justification for this intent.
The only ‘desires’ left operating after this intention are in the option of who will do the killing. Because intention follows ‘desires’ … there is not a big problem with desires/choices, but there sure is with intentions.
b) the world of the Cartesian box is an illusion within an illusion. First of is a question: Does any desire exist in the universe that does not come from your mind? If the answer is ‘yes’ and I assume it is … except for a delusional ego-maniac … should ‘desire’ be a qualifier in the universe?.
The world of desire has many areas which are as intangible: dreams, fantasies, whims, imagining, pretending – pretense; on and on. But a person in the ‘box’ thinks that there is ‘freedom’ here. It is very much like a prison cell with a small window to ‘see’ outside.
It does have its rewards of being regimented and with regular meals … because its main appeal is the illusion of control … anyone for ‘body autonomy’?
The largest problem is that this is the only way to make life ‘control-able’. I have a good friend whose first-born’s conception was unanticipated. She hates the word ‘mistake’ because one assumes all is replaceable/repairable. This is only promoted in a classroom. Everything and every-time in the universe is unique – non-repeatable.
She calls her Dillan a ‘woops’ … like slipping-on-ice. Life is filled with ‘woops-es’. In the ‘box’ world, there are only ‘wanted/unwanted’ because these are controllable, there are no ‘woops’ in this universe, as there is no pain, suffering, disability, aging … etc..
The final wall to go is the one called ‘equality’. Many months ago, I asked how a person could be ‘unique’ and ‘equal’ at the same time … in the universe ALL is unique … even snowflakes and especially human beings. In our head (the same place as ‘desires’), comes the ability to compare – hence ‘equal’ It is also the place to replace a thing ‘wanted’ for something ‘unwanted’.
The universe that is – objective and unique … offers me actual freedom as opposed to an illusory ‘freedom’. You mentioned about freedom = right to choose. This sentiment is often reflected in the words ‘a child’s freedom”. The answer you have for a pregnant lady is not her ‘best choice in the matter’; but is in actuality only your ‘best’ sentiments … drivel really. Too bad, but they are but your ‘desire’ … and carry little merit.
“Yes, but only where valid questions exist. ”
MK: That’s a joke right? Wouldn’t a “valid” question be any question where the answer wasn’t known????
Logically, the answer is known. Consciousness cannot be questioned. If you think, then you exist.
……
And this is not where other parties (doctors, etc.) are wondering if another being is conscious or not.
This is a consciousness itself knowing of itself. That is the only thing that is sure, that is unquestionable.
By the time we get to “others” we are making assumptions.
“Again, most of those are from 16 weeks to viability. What does it matter how long the woman thought she was pregnant at that point.”
MK: It matters because I don’t consider this a “serious” reason for ending a pregnancy at 16 weeks or later.
The time of gestation doesn’t matter to you in the first place. You were arguing with me, and to viability any desire on the woman’s part is good enough for me. It’s senseless to quote statistics for abortions prior to viability in that case.
……
You argued that these abortions are rare and for “good” reasons.
Yes, they are rare, even without limiting it to therapeutic ones. We’re talking around .08%. The ones not for therapeutic reasons are obviously a good bit less than that.
……
I’m arguing that rare is a subjective term and not realizing you are pregnant at 20 weeks is not a “good” reason to kill your child…duh! try to keep up.
I’m more “up” than you are. You are against abortions at 20 weeks regardless of the circumstances and reasons. That’s before viability, in the first place – really not our argument here.
But yes, “rare” could be subjective, sure.
“Bethany, if you’re not being deliberately obtuse, then I am surprised. No, no “control” on my part, but you can see the difference between shouting it, as with the exclamation point, and being calm, neutral, non-coercive, etc.”
So what then? Are you trying to imply that I shout or scream “It’s a baby” at every woman who walks in the center?
No, this isn’t about you.
……
Do you really think that’s how it works? My goodness, Doug. If anyone’s being obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse, it’s you.
The point is that many pro-lifers do talk that way, and presumably would “walk the walk” that way. Look at the rhetoric we see on this site alone.
……
Like I have said before, take your wife to a pregnancy center. Have her take a pregnancy test. See how they treat you. Record it and play it for me. I dare you.
Heh – wouldn’t prove diddly. She can’t be pregnant.
“What’s laughable is you pretending what I said. Either there is “spin” or not. If not, then fine, and “baby” or not does not matter. Acting like the woman would be a monstrous monster while yelling, “It’s a baby!” at her would be vastly difference, and even you can see that.”
Bethany: Doug, I didn’t put a spin on it at all. I simply repeated what you said back at you and you realized how silly it sounds, so you’re backtracking now. Just admit it already. I mean, do you think you know everything and are infallible or something? Just admit you’re wrong about something every once in a while.
No, B, no backtracking, and I didn’t say You “spun” things. In fact, I’ve already said I think you and Mary are probably pretty darn good from this perspective. I hope you don’t and I haven’t accused you of doing that with pregnant women.
……
What you wrote, and I quote: “”Putting an emotional spin on it, as with saying, “It’s a baby!”
How is simply saying the words “It’s a baby” putting an emotional spin on things? It’s not. And you know it.
Yours doesn’t have an exclamation point, for one thing. Moreover, why would you state it like that, if not to portray your opinion on things? Not criticizing there, just asking.
……
You did NOT imply that it had to be screamed or shouted in your first quote.
:: laughing :: Do you know what an exclamation point means?
Perhaps I could have been more clear, but the exclamation point was there.
Bethany, on the one hand that first page from the manual doesn’t sound too bad, but whew – there is also some serious spin there.
Often a counselor can put the focus of her concern so much on “saving the baby”
Sounds like there is often that agenda, in the first place, rather than doing what’s best for the woman or girl.
I don’t blame you for feeling as you do, nor do I blame the writers of that manual, but it’s not agreed that “saving the baby” will necessarily be the best thing, AT ALL, for a given person.
John M: I’ve had some computer woes for the past few days, but had some intriguing thoughts: hope you might comment –
Have at it, John.
……
a) re. the notion of ‘desires’. We have little problem with ‘desires’, but have a huge problem with ‘intent’. A person can desire ’til the cow comes hope but intent is making desires into actual terms – when a person intends/makes-plans to kill her child that things get strained. It seems that many PC’ers have the ‘intent to kill’ and are using this rationalization to find justification for this intent.
“Intent” is no problem at all. It is the expression of the will to do a thing. Pro-Choicers don’t have the “intent to kill.” Many would not choose to have an abortion themselves. The choice/reasons/desire/intent is left to the pregnant woman. Pro-Choicers have the intent of abortion remaining a legal choice for pregnant women, as well as the legal choice of continuing the pregenancy.
……
The only ‘desires’ left operating after this intention are in the option of who will do the killing. Because intention follows ‘desires’ … there is not a big problem with desires/choices, but there sure is with intentions.
I don’t see that as mattering. If nobody else was required as a practical matter, a woman could give herself an abortion in a safe manner, and obviously vast numbers of them would do so – if that’s what you mean about “who will do the killing.”
Of course I agree that intention follows desires – you’re dead on target there. I’ll split the rest up into other posts.
Doug
John M: the world of the Cartesian box is an illusion within an illusion.
Heh – I didn’t come up with it, and I do think it could be said to be an illusion, really like reality being turned inside-out; what is true for all of us being said to be “small” while a much more limited and unprovable belief set, applying only to certain people, is said to be “big.”
……
First of is a question: Does any desire exist in the universe that does not come from your mind? If the answer is ‘yes’ and I assume it is … except for a delusional ego-maniac … should ‘desire’ be a qualifier in the universe?.
Whoa – you’re blowing past some assumptions there. You speak of delusions, but a consciousness cannot truly be sure of “others.” What if all it has experienced to a point in its time is but a “dream,” and reality (other than the fact of its own consciousness – which is undeniable) is not what it had thought before?
As I’ve said – we all make unprovable assumptions, and it’s where those assumptions diverge that the arguing begins. I freely admit I make assumptions – even in saying “we all make….”.
So, I will give you my answer, but realize that I’m not saying it’s a definitively provable deal. Yes – I think there are other desires in the universe besides my own – I take that for granted. And, per the assumption of others, I assume they do too. Let us all say we proceed that way – so no argument on that score.
I don’t think that desire is a qualifier in the universe. We are saying it exists, period. That alters no physical reality. It just notes emotion within one or more consciousnesses. It doesn’t change the meaning of a thing, it only denotes feeling toward it. Hope I am adressing what you meant. Okay, another split.
John M: The world of desire has many areas which are as intangible: dreams, fantasies, whims, imagining, pretending – pretense; on and on. But a person in the ‘box’ thinks that there is ‘freedom’ here. It is very much like a prison cell with a small window to ‘see’ outside.
It does have its rewards of being regimented and with regular meals … because its main appeal is the illusion of control … anyone for ‘body autonomy’?
John, you’re often tough to understand totally. I don’t see desire as “intangible” there – sounds like you mean nebulous or evanescent or something, i.e. “not really substantial” or “not as worthy as what John is going to bring up.” Desire could be expressed in dreams, etc., but so what?
A person will have freedom or not to pursue their desires, but I don’t see what you are saying in that “freedom is not there.” What’s this talk of “illusions” again? Sure, bodily autonomy can be taken way by various means, or the attempt made to do so, but that does not alter the fact that it will be present or not. If control is there, it’s there, whether you like it or not. As things are now, women are free to exercise their desire in continuing or ending pregnancies, at least to viability for ending them. They do have that control, that autonomy.
As for “boxes,” your box is certain philosophies, and perhaps Christianity or part of it. There are larger, more-encompassing boxes or realms which apply to more people, which don’t involve as many assumptions as you want to make. A box having “all religion” is larger than the “Christianity” one. And that which is true for all of us is larger yet.
……
The largest problem is that this is the only way to make life ‘control-able’. I have a good friend whose first-born’s conception was unanticipated. She hates the word ‘mistake’ because one assumes all is replaceable/repairable. This is only promoted in a classroom. Everything and every-time in the universe is unique – non-repeatable.
I was gonna say, “so call it an ‘accident,’ ” but I see the “woops,” below. Fine with me.
……
She calls her Dillan a ‘woops’ … like slipping-on-ice. Life is filled with ‘woops-es’. In the ‘box’ world, there are only ‘wanted/unwanted’ because these are controllable, there are no ‘woops’ in this universe, as there is no pain, suffering, disability, aging … etc..
Nope, I disagree. For all of us, there are desires, accidents, and pain, suffering, disabilities, aging, etc. This isn’t about “boxes.” This is everybody. She did not want to end the pregnancy, on balance, and that is fine with me and fine with Pro-Choicers.
……
The final wall to go is the one called ‘equality’. Many months ago, I asked how a person could be ‘unique’ and ‘equal’ at the same time … in the universe ALL is unique … even snowflakes and especially human beings. In our head (the same place as ‘desires’), comes the ability to compare – hence ‘equal’ It is also the place to replace a thing ‘wanted’ for something ‘unwanted’.
This isn’t at argument, John. Of course we are not exactly the same, i.e. “unique.” And of course it can be said that we are all “human beings,” etc., and “equal” in that way, etc. Okay, another split, and please – if you respond to anything, do it to the next post. Thanks.
John M: The universe that is – objective and unique … offers me actual freedom as opposed to an illusory ‘freedom’. You mentioned about freedom = right to choose. This sentiment is often reflected in the words ‘a child’s freedom”. The answer you have for a pregnant lady is not her ‘best choice in the matter’; but is in actuality only your ‘best’ sentiments … drivel really. Too bad, but they are but your ‘desire’ … and carry little merit.
Wanting what is best for a person is not “drivel,” nor of “little merit,” John. There really is the freedom to choose, or not. And it’s not up to you to deem what is best for a pregnant lady.
Okay, that’s the Doug arguing with John portion of this.
If you would, explain about the “offers me actual freedom” part.
What are you saying, there, in plain English? Humor me. How are you and this objective and unique universe interacting that you see this, feel this? What occurs in your mind that other people miss? What, exactly, is that “actual freedom”?
Best,
Doug
MK wrote: That’s a joke right? Wouldn’t a “valid” question be any question where the answer wasn’t known????
Doug responded:
Logically, the answer is known. Consciousness cannot be questioned. If you think, then you exist.
Doug, come on. Did MK ask, “Do we have consciousness?” Nope.
“Where does it come from” is the question, and you do not have an answer. Therefore, it is a question with the answer unknown as of now, and even you must agree this makes it a valid question, unless you want to place words in MK’s mouth again. I repeat: No one said, “Do we have consciousness”. Doug, let me explain something to you. We agree with you that we have consciousness- that we have desires. We understand that. We are not arguing that, and we are not questioning that. You are pretending we are and that is very frustrating, can’t you see?
Just take a moment to try to understand why your answers are not relevant to the questions we are asking. You have yet to say “I don’t know.” to the question. You simply said, “Well then, the question is pointless”. Simply because you do not know the answer, a question is pointless? Does that mean that Doug knows everything, and everything that Doug does not understand must not exist?
So what then? Are you trying to imply that I shout or scream “It’s a baby” at every woman who walks in the center?
The point is that many pro-lifers do talk that way, and presumably would “walk the walk” that way. Look at the rhetoric we see on this site alone.
Are you completely ignoring the rhetoric on the pro-‘choice’ side, Doug? If you want to be consistent, then I would suppose that, based on some of the pro-abortion people here (people whos comments have embarrassed even you), you would consider them representative of the pro-choice movement as a whole and therefore would caution women to stay away from Planned Parenthoods, because they may be exposed to such rhetoric.
(I’m sure crotch goop is a more than acceptable term for one to use to label the unborn, even in jest. Absolutely no ‘spinning’ there, right?)
Give me a break. This is a debate forum, not a place of charity, as is a CPC. There is a time and a place for everything. This (Jill’s blog) is a place where we do the hard discussions about abortion. We freely discuss, and neither side is really censored (unless it gets to the point of threatening or harrassment). We would not have such discussions at a CPC because that is not the place for it. And you know that. HUGE difference.
Heh – wouldn’t prove diddly. She can’t be pregnant.
Doesn’t matter, Doug. According to you, the CPC’s will tell a woman lies about whether she’s pregnant and force her to sit and watch videos of abortions, etc against her will.
I still dare you. Come on, Doug, be brave. See what bad forceful ladies volunteer at CPC’s, the gremlins that they are, they shouldn’t disappoint you, Doug.
No, B, no backtracking, and I didn’t say You “spun” things. In fact, I’ve already said I think you and Mary are probably pretty darn good from this perspective. I hope you don’t and I haven’t accused you of doing that with pregnant women.
Well thank you for not accusing me. While I do appreciate that, it is still offensive to me to hear your words, to hear you criticize my friends at other CPC’s, who I KNOW are just as well intentioned as I am, and who have helped women tremendously over the years. I still haven’t seen a shred of legitimate evidence of your claims against other CPC’s. Not one single source that is not from a person with a completely pro-abortion agenda. (planned parenthood employees, Henry A Waxman, etc.)
Yours doesn’t have an exclamation point, for one thing.
You must read words in text differently than I do. The exclamation point, to me, does not necessarily imply shouting or screaming. It implies emphasis, but it can be quiet emphasis. I did not read “It’s a baby!” to be shouting…probably because I have never heard a person ever do that before.
“ITS A BABY!!” all in capital letters, on the other hand, would make me think of shouting or screaming.
Moreover, why would you state it like that, if not to portray your opinion on things? Not criticizing there, just asking.
Well, as I’ve stated ad nauseum, it is not simply my opinion that the unborn is a baby, Doug. It is a biological fact. Not to mention it is a perfectly acceptable use of the word, from any of the most common dictionaries you will find. You disagree, no doubt, and I doubt we will ever come to a consensus, so it’s pointless to continue arguing over it. You think it’s not a baby. Even though you don’t “mind” it being called a baby. But you do mind it if it has a certain “inflection” you don’t like… etc… I think it’s just a lot simpler to just really believe what you believe and not to change what you believe from situation to situation.
I’m not going to change my wording from “baby” to ZEF, or “product of conception”, or “tissue” all of a sudden, because THEN, and only then, would I be “spinning” things. Then ,and only then would I be pretending.
And by the way, we use the terms “embryo”, “fetus” and “zygote” interchangeably with “baby” all the time.
:: laughing :: Do you know what an exclamation point means?
I don’t know if you’ve noticed it, but I’m one of those people who overuses exclamation points. lol In fact, I have to go through my posts regularly to delete exclamation points and put periods in, because I realize how silly it looks! I think exclamation points make people sound happy (at least, when they’re saying nice things like “it’s a baby!”) ;-) But that’s just me. I know they should be used less frequently.
Bethany, on the one hand that first page from the manual doesn’t sound too bad, but whew – there is also some serious spin there.
Often a counselor can put the focus of her concern so much on “saving the baby”
Sounds like there is often that agenda, in the first place, rather than doing what’s best for the woman or girl.
Of COURSE there is an agenda, Doug. We have various agendas at a CPC, none of which have ever been hidden from anyone’s public view.
Our agendas are:
To provide free counseling for alternatives to abortion. (We ALWAYS are sure to tell anyone who calls or asks, that we do NOT refer to abortions. As are all other pregnancy centers, very careful about letting others know this– go to any pregnancy center website and you will find a disclaimer to this effect: We do not offer abortions or abortion referrals. —
No deception there, and there is no reason that we should ever be forced to refer to abortion clinics- just answering another comment you made earlier)
To refer women to good medical care, and something they can afford.
To help arrange for financial assistance.
To arrange for continuation of schooling.
To help with transportation to and from doctors appt’s.
Referral for legal aid.
To help with adoption information and referrals.
To give women on going counseling.
To foster a healthy relationship with the family.
To keep mom furnished with maternity and baby things.
To help her set up housekeeping.
To help plan for the mother and baby’s future.
To help her continue her education.
Helping the mother with other needs, assistance, etc.
I don’t blame you for feeling as you do, nor do I blame the writers of that manual, but it’s not agreed that “saving the baby” will necessarily be the best thing, AT ALL, for a given person.
Well, you may not agree with it, but we absolutely do. Any given baby who was given the chance to live would disagree with you that it was not the best thing for them to be alive.
By the way, Doug, are your pro-choice sources spinning things or not spinning things, when they say, “For unbiased support, contact Planned Parenthood or NARAL”? Do you really think that the National Abortion Federation is “unbiased” about abortion?
Doug,
Logically, the answer is known. Consciousness cannot be questioned. If you think, then you exist.
That’s not true. You question it all the time. Terri Schiavo, unborn babies…
It cannot be proven one way or another whether some people have consciousness…only assumed.
You said “I think, therefore I am” and I said the problem is the reverse “I am, therefore I think” and you responded that this wasn’t possible. But I say it is. And it is dangerous to say it isn’t. Because then people like Terri, the unborn my father and Oliver Sacks’ patients could be treated as non persons.
Oliver Sacks proved that what we perceive as having no conscious was wrong with his encephalitic patients. If we were wrong there, we might be wrong elsewhere…and that word “might” is enough to tell me that saying “I am, therefore I think” could be untrue.
As the scientist said…”The alternative would be unthinkable”…but that is not a reason not to think it anyway. We don’t know squat about the brain. We only think we do. And we know even less about the mind….
Whoa – you’re blowing past some assumptions there. You speak of delusions, but a consciousness cannot truly be sure of “others.” What if all it has experienced to a point in its time is but a “dream,” and reality (other than the fact of its own consciousness – which is undeniable) is not what it had thought before?
This is the point I as trying make with schizophrenics. We believe reality is one thing, but their “reality” has been designed based on “dreams and delusions”…yet it is a valid reality nonetheless, so what gives us a right to say that their “reality” is wrong and ours is “right” if it isn’t hurting anyone? If there is no objective reality, I mean? And if you believe that there is objective reality, on what basis do you say that yours is the “right” one.
Doug,
As for “boxes,” your box is certain philosophies, and perhaps Christianity or part of it. There are larger, more-encompassing boxes or realms which apply to more people, which don’t involve as many assumptions as you want to make. A box having “all religion” is larger than the “Christianity” one. And that which is true for all of us is larger yet.
I think what John is trying say here is that for us the “biggest doll” is God and since you don’t acknowledge him, you get stuck in a smaller doll. You’re doll may be bigger than some peoples, but you still haven’t made it to the biggest doll.
Or better yet to the one that created the dolls…
The point being that we can go back and back and back, but once we hit God we can go back no more…you stop before you reach that point.
When I ask you where consciousness comes from, or where the desire to do good as opposed to doing what is good for oneself comes from, you stop. We don’t. This is the freedom that John speaks of. The freedom children have from knowing that someone is in charge (their parents) and that all is well…We have that, because we acknowledge that our Father has things under control. There really is a freedom in that. You perceive it as a prison, but that’s how 16 year olds view their parents. They rebel against the very people that brought them here to begin with. When you rebel against the notion of God, you are only able to rebel because of the very person you are rebelling against.
I think what John is trying say here is that for us the “biggest doll” is God and since you don’t acknowledge him, you get stuck in a smaller doll. You’re doll may be bigger than some peoples, but you still haven’t made it to the biggest doll.
MK, I gotta go to work, so more later.
For now, I note that “God” is one belief, in one particular box. There are larger boxes that have people who both have that belief and those that don’t.
MK: When I ask you where consciousness comes from, or where the desire to do good as opposed to doing what is good for oneself comes from, you stop. We don’t. This is the freedom that John speaks of. The freedom children have from knowing that someone is in charge (their parents) and that all is well…We have that, because we acknowledge that our Father has things under control. There really is a freedom in that.
I can certainly see that some people have the emotional need for such.
……
You perceive it as a prison, but that’s how 16 year olds view their parents. They rebel against the very people that brought them here to begin with. When you rebel against the notion of God, you are only able to rebel because of the very person you are rebelling against.
I don’t really think “prison.” At most, it’s giving up freedom of thought for the “security” in believing that “Dad has it handled.” Not a bad thing, necessarily, just not for everybody.
This is the point I as trying make with schizophrenics. We believe reality is one thing, but their “reality” has been designed based on “dreams and delusions”…yet it is a valid reality nonetheless, so what gives us a right to say that their “reality” is wrong and ours is “right” if it isn’t hurting anyone? If there is no objective reality, I mean? And if you believe that there is objective reality, on what basis do you say that yours is the “right” one.
MK, if they’re not considered dangerous, then how much do we really mess with them?
If they are hallucinating, and not seeing physical reality as we do, then that’s a big difference. As far as having the “right” to deem them “nuts,” etc., – it’s just society at work again, however inperfect it is.
“Logically, the answer is known. Consciousness cannot be questioned. If you think, then you exist.”
MK: That’s not true. You question it all the time. Terri Schiavo, unborn babies…
It cannot be proven one way or another whether some people have consciousness…only assumed.
That’s not what I was talking about. Sure – we could argue whether consciousness is present in a third party, but I mean that a conscious being cannot question it’s own consciousness. It knows it exists – that can’t be questioned. Everything else can.
……
You said “I think, therefore I am” and I said the problem is the reverse “I am, therefore I think” and you responded that this wasn’t possible. But I say it is. And it is dangerous to say it isn’t. Because then people like Terri, the unborn my father and Oliver Sacks’ patients could be treated as non persons.
Well, existence of course does not mean being sentient, conscious, etc. But the reverse is obviously true. But when it is the individual themself saying, “I am,” then thought is already present.
……
Oliver Sacks proved that what we perceive as having no conscious was wrong with his encephalitic patients. If we were wrong there, we might be wrong elsewhere…and that word “might” is enough to tell me that saying “I am, therefore I think” could be untrue.
I don’t see those as mutually exclusive. Sure – there may be ways in which the brain still has consciousness even though we’d previously thought it wouldn’t. No argument there. Still, though, “I am” is already a thought, regardless of all else.
……
As the scientist said…”The alternative would be unthinkable”…but that is not a reason not to think it anyway. We don’t know squat about the brain. We only think we do. And we know even less about the mind….
Agreed.
I don’t really think “prison.” At most, it’s giving up freedom of thought for the “security” in believing that “Dad has it handled.” Not a bad thing, necessarily, just not for everybody.
Doug, that is so offensive. Honestly.
We still have the freedom of thought and we use it all of the time. We don’t stop questioning things simply because we believe in God. Some of the greatest Scientists in the world were Christians. How could they be trading “freedom of thought” for security with all of the questions they asked and sought to answer throughout their life?
Here is a short list of Christian thinkers in Science. It’s not comprehensive, but to give you an idea…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
I don’t really think “prison.” At most, it’s giving up freedom of thought for the “security” in believing that “Dad has it handled.” Not a bad thing, necessarily, just not for everybody.
And by the way, don’t you say “you can’t question consciousness” although it’s very possible to question consciousness? I see this as a prison, where YOU have lost your freedom of thought.
You, Doug, cannot ask yourself questions about consciousness because in your eyes “The question is pointless”, simply because you do not understand it.
The thing is, I can ask a million questions about consciousness. But you can’t because your freedom of thought has been limited to what YOU can understand, and if you can’t understand it, you don’t bother with questioning it.
Doug, that is so offensive. Honestly. We still have the freedom of thought and we use it all of the time. We don’t stop questioning things simply because we believe in God. Some of the greatest Scientists in the world were Christians. How could they be trading “freedom of thought” for security with all of the questions they asked and sought to answer throughout their life?
Bethany, sorry about that, and I can see how it would hurt. I don’t mean to generalize for every single person, either – I should have been more clear about that.
What I see is some people that are indoctrinated with religion at an early age. They are taught to “fear God,” etc. They’re led to believe that they better believe “or else….” No way to prove this, of course, but I would bet that Zeke has an interesting history along these lines. There are other people in the world, with different religions, etc., that “believe” just as strongly, and some of them think you are wrong in your beliefs and (I imagine) you think some of them are wrong.
Certainly, I’m not saying you can’t think freely. However, “blind belief” in anything is not questioning it.
Again, I see the “outside” or the largest box as being everybody. There are things that are true for all of us, regardless of what unprovable beliefs the individual may hold. Then there are subdivisions – those that believe A, those that believe B, etc.
……
And by the way, don’t you say “you can’t question consciousness” although it’s very possible to question consciousness? I see this as a prison, where YOU have lost your freedom of thought.
That’s not it. A consciousness cannot question itself. It exists. It cannot logically say, “I don’t exist.”
……
You, Doug, cannot ask yourself questions about consciousness because in your eyes “The question is pointless”, simply because you do not understand it.
You’re going way overboard, Bethany. We talk about consciousness all the time, right here. I can ask any number of questions about it, same as you. The point is that “I know I am here.” Really, that’s all a consciousness can truly be sure of, i.e. it could “wake up” at what it perceives as a later time and find what had happened in the past had been as a “dream.” There is no way I can prove that it’s not “all a dream.” (Granted that I assume it’s not, and that you and everybody else is a separate consciousness, etc.) Yet I can’t prove it. But I cannot question consciousness itself – I have it.
……
The thing is, I can ask a million questions about consciousness. But you can’t because your freedom of thought has been limited to what YOU can understand, and if you can’t understand it, you don’t bother with questioning it.
I wasn’t talking about that. It’s just a logical deal – “I think, therefore I am,” is valid, as is just “I am.”
Doug
You’re going way overboard, Bethany. We talk about consciousness all the time, right here. I can ask any number of questions about it, same as you. The point is that “I know I am here.” Really, that’s all a consciousness can truly be sure of, i.e. it could “wake up” at what it perceives as a later time and find what had happened in the past had been as a “dream.” There is no way I can prove that it’s not “all a dream.” (Granted that I assume it’s not, and that you and everybody else is a separate consciousness, etc.) Yet I can’t prove it. But I cannot question consciousness itself – I have it.
But see, that’s just it. You define consciousness as “existence”, but I do not. I believe that humans exist before they have “consciousness”. Or while they’re in the process of becoming “more conscious”.
I don’t feel that I am any less in existence when I am sedated at the dentists office, any more than I am when I’m wide awake.
I don’t feel that I am any less in existence when I am asleep at night, and my consciousness is not fully there.
You do not know everything about the brain and you do not know with absolute certainty that Terri Schiavo did not have some form of consciousness. To say so would be silly. We simply don’t know everything there is to know about how the brain works…Tell me, Doug, whether Lily Rose was in existence while she was in a coma for years, then when she came out of it several years later, did she go from being a non-person to a person?
It doesn’t add up. She was a person, just like I am a person when I’m under the influence of a sedative drug at the Dentist while getting my wisdom teeth pulled.
Just as Terri Schiavo was a person while she was minimally conscious.
Bethany, sorry about that, and I can see how it would hurt. I don’t mean to generalize for every single person, either – I should have been more clear about that.
okay Doug. I know you probably didn’t mean it that way.
I wasn’t talking about that. It’s just a logical deal – “I think, therefore I am,” is valid, as is just “I am.”
But I can say “Why am I?” and that is a valid question.
Oops, not “Lily Rose”…It’s “Christa Lilly”…I don’t know how I got that name mixed up.
Also, can you answer me, when her consciousness was gone…where was she? The person that made Christa Lilly “HER” was still there, because when she came back, she had all of her old memories, etc. Where did Christa Lilly, and all of her essence, etc, GO while she was unconscious for years?
Obviously, it was still hidden within her, somewhere. It was not “gone”, even though it seemed to be so.
Doug,
As the scientist said…”The alternative would be unthinkable”…but that is not a reason not to think it anyway. We don’t know squat about the brain. We only think we do. And we know even less about the mind….
*
Agreed.
You say agreed but then say that we should be able to kill nonviable fetuses because they don’t have consciousness. You say the Terri’s of the world should be allowed to die because they don’t have consciousness, at the same time admitting that we don’t KNOW whether they have consciousness or not…don’t you see the contradiction there?
Also, can you answer me, when her consciousness was gone…where was she? The person that made Christa Lilly “HER” was still there, because when she came back, she had all of her old memories, etc. Where did Christa Lilly, and all of her essence, etc, GO while she was unconscious for years?
Obviously, it was still hidden within her, somewhere. It was not “gone”, even though it seemed to be so.
Sort of like the in the womb/non person, out of the womb/person, back in the womb/non person again…
And you say we believe in magic. This disappearing act that “people’s essensces” are doing sounds more like magic than religion does.
AbraCadabra…she’s there! *POOF* she’s gone…
Watch me pull a fetus out of a hat…watch me put it back in…
All illusion. Look in the hat and you’ll find hidden pockets. That’s where the scarves are stored. Just cuz you can’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. And just because you can see them doesn’t mean they are any more real.
It’s those pockets that interest Bethany and me…
All illusion. Look in the hat and you’ll find hidden pockets. That’s where the scarves are stored. Just cuz you can’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. And just because you can see them doesn’t mean they are any more real.
But see, that’s just it. You define consciousness as “existence”, but I do not. I believe that humans exist before they have “consciousness”. Or while they’re in the process of becoming “more conscious”.
No, Bethany, that’s not just it. Existing, physical reality – that is one thing. Awareness is another. Yes of course – a thing, “a human” (with the caveat of definitions), can be there without being conscious.
Good grief, I am just saying that when an entity is conscious, then they exist – no doubt about it, while there really can be doubt about everything else. This is not on the part of “others” – there we are already into the assumptions. This is the one thing that a conscious entity knows for sure.
……
I don’t feel that I am any less in existence when I am sedated at the dentists office, any more than I am when I’m wide awake.
Not the argument. Doesn’t matter. A conscious being “is,” whether they later go to sleep, get sedated, die, etc. Again, “existence or not” isn’t the argument, from the standpoint of outside observers. A thing will exist or not, independent of what you & I think, and independent of it being sentient, etc.
……
I don’t feel that I am any less in existence when I am asleep at night, and my consciousness is not fully there.
Same song, second verse.
……
You do not know everything about the brain and you do not know with absolute certainty that Terri Schiavo did not have some form of consciousness. To say so would be silly. We simply don’t know everything there is to know about how the brain works…Tell me, Doug, whether Lily Rose was in existence while she was in a coma for years, then when she came out of it several years later, did she go from being a non-person to a person?
I’ve said that my opinion is that “Terri” was long gone while the body remained. Lily Rose – don’t know. I realize that people “wake up” from comas, etc.
……
It doesn’t add up. She was a person, just like I am a person when I’m under the influence of a sedative drug at the Dentist while getting my wisdom teeth pulled. Just as Terri Schiavo was a person while she was minimally conscious.
Conscious at all is the argument there.
……
“Bethany, sorry about that, and I can see how it would hurt. I don’t mean to generalize for every single person, either – I should have been more clear about that.”
okay Doug. I know you probably didn’t mean it that way.
Thank you, B, and good – I really didn’t mean it as mean-spirited. People, in general, don’t like uncertainty. Long time ago, people saw lightning, heard thunder, and “What the heck was that?!”
At some point a theoretical construct came up = “a god did it,” and that appealed to some people. No more uncertainty, even if it cannot be proven; we just believe it. I see that yet today.
Doug
Also, can you answer me, when her consciousness was gone…where was she? The person that made Christa Lilly “HER” was still there, because when she came back, she had all of her old memories, etc. Where did Christa Lilly, and all of her essence, etc, GO while she was unconscious for years?
Obviously, it was still hidden within her, somewhere. It was not “gone”, even though it seemed to be so.
Bethany, I am differentiating between the physical body, that was there – no argument about it – and the personality, the sentience, the will, the volition, if you wish – the soul, etc.
I realize that many think the soul is there until death. Same with “Terri,” I don’t know if there is anything such as a soul myself, but if anything it’s awareness. If it’s an “animating spirit,” then perhaps it can come and go?
Yes, once in a while awareness can return after a long time, but in “Terri’s” case I don’t think it did. I know we can argue about brain function, but the autopsy sounded to me like it was enough that “she” was gone.
In Christa’s situation, her brain may have just been at a certain level of function for a time, when that type of consciousness couldn’t be present.
Doug
I wasn’t talking about that. It’s just a logical deal – “I think, therefore I am,” is valid, as is just “I am.”
Bethany: But I can say “Why am I?” and that is a valid question.
Sure, but that presupposes a cause, and that’s an assumption, versus the fact of you knowing you exist.
MK: As the scientist said…”The alternative would be unthinkable”…but that is not a reason not to think it anyway. We don’t know squat about the brain. We only think we do. And we know even less about the mind….
“Agreed.”
You say agreed but then say that we should be able to kill nonviable fetuses because they don’t have consciousness. You say the Terri’s of the world should be allowed to die because they don’t have consciousness, at the same time admitting that we don’t KNOW whether they have consciousness or not…don’t you see the contradiction there?
MK, first of all it’s far from that simple.
Consciousness does matter to me, yes, but we are not viewing the unborn in a vacuum here, with respect to the abortion debate, because there is the woman to consider. When I give my opinion and my valuation, I am including what the woman wants, her suffering, her joy, etc., and I give her a lot of significance versus the unborn, which to a point in gestation don’t think and don’t feel. Even later, when sentience, capability to suffer, etc., could be said to be there on the part of the unborn, it’s still weighing one against the other.
With “Terri,” I don’t know what I’d do if it was me in the position of making the decision. As I’ve said, I can see both sides there. Personally, 15 years of that – let “me” die, if it were me. If it were my wife – good grief, what a thought – don’t know what I’d wish for, then.
There are almost no “Terri’s of the world” – it’s an exceedingly unusual situation. I really don’t think there was a conscious person there. Again, my opinion. I see that you want to approach it on an absolute basis, as if no matter what, if there’s any possible doubt that “she” might still be there, that the life should be maintained.
Doug
MK: Sort of like the in the womb/non person, out of the womb/person, back in the womb/non person again…
And you say we believe in magic. This disappearing act that “people’s essensces” are doing sounds more like magic than religion does.
Ayatullah Khomeini….. Seriously, two different deals.
The first was speculation about how it would be given our existing laws.
The second is the idea that the brain function as far as conscousness can go away, and go away for good, while the body still metabolizes and respirates. I don’t think that’s really at issue. I grant you that I cannot prove there was no “Terri” there, but I also don’t think you can prove that “she” wasn’t long gone.
…..
AbraCadabra…she’s there! *POOF* she’s gone…
Depends on what “she” really is, and I say it’s much more than just a living, human body. Can the person depart, while the body is kept alive? I say yes.
……
Watch me pull a fetus out of a hat…watch me put it back in…
Well, it was not my hypothetical. Given that we attribute rights on the basis of birth, now, to a large extent, and that while in the womb those rights are not granted, then what do you think would happen?
…….
All illusion. Look in the hat and you’ll find hidden pockets. That’s where the scarves are stored. Just cuz you can’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. And just because you can see them doesn’t mean they are any more real. It’s those pockets that interest Bethany and me…
Nothing wrong with that, Mary Kay! I just don’t think that such speculations are a good reason to deny women the choice of continuing or ending pregnancies, though.
Doug,
it’s an exceedingly unusual situation
Not only isn’t it unusual, but my father is just like her. Go to facebook and you can see his picture on my homepage…
Vascular Dementia, Alzheimers, brain damage…living longer means more and more Terris…
This is a question that MUST be dealt with…
Doug,
I grant you that I cannot prove there was no “Terri” there, but I also don’t think you can prove that “she” wasn’t long gone.
Sure we can prove it! People in comas, thought to be “gone” COME BACK! If they were really “gone” where did they go, and how do they come back?
It’s not just a matter of their brains functioning again, allowing them to remember things…because Alzheimers patients are still there and yet are unaware of who they are or where they came from. Or Amnesia patients…They can’t remember anything…does that mean they are no longer there.
You say I want to make it simpler than it is, but I say that’s what you are doing. You base your belief that the “Terris” of the world are not there on what you, Doug, can or cannot observe.
But I am opening my mind to the possibility that I don’t know everything and just because I, Mary Kay, can’t see something, understand something, doesn’t qualify me to make a “judgment” on it.
I have science on my side, again…these people sometimes come back. Which means they weren’t really gone, just unable to express themselves…
I’m saying that you, nor anyone else is qualified to say that someone is no longer there, because we just can’t know.
Vascular Dementia, Alzheimers, brain damage…living longer means more and more Terris…
This is a question that MUST be dealt with…
MK, I mean that being kept alive by feeding tubes, etc., for 15 years is unusual, to say the least.
I hear you on the other stuff – my paternal grandfather had Alheimer’s, and his wife has it too, and she’s still going strong at age 96 and counting…..
Years of care like what “Terri” was getting are so expensive – I don’t know where it’s all gonna end.
Sure we can prove it! People in comas, thought to be “gone” COME BACK! If they were really “gone” where did they go, and how do they come back?
Sigh – yes, MK, but that says nothing about “Terri” or other given cases where at the least we truly don’t know.
……
It’s not just a matter of their brains functioning again, allowing them to remember things…because Alzheimers patients are still there and yet are unaware of who they are or where they came from. Or Amnesia patients…They can’t remember anything…does that mean they are no longer there.
No, they’re conscious, just with altered consciousness.
……
You say I want to make it simpler than it is, but I say that’s what you are doing. You base your belief that the “Terris” of the world are not there on what you, Doug, can or cannot observe.
I’m not saying that most people are like that. Alzheimer’s etc. = different deal.
…..
But I am opening my mind to the possibility that I don’t know everything and just because I, Mary Kay, can’t see something, understand something, doesn’t qualify me to make a “judgment” on it.
I’m no expert, but based on what I knew about the case, I think her personality was long gone. The autopsy of the brain makes me more sure about that. However, I grant you that I cannot be totally sure, and that there are some amazing cases, etc.
……
I have science on my side, again…these people sometimes come back. Which means they weren’t really gone, just unable to express themselves…
Naw, Sister, at most it’s a draw, there, since sometimes they really are gone for good.
……
I’m saying that you, nor anyone else is qualified to say that someone is no longer there, because we just can’t know.
Agreed, to some extent – and again, I’m not saying that in cases like “Terri’s” that they necessarily should just be left to die. For one thing, it’s often also going to be a question of costs. Even going with the chance, a slim one, I think, to say the least, that she could have regained consciousness, is it worth year after year of such care?
I imagine you would say, “Yes, any cost is worth it,” but for most families it’d be a real deal.
Doug
Truly Doug,
Terri’s care was not all that expensive. Her parents were willing to take her home and the feeding tube costs were nominal. Not just minimal, but nominal.
You really should read up on her case. It as a travesty. Her husband was as awful as a human being can be. And his lawyer was a member of the hemlock society. Terri wasn’t sick. She just needed a feeding tube. Feeding tubes are nothing. Much easier than a colostomy. If Terri was exactly the same but could swallow, but had a colostomy instead of a feeding tube, would you feel the same?
My father has been in Terri’s situation for going on 9 years now. He can swallow, but can’t speak, use a toilet (yes, he’s in diapers and has a catheter), walk, make eye contact…He’s worse off than Terri mentally. But there is not a member of my family that would trade him for anything. And all of us believe that he is still “there”…
MK, as I’ve said, it’s too bad that the husband and the rest of the family didn’t agree. And a family doing the feeding tube at home is just fine with me. I don’t agree with what I see as demonization of the husband, though.
If Terri was exactly the same but could swallow, but had a colostomy instead of a feeding tube, would you feel the same?
I realize you don’t agree – but I think her mind was really gone, and yes, I’d feel the same.
Your dad is a fine man to have a daughter like you. Do you ever see emotion in him?
Doug
Doug:
http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terri-big_eyes.ram
If she was not at least minimally conscious, how could she do that?
Watch her laugh at her dad’s jokes:
http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/ConversationWithTerri.ram
MK, as I’ve said, it’s too bad that the husband and the rest of the family didn’t agree. And a family doing the feeding tube at home is just fine with me. I don’t agree with what I see as demonization of the husband, though.
The reason is because there mountain loads of evidence that Michael Schiavo abused Terri and was the one who put her into the coma in the first place. Doug, I have shared so much evidence with you it’s crazy that you would act like you don’t have any idea why we would suspect him of this. I think you must have skimmed over the posts because there was so much information there.
If you really care to know, read all the posts by “james” who was an expert on the Terri Schiavo case, and REALLY read them this time, and you’ll understand the “demonization” of Michael Schiavo.
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/03/death_angel_vs.html
Mk, your dad is so fortunate to have you as a daughter. I didn’t realize your dad was in this situation- which explains why the Terri Schiavo story must be so much more personal to you!
Doug,
You ask if my father ever shows emotions…
I go straight to him when I have a special prayer need. See the look on his face in the picture? That’s him 99.9% of the time.
The only time I ever see him focus or “come to life” is when I tell him I need him to pray for someone.
Then his eyes open wide and he looks right at me. It creeps my mom out cuz he never looks at her (or anyone else that way)…
That man in the picture Doug? You are one of the people that I have asked him to pray for. And trust, me his eyes lit up. You and Rae, and Alyssa, and Amanda and Erin, and Danny, Laura, Sally and TR…he knows all of you. I tell him who each one of you are and he looks right in my eyes.
But other than that? No. No emotion whatsoever. A circus could go through the room and he wouldn’t blink. If you look really, really hard into his good eye (the other one was damaged by a handball years ago) you can still see remnants of him “paying attention”…I had just finished having a little “talk” with him, and he was still looking at me when I snapped the picture.
Doug,
And here’s the kicker. To your way of reckoning my father is no longer “there”…he’s just a useless body. But my father, like I, believe that when you offer up your suffering, it stops being suffering and becomes a way to atone for sins.
So while he has never met you and can’t wipe his own butt, he is actually doing a great thing. He lies in that bed and he offers up everything that he is going through for you and me and the world.
How do I know that? Because over a beer in Ireland, when he first realized what was coming, and was still in the very, very early stages of this disease, he told me so. Said he knew what was happening and that he had talked to God, and he had made peace with it. He was willing to do it out of love. He was glad to be of help. He was glad to share the cross…
If she was not at least minimally conscious, how could she do that?
I don’t know, Bethany, either way – don’t know if that necessarily means even minimal consciousness, nor what would account for it if not.
……
I did read what “James” had to say on that thread you linked to, and he’s obviously on one side of this deal. It’d be interesting to hear the other side.
To your way of reckoning my father is no longer “there”…he’s just a useless body.
No, MK, I said no such thing about your dad. You do get some response from him, as you said. Also, I said I had no problem with people wanting to care for “Terri,” – the problem really was the difference between them and Micael Schiavo.
In that thread that Bethany linked to, Rae and perhaps others said that they wouldn’t want to be kept alive in such a condition, and I feel that way too. For me, a good bit of the Schiavo case would be whether she had expressed such a desire or not, first of all.
Doug
At least part of the other side of the Schiavo case.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12025860/
Well Doug,
I just read his whole story and talk about subjective!
The autopsy said she NEVER had bulima, and if I remember correctly, Michael called her father first, then 911.
There are so many inconsistencies in his story, it makes your head spin.
Not the least of which is that no one knows why she collapsed to begin with.
Just look at how he misrepresents her folks when he says they say they’d cut off her arms and legs…typical. Or why he didn’t let the brother in to say goodbye. Cuz he didn’t want a bad aura? Give me a break! He didn’t want them to see how awful her death was. There was no reason in the entire world why he couldn’t have let her family be there at her last moments…except that he’s an ass!
I’m sorry but the Schindlers have forensics, police reports, facts and data on their side.
All Michael has is a sob story that makes him out to be the good guy…and where is that money now? Charity? I don’t think so!
I don’t know, Bethany, either way – don’t know if that necessarily means even minimal consciousness, nor what would account for it if not.
I don’t know? That’s your answer? Honestly!
You, Doug, who are the supposed expert on consciousness, cannot answer the simplest question on whether or not Terri appears conscious in those videos??? COP-OUT.
Doug, OBVIOUSLY, she is at least minimally aware of her surroundings. This, by definition, even the smallest child could understand that she was CONSCIOUS! She responded to her father, laughing at his jokes. She opened her eyes when she was told to open her eyes. Obviously, Terri was in there and Terri was listening!!
Bethany, I didn’t see the one about her dad telling jokes. I tried again today, and I get an error message saying, “network error, this file could not be played.”
On her eyes, I don’t think it’s conclusive, at all. It’s not a “cop-out,” it’s that I don’t know what all could account for that.
MK, both sides have their stories, and there are certainly doctors on the “permanent vegetative state” side too.
I have always wondered what happen to the 20 minute Terri Schiavo video that was shown at Mal Practice trial in 1992.
It is interesting that that video was never mentioned again and was never used in the 2000 or 2002 trial as video evidence. The video is never mentioned again in any future affidavit or motion that I could find.
The video was very important for several reasons. Based on the testimony by Michael Schiavo, it showed that Terri was alert, aware, could feel pain, and could swallow.
In it the video shows Terri swallowing at times. It shows Terri reacting to pain. And it shows Terri has feelings and is alert and aware. This all based on Michael’s testimony. Observe:
1992 Testimony
A. Right here, basically, you can see she’s dressed,
11 she’s already had her shower and everything. We would get
12 her dressed, put her shoes and socks on. I’m trying out her
13 hands there. You have to keep the inside of the hands,
14 since she’s contracted, you have to keep them dry because
15 infection can set in, and I usually do a little bit of range
16 of motion with her.
17 Q. And while you’re doing that, do you talk to her?
18 A. Yes, I am talking to her right now telling her
19 it’s okay.
20 Q. She doesn’t like that very much?
21 A. No, she doesn’t. She does feel pain.
Q. (BY MR. WOODWORTH:) Does she like that kind of
5 treatment very much?
6 A. No, she does not. Here I’m trying to bend her
7 leg.
Q. I notice, Michael, you’re holding her head back.
25 why are you doing that?
___
19
1 A. Because she’ll fall forward, and if she falls fast
2 she gets excited. It’s — I was told by a doctor she was
3 getting the feeling she’s falling.
Q. You hoping he can get her to the point where she
15 swallows?
16 A. Yes. You see here rubbing the bottom of her
17 throat, that’s, I don’t know what the word is, gets them to
18 swallow when you rub the bottom of their throat. She just
19 swallowed that time.
Q. Does she express discomfort when some of these
9 things are happening to her?
10 A. Yes. Yes, she does.
11 Q. How does she do that?
12 A. She’ll moan and groan.
I like to get her outside for fresh air.
This is a video that was never released but shown at the Mal Trial. It showed 4 things about Terri to seems to refute PVS based on Michael’s testimony.
1. It shows Terri reacting to pain.
2. It shows Terri has feelings.
3. It shows Terri alert and aware.
4. It shows Terri can swallow to some degree.
Addition, if Terri condition progressed over the years, one can assume that was because of Michael’s neglect to get Terri further therapy and rehabilitation.
Michael sarcasticly writes in his book that Schindlers went looking for doctor after doctor until they could find someone that would give Terri a chance.
Finally, Michael remarks that he would bring Terri outside for fresh air. By the time Terri arrvied at hospice, Terri was pretty much jailed in her room for the last 4 to 5 years of her life.
Michael threatened to arrest anyone who attempted to bring her outside or have her attend any social function.
Of course Michael claims he was protecting Terri’s right to privacy but I don’t buy it. Michael hired a private security guard to protect Terri. Michael could have taken her anywhere and her body guard could have been there to protect Terri’s privacy.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 9:59 PM
Other Schindler Docs
10. Dr. Ralph Akenman – A psychiatrist from Ohio. Specializes in treatment of brain injured patients. Did not observe or examine Terri but says his therapy could possibly help her. Submitted her affidavit in March of 2005. Just a helpful affidavit in my opinion.
11. Dr. Beatrice Engstrand – A neurologist from New York. Did not examine Terri or her medical records. Did state that she could help Terri because of similar patients she has delt with. Disputes PVS. However, she did study under Dr. Plum, the pioneer doctor of the PVS state, so her conclusions may be credible. Urged for a PET scan and fMRI. Submitted affidavit in March of 2005.
12. Dr. Alyse Eytan – A psychairtrist from Chicago. Has followed the Teri Schiavo case in the news. Basically a doctor offering her expert opinion based what she has read and seen. Sounds like a moral POV affidavit. Submitted her affidiavit in March 2005.
13. Dr. Goldsmith – is a regular doctor. Has not examined Terri but has seen the video tape. Questionable on PVS. Believes his therapy could help Terri. Encourages further testing and therapy.
14. Dr. Carolyn Heron. Is a regular doctor from Chicago. Has followed the Teri Schiavo case in the news. Basically a doctor offering her expert opinion based what she has read and seen. Has seen the video tapes. Disputes PVS based on her expertise. Urged additonal testing.
15. Dr. David Hopper – A psychologist specializing in brain injury. Disputed PVS. Recommended further tests.
16. Dr. Lawrence Huntoon – A neurologist from New York. Did view the so called edited video clips. Disputes PVS based on his expertise and knowledge and on the video clips. Believed Terri to be MSC. Stood by his affidavit later by refuting the autopsy results.
17. Dr. Hyink – Speech Language Pathologist from Colarado. Did view the so called edited video clips. Offers her expert medical opinion based what she knows of the case. Urged communication therapy. This patholgist is Laura Shepherd’s patholgist, the disabled daughter of Linda Shepherd.
18. Dr. Jill Joyce – Speech Language Pathologist. Did view the so called edited video clips. Disputes PVS based on her expertise and thevideo clips. Offers her expert medical opinion based what she knows of the case. Urges additional therapy.
19. Dr. Phillip Kennedy – A neurologist. Offers his expertise in the case. Urged Terri to undergo a fMRI.
20. Dr. Ricardo Senno. A regular doctor from Illinois – Offers his insight on what he has seen and his expert medical opinion. Only saw photos of Terri on the internet. Conclusions based on this sound weak. It more of moral stand he takes. Urged further testing.
21. Dr. Stanley Terman – A neurologist from California – Reviewed info on Terri including the Wolfson GAL Report. Recommends further testing such as fMRI.
22. Dr. Michael Uszler – A doctor from California. Questions testing done on Terri.
23. Dr. Richard Weidman – A doctor from Washington D.C. Disputes Terri is PVS based on what he ha seen and heard. Urged more testing.
24. Dr. Thomas Zabiega – A neurologist from Illinois. Viewed videos of Terri and other info. Also reviewed the audio recording of Terri. Said the following about the audio recording of Terri Schiavo: believe she is making verbalizations on the tape. In fact, around 45 seconds, when she is asked “How are you doing” she definitely changes her voice and says “good”. She appears to say “yeah” several times… then at the end of the tape when she is asked “do your ears hurt” she definitely says “no”. Even if none of the words were discernible, the fact that her voice changes during the tape to different questions suggests she is understanding what is being said to her. A patient in PVS does not respond and does not have any changes in verbal output. Disputed PVS. Urges for further testing.
25. Dr. Peter Morin – A neurologist from Maine. Studied info about the case. Raised many moral questions.
26. Dr. Peter Luca – A doctor from Michigan. Addresses his moral POV of view regarding Terri’s situation.
27. Dr. Paul Harch – A doctor from Louisana. Sided with Dr. Neubeur to have Terri undergo HBOT treatment.
28. Dr. Peter Brunner – A speech patholgist from Florida. Urged Terri to undergo Vitalstim treatment.
29. Dr. David Coulter – A doctor from Boston. Urged more testing for Terri.
30. Dr. Kyle Lakas – A speech patholgist from Texas. Urged Terri to undergo Vitalstim tretment.
31. Dr. Rodney Dunaway – A neurologist from Texas. Viewed videos. Disputed PVS. Urged further testing.
32. Dr. George Isajiw – A doctor from Pennsylvania. Viewed videos. Disputed PVS. Urged further testing
33. Dr. Leonard Rybak – A doctor from Illnois. Viewed Videos. Disputed PVS. Conferred with Dr. Hammesfarh’s diagnosis. Urged Further testing.
34. Dr. Myra Stinson – A speech patholgist from Florida. Viewed videos from 2002 trial and audio recordings of Terri. Disputes PVS. Urged for more swallowing tests.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 6:06 PM
The Best Schindler Doctors
1. Dr. Jacob Greene Ph. D. – A neurologist from Jacksonville, Florida. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001. He examined her medical records and the video (from the 2000 trial) not to the so called edited ones. Disputes PVS based on the video and her medical records. Submitted another affidavit in February of 2005 in which he Believed she was MCS (became recently known) and recommended further tests. Believed she should have had an FMRI which Terri never received. Did not examine Terri. Greer threw his affidavit out and he was not given the chance to examine Terri. Greer ignored credible medical testimony and advise from credible medical sources (medical records and video tapes). He wasn’t even disposed.
2. Dr. Alexander Gimon. – A PHd Neuropsychologist from Florida. Has studied the video clips presented at the October 2002 Medical Evidentiary Hearing. Gives an in dept analysis on each one of the videos. Also reviewed the audio recording. Disputes Terri is PVS. Offered his expert medical opinion based on the tapes and audio clip. Is credible testimony. Greer threw his affidavit out. He was not given the chance to examine Terri. Greer ignored credible medical testimony and advise from credible medical sources (video tapes and audio tapes). He wasn’t even disposed.
3. Dr. Richard Neubauer – A specialist doctor from Florida. – Viewed the actual video tape (From 2000 trial).Recommended hyperbaric Therapy for Terri. Seems to be credible medical information. Greer did not consider. He was not given the chance to examine Terri. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001. Submitted another affidavit in March of 2005 and urged that Terri be given a chance at HBOT.
4. Dr. William Russell – A retired neurologist from Florida – Has reviewed the medical records of Theresa Marie Schiavo, a videotape of her (From 2000 Trial), the trial testimony of Dr. Barnhill, the affidavits of Drs. Carpenter and Young and that of Bishop Larkin filed in her guardianship court file, the motion for rehearing, and various letters from Ms Schiavo?s family members. Disputes PVS. Believed Terri to be more aware than Ronald Reagan. Was not given the chance to examine her. Greer did not consider. Greer ignored credible medical testimony and advise from credible medical sources (medical records, video tapes, medical testimony, affidavits, and info from family members). Vouched for Dr. Hammesfahr. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001.
5. Dr. Webber – A specialist doctor from Florida – Has looked at her medical records covering the period from 1991 to 1999. Also, has studied the videotape of Terri and her mother, apparently taped in 1999 or 2000. Disputes PVS. Not given the chance to examine Terri. Greer dismissed credible medical testimony and advise from credible medical sources (medical records and video tapes). He wasn’t even disposed. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001.
6. Dr. James Avery – A medical doctor from Florida – Observed Terri for 30 minutes. Questioned PVS diagnosis. Recommended swallowing tests. Greer ignored credible medical testimony from a credible medical source (observation). Submitted his affidavit in February of 2000.
7. Dr. Cheshire – A neurologist from Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida – Observed Terri for 90 minutes, Reviewed her medical records and the video tapes (not the edited ones). Disputes
PVS. Submitted a lengthy affidavit in March of 2000 and believed Terri was misdiagnosised and was MCS. Greer ignored medical testimony from credible medical sources (observation, medical records and video tapes).
8. Dr. John Young – A medical doctor from Florida. – Observed Terri for 30 minutes. Questioned PVS diagnosis. Recommended swallowing tests. Submitted his affidavit in February of 2000.
9. Dr. Sara Mele – A Ph.D. speech pathologist from Chicago – Reviewed her medical records along with all of her records about her therapy at Mediplex. Also reviewed the video tapes and audio recordings. Gives an in-dept analysis of the videos. Disputes PVS. Was not given the chance the to examine Terri. Greer ignored credible medical testimony from various sources.
Submitted her affidavit in 2004.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 6:03 PM
Compelling Stories of people in similiar situations like Terri Schiavo.
Only one difference – They weren’t starved and dehydrated to death.
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1896.article
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/odysseys/Carrots_Dont_Cry.asp
http://www.debramoretta.com/detailed-story.asp
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 5:58 PM
It has been suggested that 9 out of 11 neurologists who examined Terri determined her to be in PVS state. This is a fallacy. There only 7 neurologists who examined Terri and deemed her PVS and most of those neurologists are questionable:
Dr. Garcia DeSousa
Dr. Thomas Harrison
Dr. James Barnhill
Dr. Jeffery Karp
Dr. Melvin Greer
Dr. Ronald Cranford
Dr. Peter Bambakidis
That is 7 neurologists.
Dr. Thomas Harrison – He only interpreted Terri’s EEG. It is unknown if Dr. Harrison examined her. It is also unknown if Dr. Harrison ever examined Terri again.
Dr. James Barnhill – Was Felos’s personal Death Doc. Examined Terri for about 1 hour the first time. Examined Terri the second time for about 10 minutes. Ordered no tests.
Dr. Jeffery Karp – Examined Terri for about 1 hour. Deemed her PVS. Never examined Terri again.
Dr. Ronald Cranford – Examined Terri for about 45 minutes. Very biased. Did very few tests except for some balloon tracking trials.
Dr. Melvin Greer – Examined Terri for about 30 minutes. Deemed her PVS. His examination seemed incompentent. Didn’t remember the color of her eyes and couldn’t answer some of his own examination questions.
Dr. Peter Bambakidis – Examined Terri for 30 minutes. Deemed her PVS. Although neutral, there is evidence to suggest that Bambakidis was selected by Felos and biased toward the Schindlers.
Total examination time with 7 neurologists:
About 5+ hours over a 10 year period.
Dr. DeSousa is about the only neurologist who can be deemed credible in examing Terri as he is probably the only neurolgist who examined the most over the years.
Suprisingly, Dr. Desousa was never asked to testify in the 2000 trial.
Now lets look at the Schindler’s side:
Dr. Hammesfahr – Examined Terri for over 3 hours and deemed her MCS. Hammesfahr’s examination was longer than Cranford, Greer, and Bambakidis combined. Hammesfahr’s examination was much more extensive.
Dr. Cheshire – Observed but did not exam Terri for 90 minutes. Based on his observations and review of her medical records, and the video tapes, Terri was MCS.
Dr. Jacob Greer – Reviewed her medical records (or at least some of them) and the video tape from the 2000 trial. Deemed her MCS. The reactions shown on the video tape were not consitent with PVS.
Dr. Alexander Gimon – Did an extensive anlaysis of the 2002 video tapes. Deemed her MCS. Reactions on the video tapes not consistent with PVS.
Posted by: james at March 30, 2007 6:16 PM
The video was very important for several reasons. Based on the testimony by Michael Schiavo, it showed that Terri was alert, aware, could feel pain, and could swallow. In it the video shows Terri swallowing at times. It shows Terri reacting to pain. And it shows Terri has feelings and is alert and aware.
Bethany, I’m not saying that wasn’t the case in 1992. At the end, though, I think it no longer was, and that the condition of her brain bore that out.
I realize that even at the end there were doctors who felt MCS applied, not PVS.
Given that, I think a good question is if she really wanted to be maintained like that, per what her husband said she said.
Doug
Bethany, I’m not saying that wasn’t the case in 1992. At the end, though, I think it no longer was, and that the condition of her brain bore that out.
What you are saying is that you can’t tell me whether you feel that Terri was showing some sort of – even minimal- consciousness, by laughing at her father’s jokes and opening her eyes when commanded to. You won’t even answer my question about what YOUR feelings are on that video, on whether you think it’s possible that she had consciousness, based on the clear videos showing her reactions to different everyday events.
Do you know Michael Schiavo personally? Why do you feel such a need to defend him? You weren’t so willing to listen to the “other side” when it came to CPC’s were you? You were willing to condemn them as horrible places where people are brainwashed, based on the abortion minded people’s UNSUBSTANCIATED CLAIMS. Yet, with all this clear evidence in front of you about Michael Schiavo, professional opinions from at least 40 neurologists and doctors and specialists, from the blatant changes in Michael Schiavo’s stories (he changed his story about what happened to Terri at least 3 times), the fact that the autopsy proved Terri DID NOT have bulimia, even though michael said she did, and all of the other overwhelming evidence which strongly shows that michael schiavo is being dishonest (understatement of the year), you decide “well we haven’t heard HIS side of the story yet”…(although we HAVE, Doug- we have read all of his BS). Why must you defend him so strongly, with all of this evidence against him (actual evidence, not anecdotal stories), when you can’t be so open minded when it comes to Crisis Pregnancy Centers? I don’t see you bending over backwards to hear their side.
Doug, but this is another one of those subjects that really gets under my skin. When someone defends someone with as much evidence against him, and tries to use that as an excuse to take the life of another individual, I absolutely cannot stand it… it’s just so wrong.
To intentionally ignore things that happened in a video just so that you can continue to say that she was “not there”, it is just like when kids say “nananana I can’t hear you!” and stick their fingers in their ears so they can’t hear you speak. You simply close your eyes and choose to see what you want to see, despite there being overwhelming evidence otherwise. Though you are continually amiable, I feel that your demeanor can be robotic, because of that….It seems to lack “passion”. Do you feel strongly about anything? Anything?
Why do you not care about this evidence against Michael? Why don’t you care that this man may very well have caused his wife to get into that situation in the first place…that he was the one who caused her to “suffer”? Why does it not bother you that his story changed three separate times? Does the inconsistency there seem logical to you? Would you like me to show you his conflicting testimonies?
Why do you not care that he refused to let her go to therapy, after she was already showing improvements??? Why does this not send off a red flag in your mind? What in the world?
What you are saying is that you can’t tell me whether you feel that Terri was showing some sort of – even minimal- consciousness, by laughing at her father’s jokes and opening her eyes when commanded to. You won’t even answer my question about what YOUR feelings are on that video, on whether you think it’s possible that she had consciousness, based on the clear videos showing her reactions to different everyday events.
Bethany, I still can’t see the video with the jokes. I always get an error message.
I am not saying that she wasn’t conscious in 1992, in the first place. As for her eyes – I simply do not know whether that indicates consciousness or not. If there was no doubt that it did, it wouldn’t even be a question.
……
I see that both sides – the husband and her family – have their sayings and their doctors and their positions. What the “real” truth is probably is somewhere in-between.
I am not saying that Michael is perfect nor without any blame. If there really was “evidence” against him, though, then why are we still here arguing about it, years later? You’d think the family would have prevailed or that some action would have been taken against him.
I’m not ignoring the videos – I just don’t see anything conclusive about her eyes, and the presence of awareness way back when doesn’t mean it was there in 2005. The autopsy satisfied me that her brain was in such-and-such state, and that the real Terri – her personality, etc., was gone.
……
Why do you not care that he refused to let her go to therapy, after she was already showing improvements??? Why does this not send off a red flag in your mind? What in the world?
If she really was improving, then I think she should have gone. If it’s really and simply the case that he didn’t allow it, due to a desire on his part for her not to get better, then I think that is wrong and bad.
I am not saying that Michael is perfect nor without any blame. If there really was “evidence” against him, though, then why are we still here arguing about it, years later? You’d think the family would have prevailed or that some action would have been taken against him.
Oh I don’t know, Doug…probably for same reason that even though there was a 26 minute VIDEO of R kelly having sex with, and peeing on a girl as young as 13, R kelly has still been out and about, to do what he pleases for 5 years! Since we are still able to discuss R kelly years later, does that mean he must be innocent, even though there is video evidence of what he did wrong?
Do you really think our legal system is without flaw?
I’m not ignoring the videos – I just don’t see anything conclusive about her eyes, and the presence of awareness way back when doesn’t mean it was there in 2005. The autopsy satisfied me that her brain was in such-and-such state, and that the real Terri – her personality, etc., was gone.
Well, then who was the person responding to the jokes, who was the one responding to the command to open her eyes? If you can’t open the other video, then try this link instead:
http://www.terrisfight.org/pages.php?page_id=37
Who was that laughing at the jokes? Someone else? No, it was Terri.
Of course she was different…her mind changed, Doug. This isn’t surprising to me. Simply because her mind changed, doesn’t mean “she” is gone. She is simply a changed, handicapped person. For example, if I was clunked in the head and became mentally retarded as a result, others might think “the Bethany that I knew before is not there”…and they would be right if they were only meaning that I had changed. My spirit would still be around, Doug. I would still be a person residing within my own body. I would still be there, I would simply be handicapped.
Just as if I lost a limb or one of my eyes…I’d be changed, that’s for sure…but the person I am would still be there. Just handicapped.
If you think Terri was gone, then you tell me who that person was responding to those commands, and laughing at those jokes. Who was it, Doug? Even if it wasn’t “Terri”, obviously it was someone, and that someone deserved to not be starved to death for 14 long, cruel days.
You can say “she didn’t feel it” every day till the cows come home, but you DO NOT know. You were not inside her head and yes, as you admitted, many doctors still said she was minimally conscious until the end.
If there was any doubt, why in the world would you take a chance on causing her to suffer for 14 days!
AND, if you HAD to kill her…why not do it in a more humane way! I mean, my goodness, Doug, no dog or cat is ever legally euthanised in such a cruel manner. They are put to sleep and never feel a thing.
Did you know that Terri’s husband reminisces about his experience while she was dying in his book, talking about how he and his attorneys sat around in the room, waiting for Terri to die by starvation, while eating pizza and joking around?
How sick!!
By the way, you haven’t answered how come you are not nearly as open to hearing the other side about CPC’s…you’re ready and willing to condemn them over simple accusations from the other side, which are completely unsubstantiated. Yet, you want us to give Michael Schiavo a break.
Give ME a break.
Information on Terri’s Autopsy:
http://www.terrisfight.org/pages.php?page_id=18