Long weekend question
UPDATE, 12/1, 9:35a: Running weekend question through today. Daena still home.
_______________
Barbara Walters interviewed Barack and Michelle Obama for ABC’s November 26 20/20.
During the interview Michelle said:
The truth is, you know, and Barack knows this about me, I, I love kids…
There’s a disconnect here, not only on Michelle’s part, who has called partial birth abortion a “legitimate medical procedure,” but on the media’s part.
Have you ever heard MSM call out a pro-abort who makes a statement like this: “How can you say you love kids but support abortion?” No.
Why is that?
Nov.28, 2008 9:47 am |
Weekend question |
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.
Happy Thanksgiving, Jill.
There’s a disconnect here, not only on Michelle’s part, who has called Partial Birth Abortion a “legitimate medical procedure,” but on the media’s part.
The disconnect is in not realizing that among abortion procedures, the baby is going to die, regardless. The D & X procedure does have some advantages in some situations.
Have you ever heard MSM call out a pro-abort who makes a statement like this? “How can you say you love kids but support abortion?”
Not really a serious question if you have to use the buzzword of “pro-abort.”
Same as saying, why are you a woman-slaver? Just as slaveowners wanted the will of pregnant women subverted to their own, so do some people want the will of pregnant women subverted.
Ms. Hopenchange loves her kids. She loves them and is sending them to a non government school. No transgendered education for her darlings.
Sidwell school doesn’t even have teachers represented by a union.
I suspect President elect to be Hopenchange will show a lot os positions that don’t match his slogan us to death campaign. He sure is as far as it gets from President Lincoln.
“the baby is going to die, regardless”
Chilling, Doug. Really.
Carla, I realize it’s chilling to you – it’s chilling to many people. What we have, though, is one procedure banned in most situations, and another – where the fetus isn’t intact, permitted.
This isn’t saying anything about the good/bad/right/wrong of it, just that this is the way it is now.
Is it chilling to you, Doug?
Carla, the stage of development makes a big difference to me. I remember the pictures of “baby Malachi” and there is an emotional reaction – I think it’s sad; it does look like “a baby” to me then.
Wanted=babies
unwanted= products of conception.
She compartmentalizes her thinking. this is not unusual.
The woman has dominion over the baby in her womb, it is the quality of her life that takes precedent over the right of the baby to live. For those who were never pro choice it is hard to understand. Perception becomes reality. You perceive that it is not a baby until birth. She probably believe the only babies that die as a result of partial birth abortion are those that are so ill that they would die anyway. This is how you justify that horrible procedure.
That is why it is so important for the truth to hit them in the face where they cannot hide from it. It is a living human being just like you and me but just smaller, less developed and still dependent and living in a different location. Under what circumstances can I kill this human being. If it is okay to do that than Michelle can kill one of her children that become too burdensome for her.
Is the circumstances of my life more important than this baby’s right to exist.
Michelle either on purpose or because of her liberal associations has not faced the reality of her words and thoughts.
“Have you ever heard MSM call out a pro-abort who makes a statement like this? “How can you say you love kids but support abortion?”
Why is that?”
Because the MSM are pro-aborts themselves.
Have you ever heard MSM call out a pro-abort who makes a statement like this? “How can you say you love kids but support abortion?” No.
Of course not. And have you ever heard MSM call out an anti-choicer like that? “How can you say you don’t hate women when you want to see them dying in back alleys?” Nope.
Why is that?
Because serious, intelligent people understand that pro-choicers don’t hate children and pro-lifers don’t hate women, and the “mainstream” media tends to be populated by serious, intelligent people.
Because “serious”, intelligent people understand that pro-choicers don’t hate children and pro-lifers don’t hate women, and the “mainstream” media tends to be populated by serious, intelligent people.
Posted by: reality at November 28, 2008 11:00 AM
yes seriously wrong.
http://howobamagotelected.com/
The prodeathers are the ignorant. They are surprised that every birth it was a baby.
Even unborn women have rights. Pro aborts oppose respect for women. Yers now the media admits it was biased. Confessed to slanting stories. They nead reality therapy.
Rather than saying they love children, pro-abortionists should say they “like the idea” of children. At least, theoretically.
That’s retarded. Of course the Obamas love children
And as long as they don’t interfere with their hypothetical plans…
Oh and as long as they don’t have a disability or a cleft lip…
That’s retarded. Of course the Obamas love children
Really? Why don’t they spend more time with their own if they love them so much? ‘
Michelle Obama was quoted as saying “…[my kids have] always known two parents to work in the household. And as long as we’re back in time for bedtime, they could care less where we are.”
“The truth is, you know, and Barack knows this about me, I, I love kids…”
Unless, of course, we’re talking about our unplanned grandchildren, because we certainly wouldn’t want our precious Sasha and Malia to be ‘punished with a baby’.
Let’s try to look at the upside of this.
Maybe now with a happily married AA couple in the White House we might see an increase of AA babies born in wedlock as opposed to out of wedlock.
Maybe some homeboys might actually want to marry their pretty young things as opposed to treating them like rap video extras.
Supporters of unborn human rights do NOT “want” to see women dying after freely choosing to commit violent and lethal crimes against their children in the unborn stage. It is an unhappy reality of life that some people will commit each and every crime. The fact that some mothers will commit abortion crimes and a small percentage of them will injure or kill themselves in the process is very unfortunate but the responsibility is entirely their own. It makes no more sense to blame the harm they inflict on themselves on supporters of basic human rights than to blame the deaths or injuries of men who commit murder or rape crimes on those who try to stop those crimes by passing laws against them.
Supporters of unborn human rights have NEVER supported statutes allowing unlimited extermination of millions of born women. Opponenets of unborn human rights HAVE supported statutes to allow unlimited extermination of unborn women and men.
I have been saying for years that “all abortionist arguments are fallacies and all such fallacies have been endlessly refuted”. Those who support abortion violence should stop trying to prove me right.
To say you love children and simultaneously pro-abortion is a damnable position called being double minded.
You may think you “love” kids as Mrs. Obama states, but you really don’t, for love is not a feeling it is always doing what is best for another.
This of course would not include killing a baby in the womb or making abortion available to a mother contemplating the murder of her child.
Maria: “She probably believe the only babies that die as a result of partial birth abortion are those that are so ill that they would die anyway. This is how you justify that horrible procedure.”
Okay, that’s just crazy. Bad cases of diabetes can develop, kidney function can go way down, blood pressure can go way up, etc., and those are some of the reasons that dilation and extraction abortions are done. Do you think there is “no reason” why a particular procedure would be selected?
Now, as Doug said, it’s not allowed for the fetus to be intact, but the abortion is still done. Does this really make a big difference to you?
Bethany, I’m willing to bet big bucks that Michelle Obama spends a heck of a lot more time with her children than Sarah Palin does with hers. And that including the Downs Syndrome baby that needs extra attention. If you want to go down that road….. And assuming you think Sarah plain is all that, which I’m pretty sure you do……….
Oops! I meant Palin, not plain. Funny….
Casey Anthony is pro-life. That must mean she loves Caylee.
asitis,
I think that you would lose your bet. The Palin kids spend more time with Gov. Palin at work than the Obama kids do with their parents, which is not at all. In addition, the Palins children’s father is able to devote a substantial amount of time to them because of his seasonal work.
Doug, I can’t believe your response. It is heartless.
Doug,
The disconnect is in not realizing that among abortion procedures, the baby is going to die, regardless. The D & X procedure does have some advantages in some situations.
We’re ALL going to die eventually. No one should die from abortion.
Period. Sheesh.
Mary II,
If the baby is unwanted then an abortionist would deliver it up to it’s head, stab it in the neck and then suck its brains out.
Ever heard of an emergency c-section? For the wanted babies I mean?
Socratic,
Yes, of course.
Socratic Method,
Because in an abortion, you directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as an ends to a means. In a refused organ donation, you do not will the person to die. In an abortion, you will the fetus dead. Can you think of any other time where it is permissible to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as an ends to a means?
Plus in a refused organ transplant, you aren’t doing any killing. The person dies because their body needs something it doesn’t have, not because of an invasive procedure designed to tear or scrape him apart.
Your writing style is very familiar S M …
Mary II,
Any woman who is experiencing difficulties during pregnancy (PIH, gestational diabetes, etc) would never need a D&X abortion (“partial-birth abortion”). The reason being is that these pregnancies eligible for the D&X are at and usually far beyond the point of viability (usually drawn between 20-24 weeks gestation).
Carla mentioned c-sections (cesarean section) which is used to prevent worsening of the woman’s condition by natural child-birth. Other times, induction of labor is chosen some time before the due date to reduce complications on the mother and not too early as to cause insurmountable difficulties in the neonate.
D&X has never shown to be a procedure helpful towards the mother. The only thing that those who support the procedure can cling to is if they claim that the fetus is not human or less-than-human. Such would be the example of anencephaly. Killing a born anencephalic child would be murder, but not an unborn one?
D&X is an abomination (Obamanation).
Maybe now with a happily married AA couple in the White House we might see an increase of AA babies born in wedlock as opposed to out of wedlock.
Maybe some homeboys might actually want to marry their pretty young things as opposed to treating them like rap video extras.
Carder – good points.
Doug, I can’t believe your response. It is heartless.
Janet, as I said to Carla, “This isn’t saying anything about the good/bad/right/wrong of it, just that this is the way it is now.”
“that’s because I am (among other things) a writing teacher.”
A doctor too, perhaps?
Any woman who is experiencing difficulties during pregnancy (PIH, gestational diabetes, etc) would never need a D&X abortion (“partial-birth abortion”). The reason being is that these pregnancies eligible for the D&X are at and usually far beyond the point of viability (usually drawn between 20-24 weeks gestation).
Segamon, most D & X’s were done prior to viability – as early as 14 or 15 weeks. It’s probably true that a higher percentage of abortions done after viability were D & X’s – due to the size of the head, etc, but in no way is that saying that all or most D & X’s were after 23 or so weeks.
And for everybody – if C-sections were done due to danger to the mother, and D & X’s weren’t preferable, then why were they done?
I’d been wondering, when Barack considers babies “punishment”, why they had kids. I guess he agreed to endure the little horrors at the behest of his wife.
Christina, maybe Barack only considers babies “punishment” when the mother is an early-teen.
Jill,
Recomend that you do a little digging around on the web and look at the apartheid situation in South Africa prior to it’s desolution. I am sure you can find lots of examples of ‘white South African leaders being interviewed by their equally bigoted/biased MSM. Bigotry blinds the eyes of the bigot. It is a mutual re-afirmation and admiration relationship.
This king of intellectual bondage can only be overcome by ‘revelation’. Mere truth, facts, logic will not change their thinking.
It makes the Bush Derangement Syndrome seem like the affect of a cheesy parlor trick.
yor bro ken
Even when you encouter a person who is intelectually honest enough to acknowlege that abortion kills a ‘human’ embryo/fetus they will not acknowlege that the pre-natal human has any inherent rights, worth, value other than the pregnant female ascribes to him/her.
This is by definition ‘bigotry’, on the part of the pregant feamle and on the part of her apologists.
yor bro ken
I hated children – then I loved children – then I HATED them again …
You can not HATE – THEN love THEN HATE … it’s all HATE except for my two who I tolerate!
Pro-aborts HATE children … whether they are newly conceived or been there till the mother delivers and then decides she wants the child. All the power is in the woman’s hands UNTIL she makes up her mind THIS IS CHILLING!
Bethany, you really have no right to critique another person’s parenting style. LOTS of families have two working parents: my fiance and I will both be working when we have kids.
Also, more generally, it is not (get ready for it) uncommon for people to like kids and support abortion rights! I support abortion rights, clear? I also adore children. My fiance and I agreed we’d have four but I secretly want five, and we’re both trying to figure out when the strategically soonest time to have a kid is. We’re pumped!
You don’t have to believe me or anything, but it’s true that even though I am in favour of abortion rights for women, I will not be aborting! *gasp*
Becy, you are absolutely right. If someone was actually pro-abortion they would probably hate children. However, the word “choice” in the phrase “pro-choice” (a phrase which few people here are apparently familiar), encompasses the choices of abortion, parenthood, and adoption. So… while an actual “pro-abort” would probably hate children, I think you’ll find very few people here who do.
If there are people who are supportive of abortion yet claim to “love” children, then I have to ask how these same people define “love”?
I’d been wondering, when Barack considers babies “punishment”, why they had kids.
Christina, it’s not that all kids are going to be punishments. If they’re wanted, then fine, and you won’t hear Obama say any different.
Even when you encouter a person who is intelectually honest enough to acknowlege that abortion kills a ‘human’ embryo/fetus they will not acknowlege that the pre-natal human has any inherent rights, worth, value other than the pregnant female ascribes to him/her.
Ken, well hello – there aren’t any inherent rights. No question about the physical “human fetus,” for example, though.
Not to say that others won’t have their own valuations and ideas of worth, but they aren’t the one who’s pregnant.
Carla, the stage of development makes a big difference to me. I remember the pictures of “baby Malachi” and there is an emotional reaction – I think it’s sad; it does look like “a baby” to me then.
Posted by: Doug at November 28, 2008 10:45 AM
oh I get it Doug! People have to LOOK like persons in order to be persons! Sweet! You are so rational, it blows my mind!
Your logic gets more twisted all the time Doug. Maybe that’s why you posted the pic of you 18 years ago instead of how you look now. Maybe you don’t LOOK like a person anymore? I am wondering…..
Ken, well hello – there aren’t any inherent rights.
Posted by: Doug at November 28, 2008 5:59 PM
yup, if that’s the case, then a person’s rights to be a person can be stripped from them at any time. Any time. 50 year old ugly men might not be persons anymore Doug.
BTW, how many abortions have you been responsible for? I’m betting you have NO idea….
Eileen #2, you wrote: “If there are people who are supportive of abortion yet claim to “love” children, then I have to ask how these same people define “love”?”
We define it in a way that sets limits on the means by which we are allowed to keep the ones we love alive. I’m sure you understand this, because there are certain things you would not do even to save the life of someone YOU love. Right? For instance, if someone you loved had an illness that made it necessary for him to eat human flesh bitten directly from live humans, I think you’d let him die rather than feed people to him. I mean, wouldn’t you?
Well we love the same way: we’re ready to do most things for people we love, but not EVERYTHING. Some ways of helping people are forbidden, to us just as to you.
The difference between you and us is: to us, forcing a pregnant woman to grow her pregnancy and give birth against her will, by preventing her from getting an abortion she wants, is one of the forbidden things. We think you’re not allowed to do that EVEN THOUGH you love the unborn baby. Just as you’re not allowed to feed human flesh to someone YOU love even if he needs it in order to live. Because the flesh belongs to someone else.
THAT’S how we define love.
Bethany, you really have no right to critique another person’s parenting style. LOTS of families have two working parents: my fiance and I will both be working when we have kids.
I don’t really see how that affects my statement about them…They virtually never see their kids. If you love your kids, do you spend the majority of your life away from them?
Also, more generally, it is not (get ready for it) uncommon for people to like kids and support abortion rights! I support abortion rights, clear? I also adore children. My fiance and I agreed we’d have four but I secretly want five, and we’re both trying to figure out when the strategically soonest time to have a kid is. We’re pumped!
Leah, I really think it is great. But still, if you truly love kids then you wouldn’t advocate killing any of them. If I said to you that I love kids, and want to have as many as possible, but that I thought it’d be okay for anyone to kill their 3 year old if they so chose, would you believe me when I told you I love kids?
If you like the idea of having your own, that’s great, but it’s not love if any one of them could be killed before they were born if you so chose.
You don’t have to believe me or anything, but it’s true that even though I am in favour of abortion rights for women, I will not be aborting! *gasp*
I’m glad to hear that, Leah, and believe me, I would never want you to abort…but does that mean that your own children are worth more than other people’s children? If you love children- all children- you wouldn’t advocate aborting any of them. It’s just that simple.
Also, I’m just curious as to why you tell me that you won’t be aborting, as though it would be a bad thing if you did?
What if circumstances change and you find yourself in financial hardship? What if your boyfriend breaks up with you or vice versa? (not wishing that on you, but for my point). What if the baby is going to have Spina Bifida or any other number of disabilities?
Would you see anything wrong with you personally aborting for any of these reasons? Not someone else, but YOU.
:)
good questions Bethany!
Bethany, you wrote: “…it’s not love if any one of them could be killed before they were born if you so chose. ”
Wrong. Carrying someone willingly is GREATER love than carrying someone because you must.
That’s why I’m glad my mom is pro-choice, and lived in a pro-choice state when she was pregnant. I know I got my early life-support honestly.
Segamon, most D & X’s were done prior to viability – as early as 14 or 15 weeks. It’s probably true that a higher percentage of abortions done after viability were D & X’s – due to the size of the head, etc, but in no way is that saying that all or most D & X’s were after 23 or so weeks.
And for everybody – if C-sections were done due to danger to the mother, and D & X’s weren’t preferable, then why were they done?
You tell me. The majority (almost all) D&X procedures happen post-viability. D&X is just as much a health risk to the mother as a natural delivery is.
You might want to do some homework. Even a quick Google search yielded some very pertinent information. On example is http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5481 … maybe you can learn a little bit by this?
Wrong. Carrying someone willingly is GREATER love than carrying someone because you must.
Do you carry your logic to the born humans too? Is it better to be killed as a child by your parents rather than to be raised by parents who only did so out of necessity?
Also, by your logic, killing a born child who was destined to be raised by nonchalant parents is the most loving action that a person can make!
“Wrong. Carrying someone willingly is GREATER love than carrying someone because you must.
DOUBLY WRONG. Anyone can sacrifice for someone they love, but it is even better to sacrifice for someone you don’t. You would die for a loved one would you not? But it would be even a greater deed to die for someone you dont know. This is why we honour our war dead and people who sacrifice their lives to rescue those they don’t even know.
Similarily, a woman pregnant with a child she doesn’t want demonstrates a tremendous capacity to love if she carries the baby to term, delays her own plans in doing so and then if necessary gives that child away in adoption. To kill the baby is the way of the coward.
This is why a woman who bears a child from rape, as many willingly do in Africa demonstrate a great capacity to love – something we westerners cannot fathom.
Oh, not to mention “honest”.
DOUBLY WRONG. Anyone can sacrifice for someone they love, but it is even better to sacrifice for someone you don’t.
Bingo!
Also, Patricia, isn’t it amazing how most women who end up carrying a child who they weren’t wanting, end up one day loving that child so much that they can’t even imagine not having that baby around?
Bethany, you wrote: “Do you carry your logic to the born humans too?”
Yes, but apparantly you don’t understand my logic–as shown by your next question: “Is it better to be killed as a child by your parents rather than to be raised by parents who only did so out of necessity?”
Excuse me. I didn’t say it was better to be killed. I said that carrying someone willingly is a demonstration of greater love than carrying someone because you must. I think that’s true regardless of the person’s stage of life. For instance, caring for an elderly near-total dementia patient yourself even though you could just as easily put him in a nursing home is a greater manifestation of love than caring for him because there is no nursing home. Isn’t it???
Twanger, this is the post you responded to:
“…it’s not love if any one of them could be killed before they were born if you so chose. ”
You responded that “yes it is”, and then you gave that as your explanation. I can’t help it if it was irrelevant. It was your point.
For instance, caring for an elderly near-total dementia patient yourself even though you could just as easily put him in a nursing home is a greater manifestation of love than caring for him because there is no nursing home. Isn’t it???
What about killing him because you don’t want to do either?
For Patricia……
I’m off topic here, but have been following the news here with great apprehension.
A possible coalition govt here?
God help us!
MisterData: How wide is the torso of a fetus being killed by the D&X technique? I am not able to find this information, but my Maternity Nursing textbook tells me what the measurements are for a newborn.
Newborn,
Head curcumference: 13-14 inches
Chest circumference: 12-13 inches
The fetal/neonatal skull has “soft-spots” on his head that help the mother expel him as safely as possible.
Even with this information we see that crushing the skull only helps save possibly very few centimeters of dilation to ease removal.
…I can’t believe I’m even talking about this… even if crushing a baby’s skull made it slightly less dangerous for the mother, why the hell would anyone in their right mind want to kill a baby for!?
PC lover, you didn’t define love. Please define love for me.
MisterData,
Your post makes me ill. You are an abortionist then?
Misterdata, or you can do a c-section and avoid all of that.
But, of course, it’s not really about “bodily integrity” it’s about having a dead baby.
Let’s just cut out the semantic bullsh*t and be done with it.
You want to fight to protect the right to kill any child for any reason until (or immediately after) birth. Save the world from the expensive undesireables and all that crap.
I did a quick google search for “misterdata” and found a review for a vacuum shop.
Nice.
“How can you say you love kids but support abortion?”
Well how can you say you are against animal cruelty but still eat meat? By eating meat you are pro-animal torture and pro-bestiality.
Duh.
Eileen #2, I’m afraid a definition of love is above my pay grade. Start with Plato’s SYMPOSIUM.
PC lover,
That is a cop-out, I’m afraid.
MistaData, you are either woefully ignorant, or attempting to deliberately mislead the readers of this board. Given your obvious medical knowledge, I believe it more likely to be the latter.
You make no mention that cesarian is the perfered method of delivery when headsize precludes a normal vaginal birth, nor do you mention the placement of a ventriculoamniotic shunt or cephalocentesis during the fetal period to reduce the volume of fluid within the fetal skull.
Bobby (2:15)
I was thinking the same thing — also about MisterData.
Patricia, Bethany and Lauren — good posts — as usual. Bobby too. :)
Mister, standard prenatal care will refer to high-risk specialists at 20 wks.
The earlier shunting occurs the better, in terms of fetal survival, but later presentations risk only premature labor. If your options are to attempt fetal shunting, or to kill the child outright, there really is no question. Either way, the drainage of fluid negates the necessity for the skull to be crushed to aid in delivery.
Jill:
Please ban MisterData. His posts are demonic.
Hisman, he only serves to show the disturbing nature of the most avid abortion supporter.
Disgusting, I agree.
As an aside, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
For Patricia……
I’m off topic here, but have been following the news here with great apprehension.
A possible coalition govt here?
God help us!
Posted by: Joanne at November 28, 2008 7:08 PM
yes this is VERY VERY bad – it appears the Liberal and NDP are attempting to seize control of the government – but we all have known that democracy has been dead in Canada for some time now. Just that the rest of the world is finally getting to see us as we really are…
please pray for Canada – if the liberals get into power they will bankrupt our country.
“How can you say you love kids but support abortion?”
Well how can you say you are against animal cruelty but still eat meat? By eating meat you are pro-animal torture and pro-bestiality.
Duh.
Posted by: Jess at November 28, 2008 9:32 PM
we can say this because we do not believe that animals are the equal of humans
we believe that humans are different and unique from animals
we believe that humans have a higher purpose here on Earth than animals
and we believe that humans are destined for something more than just this life on earth
I like how you see bias everywhere but in your own coverage of events. It makes me happy.
Thank you for banning that scoundrel MisterData.
Palin/Gingrich 2012!
Jill,
I have off and on read your blog.. just to see what type of conversation you have.. some alright.. alot of the same folks saying the same things..but all for good cause..
However– this section is offense to me..Yes, I agree.. abortion is wrong and my ethical and moral understanding really disagrees with the Obama’s stance.. However, after watching them with their children and reading about them and after actually meeting this family..(yes, I have met them..) The one thing we can applaud is the fact they are a “family”– two parents that love each other and their children…
This is so disturbing that so many folks here are critically disclaiming the Obama’s love for their children.. and each other.
I am a working mother, have two beautiful children and have done a great job.. I refuse to join your ignorance in tearing down a couple for loving their children and each other.
Are you that hard-up for topics?
yes this is VERY VERY bad – it appears the Liberal and NDP are attempting to seize control of the government – but we all have known that democracy has been dead in Canada for some time now. Just that the rest of the world is finally getting to see us as we really are…
please pray for Canada – if the liberals get into power they will bankrupt our country.
Posted by: Patricia at November 28, 2008 10:28 PM
Yes, its outrageous. Just when I thought we could breathe a sigh of relief.
Despite getting the lowest popular vote total since confederation, I guess the Liberals think they are the only party with the right to govern.
And giving Jack Layton any kind of influence over our economy will be double disaster…. all supported by a separatist party.
It’s unbelievable!
Jill,I have off and on read your blog.. just to see what type of conversation you have.. some alright.. alot of the same folks saying the same things..but all for good cause..However– this section is offense to me..Yes, I agree.. abortion is wrong and my ethical and moral understanding really disagrees with the Obama’s stance.. However, after watching them with their children and reading about them and after actually meeting this family..(yes, I have met them..) The one thing we can applaud is the fact they are a “family”– two parents that love each other and their children…
This is so disturbing that so many folks here are critically disclaiming the Obama’s love for their children.. and each other.
I am a working mother, have two beautiful children and have done a great job.. I refuse to join your ignorance in tearing down a couple for loving their children and each other.
Are you that hard-up for topics?
W, their love for their children is conditional.
Sure, they have beautiful children and they can look like a perfect family to the public. That’s the difference between appearances and reality.
What if Michelle Obama had ever been pregnant with a Down’s Syndrome baby? Do you think she would have kept the baby? What about Spina Bifida? How would that change her “love” for her children?
Would she have inconvenienced her life and carried through the pregnancy because she loved that baby despite whatever problems it had? If you say yes, then why would she advocate partial birth abortion for any woman? Why would Barack fight against the BAIPA, which would allow born babies to be left to die because they aren’t ‘good enough’? Are only some children worth keeping and loving?
If one of Obama’s children came up pregnant, you can bet he wouldn’t want them “punished with a baby”, and he’d have them have an abortion.
If the Obama’s really love children, would they do this?
What kind of person loves children, but allows children to be killed?
No, it makes no sense to say you love children but would advocate killing those that are an inconvenience to us.
I’ll ask you what I asked Leah: If I told you that I LOVE children, but I think that anyone should be able to kill their toddlers if they so choose- would you think I love children?
By the way, if Michelle Obama would not abort for any of the above reasons, that would make her a hypocrite too.
Wrong Bethany! Has she ever said she would abort in those instances? I don’t think so. But she does believe that women should have the choice. That doesn’t necessarily mean she would make that choice.
Wrong Bethany! Has she ever said she would abort in those instances? I don’t think so. But she does believe that women should have the choice. That doesn’t necessarily mean she would make that choice.
Why not? What would make her choose to carry a deformed child to term? She obviously feels they have no worth.
If she were to carry a deformed child to term, she would be saying that a deformed child has worth, and therefore she would be a hypocrite, for allowing other children to be killed for deformities, because she deems them worthless.
Oh lets see…. If she found out she was carrying a deformed child and discovered she herself didn’t want to abhort it (this is all hypothetical remember), She could still go ahead and have the baby and still be pro-choice. Not everyone who is pro-choice claims that in all circumstances they would have an abortion. No, they all just want the right for themselves and other women to CHOOSE.
To say that pro-choice people “hate” children is beyond ludicrous. This is like saing that pet owners who euthanize their pets when necessary “hate” their pets !
The term “Partial Birth Abortion” is not even a recognized medical term. It was just a nasty sounding invention of the anti-choice movement. No physician in the field of obstetrics and gynecology uses it as an actual medical term.
And furthermore, this procedure is extremely rare, and used only in medical emergencies. Pregnant women don’t just decide to have abortions in the 8th or 9th month without a reason. It’s not even LEGAL today!
Oh lets see…. If she found out she was carrying a deformed child and discovered she herself didn’t want to abhort it (this is all hypothetical remember), She could still go ahead and have the baby and still be pro-choice. Not everyone who is pro-choice claims that in all circumstances they would have an abortion. No, they all just want the right for themselves and other women to CHOOSE.
Then she would be saying a worthless child had worth, and would be hypocritical because she tells other women that their children are worthless, by allowing them the right to kill those children.
To say that pro-choice people “hate” children is beyond ludicrous. This is like saing that pet owners who euthanize their pets when necessary “hate” their pets !
No, it’s not like that at all, Robert Berger. Not in the remotest sense. A child is not someone you can just take to the vet and euthanize…and neither should a child who hasn’t been born yet. If you haven’t noticed, there is a big difference in a dog and a child.
If you did take your child to have them euthanized when they were sick or injured, I think anyone could rightfully say you hated children. Just the same with taking your child to be aborted.
The term “Partial Birth Abortion” is not even a recognized medical term. It was just a nasty sounding invention of the anti-choice movement.
What about it is incorrect? Why does it sound nasty? Because it informs you of what it does? I’m sorry you have to hear what it does while other children have to actually experience what it does.
No physician in the field of obstetrics and gynecology uses it as an actual medical term.
And furthermore, this procedure is extremely rare, and used only in medical emergencies.
And no, it’s wasn’t used only in medical emergencies. In fact, there isnt a single case where PBA was necessary to save the life of the mother.
Pregnant women don’t just decide to have abortions in the 8th or 9th month without a reason. It’s not even LEGAL today!
Yes, they do, and yes, it is.
Robert Berger, meet Dr Tiller:
Did you see that little part that said “third trimester abortions”. Yeah, it happens.
And now read this:
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]
* 71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other
“The term “Partial Birth Abortion” is not even a recognized medical term. It was just a nasty sounding invention of the anti-choice movement. No physician in the field of obstetrics and gynecology uses it as an actual medical term.”
Right! Nevrmind what it is or what it does, we’re using the WRONG TERM! The true villains are the one’s who do not use medically and scientifically accurate terminology, not the one’s who support delivering a fetus half-way and then stabbing it in the back of the head with scissors and vacuuming it’s brains out.
“And furthermore, this procedure is extremely rare, and used only in medical emergencies.”
Besides it’s “less dangerous than D & E”, can you name any reason why once the fetus’s entire torso is out, you can’t just finish the delivery and bring the head out? What medical condition necessitates needing to collapse a fetus’s skull inside of a vagina?
If you can answer this question then you’re doing better than the lawyers in Gonzales vs. Carhart because they couldn’t.
Right! Nevrmind what it is or what it does, we’re using the WRONG TERM! The true villains are the one’s who do not use medically and scientifically accurate terminology, not the one’s who support delivering a fetus half-way and then stabbing it in the back of the head with scissors and vacuuming it’s brains out.
Really!
Let’s keep spouting the term THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!
Now, there’s accurate terminology!! :)
Carla,
Robert: the proaborts are the experts at subterfuge.
They call the unborn baby “the products of conception” – implying to women that they are carrying a blob of unorganized cells
An abortion is called a “termination”
And late term abortions are MUCH more common than recognized.
My guess is because of society’s discomfort with late term abortions the number are probably under-reported.
High five each other all you want girls, but it remains that the Obamas were voted into the White House and some things are going to change. At the same time, your own movement is showing signs of change. You might need to jump on board.
Bethany,
I have missed your icons!!
Change. Change. Change the subject, asitis.
Carla,
‘What’s hate got to do with it?’
A cold knowing willful indifference to your fellow man is worse than hate.
A heart that is capable of hate is also capable of love. The heart that is as cold and dead as a stone is incapable of neither love nor hate and is one that is to be avoided.
Whether you hate or love your inteneded victim, he/she is no more or less dead when you kill them and you are no more or less guilty of homicide.
So Doug, what species of embryo/fetus was resident in your mom’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
(This not a rhetorical question.)
yor bro ken
High five each other all you want girls, but it remains that the Obamas were voted into the White House and some things are going to change. At the same time, your own movement is showing signs of change. You might need to jump on board.
Nah, I think I’ll pass.
auhm, auhm, auhm, auhm
(contemplating navel, legs crossed, in lotus position)
auhm, auhm, auhm.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The ‘o’ is not a letter but a number….zero, zeta, nada, nothing.
he is vacuuous, full of emptiness, a void, a legend in his own mind basking in the non-existent rays of his own intellect. (No need for sunscreen all you adulating devotees.)
Has anyone noitfied the 0’bama (pbuh) of the carnage and mayhem in Mombai.
he shouuld go and ‘talk, dialogue, with those misunderstood gun totin bomb throwin angry people and convince them of the error their ways. I am sure just few sweet words from his honey covered lips will have them converting their weapons into farm implements in no time.
the o’bama (pbuh) might as well give that problem a shot. The economic crisis does seem to be responding to his entreaties.
yor bro ken
bethany! Great icon!! How?
Robert Berger, meet Dr Tiller:
Did you see that little part that said “third trimester abortions”. Yeah, it happens.
And now read this:
Posted by: Bethany at November 29, 2008 8:36
I get e-mail updates from an anti abortion group that follows this creep. Tiller the Killer. I guess they year round picket his abortuary.
Tiller has had 2 friends crumble and die of cancer suddenly in front of him. One was a methodist minister that backslid, committed adultery and got fired. Tiller is in court almos every week now and one of the charges will finally stick. Tiller has been shot at before. we don’t work that way. He is a classic sociopath and has something that is in all proabortion people.
Patricia, it’s just an HTML code…I can send it to you in the email if you want. :)
xppc, I’m just amazed that he isn’t in prison already for all the crimes he has committed.
Hey Bethany,
His day will come. I am sure of it. It is hard to believe that he continues on in “business.”
Mr. Berger:
It’s sad that you equate euthanizing a pet to an abortion.
This is beyond understanding.
xppc, I’m just amazed that he isn’t in prison already for all the crimes he has committed.
Posted by: Bethany at November 29, 2008 10:08 AM
He is a certified sociopath/narcissist. He gave a huge party for his governor and she gave one for him in her gov mansion. He bouth the Attorney general of his state. He paid for the election of favored judges. AG Morrison was cought in adultry and resigned a year ago. His team of lawyers fights all orders to produce files and evidence and delays at every step. He recently had a court case trial for his investigators and it was ended before fininshed and continues. He still has 19 misdemeanor charges outstanding for trial next year.
He has lawyers fighting for him like OJ did. He will at some point lose one of his cases. Remeber thse people will commit crime to cover crime.
Patricia: oh I get it Doug! People have to LOOK like persons in order to be persons!
Patricia, you get it, but then you pretend not to.
I said it makes a difference to me. It’s my opinion. Has nothing to do with personhood.
“Ken, well hello – there aren’t any inherent rights.”
Patricia: yup, if that’s the case, then a person’s rights to be a person can be stripped from them at any time. Any time. 50 year old ugly men might not be persons anymore Doug.
Well, it’s not impossible, no. As things are, though, we attribute rights at birth, and it’s been that way for thousands and thousands of years, all around the world.
BTW, how many abortions have you been responsible for? I’m betting you have NO idea….
You and I have been through this before. Zero.
“And for everybody – if C-sections were done due to danger to the mother, and D & X’s weren’t preferable, then why were they done?”
Segamon: You tell me. The majority (almost all) D&X procedures happen post-viability. D&X is just as much a health risk to the mother as a natural delivery is.
The reason they were done is that they are preferable in some circumstances. A C-section is going to present more risk to the woman at times.
And you’re simply incorrect about “almost all” D & X’s being done post-viability.
…..
You might want to do some homework. Even a quick Google search yielded some very pertinent information. On example is http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5481 … maybe you can learn a little bit by this?
That doesn’t refute anything I’ve said.
A cold knowing willful indifference to your fellow man is worse than hate.
Ken, then you might try having more empathy for the pregnant women.
…..
So Doug, what species of embryo/fetus was resident in your mom’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
Human. And that’s not the issue.
A cold knowing willful indifference to your fellow man is worse than hate.
Ken, then you might try having more empathy for the pregnant women.
…..
So Doug, what species of embryo/fetus was resident in your mom’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
Human. And that’s not the issue.
Posted by: Doug at November 29, 2008 12:27 PM
It is the issue and you are ducking the issue. In every language they were called babies for hundreds of years.
You are not very bright because they don’t even have a different word for that baby. Foetus means offspring and jerking us around and changing the definition of a word doesn’t really change it’s true meaning.
“Human. And that’s not the issue.”
XPPC: It is the issue and you are ducking the issue. In every language they were called babies for hundreds of years.
No, you don’t even understand the issue.
Saying “babies” and “unborn babies” is fine with me. And we haven’t even gotten to the abortion argument there, yet.
…..
You are not very bright
:: snicker :: (There’s gotta be a mirror somewhere in your place….)
because they don’t even have a different word for that baby.
Doesn’t matter – I’ve never said that anybody has to have a different word. You can say “unborn baby” all you want, and you still haven’t addressed the abortion debate.
We have plenty of words that are strictly medically and biologically correct, such as fetus, embryo, blastocyst, zygote, etc., but saying” baby” isn’t any meaningful argument, any more than saying “not a baby” is.
…..
Foetus means offspring and jerking us around and changing the definition of a word doesn’t really change it’s true meaning.
You’re just making stuff up and worrying about non-sequiturs.
The real deal is that terminology doesn’t matter, especially subjective stuff like “baby” and “child.” What you are dissatisfied with is that we don’t attribute rights to the unborn, in general. What you want is public policy change.
Leah – lovely name – Pro-choice is JUST another way of saying – I choose to SIN! We can choose to follow God and His Commandments of LOVING one another – or we can KILL OUR CHILDREN.
The pro-choice crowd has CHOSEN to KILL THEIR CHILDREN – esp. the ones that are inconvenient or broken or diseased …
THIS is the TRUTH on that matter!
Doug – the name of my x – the TERM fetus isolates the American who has NOT taken Latin … the word fetus and all the other terms you used KEEPS the American mind FROM wrapping it’s mind around the FACT that it is a BABY!
It’s a baby – whether it was JUST conceived or if it’s just left the womb – ASK ANY WOMAN WHO’S got a heart and LOST HER BABY IN A MISCARRIAGE!!!
Is it chilling to you, Doug?
Posted by: Carla at November 28, 2008 10:36 AM
Obviously not. Sad, but true.
It’s a baby – whether it was JUST conceived or if it’s just left the womb – ASK ANY WOMAN WHO’S got a heart and LOST HER BABY IN A MISCARRIAGE!!!
Bevy, thank you!
If it is not a baby then WHY do we grieve our miscarriages??(I’ve had 2) Nobody has been able to explain that to me.
Doug,
I guess you refuse to see fact when you are presented with it? An instructions manual mentioned in the link I provided was called “Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion.” Hmm…
Late Second Trimester: 18 – 24 weeks gestation
Today’s Viability Definition: 20 weeks gestation
I wonder if many D&Xs could be done post-viability? Maybe this is a question above your pay-grade?
Also, you didn’t notice that chest circumference is only slightly smaller than head circumference in the neonate? So… a gynecologist is only going to save a few centimeters in dilation by crushing a baby’s skull.
What does my Maternity Nursing textbook say about the goal of treatment for PIH and gestational diabetes? “The primary goals of therapy are to deliver a healthy baby and restore the woman to a healthy state.” I don’t see where it says that the goal is to kill the baby to gain a perceived increase in safety for the woman.
Doug – the name of my x – the TERM fetus isolates the American who has NOT taken Latin … the word fetus and all the other terms you used KEEPS the American mind FROM wrapping it’s mind around the FACT that it is a BABY!
Hi Bevy. “Fetus” is strictly medically and biologically correct, but I’m not saying you or anybody else has to say that. Again, “unborn baby” is fine with me. Some people will argue with it but to me that’s a waste of time. Saying “is a baby” or “is not a baby” doesn’t prove anything.
There is no definite “is a baby.” It’s in the eye of the beholder. It’s a subjective thing. For many people, a “child” is “from birth to puberty” or other fairly-well defined stage. Same for “baby” – for many it’s after birth to when “toddler” starts applying, but again, I’m not saying it has to be any one way.
…..
It’s a baby – whether it was JUST conceived or if it’s just left the womb – ASK ANY WOMAN WHO’S got a heart and LOST HER BABY IN A MISCARRIAGE!!!
That’s like saying ask a woman who’s had an abortion because she had an unwanted pregnancy. What one person feels won’t necessarily apply to another.
I agree that a miscarriage can be heartbreaking.
So when is Obama going to announce massive funding cuts to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and public school “reproductive health clinics”? Budget cuts are going to have to happen some where! Do we need more palatiall PP facilities?
Carla: Is it chilling to you, Doug?
Doyle: Obviously not. Sad, but true.
:: bopping Doyle on the head with a styrofoam baseball bat ::
You didn’t read much of this thread, did you?
Janet,
I have read that some states are cutting their PP funding to help balance their budgets. :)
Georgia and Virginia.
Hi Carla,
Oh, thank you for that information!! Do you know by how much?Do they have pro-life Governors or something?
Doug – would you say you’re pro-choice with a “heavy heart”?
Segamon: Late Second Trimester: 18 – 24 weeks gestation. Today’s Viability Definition: 20 weeks gestation
Very funny, Segamon. Try 23 weeks, and that’s only if it’s a top-rank preemie care place. Many places it’s 24 weeks, even 26 or 28 weeks. 20 weeks gets you like a 99.9999% chance of the baby dying.
……
I wonder if many D&Xs could be done post-viability? Maybe this is a question above your pay-grade?
You’re being silly. Yes, many could be done, as many as there are pregnancies.
But how many were being done? There are so few post-viability abortions, period, versus the earlier times, including those times when many D & X abortions are done, that what you say is a statistical impossibility.
…..
Also, you didn’t notice that chest circumference is only slightly smaller than head circumference in the neonate? So… a gynecologist is only going to save a few centimeters in dilation by crushing a baby’s skull.
On this I don’t know. I’ve read that it is the size of the head that prompted the choice of some procedures. And again – if there really is no medical benefit, be it size of skull or chest, for doing a D & X, versus a C-Section (for viable babies) then why do it? If there would not be, then in that situation I’m not saying it would necessarily be a good choice.
…..
What does my Maternity Nursing textbook say about the goal of treatment for PIH and gestational diabetes? “The primary goals of therapy are to deliver a healthy baby and restore the woman to a healthy state.” I don’t see where it says that the goal is to kill the baby to gain a perceived increase in safety for the woman.
That’s presumably for wanted pregnancies, but either way I have no problem with it.
Doug,
Love how you can quantify NON-subjective things. It’s A BABY! Whether it’s just conceived or it’s born. It’s a baby until 1 or 2 years old and then it’s a toddler! In fact, you can call a baby who’s BORN an infant … but RARELY do you call a baby in the womb an infant – don’t know why?
All things are NOT subjective – you just THINK they are.
All people FEEL the same when they’ve aborted a baby or miscarried a baby … they just may ACT it out differently.
My aunt who recently died @ 87 aborted a baby at the age of 16 – that’s RIGHT folks – you could get an abortion in 1935 … NEVER conceived again – and was a raging drunk, used to play the piano – beautifully before this tragedy – LOST ALL FOCUS!!!! Was accepted into Juliard – never made it to that school … REBELLED against her parents!!!
My sis aborted her baby at the age of 24+/- and doesn’t WANT anything to do with her family – THESE are the CONSEQUENSES in MY family of abortion …
What are yours – or does your family TALK about it.
Why is miscarriage heartbreaking, Doug? One of mine was at 11 weeks, one at 9 weeks. According to you that is pre-viable, am I right?? Why did I grieve?
bevy,
I am sorry for the abortions in your family and the fallout from them.
Janet,
I believe Georgia was $420,000. Youch. They have to cut from somewhere. :)
Doug – would you say you’re pro-choice with a “heavy heart”?
Chris, great question.
No, not really.
I would very much prefer that a pregnancy be prevented in the first place rather than the woman have an abortion, and I think that most women themselves would agree with me there, including those who have already had an abortion.
I’d also very much prefer that no miscarriages occur for wanted pregnancies.
Between the two, I’d much rather see the “no miscarriages” deal.
Good example – our beloved Bethany – and if I could wave a magic wand, she wouldn’t have had a miscarriage. She is one of the finest people I know, and I know how she feels, and I do care about that.
I think it comes down to “wishing our world away” or not, and in the balance, for all my dissatisfactions and ‘druthers with the world, I accept it as it is. I wouldn’t “wish it away” even with all the good/bad/right/wrong I feel.
Chris, I hope this answers you. I’m not really bummed out that some women have abortions. I’m much more bummed out that some women lose wanted pregnancies.
Why is miscarriage heartbreaking, Doug? One of mine was at 11 weeks, one at 9 weeks. According to you that is post-viable, am I right?? Why did I grieve?
Aack! We’re getting ready to go out and eat, but Carla, I think as much of you as I do of Bethany.
Hey, one sister-in-law (my wife’s brother’s sister) had three miscarriages en route to having the three kids they now do.
Viability doesn’t matter, here. It was a sad thing for them, but though it’s somewhat a separate issue, losing those pregnancies were nothing like what losing one of their kids would be for them. They are Catholic, totally against abortion, and mighty “fundamentalist” in their thinking, but there’s still a huge difference.
And this is not saying that is has to be that way – Bethnany’s feeling is just as valid.
Grief is up to the people involved. Bless you.
Cutting PP funding will only end up costing them money in the long run. Hopefully they’ll apply t the fed gov’t and get the shortfall back
Thanks Carla – they have been rough – my sis didn’t even call me about her pregnancy but only talked to our Mom who said something to the effect of I’ll not talk to you again unless you get an abortion and she had several friends who told her to get it. I would’ve said – come up here and live with me and we’ll get thru it .. but she never gave me the chance.
I put you on my bloglist … :) follow my name to my blog if you want.
I’m sorry for you miscarriages. Blessings!
Cutting PP funding will only end up costing them money in the long run. Hopefully they’ll apply t the fed gov’t and get the shortfall back
Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 4:17 PM
Yes, that’s the effect of reduced funding. PP has plenty of reserves of its own, and it is supposedly non-profit, you know…. It doesn’t need more tax-payer funding to be wasted on elaborate buildings around the country. Maybe Obama plans to turn them into full-service medical centers. Wouldn’t that be lovely? Get your teeth cleaned, your children’s vaccinations, and an abortion for yourself or your wife, all in the same building!!! Ugh.
. . . . . . . . . .
Bevy,
I’m sorry for your family’s losses through abortion.
. . . . . . . . . .
I finally viewed the short movie “Volition” on another thread. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s well-worth the ten minutes to watch!
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/11/volition.html
“an abortion for yourself or your wife, all in the same building”
That doesn’t sound right, does it? It should be:
“an abortion for yourself, or your wife (if you’re a male), all in the same building!!!
(You know what I meant!)
Janet the effect of reduced funding for programs like PP is more teen pregnancies. This only costs the taxpayers more in the long run. A quick search reveals startling figures: in 1996 the US spent $7 billion as a result of teen pregnancies (health care, child welfare, incarceration and lower tax revenues). In 2004 the figure rose to $9.1 billion.
“an abortion for yourself or your wife” …. I thought you were referring to lesbian marriages. But then I remembered lesbians probably don’t have abortions. If they are pregnant it’s because they went to special effort to get pregnant in order to have a child of their own to raise in loving home.
I figured it had to be a typo.
Doug,
I have a niece that was born at 22 weeks of development. She’s now 10 years old.
My OB nursing instructor told us that today the viability marker is at 20 weeks without a doubt. She has been an OB nurse for over 25 years and still works as one.
So much for your viability definition.
And does it matter how many babies die through D&X? Even if only one baby was legally killed this way everyone should demand the make this murder illegal so that we could prevent it.
In 1999, 1.5% of all abortions were done at or beyond 21 weeks of gestation in the USA according the CDC. Out of 861,789 abortions that they report (excluding AK, CA, NH, and OK) that comes to 12,926 late term abortions.
CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm
Fetus at 5 months development:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig03face5mos.jpg
So Doug, you’re okay with 12,926 legal murders of viable babies?
And again – if there really is no medical benefit, be it size of skull or chest, for doing a D & X, versus a C-Section (for viable babies) then why do it?
One usually cannot legally kill a baby after he is born.
Cutting PP funding will only end up costing them money in the long run. Hopefully they’ll apply t the fed gov’t and get the “shortfall back”
Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 4:17 PM
You have to be kidding. Planned Parenthood steeals the government blind. They murder and rob. I take it the pro choice people have no moral spine. None.
Did Planned Parenthood Rip Off $180 Million From Taxpayers?
Sunday 9 March 2008
This is clear cut. Planned Parenthood over billed the State of California by $180 million. To make sure they did not have to pay it back, radical Assembly member Hannah Beth Jackson got the Democrats to pass a bill, saying the fraud was OK, and that they can continue to over charge the taxpayers of California. At a time we are running a $20 billion deficit, we need the money, now.
Planned Parenthood should also be looked at by the DA in every county and Attorney General for criminal charges that they defrauded the State by over charging. Imagine if Enron, after the fact got the legislature to OK its fraud?
It is time for Planned Parenthood to repay the money. And if like Enron, they go under, that is their problem, not ours. Maybe a lawsuit needs to be filed against the to get the money back. Also, we need to look at the campaign contributions of Jackson, to see how many Planned Parenthood supporters and leader donated to her. This whole thing smells like five day old fish left out in the sun.
What do you think, should Planned Parenthood be rewarded for over charging the poor of California?
To see the whole article click on the URL below.
If Obama supports it, it is probably involved with fradud and theft.
They are thieves.
http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?breve4445
So Doug, you’re okay with 12,926 legal murders of viable babies?
Posted by: segamon at November 29, 2008 5:58 PM
I can answer for Doug: yes he is.
He is okay with abortions in each and every case, as long as the woman wants it. It supports his lifestyle.
Someone asked earlier if Doug supported abortion with a heavy heart: Doug supports abortion because he has NO heart.
I think it’s sad; it does look like “a baby” to me then.
Why did you put “a baby” in quotes like that?
You say baby Malachi *looks* like a baby but you didn’t really say whether he is…so…was he? Or was he just something that looked like a baby?
Please don’t tell me what anyone else thinks or what it could be, or how he could be viewed by someone etc etc etc…but do YOU personally, Doug – yourself- think baby Malachi was a baby?
Janet, as I said to Carla, “This isn’t saying anything about the good/bad/right/wrong of it, just that this is the way it is now.”
Okay, so you didn’t say whether you think it was wrong. I’m going to ask you right now: Do you think it was wrong to kill baby Malachi? And I’m not asking you if you think it was wrong for the baby’s mother, I’m not asking you if you think that people could have different perspectives on it, and that for one person it could be right and for another it could be wrong- I am asking you very clearly to tell me whether you, personally, think from your own perspective (not speaking for anyone else), whether it was wrong to kill baby Malachi?
And would you have personally stepped in to protect baby Malachi if you had had an opportunity? Even by simply saying, “please don’t do it”. Would you have made any effort whatsoever to save baby Malachi?
Good example – our beloved Bethany – and if I could wave a magic wand, she wouldn’t have had a miscarriage. She is one of the finest people I know, and I know how she feels, and I do care about that.
Thanks Doug.. that is considerate of you.
I think it comes down to “wishing our world away” or not, and in the balance, for all my dissatisfactions and ‘druthers with the world, I accept it as it is. I wouldn’t “wish it away” even with all the good/bad/right/wrong I feel.
But you never really express what you think is right or wrong with the world. Even if you accept the world as it is, would it hurt to express how you feel about morality? I know you have to have emotions hiding in there somewhere.
Janet the effect of reduced funding for programs like PP is more teen pregnancies. This only costs the taxpayers more in the long run. A quick search reveals startling figures: in 1996 the US spent $7 billion as a result of teen pregnancies (health care, child welfare, incarceration and lower tax revenues). In 2004 the figure rose to $9.1 billion.
Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 5:42 PM
Then maybe we should double the funding to PP and we could cut teen pregnancies in half? Can you please state your source? I’m curious how teen pregnancy can result in incarceration and lowered tax revenues.
WOW, If I were the President and teen pregnancies were taking almost 10 billion dollars from my budget annually, I’d tell kids to stop having sex so more money could go to programs for poor wed mothers, the elderly and the disabled.
. . . . . . .
xppc,
Thank you for the information about Planned Parenthood of CA. I had read about that months ago and had forgotten it.
Why do you think miscarriage is heartbreaking Doug?
Doug, if someone raped someone in your family…for instance, your neice or your mother (I would never wish this on anyone), would you simply accept it as ‘part of this world’, or would you take a stand? Would you express outrage, or would you say that it’s just the way that the world is, and we have to accept it?
Bethany,
Are we overwhelming our friend, Doug?? :)
Asitis:
Doing the right thing should never be based on a cost benefit analysis.
The right thing should be done because it is simply the right thing to do.
Sin perpetuates sin and is a downward spiral of degeneration.
Based on my observation of history it is always more cost effectve to do the right thing, always.
Aborttion is never cost effective since it eliminates a precious and priceless soul.
“This isn’t saying anything about the good/bad/right/wrong of it, just that this is the way it is now.”
Just The Way It Is, Baby
A baby speaks after abortion?
(The Rembrandts, lyrics)
Do you remember once upon a time, when you were mine?
The stars above were bright and new-I pulled them down for you
Just when I fell in love again, you said that all good things must end
BABY….THAT’S JUST THE WAY IT IS BABY (WHOAH WHOAH)
BABY….THAT’S JUST THE WAY IT IS BABY
I’ve never had a hand for solitaire-It’s so unfair
That I should have my chance and lose-I feel like I’ve been used
To help you through another night-You spelled it out in black and white
(CHORUS)
The tides that once had carried you away, they bring you back today
The time has washed away my pain-I find that things have changed
And disappeared without a trace-You can’t get back what you’ve erased
And I say (CHORUS to fade)
Janet, if you google “teen pregnancy cost” you’ll get a wack of information.
As for just telling teens to stop having sex… well, the thing is that just doesn’t work. Read my ladt comment and the link on the most recent World News Daily post here. You’ll find the answer to the problem there.
asitis,
I’ve heard all the arguments and I’m not convinced. I’d prefer your source if you have it than having to google.
Doug, do you understand why your words to Carla were insulting rather than comforting?
I really think that you don’t actually understand or see what the problem is. You say you’re sorry, that you think she’s a great lady, etc…and you think you’ve come off really nicely.
When you tell a woman that you’re sorry she’s sad about her loss, but then you say that her feeling are “just as valid” as the woman who killed her baby and doesn’t care, do you have any idea what the implications are there?
It’s basically just the same as spitting in her face and saying, “You didn’t lose a baby. It was a worthless piece of nothing. But I am sorry that you feel that you lost something.”
It’s called reading between the lines. What you say is nice sounding, but there is much behind those words that is what we are hearing.
I know that you think that you are saying comforting things…that you are being kind and trying to be fair, but you’re really not.
Your words are cold (and hurtful), even though you may not intend them to be so.
Imagine me telling a rape victim that I’m sorry that she is sad about her rape… but at the same time, she needs to consider that other rape victims don’t take it as hard as her- that in fact, some rape victims didn’t mind being raped at all, so their feelings are just as valid as hers. That is quite literally how your words sound to Carla.
HisMan,
Amen.
Bethany,
Are we overwhelming our friend, Doug?? :)
Don’t worry, Carla. He’ll respond to EVERY single sentence. Maybe even every half sentence. No worries. ;)
Bethany,
Very well put!
Doug, I posted the song lyrics to show you how an aborting Mother could come to regret her abortion. Does it make any sense to you?
Janet, what does it matter if I have the references memorized or if I have to look them up. I don’t live and breathe this stuff you know!
You don’t find facts convincing? Because you can’t accept them? Because they contradict your religious beliefs?
Don’t worry, Bethany. We both already know what Doug will say. :)
But you never really express what you think is right or wrong with the world.
There is no objective right or wrong in Doug’s mind.
It’s basically just the same as spitting in her face and saying, “You didn’t lose a baby. It was a worthless piece of nothing. But I am sorry that you feel that you lost something.”
This is EXACTLY what Doug says. The baby is nothing but tissue up until a certain point and the woman has absolute right over this “tissue”. I can’t help but wonder just how many abortions Doug has been involved in. You don’t develop this rationale to explain away abortion unless it has touched your life in some way and it’s a very expedient way to deal with what you’ve done.
asitis,
Janet the effect of reduced funding for programs like PP is more teen pregnancies. This only costs the taxpayers more in the long run. A quick search reveals startling figures: in 1996 the US spent $7 billion as a result of teen pregnancies (health care, child welfare, incarceration and lower tax revenues). In 2004 the figure rose to $9.1 billion.
I’m just asking for your source of information. If you lost it, that’s fine. Again, why would teen pregnancy increase incarceration and decrease tax revenues? I don’t understand how that would necessarily occur.
Whoa.
My apologies and condolences. I had to go to a funeral for a 74 year old friend. A former fetus of the human species, he was one of three children.
Women are human beings from the moment of conception to their moment of death. Then they are human corpses. Even a human corpse has some recognition and protection in most states.
Doug, I have been accused of viewing pregant women as petrie dishes for [human] ovums, zygotes, ebryos, and fetuses. I put human in brackets because the bigots who make the accusation never can attach human to the embryo/ fetus that is resident in a pregnant woman’s uterus.
You have already conceded the point that women are only pregnant with human embryo/fetuses.
I have never said female humans were less human, less valuable, less equal than male humans. I recognize the inherent worth, value, rights or all humans.
So where is our point of disagreement?
yor bro ken
I have never been “touched by abortion” and my rationale is pretty much the same as Doug’s.
Janet, I haven’t lost the sources. i just can’t be bothered copying them all for you when they are so easy to get through google.
Sorry I though the lost tax revenue and incarceration was obvious, especially the former. A teenager who is pregnant and keeps her baby is less likely to finish high school, get a university degree, go to graduate school, and end with a well-compensated career. She is more likely to be live in poverty or close to it, on her own or married. That’s where the lost tax revenue comes in.
As for the incarceration…..Children, particularly boys, raised in such an environment are more likely to end up in jail later. Someone on this websire recently commented that children raised without a father they were 11 times more likely to commit a violent crime. It’s not necessarily the absence of the father that is responsible for this trend but rather the poverty, bad environment (drugs, guns, violence, etc), and lack of quality education and carer goal-setting that these teenage mothers raise their children in.
asitis: I don’t know if you are a woman or man. Doug is a man. If he slept around he can never be 100 percent sure that every woman he slept with never conceived that the BC worked 100 percent. NEVER.
Sometimes women don’t tell their partner.Espcially if it was a one time thing. They have the abortion and move on. Sometimes they don’t tell their partner and have the baby and give it up for adoption. I know personally of several situations like this. The fathers have no idea they fathered a child. Any man who has been sexually active outside of marriage has to realize that this is a possiblity even if he isn’t willing to concede it is. And I personally know some men who only realized this years later have had a hard time coming to terms with this possibility and that they may in some way have seriously harmed a woman by their lack of respect and irresponsibility.
Sadly, I doubt Doug is even this self-aware.
Patricia we’ve already established I’m a women, remember?
What’s the point of what you just wrote anyway? You had originally said that the only way Doug could have formed his rationale was if he had been touched by abortion. I followed that up by saying, not necessarily, because I have the same rationale and I have not been touched by abortion.
asitis: your point is that since you arrived at the proabort POV without as you allege, being touched by abortion, therefore Doug may well have too.
I don’t buy either scenario, to be honest. Doug is a product of the culture or death, through and through.
I am willing to bet, dimes to dollars, that he has the proabort view because it meshes wonderfully with his lifestyle, either currently or in the past. Babies need to be expendable and nonpersons or persons whose rights don’t matter, because a baby can be VERY inconvenient, ya know. Makes a relationship or a one-night stand very messy.
is that spelling it out for you?!!
No Patricia, my point is that Doug may or may not have been “touched by abortion” and still have his (my) point of view. My husband and many other fathers and mothers I know have a similar point of view and it has nothing to do with a need to have it “mesh” with their current or past lifestlye.
regardless, the support of abortion does mesh as you term it, nicely with a libertine lifestyle.
A man who is not chaste is much more likely to support the use of BC and abortion than one who intends to save himself for his dearly beloved bride.
Based on his comments in the past, Doug hardly appears to fit the latter profile in life.
asitis: I don’t buy the numbers that you are putting forth re: teen pregnancy. 1ST off I applaud any teen that DELIVERS their child … AND doesn’t ABORT IT … Why DON’T YOU?
And you know that children that come from 2 parent families are JUST as likely to feel uncared for and unloved and are just as likely to go to jail – and it’s no one’s fault but their own.
What’s wrong with teens having the child and adopting them out? Why not more of a push for that? OH yah – PP won’t get any money for THAT!
I have a step daughter who HAD her child out of wedlock – who is now about 6 and although her mother CONTINUES to struggle financially – she doing a pretty good job – and she has alot of extended family that’s helping her. IT CAN BE DONE!
One of the numbers in taxing – maybe b’c the tax code was changed at some point – making it better to make LESS money and NOT have TO pay anything in taxes and GET MORE back than you’ve paid in – I don’t know when this started – BUT my step-daughter makes about 12 or 15k a year and gets back $4-5k. LOTS more than she pays in. That’s called WELFARE.
So to get back to the subject – it’s a human child that we’re talking about eliminating B’C of the almighty (supposedly) dollar! DISGUSTING!
*****
Janet – thanks!
Well, I would HOPE a man who is having sex and doesn’t want to be a father is using birth control whether he is married or not Patricia. That’s a great goal for this country to work toward.
Well, I would HOPE a man who is having sex and doesn’t want to be a father is using birth control whether he is married or not Patricia. That’s a great goal for this country to work toward.
Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 10:35 PM
sorry asitis: I don’t concur.
If a man does not want to be a father he should keep his pants up. He should learn to master himself and respect the women around them instead of using them for his own sexual release. If he’s married then he needs to discuss the situation with his wife. There are ways to plan and space children naturally and which contribute in a positive way to the marriage and the mutual respect of one another.
The standards should be high, not set to be those of a lothario.
Bevy, I appreciate that your stepdaughter may be doing alright and you love your grandchild.But too often when teenage mothers are raising babies it ends badly. In the city closest to us, there is approx one murder each day. Invariably it’s a young male gunned down. Invariable when you do the math, his mother had him when she was a teenager, the father is not around and the grandmother (who became a grandmother in her early thirties) is raising her grandkids. The mother came from poverty, getting pregnant while still in high school kept her from making a better life for herself and her children. That’s reality.
asitis, even BC used perfectly does not 100% guarantee that a man will not become a father. Using a condom correctly every single time yields a 2% rate of causing pregnancy.
So says Planned Parenthood themselves: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm
Even Implanon is not perfect. The only 100% perfect method of birth control is abstinence. Even Planned Parenthood admits to it.
Thus, the only way a man can be sure that he has not fathered a child is to abstain from sex altogether.
If he doesn’t want to be a father he should keep his pants up…. respect the women around them instead of using the for his own sexual release????. Patricia, do you even have a sex drive? Do you like sex? I do. And birth control allows and has allows allowed me the pleasure of sexual release without unwanted pregnancy. My husband too.
Maybe you need some of that :)
Yeah, but here’s the thing segamon: Abstinence may be 100% effective, but hardly anyone remains abstinent!
asitis: I happen to believe that sex is very sacred. People often accuse Christianity and in particular Catholics with hating the body and sex. But it is because we believe that sex is so beautiful and that our bodies are so good and beautiful that they should be treated with the utmost respect. It is one thing to have sex with your husband, asitis, but it is quite another thing for women and men to have multiple hook-ups and to move from partner to partner as often as they change their socks.
Sexual intercourse mirrors, here on earth, in a very limited way, our union with God in heaven. And it is a total, unconditional gift of ourself to one other person – the person we have committed to for life in marriage. The standard is high – can you live up to it?
Asitis,
Then the problem has to do with our culture who demands sexual promiscuity.
I am 23, am still a virgin, and will marry the woman of my dreams next summer. Although controlling sexual urges can be difficult, me and my fiance have worked together to make it happen. As a result, our relationship has become very strong. Keeping sex until marriage has allowed us to increase our chances of our marriage being a success.
It also helps that we’re Catholic ;)
oh and one other thing asitis: abstinence use to be the rule of the day, until PP and other liberal sex educators started telling teens and singles that they could NEVER be abstinent and so they might as well just stop trying to be chaste. The pill helped that attitude along, mightily. The result: soaring rates of stds, teen pregnancies, unwed mothers, broken marriages, and millions of abortions.
@segamon: nice blog!
Amen to that, Patricia!
and segamon: your wedding night will actually MEAN something!
God bless you and your fiance. You will be in my prayers.
Patricia, abstinience might have been the “rule” of the day but teenagers have been having sex for a long, long time.
Segamon and Patricia, I appreciate that for you two, sex is sacred. And perhaps every sperm is sacred as well ( Monty Python!)so birth control is a non-no for you. But these are your religious beliefs. They are not mine. They are not everyone’s. They are yours.
Asitis,
Then the problem has to do with our culture who demands sexual promiscuity.
I am 23, am still a virgin, and will marry the woman of my dreams next summer. Although controlling sexual urges can be difficult, me and my fiance have worked together to make it happen. As a result, our relationship has become very strong. Keeping sex until marriage has allowed us to increase our chances of our marriage being a success.
It also helps that we’re Catholic ;)
Posted by: segamon at November 29, 2008 11:07 PM
and no diseases. Sex before marriage is an act of selfishness. Abortion is an act of selfishness.
Asitis,
Then the problem has to do with our culture who demands sexual promiscuity.
I am 23, am still a virgin, and will marry the woman of my dreams next summer. Although controlling sexual urges can be difficult, me and my fiance have worked together to make it happen. As a result, our relationship has become very strong. Keeping sex until marriage has allowed us to increase our chances of our marriage being a success.
It also helps that we’re Catholic ;)
Posted by: segamon at November 29, 2008 11:07 PM
and no diseases. Sex before marriage is an act of selfishness. Abortion is an act of selfishness.
Personally, I’m glad I swapped the uncertainty for knowing that the man I married was one I was was compatible with in all regards. I wanted a marriage that’s happy and forever.
Sex before marriage is an act of selfishness????? Where do you get that?
Personally, I’m glad I swapped the uncertainty for knowing that the man I married was one I was was compatible with in all regards. I wanted a marriage that’s happy and forever.
Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 11:27 PM
maybe you got lucky but the stats don’t prove your point
oh and most marriages do not break up due to sexual incompatibility
(Doug)”And for everybody – if C-sections were done due to danger to the mother, and D & X’s weren’t preferable, then why were they done?”
Doug, D&X’s are done to ensure there is a dead baby, period. Other procedures are not always “successful” – a baby could be aborted alive – then what?
If a woman’s life were in danger, and the baby were “wanted,” they’d have that live baby out ASAP trying to save both patients.
“The reason they were done is that they are preferable in some circumstances.”
Yes, like when a dead baby is desired.
Most marriages do not break up due to sexual incompatibilty. I would say that’s true Patricia – there are lots of other reasons they break up as well.
And note I said “happy and forever”. Not just forever. I have yet to see any statistics on that. Have you Patricia?
Patricia, thank you for offering your prayers as well as your praise of my blog. I just started the blog and hope that I may continue to post useful information on it.
Asitis: “But these are your religious beliefs. They are not mine.”
Yet you admit that our culture would benefit from such beliefs. It is undeniable that a return to traditional moral values regarding sex and marriage would benefit our society.
Gebbie, the Clinton administration’s National AIDS policy advisor, back in 1994 admitted that an improvement of sexual morality would reduce the transmission of HIV. And that’s an admission from one of the most staunch believers in the use of birth control!
Refer to 19:25 of the following video: http://www.charmaineyoest.com/2008/11/charmaine_on_cnn_debating_cond.php
“Sex before marriage is an act of selfishness????? Where do you get that?”
A person can never be treated like an object, right? Thus, we must not use anyone as a sex object either. When people have premarital sex they are having sex without any proper commitment. In human relationships (as opposed to that of animals) it is expected that sex is associated with commitment. Marriage is an institution that codifies the natural human commitment that sex entails. Marriage also ensures that any children that result from consummation will have both a mother and a father.
We have noticed, as a society, that alongside the destruction of marriage and sexual morality so has the family been destroyed.
“your wedding night will actually MEAN something”
Had to interject just to ask if you really meant this. Most of our beloved posters were not virgins when they got married. Do you really want to insinuate that their wedding nights meant nothing?
Segamon, I know of nobody who would claim that an increase in abstinence won’t help things like STD rates. Most people claim that in the case that a sexual interaction takes place, birth control/protection should be readily available to avoid as best they can these potential effects. Like safety belts. Most deaths occur due to auto accidents. Driving is a very dangerous activity. But most people do it, and in such a case we encourage seatbelts, just in case.
Hi Pip,
It is truth. My wedding night meant something. Not nothing. It could have meant more though, had my husband and I been virgins.
Segamon,
I am standing at my computer and applauding you and your fiance!!! I am thrilled for you!! I have 3 sons and 1 daughter and it is my hope and prayer for them as well. Please continue commenting here. It is a refreshing perspective, indeed.
“Yet you admit that society would benefit from such (religious) beliefs” Uh….. no, I did not “admit” this segamon.
“Marriage also ensures that any child that results from any consummation will have both a mother and father”. Segamon, every child has a mother and father. But marriage does not ensure that every child has a mother and father that live together nor that they even have a relationship with their mother and father. Sometimes marriages end in divorce. Sometimes unmarried partners stay together.
“In human relationships it is EXPECTED that sex is associated with commitment” Can you explain this to me Segamon? I know you believe it Segamon, with all your being. It is part of your religion. But explain to me where this expectation comes from without going into religious beliefs.
Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 7:51 AM
‘But explain to me where this expectation comes from without going into religious beliefs.’
————————————————–
There is a difference between being a sperm donor and a ‘father’. There is a difference between being an incubator and a ‘mother’.
No religion there. No explanation necessary. You are intelligent enought to know or at least determine the differences with a dictionary, some observation and a little retrospective analysis. I am sure somewhere in your life you have encountered a man and a woman who embodied the qualities of a father and a mother, respectively.
yor bro ken
“In human relationships it is EXPECTED that sex is associated with commitment” Can you explain this to me Segamon? I know you believe it Segamon, with all your being. It is part of your religion. But explain to me where this expectation comes from without going into religious beliefs.
Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 7:51 AM
It is over your head. You must not understand love outside of eros or erotic love.
Greek has many words for love. Atheism dreams of barnyard freedom. sorry, it doesn’t bring joy.
“Atheism dreams of barnyard freedom.”
Now this is a very good phrase!
kbhvac et. al., segamon’s quote was referring to sex, not parenthood.
Again, outside of religious beliefs where is it EXPECTED that sex is associated with commitment? (And I coould assume that the commitment segamon refers to is marriage).
Most marriages do not break up due to sexual incompatibilty. I would say that’s true Patricia – there are lots of other reasons they break up as well.
And note I said “happy and forever”. Not just forever. I have yet to see any statistics on that. Have you Patricia?
Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 11:54 PM
This comment is filled with assumptions that simply are not supported by stats and demonstrate a lack of understanding of marriage.
The first is that sex before marriage produces a happier and forever marriage – which studies have shown it does not. The reason it does not, is that problems present prior to marriage tend to get swept under the rug and not talked about. Both parties have generally invested so much into the relationship (certainly true for the woman who has given herself to the man) that anything which might break them apart is ignored.
The second assumption is that those marriages that do stay together without having experienced premarital sex are unhappy ones – a statement that is quite outrageous and pretty darn bigotted when you think about it. Many generations before us experienced marriage without premarital sex and had happy successful marriages.
And in fact, premarital sex was frowned upon not becasue these people were “uptight prudes” but because it was seen as a way to protect women, who generally ARE the more vulnerable, from being used as objects of pleasure by men and subsequently discarded. In fact, in these “prudish” societies sex was seen as a sign of committment. If a man slept with a woman he was promptly marched off to marry her. He had now made that woman his own by taking the gift of her body, which rightfully belongs to herself and her (future) husband. Therefore, he became her husband by virtue of what had taken place.
The fact is, asitis, people like yourself treat sex the same as urinating, vomiting, eating, skiing, walking, thinking etc. But sexual intercourse is not just something we “do” with our bodies. It is a profound gift of ourselves, totally and completely and to be done with the one person who has pledged to do the same, mutally and exclusively for life. It is sacred not profane nor mundane.
asitis: I don’t see that we have to enter into your frame of reference.
You liberals are always crying for us to make our case in your Godless frame of reference. I say you make YOUR case in our God-frame of reference. Either you want to expand your mind or you don’t.
Why would I bother trying to make my case in your God-frame of reference Patricia? It’s futile. Your religion dictates that pre-marital sex and contraception are wrong. Anything i say won’t change that. And I have no desire to change that. All I’m saying is don’t put everyone in your Gid-frame of reference.
And I did not say that marrriages without pre-marital sex are unhappy ones. I just said they could be. The sexual compatibility is a crap shoot.
You say that studies have shown that sex before marriage does not produce HAPPIER AND Forever marraiges. Can you cite one of these studies that includes the “happier” part? As I said, I don’t think this has been studied.
When couples live together prior to marriage, they do not “sweep things under the rug”. In fact, it’s a chance to deal with issues BEFORE so much is invested in the relationship (ie a public marriage, a contract).
You claim I do not understand marriage Patricia. You are dead wrong. I do. I am in a very happy, stable marriage. Instead, I propose to you that you do not understand premarital sex and cohabitation, having experienced neither.
All I’m saying is don’t put everyone in your Gid-frame of reference.
and all I’m saying is don’t ask everyone to be placed in your aethiestic frame either!
When couples live together prior to marriage, they do not “sweep things under the rug”. In fact, it’s a chance to deal with issues BEFORE so much is invested in the relationship (ie a public marriage, a contract).
this may hve been the case for you but this is in fact NOT what happens.
Sorry asitis, the debate is futile. Your world view which happens to be the current one will NEVER create a better society. In fact, we are reaping the results right now of your generations ideas of marriage. abortion, rampant sexual diseases, marriage breakdowns, gay marriages, low fertility rates with many women not the least interested in having sex, female fetocide, euthanasia. All these come from the world view that man is god, man controls his destiny and his body is his own. He is answerable to no one. Methinks you will some day see all this with utmost clarity.
For now, I am off to worship that false God that doesn’t exist for you.
Segamon: I have a niece that was born at 22 weeks of development. She’s now 10 years old.
My OB nursing instructor told us that today the viability marker is at 20 weeks without a doubt. She has been an OB nurse for over 25 years and still works as one.
So much for your viability definition.
Not sure what the nurse means by “viability marker,” but you evidently do not know what the definition of viability is. It’s where an expected 50% of babies will survive.
At 20 weeks, the odds are overwhelming that the baby won’t survive, so it’s silly to say that’s “viability.”
…..
And does it matter how many babies die through D&X? Even if only one baby was legally killed this way everyone should demand the make this murder illegal so that we could prevent it.
You’re just killing your credibility by talk of “murder.”
……
In 1999, 1.5% of all abortions were done at or beyond 21 weeks of gestation in the USA according the CDC. Out of 861,789 abortions that they report (excluding AK, CA, NH, and OK) that comes to 12,926 late term abortions.
Okay, that sounds plausible. And a much greater number were done from 14 to 21 weeks, of which it would only take a small portion being D & X’s to mean that most D & X’s were done prior to viability.
“Your world view which happens to be the current one will NEVER create a better society”. Oh no? Have you ever been to Sweden, for example, Patricia? I doubt it. You should go though. You will be amazed at the society they have there. Low teenage pregnancies, low STD’s, high standard of living and most, importanatly, a society that values children and families in a way that the United States can only dream of.
Oh, and by the way Patricia, I am not asking anyone to drop their belief in whatever god they worship. That’s a ridiculous accusation. I strongly belief that people should be allowed to worship and believe as they wish. Again, just don’t expect everyone to share your own religious beliefs. On that note… i hope you enjoyed Mass.
Bevy: Love how you can quantify NON-subjective things. It’s A BABY!
Your opinion doesn’t determine things for everybody there.
…..
Whether it’s just conceived or it’s born. It’s a baby until 1 or 2 years old and then it’s a toddler! In fact, you can call a baby who’s BORN an infant … but RARELY do you call a baby in the womb an infant – don’t know why?
Actually, I’ve heard “unborn infant” a good deal. You have a good point about “toddler” – many people see “baby” as between birth and being a toddler.
….
All things are NOT subjective – you just THINK they are.
Oh please. Nobody told you “all” – that’s you making stuff up. But some things are, and “baby” and “child” are among them.
I realize it’s a matter of opinion, but while I’m fine with “unborn baby” as a term, prior to the blastocyst stage, when it really is “a mass of cells” then “baby” sounds awfully farfetched to me.
Carla: Why is miscarriage heartbreaking, Doug?
Carla, they can be because the pregnancies were wanted.
….
One of mine was at 11 weeks, one at 9 weeks. According to you that is pre-viable, am I right?? Why did I grieve?
Viability doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it. Lots of people are going to be really sad if they miscarry – I don’t think anybody can rationally say any differently (nor do I think anybody has).
So Doug, you’re okay with 12,926 legal murders of viable babies?
Segamon, that’s a silly question. It’s not murder, in the first place. You may not like abortion but it’s not your preference that makes for “murder.”
Your numbers are way off, too, since you’re still not on the right page as far as what “viable” means here.
I’m trying to find a viability chart, but it’s proving elusive….
Of the abortions past viabiliity that are really just because the woman does not want to be pregnant any longer, I’d rather have delivery induced, and I don’t think it’s reason enough, then, to have an abortion.
I realize a case can be made for some of the post-viability abortions being elective, and I’m not for that – I’m good with restrictions at viability.
Carla, they can be because the pregnancies were wanted.
I never wanted a pregnancy, Doug. I wanted a baby
I’d like to add that people can grieve a miscarriage for loss of what might have been.
Patricia: I can answer for Doug: yes he is.
Heh – Patricia, you cannot even answer for rational Pro-Lifers. You can only represent the irrational Pro-Lifers whose arguments are so weak that they are reduced to trying to demonize Pro-Choicers.
….
He is okay with abortions in each and every case, as long as the woman wants it. It supports his lifestyle.
So silly…. You’re just as wrong there as you were above…..
“I think it’s sad; it does look like “a baby” to me then.”
Why did you put “a baby” in quotes like that?
Bethany, a nod of the head to the fact that it’s a subjective deal, and that there are different usages of the term.
…..
You say baby Malachi *looks* like a baby but you didn’t really say whether he is…so…was he? Or was he just something that looked like a baby?
As I’ve often said, I’m fine with “unborn baby” as a term, and yes, I think at 20 weeks or thereabouts, as I think Malachi was, then it’s a baby.
…..
Please don’t tell me what anyone else thinks or what it could be, or how he could be viewed by someone etc etc etc…but do YOU personally, Doug – yourself- think baby Malachi was a baby?
Yes, enough development had gone by. Earlier in gestation and there’d be a 50/50 point, prior to which I’d say “not a baby yet.”
Bethany: Okay, so you didn’t say whether you think it was wrong. I’m going to ask you right now: Do you think it was wrong to kill baby Malachi? And I’m not asking you if you think it was wrong for the baby’s mother, I’m not asking you if you think that people could have different perspectives on it, and that for one person it could be right and for another it could be wrong- I am asking you very clearly to tell me whether you, personally, think from your own perspective (not speaking for anyone else), whether it was wrong to kill baby Malachi?
I think it was 20 weeks, right? So no, I don’t think that is wrong. Sad, yes, but at that point if the woman wants to end the pregnancy then I’m for it being legal.
…..
And would you have personally stepped in to protect baby Malachi if you had had an opportunity? Even by simply saying, “please don’t do it”. Would you have made any effort whatsoever to save baby Malachi?
I’d want to know the woman and have a feeling of what’s best for her. So no way to know for sure how I’d feel.
Doug, Asitis, you just don’t get it.
I didn’t mourn for some lost idea when I miscarried, I mourned from the loss of my children.
They were alive, and now they are dead. It’s pretty simple.
I mourned for the loss of an idea when I was unable to conceive, but trust me, it’s a much different type of grief.
“I think it comes down to “wishing our world away” or not, and in the balance, for all my dissatisfactions and ‘druthers with the world, I accept it as it is. I wouldn’t “wish it away” even with all the good/bad/right/wrong I feel.”
Bethany: But you never really express what you think is right or wrong with the world. Even if you accept the world as it is, would it hurt to express how you feel about morality? I know you have to have emotions hiding in there somewhere.
I’ve expressed it, Bethany. I think it’s wrong to try and tell women what to do, either way, with a pregnancy prior to viability, for one thing.
There is vast suffering in the world, and I regret that. To me, one woman losing a wanted pregnancy is sadder than a lot of women having abortions willingly.
I’m sorry for the strife that often comes from the tribalism in the world, by “tribes” of different countries, ethnic groups, religions, etc.
Here too, though, I wouldn’t wish it all away. Don’t think the world would really be “good” if all the “bad” was magically gone.
Lauren, you are dead wrong. I do totally get that you, Lauren, mourned from the loss of children. I do totally get that some people believe that from the moment conception occurs they are a mother of a real person. I get that some people beleive this, and belief it deeply. I never said I didn’t
All I am saying is that even someone with an opposing view could still grieve a misscarriage because to them it is a loss of what might have been.
Doug, take off the blinders.
Think about it, don’t just whip out the pro-choice talking points.
Think for a moment that you did not grow up in this society where “choice” was the status quo. A woman has just opted to have her child killed. Do you support this?
W
And furthermore Lauren, because I do “get” it I can honestly say that I am sad for your losses. I am sad that you grieve so. I wish it hadn’t happened to you. Just as I can say to segamon, I am genuinely happy for him. Happy that he has found a lovely brideand shares his beliefs and dreams and loves him as he loves her. And who is also a virgin which is important to him.
See, just because I do not share your beliefs does not mean that I cannot recognize them nor appreciate the sadness not joy they bring.
No, asitis, you don’t get it. It’s not just my little belief that my children existed. It is a fact. Their lives began at conception. There is no arguement about this. None.
We can argue that they do not have full rights of personhood, but their existence as human beings is not in question.
Why do you think miscarriage is heartbreaking Doug?
Carla, (you weren’t overwhelming me, by the way – just didn’t get back online until today),
I understand how much some people want kids, and that having a miscarriage can really be a bad, sad thing.
I also have some experience with it – a sister-in-law had three on the way to having the three kids she has. She had one, then had a boy, then another boy, then two miscarriages in a row (I think that was the sequence… something like that).
A doctor or two wondered if her body was rejecting the embryo if it was female – apparently such things are possible? They really did want to have another child, and it’d be great if it was a girl since they already had two boys.
Well, on the 7th try they got Isabella, which everybody agrees is a great thing.
It wasn’t like the end of the world for the mother, but on the 2nd and 3rd miscarriage she was pretty down (understandably).
sorry.. that should be “sadness OR joy they bring”
Yeh,.. it is in question Lauren. You just don’t get it. But that’s okay. Futile to try to convince you otherwise. And it really doen’t matter.
asitis: What’s the point of what you just wrote anyway? You had originally said that the only way Doug could have formed his rationale was if he had been touched by abortion. I followed that up by saying, not necessarily, because I have the same rationale and I have not been touched by abortion.
asitis, you’ve probably noticed by now that Patricia will just make up stuff.
I’ve never had anybody close to me that’s had an abortion – not in my family, not my wife, not any girlfriends…
No, it isn’t a question. Basic biology isn’t a question.
As I said, the rights given to pre-born humans are in question, but not the nature of their existence.
The fact that you’re arguing against me on this proves my point that you don’t get it.
“The reason they were done is that they are preferable in some circumstances.”
Eileen: Yes, like when a dead baby is desired.
Eileen, that couldn’t even matter if the baby wasn’t viable. It makes sense to me that having a C-section can be more traumatic and risky for a woman in some circumstances than having a D & X. I’ve never heard anything to the contrary, either.
I’m always interested to hear any proof differently.
Oh, I KNOW she makes stuff up Doug! She tried to say last week that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE in Ontario refers to a bible belt in the province. In fact, she called me an idiot! She followed that up by claiming I wasn’t even from Ontario and did not understand the “Candian situation”. But we all know now she was wrong on all counts. I never did get an apology though ;)
Doug,I countered this days ago when MisterData was talking about hydrocephalic fetuses.
The only possible time that a D&X could ever be safer in a high risk situation than a c-section is if the child’s head is large enough to risk tearing the uterus during a c-section.
This is true, but it neglects to mention that methods can be taken in-utero to reduce the size of the fetus’ head, thus making a c-section the perfered method of delivery.
“Carla, they can be because the pregnancies were wanted.”
Bethany: I never wanted a pregnancy, Doug. I wanted a baby
I hear you, B, and thus having a miscarriage was a sad thing for you.
Lauren: I didn’t mourn for some lost idea when I miscarried, I mourned from the loss of my children.
Lauren, I never said you couldn’t feel that way. Asitis is correct that some people will grieve for what could have been, but I fully understand you feeling just as you said. It’s not up to anybody but you.
Think for a moment that you did not grow up in this society where “choice” was the status quo. A woman has just opted to have her child killed. Do you support this?
Lauren, in that case, if I really think of it as a child and I wasn’t all that concerned with what the woman wanted, then I’d probably be against her having an abortion.
The only possible time that a D&X could ever be safer in a high risk situation than a c-section is if the child’s head is large enough to risk tearing the uterus during a c-section.
This is true, but it neglects to mention that methods can be taken in-utero to reduce the size of the fetus’ head, thus making a c-section the perfered method of delivery.
Lauren, okay, that sounds pretty reasonable. The situations I’ve heard about are high blood pressure that isn’t responding to treatment, heart disease, bad kidney problems etc., where time is a pretty critical factor. I don’t know exactly what danger a C-section poses, other than the really obvious stuff, so if it’s as good or better, then fine.
As things are now, though, aren’t D & E abortions being done, just not the “intact” ones – the ones also known as “D & X”?
Doug, how would you feel if I said “well, I never said you couldn’t grieve the loss of your toddler, but I’m just trying to explain that not everyone views the loss of a toddler as the loss of a child, some view it only as the loss of potential.”?
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back. I hosted American Thanksgiving at my apartment, and I only had my fiance to help, not whole legions of people like it usually is at my mom’s house. So I’ve been busy. You would not BELIEVE the dishes I had to do…
Bethany: You cannot tell me that my love for my (future) children is not real just because I am pro-choice. If I advocated killing children, maybe, but… I don’t. I advocate the right to access to abortions for all women. Although to you that is killing children, to me it is not. So my children will be no less loved by me than yours are by you. Also, if I was talking about abortion as though it were a bad thing, it was to look at it from your perspective. For me, it would be bad to abort, I suppose, because I want children, and providing I have them when I am ready and my husband and I are financially stable, then abortion would be kind of pointless. In any case, in case you’re wondering, even if we were not financially stable we probably wouldn’t abort, because I would still have him to support me. This doesn’t mean that this is the right choice for everyone… that’s just how I roll. :)
Doug, if time is a critical factor, c-sections are a must. You can’t waste time waiting for dialation.
You are right in regards to D&E, now the children are simply torn apart within the womb.
“Lauren, in that case, if I really think of it as a child and I wasn’t all that concerned with what the woman wanted, then I’d probably be against her having an abortion.”
Doug so your support for abortion is based on sociatal acception of the procedure?
alright, time to go buy a christmas tree. bbl
Oh, I KNOW she makes stuff up Doug! She tried to say last week that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE in Ontario refers to a bible belt in the province. In fact, she called me an idiot! She followed that up by claiming I wasn’t even from Ontario and did not understand the “Candian situation”. But we all know now she was wrong on all counts. I never did get an apology though ;)
Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 11:51 AM
first off, I don’t OWE you anything
secondly, you are the one making up the bible belt crap.
there is no bible belt in Ontario and if it every existed at all, it is an obselete term that is no longer applicable.
I’ve lived here a hell of a lot longer than you and I’ve lived through Canada and no one in Canada speaks of “Ontario’s bible belt”
and Doug, I never said you were involved in an abortion, I merely wondered based on your highly rationalized position on abortion if you were.
If you were sexually active at any point in your life outside of marriage you can never say that any woman you slept with never conceived. This way my point – you have absolutely no way of knowing. Rationalizing the right to abortion may certainly ease a man’s conscience that his promiscuity never hurt a woman. That was my point.
Try to be a bit more open, eh?
I realize it’s a matter of opinion, but while I’m fine with “unborn baby” as a term, prior to the blastocyst stage, when it really is “a mass of cells” then “baby” sounds awfully farfetched to me.
Posted by: Doug at November 30, 2008 10:48 AM
it is not just a mass of cells, it is a human being with all the genetic coding of a human person.
oh why bother Doug, your so lost anyway….
Patricia,um….yeh. indeed there are people in Ontario who refer to a bible belt in Ontario… that’s how I heard of it! And what about that map someone posted? There ARE people who refer to a bible belt in Ontario. Why do you have such a problem with admitting you are wrong? Where do you even live, by the way?
And you DID say Doug must have been involved in an abortion to have his rationale.
Guess the priest didn’t give a sermon on truth today, did he? ;)
Patricia, I’m going to do you a big favor before you make a bigger fool of yourself on this bible belt issue.
Here’s an article from today’s (how timely!)London’s Free Press. The headline says it all: http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2008/03/21/5066756-sun.html
Apology accepted ;)
Your world view which happens to be the current one will NEVER create a better society. In fact, we are reaping the results right now of your generations ideas of marriage. abortion, rampant sexual diseases, marriage breakdowns, gay marriages, low fertility rates with many women not the least interested in having sex, female fetocide, euthanasia. All these come from the world view that man is god, man controls his destiny and his body is his own. He is answerable to no one. Methinks you will some day see all this with utmost clarity.
Posted by: Patricia at November 30, 2008 10:06 AM
Well, studies that actually exist, as opposed to stuff that just got made up in your head, show the exact opposite to be true.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”
A few points:
One, the viability argument is ridiculous. ALL human beings throughout our lives are viable. We are placental mammals and are supposed to live in the bodies of our mothers for nine months. It is our natural environment. The only thing that would make a viable child unviable would be a violent attack by a criminal abortionist. Infants are completely helpless without parental care. Does this make them “unviable”? We adults would be unviable under water, on the surface of the Moon, even living outdoors in the Winter in northern climates.
Two, we human beings have a fundamental natural right to live a human lifespan in accordance with our nature. We are placental mammals and have to live through the unborn stage and the born stage. Both are intrinsic and necessary parts of human existence. No human can live a human life without living in his/her mother’s tummy for nine months. We therefore do and must have a right to live a full human lifespan and to live through each and every stage of that lifespan. Killing a human being in the unborn stage and killing a human being in the born stage are fundamentally the same thing because you are destroying the very same being and taking away the very same lifespan. It is a violation of our rights, and is therefore a crime, to kill us at any time in our lives, born or unborn.
Three, abortionists tend to be very intellectually dishonest. They pretend that their position is a logically derived philosophical position, when it is nothing of the kind. It is a position which is fundamentally designed to satisfy the psychological needs of upper class and counterculture sexual liberals. Go to any anti-life demonstration and you will see those types of people greatly in evidence.
Four, the reason there is such strong support for abortion crime in human society is that we have no incentive to end it and a strong psychological incentive (especially if one is sexually liberal and engaging in premarital sex) to have it available because we think it will make our lives easier. With murder crime, we have a strong psychological incentive to end it and very little to commit it. This is why there is near universal opposition to criminal murder but not to criminal abortion, even though in each case you are destroying the SAME BEING and taking away the SAME LIFESPAN.
If we did not have such a strong psychological incentive to refuse to see the truth about abortion violence, we would see it clearly for the horrific crime against human beings which it unarguably is.
…”I advocate the right to access to abortions for all women. Although to you that is killing children, to me it is not. So my children will be no less loved by me than yours are by you…
Posted by: Leah at November 30, 2008 12:17 PM
Leah,
What is it that you are killing then?
If you are for a woman’s right to choose then you have to take it to it’s possible logical end which could be the woman’s choice to kill her baby. Is it real love to choose to have a baby only because you want a baby? This kind of “love” is tainted by self-centeredness, don’t you think? Isn’t it real love to choose to carry a baby to term even though it might cause some temporary difficulty or inconvenience? Real love doesn’t think of self, it thinks of the other.
Jane:
I think that is unsound. In western societies those with the strongest religious beliefs will generally be minorities and recent immigrants. It will be their poverty and lack of education among other factors which will cause their economic and social problems, not religious beliefs. Those poor households which are stable and have strong religious beliefs which they follow will have far fewer problems than the dysfunctional broken families.
I love it every time the right wingers use the term “MSM” as their little code word for the bad, horrible, evil press that doesn’t give them enough attention. Everytime a homophobe uses MSM in their articles it makes me happy. To those of us in the know “MSM” is a common acronym denoting “Men who have Sex with Men”. Ahh the Freudian slip of the hypocrite. It never gets old.
Um, yo la, I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with what the term “freudian slip” means.
Using a common term for an organization without knowledge that the same term has an alternative meaning isn’t a freudian slip.
It would be freudian slip if I said “my girlfriend” when talking about my husband or, like Obama I said “My muslim faith” when I intended to say something else.
“Your world view which happens to be the current one will NEVER create a better society”. Oh no? Have you ever been to Sweden, for example, Patricia? I doubt it. You should go though. You will be amazed at the society they have there. Low teenage pregnancies, low STD’s, high standard of living and most, importanatly, a society that values children and families in a way that the United States can only dream of.
Really asitis! Try this on for size:
1. Sweden has one of the highest incidences of rape in the world
2. There is more crime in Sweden than in New York CITY
3. Sweden has one of the highest crime rates with high incidences of highway robbery and burglary which often go unreported since the police are overwhelmed and often corrupt – another significant problem unique to Sweden’s liberal country.
4. Swedens hate crime law requires no evidence of incitement to violence and does not define “respect towards minorities”.
5. As the moral climate in Sweden continues to unravel, bestiality is on the rise. The favoured animal appears to be horses. Animal welfare advocates are not concerned with the morality of the acts, rather that the animals may be hurt. BTW, bestiality, like abortion and same sex marriage is not illegal in Sweden.
6. Since marriage is now rare in Sweden, divorce statistics are no longer reliable. However studies of couples married or not in Scandanavia demonstrate that couples cohabitating break up at a rate of 2 to 3 times that of married couples.
7. Between 1990-2000 Sweden’s out of wedlock birthrate rose from 47 to 55 %.
8. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures–or higher tax rates–than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It’s easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.
9.The lone teen pregnancies common in the British and American underclass are rare in Sweden, which has no underclass to speak of. Even when Swedish couples bear a child out of wedlock, they tend to reside together when the child is born. Strong state enforcement of child support is another factor discouraging single motherhood by teens. Whatever the causes, the discouragement of lone motherhood is a short-term effect. Ultimately, mothers and fathers can get along financially alone. So children born out of wedlock are raised, initially, by two cohabiting parents, many of whom later break up.
10. Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline–an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood…
In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for “shotgun weddings.” These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we’ve come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?
11.37,205 abortions were procured in Sweden in 2007, compared to the 30,980 in 2000 – an increase of approximately 17 percent. In Stockholm alone, 10,259 abortions were carried out in 2007, up 6.9 percent from 2006.
12. Sweden allows “saviour siblings” for tissue transplants with no special limitations on how these siblings might be used.
I could go on but I won’t. Interestingly, Sweden does have a ban on prostitution. This ban has been very successful in completely eradicating prostitution, which in the eyes of Swedes is seen as a form of violence to women and children. Strange that actually banning a behaviour might make it less common.
Also, one of the families from my parish had their 18 year old son spend two years in Sweden as part of a cultural exchange program. His eyes were really opened and he found Swedish society was markedly different from ours. He had to travel an hour to locate a Catholic church. People have no belief in God and run their lives accordingly.
BTW, asitis, the Godless utopia you claim for Sweden, doesn’t exist. Sweden may be God’s way of demonstrating what is in store for the rest of us, should we live like these people. (Thankfully, I don’t own a horse.)
Jane,
“So who is Gregory S. Paul and what are his qualifications to opine on the salubrious quality of agnosticism? We spent a considerable amount of time attempting to discover where Mr. (Dr.?) Paul received his training in sociology and/or statistical analysis, etc. Here’s what we found:
.
.
.
.
The above blank space is not a formatting error of some kind. It is the best we could come up with to signify nada, zero, zip, bupkis, nihilo,…nothing. Yes, that’s right. We found nothing. As near as we can tell, Mr. Paul has no advanced degrees in statistical analysis, demography, sociology, or any other “ology.” In fact, it appears as though he holds no advanced degrees of any kind. He is, in fact, an artist and “freelance paleontologist” who has published two books in the area of dinosaur studies that “re-imagine” how they may have lived and operated on this planet….
Patricia, Bethany, Lauren, and Carla — you go girls!!!
I can’t help but wonder just how many abortions Doug has been involved in. You don’t develop this rationale to explain away abortion unless it has touched your life in some way and it’s a very expedient way to deal with what you’ve done.
Posted by: Patricia at November 29, 2008 8:32 PM
BTW, how many abortions have you been responsible for? I’m betting you have NO idea….
Posted by: Patricia at November 28, 2008 6:10 PM
I never said Doug “must” have been involved in abortions – I stated that in my experience a person forms their beliefs based often on life experiences.. I was wondering…
Clear enough to you asitis….???????
Patricia you clearly said to Doug that he must have been touched by abortion: “You don;t develop this rationale… unless it (abortion)has touched your life”. Oh yes, that’s clear enough for me!
Can you give me the reference for the statistics you cited on Sweden. Very different from others I have seen. Oh and by the way, the rate of children born in Sweden to married couples may be lower than the US, but the percentage of children being rasied in single parent households is higher in the US. Interesting….
Again, you’ve never been to Sweden have you? Have you had any significant firsthand exposure to life in any other developed countries (outside of the US and Canada) Patricia?
Hey, and you never said – how did you like that London Free Press headline from today? What a unfortunate coincidence, eh? Not quite an obsolete term, if it ever existed at all, is it Patricia?
“He had to travel an hour to locate a Catholic church” Horrors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) I’m sorry, but as a recovering Catholic that just strikes me as funny.
hard to believe, but there are places where you can’t find a Catholic church!
China’s “catholic church” is run by their government. The loyal to ROME church is underground because they are persecuted.
And I can bet there are more MORMON temples in Utah than Catholic churches.
So, I don’t find it hard to believe that the young man Patricia mentioned had a hard time finding a church for Mass.
As I’ve often said, I’m fine with “unborn baby” as a term, and yes, I think at 20 weeks or thereabouts, as I think Malachi was, then it’s a baby.….
Yes, enough development had gone by. Earlier in gestation and there’d be a 50/50 point, prior to which I’d say “not a baby yet.
I think it was 20 weeks, right? So no, I don’t think that is wrong. Sad, yes, but at that point if the woman wants to end the pregnancy then I’m for it being legal.
How can it be “sad” to kill what you yourself consider to be a baby, but not wrong?
You said clearly that you feel that baby Malachi was indeed a baby. But in the next post you said that it was not wrong to kill that baby. How is it any different than killing a born baby, Doug?
And do you think killing born babies is wrong, if the mother wants the baby dead? If so, why?
Why was it not wrong to chop baby Malachi to bits, Doug? Why would it be wrong for someone to chop up a newborn baby to bits? Or would it be?
I’d want to know the woman and have a feeling of what’s best for her. So no way to know for sure how I’d feel.
I’m pretty sure I know.
Bethany: I never wanted a pregnancy, Doug. I wanted a baby
I hear you, B, and thus having a miscarriage was a sad thing for you.
Close, Doug. But you’re missing the part where I actually had the baby and he/she died. It wasn’t loss of potential or my desire for a baby that was disappointed. It was the loss of my child who was living one day and was dead the next.
when it really is “a mass of cells” then “baby” sounds awfully farfetched to me.
Was my baby merely a “mass of cells”, Doug? Nothing more? I know you’ve seen the pictures.
By the way, technically, you are just a mass of cells. So if you want to get technical with it, you are no different.
Here too, though, I wouldn’t wish it all away. Don’t think the world would really be “good” if all the “bad” was magically gone.
Why not?
Doug, would you ever tell an anorexic woman who is on the verge of death that she needs to start eating, for her own health?
Would you ever tell a mother addicted to crack that she should visit a rehab center for her own good and for her children?
Would you ever tell a depressed bulemic girl to stop forcing herself to throw up and get counseling, for her own good?
Believing that anything that a person wants is automatically good for them is unrealistic. Helping women choose against abortion is not a bad thing. And just because a woman wants an abortion doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for her.
Bethany: You cannot tell me that my love for my (future) children is not real just because I am pro-choice. If I advocated killing children, maybe, but… I don’t. I advocate the right to access to abortions for all women.
And that is effectively the right to kill children.
Although to you that is killing children, to me it is not.
Your refusal to understand basic biology doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
So my children will be no less loved by me than yours are by you. Also, if I was talking about abortion as though it were a bad thing, it was to look at it from your perspective. For me, it would be bad to abort, I suppose, because I want children, and providing I have them when I am ready and my husband and I are financially stable, then abortion would be kind of pointless.
Can’t you see it? This is what is called conditional love. “If we are ready” I won’t abort. “If we are financially stable” I won’t abort. Otherwise, you would like to have the option open in case you felt the need to kill your unborn child.
In any case, in case you’re wondering, even if we were not financially stable we probably wouldn’t abort, because I would still have him to support me. This doesn’t mean that this is the right choice for everyone… that’s just how I roll. :)
And what if you didn’t have him to support you?
By the way, you really didn’t answer my questions directly, Leah.
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!
Ah, Bethany. You have more patience than I do today!! :) Love you!
LixfromNebraska, if he had to travel an hour to locate a catholic church, he either a) has a bad sense of direction :) or b) there aren’t enough catholics to have one any closer. It’s not a matter of suppression not persecution.
Ah, Bethany. You have more patience than I do today!! :) Love you!
Thanks, Carla! I love you too.
Lauren – Actually, according to Wikipedia a Freudian slip is not limited to the common “saying one thing and meaning your mother” type of slip, but rather it is also about word perception. No one outside the rightwing, largely homophobic world uses the term MSM because we know its other meaning, that she percieves this word to be one thing when it is actually another (in this case sexual) term says something about her underlying thoughts and topical obsessions as one can ascertain from reading this blog.
Doug, how would you feel if I said “well, I never said you couldn’t grieve the loss of your toddler, but I’m just trying to explain that not everyone views the loss of a toddler as the loss of a child, some view it only as the loss of potential.”?
Lauren, if it were true, then I’d understand that not everybody sees things the same way. Heck, even one given person may see things differently at different times.
Good article about viability:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/336/7655/1221
Results: The proportion of infants dying in delivery rooms was similar in the two periods, but a significant improvement was seen in the number of infants surviving to discharge (P
Lauren, if it were true, then I’d understand that not everybody sees things the same way. Heck, even one given person may see things differently at different times.
Doug, every person is not robotic like yourself when it comes to feelings.
Do you not have any sense of empathy at all? The ability to put yourself in someone else’s place, and imagine how they must be feeling?
Let’s try that quote again:
Results The proportion of infants dying in delivery rooms was similar in the two periods, but a significant improvement was seen in the number of infants surviving to discharge. Of 497 infants admitted to neonatal intensive care in 2000-5, 236 (47%) survived to discharge compared with 174/490 (36%) in 1994. These changes were attributable to substantial improvements in the survival of infants born at 24 and 25 weeks. During the 12 years of the study none of the 150 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation survived. Of the infants born at 23 weeks who were admitted to intensive care, there was no significant improvement in survival to discharge in 2000-5 (12/65 (18%) in 2000-5 v 15/81 (19%) in 1994-9).
Conclusions Survival of infants born at 24 and 25 weeks of gestation has significantly increased. Although over half the cohort of infants born at 23 weeks wasadmitted to neonatalintensive care, there was no improvement in survival at this gestation. Care for infants born at 22 weeks remained unsuccessful.
Doug, if time is a critical factor, c-sections are a must. You can’t waste time waiting for dialation.
You are right in regards to D&E, now the children are simply torn apart within the womb.
Lauren, if a C-section presents no increased risk versus a D & X, then no argument.
Do you not have any sense of empathy at all? The ability to put yourself in someone else’s place, and imagine how they must be feeling?
Posted by: Bethany at November 30, 2008 8:24 PM
oh pick me! pick me!
the answer: no absolutely NOT!
Doug, I’m very interested to know… have you ever been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome or anything similar? I hope you don’t mind me asking.
and Doug, I never said you were involved in an abortion, I merely wondered based on your highly rationalized position on abortion if you were.
:: laughing :: Oh come on, Patricia, what you said was:
He is okay with abortions in each and every case, as long as the woman wants it. It supports his lifestyle.
That was just still of you to say that, and a far different thing. Good grief…..
“I realize it’s a matter of opinion, but while I’m fine with “unborn baby” as a term, prior to the blastocyst stage, when it really is “a mass of cells” then “baby” sounds awfully farfetched to me.”
Patricia: it is not just a mass of cells, it is a human being with all the genetic coding of a human person.
That’s silly again, Patricia. I didn’t say it was just a mass of cells. Heck, we’re all “a mass of cells.”
My point was that that’s what it looks like at the time, and it makes a difference to a lot of people, me included. And – good grief – I said I realize it’s a matter of opinion.
Think for a moment that you did not grow up in this society where “choice” was the status quo. A woman has just opted to have her child killed. Do you support this?
“Lauren, in that case, if I really think of it as a child and I wasn’t all that concerned with what the woman wanted, then I’d probably be against her having an abortion.”
Lauren: Doug so your support for abortion is based on sociatal acception of the procedure?
To some extent, Lauren, just as most people’s upbringing, family, culture, perhaps religion, etc., have influences. Had you been exposed to nothing but a “Pro-Choice” environment, the odds are good it’d make a difference too.
“If I thought of it as a “child” it’d make a difference.” Yeah, that’s probably true for me, just as it’s true for you that if you “didn’t think of it as a child” it’d likely make a difference for you.
“If I thought of it as a “child” it’d make a difference.” Yeah, that’s probably true for me,
To be honest, Doug, I really don’t think it would make a difference for you.
You said earlier today that you think baby Malachi was a baby. Yet, you think that it was perfectly fine to kill that baby.
Based on this, I don’t think that it would make any difference to you at all if you thought that all unborn babies were children.
He is okay with abortions in each and every case, as long as the woman wants it. It supports his lifestyle.
That was just still of you to say that, and a far different thing. Good grief…..
Posted by: Doug at November 30, 2008 8:32 PM
wth?
Patricia: it is not just a mass of cells, it is a human being with all the genetic coding of a human person.
That’s silly again, Patricia. I didn’t say it was just a mass of cells. Heck, we’re all “a mass of cells.”
no you said it was a blastocyst – implying it is a bunch of cells and therefore NOT a baby….
My point was that that’s what it looks like at the time, and it makes a difference to a lot of people, me included. And – good grief – I said I realize it’s a matter of opinion.
Posted by: Doug at November 30, 2008 8:35 PM
in fact this is what I said – you believe that personhood is based on what a person LOOKS like. Doug don’t say you didn’t mean this – this is exactly what you meant and you know it. You can deflect it and call me silly but i’ve just pointed out how shallow you are….
How can it be “sad” to kill what you yourself consider to be a baby, but notwrong?
Bethany, because there is also the woman to consider. I’d rather see a pregnancy continued versus the woman having an abortion, all other things being equal, but to viability I’m going with what she wants.
….
You said clearly that you feel that baby Malachi was indeed a baby. But in the next post you said that it was not wrong to kill that baby. How is it any different than killing a born baby, Doug?
The counter-argument isn’t nearly as strong, since it’s not inside the body of a person. I see it as a greater wrong to deny a woman an abortion to viability if she wants one.
…..
And do you think killing born babies is wrong, if the mother wants the baby dead? If so, why?
I don’t see her reason as good enough versus just handing the baby off to somebody else at that point.
….
Why was it not wrong to chop baby Malachi to bits, Doug? Why would it be wrong for someone to chop up a newborn baby to bits? Or would it be?
I think it was prior to viability. If not, then I’m not for elective abortion.
…..
Bethany: I never wanted a pregnancy, Doug. I wanted a baby
“I hear you, B, and thus having a miscarriage was a sad thing for you.”
Close, Doug. But you’re missing the part where I actually had the baby and he/she died. It wasn’t loss of potential or my desire for a baby that was disappointed. It was the loss of my child who was living one day and was dead the next.
Well, I never said it was “only potential.”
…..
“when it really is “a mass of cells” then “baby” sounds awfully farfetched to me.”
Was my baby merely a “mass of cells”, Doug? Nothing more? I know you’ve seen the pictures.
No – there was form there. I’ve said several times that after the blastocyst stage it looks like more than a mass of cells. Also never said “merely,” or similar.
…..
By the way, technically, you are just a mass of cells. So if you want to get technical with it, you are no different.
Well, the appearance is much different, and that’s what I was talking about, but as far as us all being a mass of cells, in one way of looking at it – I’ve said that myself numerous times.
…
“Here too, though, I wouldn’t wish it all away. Don’t think the world would really be “good” if all the “bad” was magically gone. ”
Why not?
I think people are made to struggle, not to have everything “perfect,” etc., or then it wouldn’t be seen as such, that we need sadness and sorrow to feel true joy – stuff like that.
Bethany wrote: Was my baby merely a “mass of cells”, Doug? Nothing more? I know you’ve seen the pictures.
Doug:No – there was form there. I’ve said several times that after the blastocyst stage it looks like more than a mass of cells. Also never said “merely,” or similar.
in fact there is “form” there – there is on a microcellular level. The fact that you can’t “see” it doesn’t make it irrelevant.
My 16 year old daughter has told me to tell you to stop digging now. The hole you’ve dug is deep enough already. lol
doug: when does the fetus LOOK human enough to you?
I think people are made to struggle, not to have everything “perfect,” etc., or then it wouldn’t be seen as such, that we need sadness and sorrow to feel true joy – stuff like that.
Okay, this is interesting. Can you expound on this a little bit?
Patricia —
I don’t think Doug can answer you. Even when the unborn child has a heart beat, measurable brain waves, kicks/hiccups in the womb, has HUMAN DNA…..its NOT enough for those who support a woman’s “right” to get rid of a pregnancy that happened “against her will”.
yeah, Liz. It would seem I’m not going to get an answer.
Doug is just a very little man…..
Doug, my mother is quite pro-choice. She marched for “women’s lives” in DC a few years ago, and gives monthly to Planned Parenthood, Naral, etc.
everyone I grew up with was liberal. I went to a liberal college, where everyone was pro-choice.
My influences were all very much to the left of center. I came to see abortion for what it was in spite of my upbringing. Others can certainly do the same.
pip,
I was thinking of a new Democratic organization called “Pro-choice for Personhood”.
Do you think it could gain any traction?
Doug: Not sure what the nurse means by “viability marker,” but you evidently do not know what the definition of viability is. It’s where an expected 50% of babies will survive.
Show me where viability is defined by a 50% chance of survival outside of the womb.
According to the book The Developing Human, “Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in the extrauterine environment… There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable or beyond which survival is assured…”
According to Planned Parenthood: “Viability is a medical, not a legal term. The point of viability varies with each pregnancy and must be determined by physicians on a case-by-case basis…”
Viability, when used as a general term, is intended to mean the earliest point at which it is at all possible for a fetus to survive outside of the womb. When the term is used specifically, each and every fetus is assigned a point of viability. There have been cases of neonates born at 21 weeks and surviving. Thus, my OB instructor’s use of 20 weeks is very accurate. She even noted that although there have been no recorded cases of a neonatal survival at 20 weeks gestation, it is still very possible with today’s technology.
Case in point? Your viability definition is flat out wrong. Or, maybe, you can prove me wrong?
Doug: You’re just killing your credibility by talk of “murder.”
Murder is defined as “The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.” You choose to focus on “unlawful” while I choose to focus on “killing of one human by another.” Abortion in the United States is NOT unlawful. However, abortion is certainly the killing of a human being. For convenience, I choose to use the word “murder” rather than to type out the entire phrase “killing of another human being.” Gotta love the game of semantics!
Doug: …a much greater number [of D&Xs] were done from 14 to 21 weeks, of which it would only take a small portion being D & X’s to mean that most D & X’s were done prior to viability.
I must concede that neither one of us truly knows how many D&Xs are being done. The CDC gathers information that is too vague regarding abortion techniques. The CDC is even more vague in regards to the actual number of specific weeks gestation of late term abortions. I also wish they had the information from ALL 50 states…
However, the fact that over 12,000 abortions are done at or after 21 weeks should be an outrage (even to you).
To those who have encouraged my beliefs regarding sexuality: thank you! :)
Regarding viability. The March of Dimes considers a 25 week neonate to have a 50% chance of survival. Does this mean that 25 weeks is considered viability as Doug would suggest? No.
“…most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation.” http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm
What is the survival rate at 24 weeks gestation? 39%.
I know that the article on about.com was not written by a medical doctor, but I could not find any written periodical or otherwise that would claim a “point of viability.” This is because viability is usually determination on a case-by-case basis.
Doug, I still don’t know where you got the 50% survival rate as a definition for viability…?
Doug,
Baby Malachi is said to be of 21 weeks development. My niece was born at 22 weeks 10 years ago and is a healthy and spunky little girl today. The earliest survival was at 21 weeks and 6 days. Viability is usually determined by a case-by-case basis. It is now ridiculous to not consider Baby Malachi non-viable. The chance of survival outside of the womb was not negligible for Baby Malachi. The chances might have been stacked against Baby Malachi, but the chance was still there.
Doug: “I think it was prior to viability. If not, then I’m not for elective abortion.”
I would like to take you at your word.
“It is now ridiculous to not consider Baby Malachi non-viable.”
It should have read “It is now ridiculous to consider Baby Malachi non-viable.”
Lousy typos.
Segamon, I just wanted to say that you have made some excellent points on this entire topic, and I also wanted to commend you on your choice to wait until marriage!
“I was thinking of a new Democratic organization called “Pro-choice for Personhood”.
Do you think it could gain any traction?”
Hm, what would this organization’s philosophy entail?
Thank you so very much, Bethany! I certainly do have to work on preventing typos, though. :)
Doug, would you ever tell an anorexic woman who is on the verge of death that she needs to start eating, for her own health? Would you ever tell a mother addicted to crack that she should visit a rehab center for her own good and for her children? Would you ever tell a depressed bulemic girl to stop forcing herself to throw up and get counseling, for her own good?
Bethany, sure.
….
Believing that anything that a person wants is automatically good for them is unrealistic. Helping women choose against abortion is not a bad thing. And just because a woman wants an abortion doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for her.
You don’t know that, though. Maybe choosing to have an abortion is the best thing for her, and maybe she’s right in thinking that she should have one.
No argument about the other cases you presented, and were I to know a given woman pretty well, I too would likely have an opinion about whether having an abortion or not would be the best thing in her situation.
But to generalize about it, either way, is going to miss the truth a lot of times.
PIP @ 12:39,
“I was thinking of a new Democratic organization called “Pro-choice for Personhood”.
Do you think it could gain any traction?”
Hm, what would this organization’s philosophy entail?
I have no idea, but I love your idea since the majority of PC’rs seem to think we religious pro-lifers are wacko’s. :) Good luck!
Maybe someone should start a group called Personhood Without Religion (or something like that). It won’t be me.
Bethany: Doug, do you understand why your words to Carla were insulting rather than comforting?
B, if so, I think it’s because she takes it personally.
….
I really think that you don’t actually understand or see what the problem is. You say you’re sorry, that you think she’s a great lady, etc…and you think you’ve come off really nicely. When you tell a woman that you’re sorry she’s sad about her loss, but then you say that her feeling are “just as valid” as the woman who killed her baby and doesn’t care, do you have any idea what the implications are there? It’s basically just the same as spitting in her face and saying, “You didn’t lose a baby. It was a worthless piece of nothing. But I am sorry that you feel that you lost something.”
I don’t agree with that. It’s not spitting in her face, and it’s not saying she was wrong about how she felt or feels. I’ve never said that “it was a worthless piece of nothing” – nothing even close to that. I know full well how much some people want kids, consider the unborn to be kids, love kids, are happy to be pregnant, and want the pregnancy to continue, etc.
If there is a “wrong” here it would be saying “you’re incorrect to feel as you do,” just as it’s wrong to tell a woman who doesn’t regret it that she’s a “murderer,” that “there’s something wrong with her,” etc.
Whatever, Bethany. I’m not interested in continuing a conversation if all you’re going to do is try to insult me. I understand biology (which does not dictate what a “child” is so maybe it’s you who needs to be educated), and I will love my children. It is not up to you to decide otherwise.
“Lauren, if it were true, then I’d understand that not everybody sees things the same way. Heck, even one given person may see things differently at different times.”
B: Doug, every person is not robotic like yourself when it comes to feelings.
Bethany, where the heck did that come from? I’m no more robotic than you are. I just don’t agree with all you say, that’s all.
….
Do you not have any sense of empathy at all? The ability to put yourself in someone else’s place, and imagine how they must be feeling?
Sure, and that’s why I’m Pro-Choice. I have empathy for pregnant women.
Sure, and that’s why I’m Pro-Choice. I have empathy for pregnant women.
Posted by: Doug at December 1, 2008 3:20 PM
empathy means having an understanding of the person’s situation and helping them through this situation in a way that is respectful and does not harm them
abortion does NONE of this and the person who presents this as a solution to a mom experiencing an difficult pregnancy is at the very least misguided.
You need to actually speak with women and men who have experienced truly difficult situations and see how the “choice” other than abortion can be the best.
Bethany: Doug, do you understand why your words to Carla were insulting rather than comforting?
Doug’s response: B, if so, I think it’s because she takes it personally.
Well if this isn’t classic projection of blame. Wow. You continually amaze me Doug.
Doug, I’m very interested to know… have you ever been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome or anything similar? I hope you don’t mind me asking.
Bethany, no, nothing ever close to that. I think you’re seeing a difference in who we empathize with as not being empathetic at all.
And people with Aspergers have the ability to empathize, thank you very much. We just have to learn it instead of it being innate. And to be honest, I think that makes me MORE empathetic.
“Empathy means having an understanding of a person’s situation and helping them through… in a way that is respectful and does not harm them.”
In that case Patricia, then Doug is indeed empahtic by being Pro-Choice. Pro -choice recognizes that every woman’s case is different. It is respectful of her beliefs and choice. Raising a child without adequate support and resources, abortion or giving a baby up for adoption are all difficult choices. They are all “harmful”, but in different degrees to different women. Pro-choice respects that.
You are just looking at it differently.
and Doug, I never said you were involved in an abortion, I merely wondered based on your highly rationalized position on abortion if you were.
:: laughing :: Oh come on, Patricia, what you said was:
He is okay with abortions in each and every case, as long as the woman wants it. It supports his lifestyle.
That was just silly of you to say that, and a far different thing. Good grief…..
Patricia: wth?
Hard to believe you see no difference, there. Abortion supports your lifestyle the same or more than it does mine.
…..
“I realize it’s a matter of opinion, but while I’m fine with “unborn baby” as a term, prior to the blastocyst stage, when it really is “a mass of cells” then “baby” sounds awfully farfetched to me.”
Patricia: it is not just a mass of cells, it is a human being with all the genetic coding of a human person.
That’s silly again, Patricia. I didn’t say it was just a mass of cells. Heck, we’re all “a mass of cells.”
My point was that that’s what it looks like at the time, and it makes a difference to a lot of people, me included. And – good grief – I said I realize it’s a matter of opinion.
no you said it was a blastocyst – implying it is a bunch of cells and therefore NOT a baby….
in fact this is what I said – you believe that personhood is based on what a person LOOKS like. Doug don’t say you didn’t mean this – this is exactly what you meant and you know it. You can deflect it and call me silly but i’ve just pointed out how shallow you are….
Very funny. If there is “shallow” here it’s you not bothering to read what is actually written. But no, you’d rather just plunge ahead in a confused manner, as you often do.
I said nothing about personhood there – that is you just making stuff up, once again. What I said is that before the blastocyst stage, that calling it a “baby” sounds very far-fetched to me. That’s because of the appearance, because of “what it looks like at the time,” as I said.
There is also no absolute “not a baby” any more than there “is a baby” prior to birth. I’ve never said anything to the contrary. I’ve noted that it’s a matter of opinion.
Doug, uf possible, I would like a reply from you.
lol. uf = if
Patricia: Doug: when does the fetus LOOK human enough to you?
P, you tryin’ to keep me busy? ; )
That’s a good question.
http://tinyurl.com/3usuqr
There’s a site that shows how hard it can be to distinguish between embryos.
For the fetus, it looks human to me at 10 – 11 -12 weeks, so pretty much all along for that stage.
…..
Bethany wrote: Was my baby merely a “mass of cells”, Doug? Nothing more? I know you’ve seen the pictures.
“No – there was form there. I’ve said several times that after the blastocyst stage it looks like more than a mass of cells. Also never said “merely,” or similar.’
Patricia: in fact there is “form” there – there is on a microcellular level. The fact that you can’t “see” it doesn’t make it irrelevant. My 16 year old daughter has told me to tell you to stop digging now. The hole you’ve dug is deep enough already. lol
Let’s hope your daughter has better reading comprehension than you do, then, Patricia. I said “looks like.”
Liz: I don’t think Doug can answer you. Even when the unborn child has a heart beat, measurable brain waves, kicks/hiccups in the womb, has HUMAN DNA…..its NOT enough for those who support a woman’s “right” to get rid of a pregnancy that happened “against her will”.
Well, Liz, that too is just plain silly.
You are confusing at least three different things. Heck, probably at least four.
“Looking human” is one thing.
Having human DNA, etc., is another.
Supporting women’s rights in the matter or not is different, also.
As is the consideration of whether getting pregnant was against her will or not.
If you just want to rant and rave, well…..
Doug: Not sure what the nurse means by “viability marker,” but you evidently do not know what the definition of viability is. It’s where an expected 50% of babies will survive.
Segamon: Show me where viability is defined by a 50% chance of survival outside of the womb.
It’s commonly understood to be the point at which there is a 50/50 chance of survival. “The point at which 50% of delivered babies would survive.”
From dictionary.com: “(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.”
“Under normal conditions” would actually put viability well beyond what it’s normally said to be, currently 24 weeks, maybe 23 in a hospital that’s top-rank for preemie care, since such intensive care is certainly not “normal conditions.” Nevertheless, viability is well-understood to be the expected 50/50 survival point.
….
According to the book The Developing Human, “Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in the extrauterine environment… There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable or beyond which survival is assured…”
Right – there is an average for all fetuses.
…..
According to Planned Parenthood: “Viability is a medical, not a legal term. The point of viability varies with each pregnancy and must be determined by physicians on a case-by-case basis…”
Sure, but when we are talking about gestation in general then we’re looking at all fetuses, not case-by-case. Otherwise, though you could say that some live at 21 weeks, for example, others don’t live even at 40 weeks, rendering it useless that way.
…..
Viability, when used as a general term, is intended to mean the earliest point at which it is at all possible for a fetus to survive outside of the womb. When the term is used specifically, each and every fetus is assigned a point of viability. There have been cases of neonates born at 21 weeks and surviving. Thus, my OB instructor’s use of 20 weeks is very accurate. She even noted that although there have been no recorded cases of a neonatal survival at 20 weeks gestation, it is still very possible with today’s technology.
No, you’re talking about the limits of viability, not the actual point of viability. It’s ludicrous to deem “viability” at where 99.999% (for example) of fetuses will die.
…..
Case in point? Your viability definition is flat out wrong. Or, maybe, you can prove me wrong?
http://tinyurl.com/5ktlo4
“There’s a lot of debate over the point of viability in pregnancy, or the length of a pregnancy at which the baby could survive if born prematurely. The usual number is 24 weeks. At that point somewhere around 40% of babies are able to survive, although the experience is certainly nothing to desire — very early premature babies must spend months in an intensive care unit, during which the parents must hold a highly emotional day-to-day vigil that may potentially involve a lot of tense moments wondering whether or not the baby will even make it through the night.”
You’re the first person I’ve ever seen argue about what “viability” means in relation to pregnancies in general, by the way.
…..
You’re just killing your credibility by talk of “murder.”
Murder is defined as “The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.” You choose to focus on “unlawful” while I choose to focus on “killing of one human by another.” Abortion in the United States is NOT unlawful. However, abortion is certainly the killing of a human being. For convenience, I choose to use the word “murder” rather than to type out the entire phrase “killing of another human being.” Gotta love the game of semantics!
Semantics or not doesn’t matter. You gotta have the “illegal” in there or else no murder.
…..
“…a much greater number [of D&Xs] were done from 14 to 21 weeks, of which it would only take a small portion being D & X’s to mean that most D & X’s were done prior to viability.”
I must concede that neither one of us truly knows how many D&Xs are being done. The CDC gathers information that is too vague regarding abortion techniques. The CDC is even more vague in regards to the actual number of specific weeks gestation of late term abortions. I also wish they had the information from ALL 50 states…
Okay, cool, glad you see that.
….
However, the fact that over 12,000 abortions are done at or after 21 weeks should be an outrage (even to you).
Going with viability, it’d be the number of elective abortions after 24 weeks. Tell you what, though, I’d go for a compromise of 20 weeks if you’d promise not to try and restrict women’s rights prior to 20 weeks’ gestation.
Whatever, Bethany. I’m not interested in continuing a conversation if all you’re going to do is try to insult me. I understand biology (which does not dictate what a “child” is so maybe it’s you who needs to be educated), and I will love my children. It is not up to you to decide otherwise.
I didn’t insult you, Leah. And I agree, it’s not up to be to decide whether you will love your children or not.
“I think people are made to struggle, not to have everything “perfect,” etc., or then it wouldn’t be seen as such, that we need sadness and sorrow to feel true joy – stuff like that.”
Okay, this is interesting. Can you expound on this a little bit?
I think that if one problem or even a class of problems was magically “poofed” out of existence, that people would not necessarily be any happier. I guess it’s philosophical. Can we truly feel joy without knowing sorrow? If “joy” was all we knew, it’d then be the norm – would it really still be “joy”?
Regarding viability. The March of Dimes considers a 25 week neonate to have a 50% chance of survival. Does this mean that 25 weeks is considered viability as Doug would suggest? No.
Segamon, that’s a little bit past it for the United States, for hospitals that are decent or better at preemie care.
….
“…most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation.” http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm
What is the survival rate at 24 weeks gestation? 39%.
It’s actually a tad over 50%, again – for good preemie care hospitals in the US.
….
I know that the article on about.com was not written by a medical doctor, but I could not find any written periodical or otherwise that would claim a “point of viability.” This is because viability is usually determination on a case-by-case basis.
So what? When we’re talking about pregnancies in general then case-by-case doesn’t determine it, other than as going into the average. You are looking at the limits of viability, not the point of viability. Yes, at least one baby lived at 21 weeks. And some die at 40 weeks. What are you going to say, that it’s both 21 and 40 weeks? Or that it’s anywhere in there? Come on….
Segamon, believe me – I’ll always reply if I possibly can. Just ask around… ; )
I’m at work and posting on a couple boards besides…
Baby Malachi is said to be of 21 weeks development. My niece was born at 22 weeks 10 years ago and is a healthy and spunky little girl today. The earliest survival was at 21 weeks and 6 days. Viability is usually determined by a case-by-case basis. It is now ridiculous to consider Baby Malachi non-viable. The chance of survival outside of the womb was not negligible for Baby Malachi. The chances might have been stacked against Baby Malachi, but the chance was still there.
Doug: “I think it was prior to viability. If not, then I’m not for elective abortion.”
I would like to take you at your word.
If it was 22 weeks for your niece, you realize that’s extremely high odds, eh?
For 21 weeks, about all that can be said is that it’s not absolutely impossible that the baby would live. Assuming that Malachi would live is far-fetched. Assuming that Malachi would die is all but a sure thing.
Making public policy to the contrary is not something I’m for.
Still, in that one specific case, if we go with the hypothetical of Malachi living then all the better for delivery to be induced, IMO.
In that case Patricia, then Doug is indeed empahtic by being Pro-Choice. Pro -choice recognizes that every woman’s case is different. It is respectful of her beliefs and choice. Raising a child without adequate support and resources, abortion or giving a baby up for adoption are all difficult choices. They are all “harmful”, but in different degrees to different women. Pro-choice respects that.
Well said, Asitis.
Thank you for answering me, Doug. I appreciate it.
Regarding the term murder: if we legalize the killing of 10 year old babies would such killing be or not be murder? Most people would disregard the most common dictionary definition that places “illegal” as a part of it. Most of us, maybe not you, would consider willful killing of a 10 year old child murder whether or not it is legal or not. Thus, since it is fact that the unborn are human beings, the willful killing of such people could easily be defined as murder. There ARE dictionary definitions of murder that do not include the legality of the action (although most do). Gotta love semantics.
You still have not showed me where it is defined that viability, when used generally or even in specific cases, is considered to be true only when there is a 50/50 chance. Most consider using the term viability at 23 weeks when the chance is less than 50/50. Today, many legitimate sources point to 20 weeks, 21 weeks (there is a recorded survival at this stage), and 22 weeks (my own niece was born at this stage and lives today at 10 years old).
Maybe what we can both agree on is that the defining moment that “viability” occurs is different in the minds of many people. The definition does not appear to be widely accepted either. However, whenever I have heard of the term “viability” it is used in the context of “is there any possibility that this fetus could survive outside of the womb.” This is true throughout my education in nursing, in classical physiology classes, and personal experience through research of the topic.
Furthermore, as medical technology advances, the point of viability has progressively been pushed back in fetal development. Prior to the kind of interventions that are possible today, survival even at 36 weeks development was difficult. Now we have a recorded case at 21 weeks and 6 days of development. Soon, if this pattern were to continue, there will be earlier and earlier cases of survival that will occur.
The McGraw Hill source you cite is from 2002. For the case at 21 weeks and 6 days in 2007 follow the link.
For me, defining when a human being is or is not a person based upon a vague and always changing definition of something like viability is unthinkable.
If anyone else can provide clarity on the topic of the term “viability” in regards to fetal survival outside of the womb it would prove to be very useful. Gotta love semantics!
Doug: Going with viability, it’d be the number of elective abortions after 24 weeks. Tell you what, though, I’d go for a compromise of 20 weeks if you’d promise not to try and restrict women’s rights prior to 20 weeks’ gestation.
There can be no compromise with life. The right to life, as given by God Himself, trumps all other rights (especially that of the supposed “right” to abortion).
Baby Malachi’s chances, at the time of the abortion, were almost close to or actually zero. I recognize that. However, a 21 week fetus has a chance to survive outside of the womb today in the most capable NICU’s of the USA. In 10 years maybe 20 week and 19 week fetuses will have a chance of survival.
So, is a human being only able to gain a right to life when there is a greater than 50% chance of survival? Sorry to burst your bubble, but all of us have a 0% chance of survival. We all will die one day. Why the hell should we care about anyone when there is absolutely NO chance of survival?
When there is a chance at saving a life, we should attempt it. For it is God who decides when we will die. God asks us to help others to survive and to live their lives in peace.
If we continue down your mindset we will eventually start to rationalize how it would be okay to let a 14 year old car crash victim die without medical intervention because there is only a 40% chance of survival.
Let’s hope your daughter has better reading comprehension than you do, then, Patricia. I said “looks like.”
Posted by: Doug at December 1, 2008 4:48 PM
yes we know all about your views on “looks” Doug. A person must look like a person and baby must look like a baby to be one. Yeah, right.
There is also no absolute “not a baby” any more than there “is a baby” prior to birth. I’ve never said anything to the contrary. I’ve noted that it’s a matter of opinion.
Posted by: Doug at December 1, 2008 4:07 PM
so you are saying that there is NO point before birth where we can say that there IS definitely a baby. Really, stop being so intellectually stupid and dishonest.ok, just for one moment in your life Doug, try to actively seek and know what is right and the truth. Please. You are such a small small man.
asitis: the empathy you believe in and Doug believes in involves the death of the child. That is not empathy that is hatred and cruelty and it is barbaric. so very sad that you as a woman believe in this stuff…. really….
Patricia, give it a rest. You know my position on abortion. Have some respect for the fact that while my belief is different than yours, I am not cruel, I am not barabaric. And I am no less a woman, no less a mother than you are.
Thank you Doug! And speaking of looks, I noticed the photos and I must say .. very dashing!
And I am no less a woman, no less a mother than you are.
you are not living up to your vocation as a woman nor as a mother if you support the killing of any woman’s child as a solution to a difficult pregnancy, asitis. And you know it!
C’mon Patricia… you know that you and I will never agree on this. You go so far as to say that contraception is killing a child. Not living up to my vocation as a woman? That’s a good one.
Please don’t try and tell me what I know.
Segamon: Regarding the term murder: if we legalize the killing of 10 year old babies would such killing be or not be murder?
You pick a rather far-flung hypothetical, but yes, wouldn’t be murder. Has to be illegal.
….
Most people would disregard the most common dictionary definition that places “illegal” as a part of it. Most of us, maybe not you, would consider willful killing of a 10 year old child murder whether or not it is legal or not. Thus, since it is fact that the unborn are human beings, the willful killing of such people could easily be defined as murder.
No, you, like me and like everybody else I know of, would think it was wrong. It’s still the law that makes for murder or not. And, even when abortion was illegal in the US, it wasn’t murder.
…..
There ARE dictionary definitions of murder that do not include the legality of the action (although most do). Gotta love semantics.
Yeah, like “he murdered the baseball.” Big whoop.
…..
You still have not showed me where it is defined that viability, when used generally or even in specific cases, is considered to be true only when there is a 50/50 chance. Most consider using the term viability at 23 weeks when the chance is less than 50/50. Today, many legitimate sources point to 20 weeks, 21 weeks (there is a recorded survival at this stage), and 22 weeks (my own niece was born at this stage and lives today at 10 years old).
No, not “specific cases.” And it indeed is the 50/50 point. What else would make sense? Why would 20 weeks be included, if no babies have survived?
Again, by your logic, we can pick any point between the earliest and the latest, because you are really talking about the limits of viability, not the expected point of it. 21’s the lower limit and there have probably been babies at 45 weeks or more that died….
Bethany wrote: Was my baby merely a “mass of cells”, Doug? Nothing more? I know you’ve seen the pictures.
“No – there was form there. I’ve said several times that after the blastocyst stage it looks like more than a mass of cells. Also never said “merely,” or similar.’
Patricia: in fact there is “form” there – there is on a microcellular level. The fact that you can’t “see” it doesn’t make it irrelevant. My 16 year old daughter has told me to tell you to stop digging now. The hole you’ve dug is deep enough already. lol
Let’s hope your daughter has better reading comprehension than you do, then, Patricia. I said “looks like.”
yes we know all about your views on “looks” Doug. A person must look like a person and baby must look like a baby to be one. Yeah, right.
Patricia, you’re still squirming around and trying to change things. It wasn’t about personhood. It was about one person’s opinion on when does it start looking like a “baby.”
“There is also no absolute “not a baby” any more than there “is a baby” prior to birth. I’ve never said anything to the contrary. I’ve noted that it’s a matter of opinion.”
Patricia: so you are saying that there is NO point before birth where we can say that there IS definitely a baby.
No, yet again you are wrong. You can say anything. You can call it a baby from conception. It’s a subjective matter. Your opinion is up to you.
…..
Really, stop being so intellectually stupid and dishonest.ok, just for one moment in your life Doug,
:: laughing :: Good grief, do you have a mirror? ; )
…..
try to actively seek and know what is right and the truth. Please.
This is just more of you pretending that your opinion has to somehow be magically “right,” and that’s just not true.
You are such a small small man.
Big enough to know baloney when I see it, and lately you’ve been doing Oscar Mayer proud.
It was about one person’s opinion on when does it start looking like a “baby.”
Posted by: Doug at December 1, 2008 6:50 PM
regardless Doug, when it looks like a baby – why does this matter. In fact, it doesn’t. And you know it.
And what should a baby look like Doug? If it is missing arms or eyes or kidneys or it doesn’t look like a baby is supposed to does that mean it’s not a baby.
I’m not the one squirming around trying to change things lol – you are the one who is squirming – a baby has to look like a baby to be a baby. yeah, right.
————————————————
I have not commented on contraception on this thread, asitis. But to promote abortion as an option to a woman troubled by a difficult pregnancy – that is cruel and not womanly at all.
For me, defining when a human being is or is not a person based upon a vague and always changing definition of something like viability is unthinkable.
Okay, Segamon, but that is a different matter.
….
If anyone else can provide clarity on the topic of the term “viability” in regards to fetal survival outside of the womb it would prove to be very useful. Gotta love semantics!
Again, you’re the only person ever to have really argued about what it means here.
I hear you on improved medical technology and techniques, but we’re getting up against the lungs not being developed enough to sustain life outside the womb, a huge hurdle to overcome.
…..
“Going with viability, it’d be the number of elective abortions after 24 weeks. Tell you what, though, I’d go for a compromise of 20 weeks if you’d promise not to try and restrict women’s rights prior to 20 weeks’ gestation.”
There can be no compromise with life. The right to life, as given by God Himself, trumps all other rights (especially that of the supposed “right” to abortion)
There’s compromise all the time. If you’re not amenable, then I say leave it at 24 or 26 weeks, as the states which restrict abortion have it.
Your unprovable beliefs in no way are necessarily applicable to other people, and they do not constitute good reasons to take away the freedom that women have in the matter.
“It was about one person’s opinion on when does it start looking like a “baby.”
Patricia: regardless Doug, when it looks like a baby – why does this matter. In fact, it doesn’t. And you know it.
This is turning into an unfocused rant by you, P, and nothing more.
Bethany asked me what I thought. That’s the deal.
Oh sorry Patricia… didn’t know there was a rule about not referring to what someone says they believe in a different thread. I thought if you beleived it so strongly a few days ago you would still believe it.
When did I say I “promote” abortion as an option to a woman in need Patricia? Hey,I have never actually been in that position. Do I belive women should have the option of an abortion? Yes. As do many, many other women!
Do I belive women should have the option of an abortion? Yes. As do many, many other women!
Posted by: asitis at December 1, 2008 7:12 PM
that is my point asitis. abortion is not an option – it destroys one of the most important parts of a woman’s vocation – that of a mother.
to kill a child, can never and ought never to be THE option for a mother. Once she is pregnant, she will always be the mother of a child – abortion simply makes her the mother of a dead child and I fail to see how this makes her better off or alleviates her sitaution.
Fine. Exactly. We ( and that’s the big WE) just happen to disagree.
Fine. Exactly. We ( and that’s the big WE) just happen to disagree.
Posted by: asitis at December 1, 2008 7:31 PM
very sad. That it would come to women offering other women this kind of support. *sigh*
Thanks Patricia.
\
Really asitis! Try this on for size:
1. Sweden has one of the highest incidences of rape in the world
2. There is more crime in Sweden than in New York CITY
3. Sweden has one of the highest crime rates with high incidences of highway robbery and burglary which often go unreported since the police are overwhelmed and often corrupt – another significant problem unique to Sweden’s liberal country.
4. Swedens hate crime law requires no evidence of incitement to violence and does not define “respect towards minorities”.
5. As the moral climate in Sweden continues to unravel, bestiality is on the rise. The favoured animal appears to be horses. Animal welfare advocates are not concerned with the morality of the acts, rather that the animals may be hurt. BTW, bestiality, like abortion and same sex marriage is not illegal in Sweden.
6. Since marriage is now rare in Sweden, divorce statistics are no longer reliable. However studies of couples married or not in Scandanavia demonstrate that couples cohabitating break up at a rate of 2 to 3 times that of married couples.
7. Between 1990-2000 Sweden’s out of wedlock birthrate rose from 47 to 55 %.
8. No Western
Thanks patricia. The media paints sweden as so fine. No facts but just propoganda.
Yeh, Patricia already tried to pass that off on me. Problem is, she has refused to provide the reference. Are you willing to zppc?
And BTW, my impression of Sweden does not come from the “evil elite MSM”. It comes from personal experience. Can you say the same?
this is not about personal impressions asitis -anyone can visit a country and get a “personal” experience of the country but it may not reflect what is going on…
it is about social research being done to understand why the family unit is unraveling so fast in Sweden compared to other western nations.
after all, when you walk down the street how can you tell by looking at the couples and children just what is going on socially and demographically
Uhhhhhhh…. How about having good friends that live in Sweden, raising their own family Patricia????? How about visting them there and living in their home?
I guess that ends that!
Funny though, still no one willing to say where that list (supposedly about Sweden) comes from…..
“after all, when you walk down the street how can you tell by looking at the couples and children just what is going on socially and demographically
Posted by: Patricia at December 1, 2008 8:33 PM”
I’m going to guess it’s the same way you know having gay parents is terrible for kids, right? :)
Josephine.
You are correct. Every child deserves a mother and father. Were you being sarcastic?
I’m starting to care less about semantics right now.
I don’t know why an OB nurse of 25 years who teaches OB nursing would lie to me…
I also don’t know why there is a definition of murder such as “2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.”
Regarding helping those less than 22 weeks to survive, it may very well be very hard to accomplish but it certainly is possible.
Oh well. Discussion at this point is useless. Thank you for your time Doug. If you really want to further the debate, let me know.
Yeh Josephine…Pretty safe to say some of these people don’t have good friends that are a gay couple raising a family! Or even have good friends or family members that are gay (well not openly gay, anyway). It’s too bad……….
Actually, asitis, that is not true. You’re just making assumptions again. I could just as likely make the assumption that you have no Christian friends.
Many of us against homosexual marriage, etc have gay friends. It’s the same thing as having a friend who engages in any sin. We have friends who are adulterers, we have friends who have drinking problems, we have friends who have engaged in many other sins.
Just because we are against a sin doesn’t mean we hate the people who do them.
Doug, I’m not ignoring you….just got a busy day today and will have to respond to your posts later on! :)
The way that you equate the love between two people with alcoholism and “other sins” says it all Bethany.
Those who write here that homosexual love is false or that it’s no better than beastiality or pedophilia cannot possibly have any real exposure to a gay couple or a gay person.
Oh, and I do know many Christians Bethany. I understand them. I was actually brought up Catholic. It’s just not for me.
I’m going to guess it’s the same way you know having gay parents is terrible for kids, right? :)
Posted by: Josephine at December 1, 2008 10:20 PM
research has proven this AND we have lots of testimony from adult children raised in homosexual homes attesting to the abusive environment….
of course, I expect that will not change your liberal mind Josephine.
Not surprised you are a lapsed Catholic asitis, so is Josephine.
This board seems to attract lapsed Catholics who insist they have the truth on the world and persons with same-sex attraction who also claim to have the corner on the truth.
Us poor misguided practicing Catholics and Christians are just soooo ignorant.
I prefer the term “recovering Catholic” Patricia!
And this night not be news to you, but there are many practising (I wrote it Canadian-style just for you!) Catholics that feel very differently about abortion, contraception and homosexuality than you do. I happen to know some of them… very well.
if by recovering you mean returning to the full practice of the faith, then that is great.
but I doubt that’s what you mean Virginia.
You should not call yourself Catholic if you do not believe in the tenets of the faith nor practice it’s teachings: that is if you use contraceptives, promote abortion, euthanasia, IVF, cohabitation etc.
Please find a faith that mirrors your views and belong to that group rather than pretending you are Catholic. You are not.
Asitis, I believe that homosexuality is a psychological problem which results many times from abuse, sexual, emotional, and/or physical, in childhood.
Abused children many times grow up to be abusers themselves. Which explains to me why there is such a great number of homosexual parents who are abusers.
And many children are not protected because people prefer to protect the abusers under the guise of political correctness- this example from England explains how this can happen:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562313/%27Fear-of-prejudice%27-let-gay-carers-abuse-boys.html
Oh, and I do know many Christians Bethany. I understand them. I was actually brought up Catholic. It’s just not for me.
You obviously didn’t get my point which was how absurd it is for you to assume that we all do not have friends who are gay because we oppose their lifestyle. I was showing you that it would be just as absurd for me to assume you had no Christian friends because you oppose their lifestyle.
Uhhhhhhh…. How about having good friends that live in Sweden, raising their own family Patricia????? How about visting them there and living in their home?
Posted by: asitis at December 1, 2008 8:53 PM
yes and my girlfriend’s husband comes from sweden which is why their son went back to sweden for is exchange.
His observations were from living with families including his own relations and seeing that many of these families were common-law and also having very few children. There were also many single parent families. He felt the culture was very pagan. Sweden only ever had a thin veneer of christianity anyway and seems to have returned full force to it’s pagan heritage.
My daughter’s teacher went to live in Scotland two years ago and came back recently. She could not believe how pornified the culture is over in the UK. Of course we had this experience first hand ourselves when this teacher tried to set up penpals between the children here and in the UK. I had to ban my daughter from viewing her penpal’s MySpace page which was covered with porn – porn video’s , porn icons, porn emoticons and so forth. If you wonder what I mean by porn – sexually explicit videos showing people making love, emoticons showing a man ‘doing’ a woman from behind, scantily clad women/men in obscene positions etc. Oh did I mention the girl and my daughter were 12 at the time. And we were not the only ones. The teacher had to write her contact in Scotland (the north area) and ask her to tell the children NOT to provide myspace links as they were “unsuitable” for the children over here. All they were to provide was email addys.
A co-worker’s husband returned from his native Germany in the summer – he spent 4 weeks there doing research. He was appalled at how the men treat women in the workplace. Sexual overtures and rude comments are the norm. Men regularly make advances to women and vice versa. He was very taken aback by it and felt sick about the vulgarity and crassness in German society. When he would tell the women he was married the attitude was “so what”. He was unsure whether he had changed as a man (he’s married with a fourth baby on the way – no contraception for these people!) or whether society had just bottomed out. We figure the latter.
You simply don’t make a case to me Virginia. The points I’ve made about Sweden are all from valid research papers but I will NOT be providing links or names for the reasons I stated above. Perhaps it gives me less credibility but I see that you as a liberal do not like it when your own liberal tactics are turned on you and used against you.
It doesn’t really matter anyway, because the proof is in the Swedish stats and you would never except any journal source I provide as rigorous enough.
Good post, Patricia… that is sick that your daughter’s pen pal would have a Myspace with porn on it. How can a parent get to the point where they think it’s okay for their child to view such filth?
Bethany: I simply believe that this stuff is part of the adult’s life too. Thus, they really don’t see it as being wrong- they are desensitized to it. The interesting thing is that the Scottish teacher was very put out about it all. Because it wasn’t just me complaining but many parents.
This teacher told me that she had a very hard time controlling the kids who would tell her to shut-up or simply get up and leave the classroom without permission. (and this teacher is a hard-ass strict Catholic woman – a real woman of the Catholic faith)
Of course European culture has always been much more liberal than North American culture – but that liberality has now gone to such extremes that it has corrupted most of it’s members apparently.
Those who write here that homosexual love is false or that it’s no better than beastiality or pedophilia cannot possibly have any real exposure to a gay couple or a gay person.
How can you say that beastiality is wrong when you have never been exposed to a person who has engaged in it?
Who are you to say that true love between a human and an animal can’t exist? Who are you to say this woman doesn’t truly love her dolphin?
I’m interested in your answers, Virginia.
Patricia, 8:30, that’s sad.
I guess I’ll have to come back later, as much as I want to stay and discuss this further. I’ve got so much to do today, and I’ve already been here longer than I should have. lol Have a great day, Virginia and Patricia. :)
Oh, and I do know many Christians Bethany. I understand them. I was actually brought up Catholic. It’s just not for me.
You obviously didn’t get my point which was how absurd it is for you to assume that we all do not have friends who are gay because we oppose their lifestyle. I was showing you that it would be just as absurd for me to assume you had no Christian friends because you oppose their lifestyle.
Posted by: Bethany at December 2, 2008 8:04 AM
good point Bethany. But you realize of course that the liberal proaborts have THE corner on the truth. I just wanted to make sure that you understood this Bethany! *sarcasm alert*
Wow. glad I was at the gym for all that. I’ll try to cover it all…
Bethany, that’s an interesting little theory you’ve come up with about homosexuality. Care to share with us anything to support your claim that “a great number of homosexual parents… are abusers”?
The reason I assume that you do not have a any good friends or family members that are openly gay is because you demonstrate a lack of understanding of gay people.
And finally, as for your comments on beastiality.. well, they are just nonsense and I won’t bother. It’s a disturbing fascination some of you have with beastiality.
Now Patricia…. your refusal to name the reference for those so-called facts on Sweden that you and xppc have cited here is absurd. You know as well as I do that they do not come from a “valid research paper”. Otherwise you would name the source. In the words of Carla, I double-dog dare you.
One thing that we can agree on is Sweden has a very low teenage pregnancy rate (2%). That’s a goal this country is working toward. We could learn something from them.
I agree with both you and Bethany that some of the stuff that you see on young people’s Faceboook and MySpace pages is totally unacceptable and disturbing. But don’t say it only happens in the UK. I’ve seen the same kind of thing here in the US.
And finally Patricia, I don’t pretend I’m Catholic. I’ve already told you I am an agnostic. But be careful about those practising Catholics that you claim aren’t real Catholics. Without them YOU’D be travelling over an hour to find a Catholic church!
Segamon: I don’t know why an OB nurse of 25 years who teaches OB nursing would lie to me…
I’m not saying she is. But the earliest limit is no more the point of viability in general any more than the latest limit is.
…..
I also don’t know why there is a definition of murder such as “2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.”
Because there are plenty of colloquialisms that make it into the dictionary. We often see the language “murdered” here, in fact.
…..
Regarding helping those less than 22 weeks to survive, it may very well be very hard to accomplish but it certainly is possible.
Possible to some extent at the present time, though it almost never works out that way. In the long run, we need an artificial womb and or a breathable fluid for life support.
……
Doug, I’m not ignoring you….just got a busy day today and will have to respond to your posts later on! :)
:: chuckling :: No problem, Bethany. I should be doing other stuff too….
Virginia, glad to oblige:
Homosexual Child Molestations By Foster Parents: Illinois, 1997-2002
Abstract: Do those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately sexually abuse foster or adoptive children as reported by child protective services? Illinois child services reported sexual abuse for 1997 through 2002. 270 parents committed “substantiated” sexual offenses against foster or subsidized adoptive children: 67 (69%) of 97 mother and 148 (86%) of 173 father perpetrators sexually abused girls; 30 (31%) mother and 25 (14%) of father perpetrators sexually abused boys (i.e., 92 [34%] of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges). 15 of these parents both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 mothers and 4 fathers, sons by 3 mothers (i.e., same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%). Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to sexually abuse foster or adoptive children.
In a general population random sample of 3,714 adults from five metropolitan areas, Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Larson, Forde, & Cameron (1986) listed 6 (0.2%) reported “serious sexual advances” (p., 329) against them by a foster parent [3 homosexual against girls; 3 heterosexual: 1 against a boy, 2 against girls] – that is, 6 (0.59%) of 1,021 “serious sexual advances” reported by various caretakers. One woman also reported that his advance led to “sexual contact” with a male foster parent – that is, 0.27% of 369 “sexual contacts” reported with various caretakers/relatives. Of these 6 sexual interactions, all of which would presumably have been actionable, 3 were homosexual. On their face, t hese results seem to validate traditional concerns about sexual recruitment of children by homosexuals (Levitt & Klassen, 1974). In 1987, the National Association of Social Workers [NASW] ignored this finding and without proffering any evidence to the contrary, passed a resolution decrying “resistance to using single parents, …including lesbian and gay parents, as potential foster care and adoption resources.”
In what appears to be the second empirical study bearing on the issue, 14 years of news stories about foster parent molestation of charges in the 50 largest circulation newspapers in the English-speaking world was reviewed (Cameron, 2003). 12 (57%) of the 21 male and 3 of the 4 female perpetrators (e.g., 15 [60%] of the 25 perpetrators) in these stories homosexually molested their charges.
Two studies – one from a sample of victims, the other from a sample of stories about victims and perpetrators — indicated that perhaps half of foster parent molestations were upon members of the same sex. Would about the same fraction of homosexual molestations obtain if the data was collected and reported by child protective services?
Method
Responding to a Freedom of Information Act Request, the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services provided a complete list of “substantiated physical or sexual abuse” by perpetrator’s sex as well as the sex of victim(s) for 1997 through 2002. Marital status of parent perpetrators is not recorded in Illinois and number of children abused per perpetrator or whether multiple perpetrators violated the same child was not available. Behavior is potentially observable, thus ‘objective’ unlike an individual’s feelings or subject to dispute as a psychiatrist’s diagnosis. As Ross, Essien, Williams, & Fenandez-Esquer (2003) noted “sexual behavior is not always adequately represented by self-labeling of sexual identity” (p. 113), and because of this most recent population surveys have indexed behavior rather than reported ‘identity’ (e.g., Spira, Bajos & the ACSF group, 1994; Wellings, Field, Johnson, Wadsworth, 1994; Anderson, Wilson, Barker, Doll, Jones, & Holtgrave, 1999). Since the meaning of a homosexual is “sexual relations between persons of the same sex” (1992 New Illustrated Webster’s Dictionary ), and in the 1996 Centers for Disease Control [CDC] national sexuality survey ‘homosexual’ was defined as someone who had sex with their sex irrespective of age of partner (Anderson, et al., 1999), it seemed sensible to use “ homosexual” behaviorally and descriptively – referring to those who have sex with their sex — irrespective of age of partner.
Considering those who sexually interact with the underage as ‘pedophiles’ is not particularly useful. Bell & Weinberg (1978) asked 671 homosexual men and 288 homosexual women from a quasi-random sample in San Francisco about the proportions of their homosexual partners who “were 16 or younger when you were 21 or older” (p. 311). Of the men, 77% said “none,” 23% said “half or less,” and none said “more than half;” of the women, 94% said “none,” 3.8% said “half or less,” and none said “more than half.” While, 156 (23%) of the men and 11 (4%) of the women admitted to having had some sex with children, none was a “pedophile” in the sense of only having had sex with or could only have sex with children.
Results
There were 963 offenders whose kind of abuse and sex of victim(s) were known (2 mothers physically abused children of unspecified sex, an offender of unknown sex abused child[ren] of unknown sex in an unspecified way). Substantiated sexual abuse was reported for 270 parents: 67 (69%) of 97 mothers and 148 (86%) of 173 fathers sexually abused girls; 30 mothers and 25 fathers sexually abused boys (i.e., 92 [34%] homosexually abused their charges). Substantiated physical abuse was found for 708 parents: 268 (49%) of 544 mothers and 68 (41%) of 164 fathers physically abused daughters; 276 mothers and 96 fathers physically abused sons (i.e., 52%of perpetrators abused boys). 15 parents both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 mothers and 4 fathers, and sons by 3 mothers (i.e., when both forms of abuse were substantiated, same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%).
On average, yearly there were 60,093 children in 4,300 foster- or adoption-subsidized homes in Illinois. For the 6-year period, 966 parents engaged in “substantiated” abuse after an investigation was conducted. Assuming one perpetrator per home, per year, children were sexually abused in about 1% (45/4,300) and physically abused in about 3% (118/4,300). Physical abuse occurred in 6% of the homes where sexual abuse occurred, sexual abuse occurred in 2% of homes where physical abuse occurred.
Discussion
Illinois is the sixth largest state with about 12 million inhabitants and is slightly more urban than the U.S. as a whole. The Illinois rates, which do not include neglect, appear similar to the national average of 6.1% for “child abuse and neglect” reported by the U.S. Health and Human Services (Branigin, 2003).
Estimates of the proportion of adults who have engaged in homosexual sex in the past 12 months vary. The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse/CDC study (www.icpsr.umich.edu/samhda) estimated that 1.2% of those aged 18 to 59 reported sex with a member of their sex [no age specified] in the past 12 months, other estimates put the number at around 2-3% (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994).
Ottawa, Canada was among the first jurisdictions to aggressively recruit homosexual foster parents. As of October 24, 2002, 9 of 278 Ottawa’s approved foster homes included known homosexuals, and two of these homes had not yet been given a foster-child (Brooks, 2002), i.e., less than 3% of Ottawa’s placements were homosexual. Thus, those who engage in sex with their own sex appear to be employed as foster- and adoptive-parents in proportions at or below their presence in the general population.
The proportion of molestations of foster children that were homosexual in the general population survey by Cameron, et al . (1986) was 50%, while the proportion of molestations of foster children that were homosexual in 14 years of newspaper stories about foster parent molestations was 60% (Cameron, 2003). The Illinois material collected and reported by that state’s child protective services — 34% homosexual — was lower than either of the two published estimates. The prior 2 estimates were based upon small numbers of data points – 6 in Cameron, et al ., 1986 and 25 in Cameron, 2003. It is therefore tempting to believe that the 270 data points reported from Illinois results in an estimate closer to the ‘real, underlying proportion’ – but further studies will be required to be more certain as to which estimate is closest. Nonetheless, the disproportionality of the homosexual footprint was evident in each dataset. These three methods, though differing in their estimates of homosexual molestation, tend to cross-validate each other. As such, support for abandoning the tradition of excluding homosexuals as foster parents as recommended by the NASW was not found.
References
Anderson, J.E., Wilson, R. W., Barker, P., Doll, L., Jones, T.S., & Holtgrave, D. (1999) Prevalence of sexual and drug-related HIV risk behaviors in the U.S. adult population: results of the 1996 national household survey on drug abuse. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 21, 148-156.
Bell, A. P. & Weinberg, M. S. (1978) Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women . New York: Simon & Schuster.
Branigin, W. (2003) Officials assess county child welfare system. Washington Post , 7/10/03, p. TO3.
Brooks, M. (2002) CAS seeks gay foster parents: Move reflects changing face of Canadian family. Ottawa Citizen , 10/24/02, p. Al.
Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, W., Larson, H., Forde, N., & Cameron, K. (1986) Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Reports , 38, 327-337.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., Michaels, S. (1994) The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States . Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
Levitt, E.E., & Klassen, A.D., Jr. (1974). Public Attitudes toward homosexuality: part of the 1970 national survey by the Institute for Sex Research. Journal of Homosexuality , 1, 29-43.
Ross, M. W., Essien, E. J., Williams, M. L., & Fernandez-Esquer, M. E. (2003) Concordance between sexual behavior and sexual identity in street outreach samples of four racial/ethnic groups. Sexually Transmitted Disease 30,110-113.
Spira, A., Bajos, N. & the ACSF group. (1994) Sexual behaviour and AIDS . Aldershot: Avebury.
Wellings, K., Field, .J, Johnson, A. M., Wadsworth, J. (1994) Sexual behaviour in Britain: the national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London: Penguin.
Note: IllinoisLeader.com filed the freedom of information act (FOIA) request.
***********************
Study finds disproportionate foster abuse by ‘gays’
[COMMENT: If only 3/100 persons are homosexual, but 34/100 abused foster children are abused by homosexual persons, then it would appear that an abused person is over 11 times more likely to be abused by a homosexual person than by a heterosexual person.
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43118
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
34% of sexual molestations of foster children were same-sex
Posted: March 2, 2005 2:45 p.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A six-year study of sexual abuse committed by foster parents in Illinois found a highly disproportionate percentage of the cases were homosexual in nature.
About one-third were same-sex while estimates are that no more than 3 percent of people in the general population say they engage in homosexual acts.
An article in the March issue of the peer-reviewed publication Psychological Reports presented data analyzed by Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of the Colorado-based Family Research Institute.
Cameron believes it’s likely the Illinois figures reflect the situation among the nation’s estimated half-million foster children.
“What’s shocking, is that 34 percent of the molestations were homosexual,” Cameron told the Illinois Leader.
According to a DCFS spokeswoman, the agency does not track the sexual orientation of prospective foster or adoptive parents.
“We track our foster and adoptive parents on the basis of their being single or married. That’s it,” Marjorie Newman told the paper last year.
The agency would not say whether the information would lead to a change in policy.
The study showed 1 percent of Illinois foster and subsidized-adoption children are molested and 3 percent are abused physically every year.
“Professional societies are so taken with gay rights they are ignoring the evidence,” said Cameron. “Just last year, the American Psychological Association [APA] declared opposition to ‘discrimination against lesbian or gay parents adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care and reproductive health services.'”
Cameron added, “How does the APA answer this new evidence?”
Last year, Newman said the DCFS does not “discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, sexual preference. There is no law that says that a gay or lesbian person cannot adopt.”
The Leader acquired information from DCFS through the Freedom of Information Act indicating most sexual abuse of children was by foster fathers, but that foster mothers were responsible for over three-fourths of physical abuse.
The study found 966 foster parents violated their charges. Of those who engaged in both physical and sexual abuse, eight of the 15 abused children of their own sex.
Cameron said Illinois, which has about 60,000 children in 4,300 foster or adoption-subsidized homes, was the first state to disclose details about abuse.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page;=> Homosexuality Library; => ROAD MAP
The reason I assume that you do not have a any good friends or family members that are openly gay is because you demonstrate a lack of understanding of gay people.
And finally, as for your comments on bestiality.. well, they are just nonsense and I won’t bother. It’s a disturbing fascination some of you have with bestiality.
Why is it nonsense? I think it is a legitimate question- just as legitimate as your question about whether my knowing a gay person personally would change my views about their lifestyle.
And by the way, YOU brought up bestiality, not me. So who’s obsessed?
Please answer the questions, or at least explain why you feel they are nonsensical.
Or else I will be forced to assume that you do not have a any good friends or family members that are openly into bestiality and therefore this is why you demonstrate a lack of understanding of those people. :-P
Okay I will be back tomorrow to finish discussing more!
Thanks for the references Bethany. But they don’t support your claim that “a greater number of homosexual parents are abusers”. Istead, these studies found that foster children are more likely to be abused by a pedophile foster parent of the same sex.
It’s not so hard to imagine why this happens. I believe you are correct in claiming that abused children grow up to be abusers. It makes sense w then that this abuser is more likely to assault someone of his/her own sex. But this is not to be confused with homosexuality. This is pedophila Bethany.
I wanted to take this time to thank Doug for being respectful in debate. There are numerous people that can be very disrespectful in debates. God bless you.
Bethany, I did some searching for (valid) scientific research to support your claim about homosexuals molesting in children. I had never heard this claim before and my review above of the research you sent me was my own.
I didn’t find any support for your claim, but I did find something you should read:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
And about Paul Cameron, whose research is mistaken for valid by non-scientists:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html association in his field for
Note that Cameron has been dropped by the American and Canadian Sociological Associations for misrepresentation of research.http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
Sorry, here’s the last link again:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
Asitis, those articles were written by Gregory Herek, who’s whole mission in life is being an “authority” on the prejudice against lesbians and gays. In fact, I would not be surprised if Gregory is gay himself. Here is a brief description of Gregory’s other works:
“An internationally recognized authority on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, hate crimes and anti-gay violence, and AIDS-related stigma, he has published numerous scholarly articles on these topics. His edited and coedited books include Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men (1992, Sage Publications), AIDS, Identity, and Community: HIV and Lesbians and Gay Men (Sage, 1995), Out in Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military (University of Chicago Press, 1996), Stigma and Sexual Orientation (Sage, 1998), and a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist on “AIDS and Stigma” (1999). He is currently writing a book on sexual prejudice, which will be published by the University of Chicago Press. ”
So, this guy’s whole mission is to blow apart anything which casts gay people in a negative light. He is not objective and therefore the article against Cameron is biased. Cameron’s work was peer reviewed.
And you put words in my mouth when you said that I said “greater”. I never said that. I said a “great number”.
To quote:
“Abused children many times grow up to be abusers themselves. Which explains to me why there is such a great number of homosexual parents who are abusers. ”
And just think about it, Asitis. If the homosexual community only takes up about 3 percent of the population, and yet they take up about half of the molestation cases…that makes them much more likely to be abusers than heterosexuals.
It makes sense w then that this abuser is more likely to assault someone of his/her own sex. But this is not to be confused with homosexuality. This is pedophila Bethany.
Why do you say that it makes sense for an abused victim to assault someone from his/her sex if not homosexual?
I had asked:
“Doug, would you ever tell an anorexic woman who is on the verge of death that she needs to start eating, for her own health? Would you ever tell a mother addicted to crack that she should visit a rehab center for her own good and for her children? Would you ever tell a depressed bulemic girl to stop forcing herself to throw up and get counseling, for her own good?”
Doug responded,
“Bethany, sure.”
Okay, Doug. This is what I was expecting you to say. After all, who wouldn’t, if they cared?
But the problem here is that in the first case you have a case of a woman who WANTS to starve herself, and DESIRES to starve herself (doesn’t matter what the reason is, right). According to your abortion logic, whatever a woman chooses to do to her body is the best thing for her, no matter what. Why is it not the best thing for the anorexic girl to do what she wants, and starve herself to death?
In the second case and third case, it’s the same story. The woman addicted to drugs though is not only hurting herself, but she is hurting her family by taking drugs. But, she is making a choice of what to do with HER body, therefore, she can do no wrong making the choice to drug herself every day, according to your abortion logic. The bulemic girl, though she may end up with a destroyed esophagus and her teeth may rot out of her head, not to mention all of the emotional problems she will carry with her the rest of her life, is merely making a choice of what to do with her body, and according to your abortion logic, stepping in and telling her she could get help for her own good is pressuring her and not allowing her to have a free choice with her own bodily autonomy.
I had written:
“Believing that anything that a person wants is automatically good for them is unrealistic. Helping women choose against abortion is not a bad thing. And just because a woman wants an abortion doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for her.”
Doug responded:
You don’t know that, though. Maybe choosing to have an abortion is the best thing for her, and maybe she’s right in thinking that she should have one.
Then, in the same line of logic, maybe a woman choosing anorexia is the best thing for her. To die out of starvation could be the best thing for her, because she made a choice that she made willingly. Right? No reason to tell her what she should do with her body. No reason to tell her to eat something and get counseling.
No argument about the other cases you presented, and were I to know a given woman pretty well, I too would likely have an opinion about whether having an abortion or not would be the best thing in her situation.
Why don’t you have to know the anorexic woman, the bulemic woman, the overdrugged woman before making the decision to step in and say something? Don’t you think maybe you should know the given woman pretty well and know whether those problems are the best thing for their situations?
But to generalize about it, either way, is going to miss the truth a lot of times.
So…would you carry that logic to the situations I have presented?
Bethany, you continue to mistake pedophilia for homosexuality.
Homosexuals do NOT make up half of the population of child molesters. Rather, half the population of child molesters abuse children of their same sex.
I don’t know if your claims against G. Herek are justified. But there is the issue of Cameron being banned from his own discipline’s professional associations due to misrepresentation of research. That says more than anything.
I had written:
“Doug, do you understand why your words to Carla were insulting rather than comforting?”
Doug responded:
“B, if so, I think it’s because she takes it personally.”
Okay, Doug…then I ask you again. WHY do you think she takes it personally?
Is it delusions? Is it paranoia? What do you think it is?
I had written:
“I really think that you don’t actually understand or see what the problem is. You say you’re sorry, that you think she’s a great lady, etc…and you think you’ve come off really nicely. When you tell a woman that you’re sorry she’s sad about her loss, but then you say that her feeling are “just as valid” as the woman who killed her baby and doesn’t care, do you have any idea what the implications are there? It’s basically just the same as spitting in her face and saying, “You didn’t lose a baby. It was a worthless piece of nothing. But I am sorry that you feel that you lost something.”
Doug responded:
“I don’t agree with that. It’s not spitting in her face, and it’s not saying she was wrong about how she felt or feels. I’ve never said that “it was a worthless piece of nothing” – nothing even close to that.”
You say that it’s not a baby. That’s enough, Doug. It’s the same thing.
Doug had continued:
“I know full well how much some people want kids, consider the unborn to be kids, love kids, are happy to be pregnant, and want the pregnancy to continue, etc.”
But what you don’t understand is that saying their kids can be legally killed and advocating the right to kill their kids at the same stage that Carla mourns her baby’s loss, is the same as saying her child is worthless. Do you understand how something can be directly implied without you saying it right out?
Doug wrote:
“If there is a “wrong” here it would be saying “you’re incorrect to feel as you do,” just as it’s wrong to tell a woman who doesn’t regret it that she’s a “murderer,” that “there’s something wrong with her,” etc.”
Wouldn’t it also be wrong to tell pro-lifers that they don’t feel like they do about the unborn? Many times you have told different pro-lifers here that they were “pretending” to believe a number of different things. Isn’t that wrong, according to your logic above?
Doug had written:
“Lauren, if it were true, then I’d understand that not everybody sees things the same way. Heck, even one given person may see things differently at different times.”
I had responded: “Doug, every person is not robotic like yourself when it comes to feelings.”
Doug responded again:
“Bethany, where the heck did that come from? I’m no more robotic than you are. I just don’t agree with all you say, that’s all.”
Doug, your response to Lauren was very robotic. Most people, when hearing what you were responding to (a person telling a mourning mother, “stop mourning your toddler because other people don’t consider toddlers people and wouldn’t care”), would not react in such a robotic fashion as you did. You wrote that you would be “understanding” that maybe this was true…and most people would not be understanding of that at all. Your response was mechanical, not natural.
I don’t think that even other abortion supporters would have responded the way you did to that hypothetical.
Doug wrote (regarding whether he has empathy): “Sure, and that’s why I’m Pro-Choice. I have empathy for pregnant women.”
If you really have empathy for them, why not continue the empathy after they regret an abortion? The way you treat Carla about her regrets is not empathetic at all. Does the empathy stop when they stop being pregnant?
Asitis, why would a man or woman who is heterosexual, choose to target a child who is their same sex, if they were not homosexual?
Do you think pedophiles don’t have an “orientation” one way or the other?
A person who targets a child for sex is a pedophile, not a homosexual. A male pedophile (more common) sexually attracted to a male child would be a homosexual pedophile. This is not the same as being a homosexual male sexually attracted to other adult males.
Do I think pedophiles have an orientation either way? I think it would be reasonable to assume that, seeing as adults can be sexually attracted to adult of the same sex. opposite sex or both. But that’s just off the cuff.
Why would a pedophile target someone of the same sex? Again off the cuff, it might make sense if they were reliving or avenging something that was done to them in the past.
Asitis, I don’t see how this proves that the pedophiles who molested all those children were not homosexual. A homosexual is a person who prefers emotional and sexual relations with the member of the same gender.
You have theories about whether they may or may not be homosexual, I have evidence that there were men having sex with little boys, and women having sex with little girls. That’s enough for me. I don’t see the difference, except that sometimes they target children. Either way, it’s someone of the same sex.
I’m not claiming that the pedophiles who targeted opposite sex children were not heterosexual…why do you claim that the pedophiles who targeted same sex children were not homosexual?
You might find this interesting…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431
* The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”
* In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”
* Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”
* In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a “Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
* Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
If you click the link, you’ll find the whole article disturbing. This was just a small excerpt.
Yes, Brittany you do have evidence that men have sex with little boys and women have sex with little girls. But you do not have evidence that these men and women are also attracted to their same-sex adults. You only have evidence that they are attracted to children of the same sex.
“I don’t see the difference except that SOMETIMES they target children”. You have no evidence that they SOMETIMES are attract to adults. In his research Cameron never established whether the adults were homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. In fact he established that they were in anyway sexually attracted to adults. All we know is that they are sexually attracted to children. They are pedophiles.
Sorry, that should have read ” In fact he NEVER established that they were in any way attracted to adults”
Asitis, either you are not reading me clearly, or I am not writing clearly enough for you to understand what I am saying:
“I don’t see the difference except that SOMETIMES they target children”.
I didn’t mean that a pedophile will switch from adult to child. I meant that some homosexuals prefer children, and some prefer adults. The ones who prefer children are pedophiles.
I’d still like to hear your answers to my questions posted at 8:32 AM.
What are your thoughts on my 8:28 AM post?
Doug had written:
I think people are made to struggle, not to have everything “perfect,” etc., or then it wouldn’t be seen as such, that we need sadness and sorrow to feel true joy – stuff like that.
Posted by: Doug at November 30, 2008 9:02 PM
I think that if one problem or even a class of problems was magically “poofed” out of existence, that people would not necessarily be any happier. I guess it’s philosophical. Can we truly feel joy without knowing sorrow? If “joy” was all we knew, it’d then be the norm – would it really still be “joy”?
The reason I found this most interesting is the fact that you don’t apply this philosophy to the pregnant woman.
Why take away her ability to feel joy, when the true joy may not exist without the sorrow?
Why take away her struggles if she was meant to struggle?
If her struggles were magically “poofed” out of existence (abortion), why should she be any happier?
Thank you Bethany. Now we are getting soemwhere:
“I meant that some homosexuals prefer children and some prefer adults. The ones who prefer children are pedophiles”. Exactly. Just as some heterosexuals prefer children and some prefer adults. The ones that prefer children are pedophiles.
In order to keep the two apart, call the pedophile a pedophile, or even a homosexual pedophile or heterosexual pedophile (use the sexual orientation as an adjective). Do not call them simply a homosexual or a heterosexual… that could be mistaken or misconstrued as meaning they are attracted to adults.
Are you going to respond to my other points?
By the way, what would you call a homosexual that is attracted to both children and adults? A bi-pedophile?
Sorry, busy…
The information you wrote about Baldwin’s research is disturbing. The sad truth is that there are sad and even horrific things going on in this world regardless of sexual orientation.
We’ll have to wait and see the research when it’s published. I’ve never heard of Regent University so I looked it up. It’s a relatively new Christian college founded by televangelists. It’s law school is only Tier 4. That may or may not be significant, but it’s interesting that the reesarch you cited of cameron was published in a journal that is not highly regarded, publishly a lot of papers and has a low rejection rate. It also charges authors for publication which is unusual.
You never commented on the fact that Cameron is no longer recognized by his professional associations in canada and the US due to misrepresentation of research?
I don’t know that they have determined that there are homosexuals that are attracted to adults and children. Have they?
What do they call a heterosexual that is?
I understand being busy.
The information you wrote about Baldwin’s research is disturbing. The sad truth is that there are sad and even horrific things going on in this world regardless of sexual orientation.
Yes, it is disturbing, but you are dismissing it by saying ‘well bad things happen all over the world’. You’re not really addressing it.
You never commented on the fact that Cameron is no longer recognized by his professional associations in canada and the US due to misrepresentation of research?
I have a feeling it was political correctness. I need to do more research to find out.
I don’t know that they have determined that there are homosexuals that are attracted to adults and children. Have they?
What do they call a heterosexual that is?
The reason we cannot see eye to eye on this is because you believe that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, just reversed.
I do not believe that to be the case. I feel that homosexuality, like pedophilia, is a mental disorder.
Well, that argument is going nowhere with you. So forget the about the “cause” of homosexuality
and just go back to my question.
Have they determined that there are homosexuals attracted to adults AND children?
(I don’t think so. And you obviously don’t either becuase you just said that: Some are attracted to children. Some are attracted to adults. Those that are attracted to children are pedophiles.)
Asitis, have you ever watched dateline’s show about pedophiles?
I have seen many on there who have an adult lover at home, and yet are coming to have sex with a child.
Oh sheesh…
This statement:
Some are attracted to children. Some are attracted to adults. Those that are attracted to children are pedophiles.
Does not rule out that some are attracted to both. Here, if it makes you feel better, I’ll clarify:
Some are attracted to children. Some are attracted to adults. Some are attracted to both. Those that are attracted to ONLY children are pedophiles. Those that are attracted to both are pedophiles.
I am not addressing Baldwin’s work because I haven’t seen the paper yet. Given his affliations and the ranking of the journal, it could be suspect. I don’t know. I’m not going to jump to concllusions either way.
I douby Cameron’s expulsion had anything to do with “political correction”. Even I, with no background in his field and no knowledge of his leanings, recognized that his research was not sound.
What about my questions about bestiality? I think they are legitimate and would like you to answer them. Did you know that Planned Parenthood promotes bestiality?
Okay, so there ARE some that are attracted to both adults and children.
Any idea on the sexual orientations? How common are: Herosexual men who abuse girls. Homosexual men who abuse girls. Heterosexual men who abuse boys. Homosexual men who abuse boys. (The same permutations apply for women of course).
I haven’t seen any research on this. Cameron’s research never determined the adult sexuality, if any, of the predophiles.
If a man is having sex with a boy, that person is homosexual, Asitis. Homosexual is defined as “a person who prefers emotional and sexual relations with the member of the same gender.”
If a man is having sex with a woman and a boy, I would consider him homosexual, because he is having sexual relations with a member of the same gender.
Elton John also used to have sex with women. That didn’t make him hetero, did it? This is the case with many, many other homosexual individuals.
I’m sure that you are of the belief that some homosexuals repress their feelings and try to live a normal life with a member of the opposite sex. Why don’t you think this could be the case with a supposedly heterosexual person having sex with a child of his/her own sex?
Why? Because sexual attraction to childen is not the same as sexual attraction to other adults.
I am very much attracted sexually to men. I am not at all sexually attracted to prepubescent males. I’m sure you feel the same. Most women would say the same. Just as most of our husbands would say they are highly attracted to women and not all attracted to prepubescent girls. Not so hard to see then that most homosexuals are attracted to adults of the same self but not at all attracted to children of the same sex.
Okay I found an answer for you:
Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
* A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, “all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories,” which included males as young as age fifteen. 36
In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.” 37
Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles are Often Attracted to Adult Males
A study of sex offenders against male children in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to “males of all ages.” Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed “greater arousal” to slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: “As a group, the child molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males of all ages.” 38
* A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that 30 percent of the adult male offenders engaged in homosexual acts with adult males. 39
* Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” 40
36. Zebulon A. Silverthorne & Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” p. 70.
37. Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out about Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275
38. W. L. Marshall, et al., “Sexual Offenders against Male Children: Sexual Preferences,” p. 383.
39. W. L. Marshall, et al., “Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 6 (1991): 323-336.
40. W. D. Erickson, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.
Why? Because sexual attraction to childen is not the same as sexual attraction to other adults.
I’ve already told you why: Because I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. I do not believe it is the same thing as heterosexuality, which is normal.
I don’t know where you took that from or what the specific studies are but I can say the following, as a scientist:
(36) How did they measure the sexual preference? What did they use as exhibits? Photos of faces? What were the age categories? All they say is that they youngest included males as young as 15. For all we know they youngest category could have been age 25-15 with a small number of them under 16.
37) 73% of homosexual males had sex with males 16-19 or younger. 16-19 is legal. By 19, 80% of all teens are sexually active, so this figure seems pretty obvious. The “or younger” doesn’t mean anything. How young? What perecentage said they had sex with males under 16? Very odd that wasn’t reported.
38-40) male homosexual pedophiles tend to be attracted to adult males as well. (This does NOT mean that male homosexuals therefore tend to be homesexuals pedohiles).
Bethany, I’m not going to argue with you about your belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder. That is futile. It is grounded in your deep religious beliefs and there is no way that I am going to change that.
I can try to find the answers to your questions about 36 and 37 but do not know whether the articles are free to access online.
male homosexual pedophiles tend to be attracted to adult males as well.(This does NOT mean that male homosexuals therefore tend to be homesexuals pedohiles).
But it does mean what it says it means…that pedophiles are attracted to adults too, which is what you were asking.
Bethany, I’m not going to argue with you about your belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder. That is futile. It is grounded in your deep religious beliefs and there is no way that I am going to change that.
Actually, there is nothing religious about my belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
My belief that it is sin, THAT you could argue is religious, but not that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
And by the way, I never said you had to argue it. I honestly think we will have to agree to disagree on the homosexual issue, because we have different preconceptions and will likely go nowhere.
I’m sorry, is homosexuality recognized by professionals to be a mental disorder?
It used to be, till political correctness took over. I still have psychology books that define it as a mental disorder.
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.’s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists’ insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
Bethany,I don’t know your educational background but you need to be careful in reviewing research findings. Do not take conclusions at face value. The data doesn’t nessarily support them. Don’t read too much into lengthy lists of references. The reference cited may actually contradict the research or it may not be sound itself. Be critical.
I say this in kindness.
Bethany, scientific research and professionals are not so influenced by political correctness as that. Your textbook is merely outdated.
Asitis, you are right about that..I have seen articles which did contradict their references. You had asked me whether a pedophile could be attracted to children and adults and that is the only question I was trying to answer by posting the article.
Asitis, I have appreciated our discussion very much. I think it’s been really nice and I have actually enjoyed it as it hasn’t gotten heated.
I’ve spent a little bit too much time on the computer now, so I think I need to get off and clean the house and get lunch started. Hope you have a great day! I’ll try to respond to anything else you write when I have more time.:)
My last comment was in response to your 10:37 post. :)
Bethany, the question has not been can a pedophile be attracted to children and adults? The question was are homosexuals in general sexually attracted to children? You have not been able to show that this is the case and research does not support this.
Have a good afternoon Bethany. I have house to clean as well, so…. yeh. On to that.
I have enjoyed our conversation too. I know we will never agree on this. I think at this point in our history, it comes down to mainly religious beliefs. I think religious people’s belief on this can change if someone close to them, particularly a son or daughter, reveals that they are gay. But no words of mine are going to change something so strong. I respect your conviction.
Have a good afternoon. It’s been a good debate.
Bethany: the problem here is that in the first case you have a case of a woman who WANTS to starve herself, and DESIRES to starve herself (doesn’t matter what the reason is, right). According to your abortion logic, whatever a woman chooses to do to her body is the best thing for her, no matter what. Why is it not the best thing for the anorexic girl to do what she wants, and starve herself to death?
Hang on here – I don’t flatly state that “whatever she chooses” is the best thing for her.
I’m saying I leave it up to her, not to other people, but that’s not guaranteeing that she’ll never have regrets, etc., same as with most choices.
As I’ve said before, if I knew a woman well enough to have a strong opinion about it, I might think, “No, no matter what you’re saying right now, you’ll be better off in the long run by not having an abortion.”
For instance, though a farfetched example it be, if you or Carla were that woman, then I wouldn’t agree – from what I know of you both, I don’t think it’d be your best choice.
It works the other way too – there could be a woman for whom I’d think having an abortion would be a lot better than not.
…..
“Believing that anything that a person wants is automatically good for them is unrealistic. Helping women choose against abortion is not a bad thing. And just because a woman wants an abortion doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for her.
“You don’t know that, though. Maybe choosing to have an abortion is the best thing for her, and maybe she’s right in thinking that she should have one.”
Then, in the same line of logic, maybe a woman choosing anorexia is the best thing for her. To die out of starvation could be the best thing for her, because she made a choice that she made willingly. Right? No reason to tell her what she should do with her body. No reason to tell her to eat something and get counseling.
No, B, I don’t agree with that. I’m willing to generalize that anorexia and bulimia are bad, per se.
…..
“No argument about the other cases you presented, and were I to know a given woman pretty well, I too would likely have an opinion about whether having an abortion or not would be the best thing in her situation.”
Why don’t you have to know the anorexic woman, the bulemic woman, the overdrugged woman before making the decision to step in and say something? Don’t you think maybe you should know the given woman pretty well and know whether those problems are the best thing for their situations?
I don’t think that knowing the women could change my mind. With abortion, I not only haven’t made up my mind ahead of time, but knowing the women could make a difference.
I wanted to take this time to thank Doug for being respectful in debate. There are numerous people that can be very disrespectful in debates. God bless you.
Wow, Segamon, thank you.
Doug, why is anorexia bad, per se?
I’ll respond more later.
Doug, why is anorexia bad, per se?
Bethany, because IMO it conflicts with what will make people the happiest/give them the most joy/make for them suffering the least, in the long run.
Doug, I don’t mean this to be mean but really, you are contradicting yourself so bad…I wish you could hear yourself. Look what you said in one breath:
“I think people are made to struggle, not to have everything “perfect,” etc., or then it wouldn’t be seen as such, that we need sadness and sorrow to feel true joy – stuff like that.”
Then in another breath:
“Bethany, [anorexia is bad, per se] because IMO it conflicts with what will make people the happiest/give them the most joy/make for them suffering the least, in the long run.”
Which is it? Can you have true joy without suffering or not? Can you be happy in the long run without having struggled? AND, what if an anorexic woman REALLY BELIEVES that she is happy when she is starving herself? Many of them have deluded themselves into believing that they are happier that way.
And how in the world is this different from abortion, which can obviously not always make people the “happiest” or give them the “most joy” or make them “suffer the least” in the long run?
Surely you aren’t naive enough to believe that abortion solves all of the woman’s problems?
Bethany, no contradiction. Yes, I think some amount of struggle is good for us, but that’s not saying we need to be anorexic, etc.
However, for your example of the anorexic woman who really believes – who really is happier doing that versus other things and versus what others say, then in the end I’m for her freedom to try and make herself happy, come what may for her. I don’t think she’d be happy if physically prevented from doing it, in that case. How far would we go to restrain somebody?
…..
Many of them have deluded themselves into believing that they are happier that way.
Sounds like religion to me. “The need for illusion.” To each their own…. And I do mean “their” – not that they should not respect other’s rights, etc.
……
And how in the world is this different from abortion, which can obviously not always make people the “happiest” or give them the “most joy” or make them “suffer the least” in the long run?
It’s different in that a vastly higher percentage of people who make the choice end up not regretting it on balance. For anorexics, in the long run I don’t think many of them look back on it that way.
…..
Surely you aren’t naive enough to believe that abortion solves all of the woman’s problems?
Of course not. What could? And anyway, it’s not to say that for a given individual woman abortion will necessarily be better than continuing the pregnancy.
Your very welcome, Doug. :)
And this night not be news to you, but there are many practising (I wrote it Canadian-style just for you!) Catholics that feel very differently about abortion, contraception and homosexuality than you do. I happen to know some of them… very well.
Posted by: asitis at December 2, 2008 7:41 AM
Astisis,
Your ignorance of the Catholic faith is astounding. Do you realize that Catholics “practice” their faith by following the teachings of the Catechism?
Bethany, no contradiction. Yes, I think some amount of struggle is good for us, but that’s not saying we need to be anorexic, etc.
However, for your example of the anorexic woman who really believes – who really is happier doing that versus other things and versus what others say, then in the end I’m for her freedom to try and make herself happy, come what may for her. I don’t think she’d be happy if physically prevented from doing it, in that case. How far would we go to restrain somebody?
What you said was basically that if our struggles and problems in this world were magically “poofed” out of existence, would we really experience joy? Would we really be “happy”?
I want to know why you can’t apply that to the pregnant woman. If her struggles (being pregnant in a hard time) are magically “poofed” out of existence (abortion), would she really be able to experience joy?
What you said was basically that if our struggles and problems in this world were magically “poofed” out of existence, would we really experience joy? Would we really be “happy”?
Yeah, Bethany – it’s a question, and it’s philosophical – could we know joy if we could not know pain? If everything would be totally easy, etc., would we even want to live?
Or, short of that, don’t we get accustomed and “numbed” to things we take for granted?
….
I want to know why you can’t apply that to the pregnant woman. If her struggles (being pregnant in a hard time) are magically “poofed” out of existence (abortion), would she really be able to experience joy?
I think that very often the “poof” either way will make things better for her. That’s if the “hard time” about being pregnant or the “hard times” that accompany it go away – then I’d say she often continues the pregnancy and feels much better about things.
Or, if she has the abortion, which is what I think you were talking about, then that too often has her feeling better about things.
For a specific thing, i.e. anorexia, I’m not saying we “need” anorexia on earth. I’m not willing to wish away any and all troubles, problems, challenges, etc., but that’s not to say we have to have anorexia or problem pregnancies.
I think that very often the “poof” either way will make things better for her. That’s if the “hard time” about being pregnant or the “hard times” that accompany it go away – then I’d say she often continues the pregnancy and feels much better about things.
Or, if she has the abortion, which is what I think you were talking about, then that too often has her feeling better about things.
Do you discern a difference between temporal feelings and the long run?
When I’m asking you if something is better for a woman, I don’t mean immediately. That is shortsighted.
For Carla, abortion was “great” for her, if we’re speaking of “immediately”. In fact, she has told us time and time again that for years she thought it was the best thing for her to have done in that situation.
But fast forward a decade or two and you see that same Carla who was previously happy over her decision, being torn up, realizing what she has done, and grieving over her loss.
Truth is, Doug, if you had seen Carla the day she was going to have her abortion, you would not have advised her against it. You would have told her it was the right choice for her, because that is what she wanted and believed would solve her problems. Was her pregnancy the problem, Doug? I bet Carla can tell you that was not the problem.
You keep saying abortion wouldn’t have been the right choice for her (because you already know Carla and what she believes about abortion NOW), but you know what? Because of her attitude at the time, you would have thought it was the best choice for her. How would you have possibly known any different at that time? How would you have discerned that Carla would one day feel deep contrition over this abortion and cry every year over it, remembering the child she lost? How would you have discerned that Carla would have responded to some encouragement that she would be a good mom? Maybe at the time she would have made it difficult for you. She probably would have told you it was impossible for her to have a child then.
How would you handle it, Doug? How would you handle discussing whether Carla should have an abortion – not today’s Carla, but the Carla who thought abortion would definitely be the solution to her problems?
Don’t worry about answering, because I already know the answer. You would resort to the old “I can’t tell her what she can do. I leave it up to the woman to decide what’s best for her” rationalization. Offering suggestions isn’t allowed.
Do you discern a difference between temporal feelings and the long run?
Bethany, a possible difference – you bet I do.
…..
When I’m asking you if something is better for a woman, I don’t mean immediately. That is shortsighted.
Well, I’ve never said or implied that what is felt in the moment will always necessarily apply.
…..
For Carla, abortion was “great” for her, if we’re speaking of “immediately”. In fact, she has told us time and time again that for years she thought it was the best thing for her to have done in that situation.
Actually, from what she has said, I don’t think it was “great” for her at the time.
…..
But fast forward a decade or two and you see that same Carla who was previously happy over her decision, being torn up, realizing what she has done, and grieving over her loss.
You’ll get no argument from me there, B.
…..
Truth is, Doug, if you had seen Carla the day she was going to have her abortion, you would not have advised her against it. You would have told her it was the right choice for her, because that is what she wanted and believed would solve her problems. Was her pregnancy the problem, Doug? I bet Carla can tell you that was not the problem.
Bethany, I’m not sure what I would have advised there, had it been my place to do so. Tell you what, though – as of now I would definitely think of both sides of the debate, due in large part to Carla and you, and what I have seen you say, and I made a post (“powerful testimoy’) to that effect a half hour or so ago on a later thread. You’re gonna like that one.
…..
You keep saying abortion wouldn’t have been the right choice for her (because you already know Carla and what she believes about abortion NOW), but you know what? Because of her attitude at the time, you would have thought it was the best choice for her. How would you have possibly known any different at that time? How would you have discerned that Carla would one day feel deep contrition over this abortion and cry every year over it, remembering the child she lost? How would you have discerned that Carla would have responded to some encouragement that she would be a good mom? Maybe at the time she would have made it difficult for you. She probably would have told you it was impossible for her to have a child then.
B, I’m not sure what I would think, had I met her back then. I wasn’t the same person I am now, for one thing. That was like 18 or 19 years ago.
There may not have been any way that I could have known how she would feel in the long run. Nor is there any way I’d necessarily know, now, with a given woman.
If anything, I think that other post I made does speak to this. Again, you’re gonna like it.
I don’t think that “back then” is really the issue. That ship has sailed. However, and this is of course a different deal than almost all of which we discuss here, if I could go back in time, knowing what I do now, and talk to her, I’d tell her just what has happened, that, “Carla, as hard as this is to believe for you, I’ve seen the future, or I’ve come back from the future (or however I could say it, trying to make it believable) and this is what is going to happen…”
B, I’ve said many times that suffering is a good bit of what I look at, and I know full well what a sweet and good person Carla is, and there’s no way that I want such a person (or any person, for that matter) to suffer when I could prevent it.
……
How would you handle it, Doug? How would you handle discussing whether Carla should have an abortion – not today’s Carla, but the Carla who thought abortion would definitely be the solution to her problems?
Great questions, B, and as I’ve said before – I’m amazed at how much good thinking youve done about all this. As of now, I’ve heard a lot of the thoughts and feelings of people on all sides of the debate, and I’d do my best to present the facts as I know them, aimed at what is best for that person as I see them.
…..
Don’t worry about answering, because I already know the answer. You would resort to the old “I can’t tell her what she can do. I leave it up to the woman to decide what’s best for her” rationalization. Offering suggestions isn’t allowed.
You know, you’re really wrong about that.