Sorry, Allegheny College students won’t know better now
UPDATE, 11/24, 12:10p: Add another college to the censorship list, this time a Catholic one. Per DFW Catholic:
“We’re saddened to learn Gonzaga University, a Catholic school, has refused to accept We Know Better Now, our pro-life advertising supplement for ‘The Gonzaga Bulletin,'” said Joe Langfeld, Deputy Director for Human Life Alliance….
When asked to run the advertising supplement, officials from The Gonzaga Bulletin rejected the inserts stating, “There are articles in the insertion that cast a negative light on various organizations or individuals. While these statements may be true, we simply cannot insert them in our paper per our advertising policies.”…
_______________
PA’s Allegheny College has decided it knows better than to allow a 12-page pro-life insert by Human Life Alliance called We Know Better Now into its student newspaper….
This supposed body of higher learning gave no notice it was censoring the insert. Allegheny accepted HLA’s fee, and HLA shipped 1,500 copies. Only when someone noticed the insert was missing in the November 13 issue of The Campus (with a website strangely down, although here’s an older edition announcing the availability of Plan B over the counter) did Allegheny officials fess up, according to an HLA press release:
“We contacted the newspaper… and were told our advertisement was too controversial – even after they had accepted the advertising fee,” [HLA executive director Jo] Tolck said.
So much for “choice.” Here’s how HLA describes its brochure:
We Know Better Now is a compelling pro-life resource designed to educate people about abortion. With 84% of college professors approving of abortion, students are under more pressure than ever to conform to the pro-abortion agenda. We Know Better Now is designed to encourage the increasing number of pro-life students entering college and provide them with relevant resources to strengthen their convictions. The solid pro-life content in We Know Better Now challenges students to re-think their ideas about abortion, premarital sex, and the humanity of the unborn child.
You can view the other “controversial” 11 pages of We Know Better Now below and also here. The brochure is simply excellent!
Meanwhile, in other news the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported November 19 that PA college enrollment is down. Why? Fewer students.
[HT: LifeNews.com]
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.
Simple truth – advocate abortion and over the long term end up with less population, so don’t expect college enrollments to be up!
When people shoot themselves in the foot, they often don’t stop to think of what they just did – they’re too busy aiming at their other foot!
Heads-up: A friend of ours is a university recruiter, and lately her university’s efforts have been international in scope – they want to bring in more foreign students because of decreasing birth rates among the local populations. (Tinker with society, don’t be surprised when it works!)
My wife just pointed out that Chinese students would probably love to come to the United States to learn – because they could have more than one child.
In the long term – this looks an awful lot like what happened to Ancient Rome.
that is awful that they accepted the money and then they didn’t distribute the flyer! were they going to let HLA know that it wasn’t included? i hope that they return the flyers and the money with an apology!
Free speech is so anti socialist.
With the boom of Cultural Marxism and the politically correct movement, certain speech jeopardizes the movement.
OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA!!!!!!
http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
12 Minutes In.
Okay, you know what? I’ve seen enough on this sight to confirm everything I ever suspected about the pro-life movement. I’m out of here.
Reply if you want, but I won’t see it.
Hal, Doug, Josephine… good for you. Carla, I am glad I have heard your personal story. It shows that for some women abortion is not the choice for them. Every woman’s situation is unique and she should have the right to choose.
So long.
OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA!!!!!!
http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
12 Minutes In.
Post This on even blogg you can before the Obama Camp removes it. Hurray!
OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA!!!!! The Kenya Embassy has Confirmed It as well as Obama’s Grandmother!
made a short transcription of the segment of the interview wherein he makes his admittal.
———————–
Interviewer: One more quick question, President elect Obama over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit where he was born?
Ogego: It’s already an attraction, his paternal Grandmother is still alive, and uhhh…
Interviewer: But his birth place, they’ll put up a marker there?
Ogego: *unknown garble* the government it is already well known.
———————–
Define “controversial”. Anything the Left disagrees with.
If they took the money, they should run the ad. If they decide not to , they should return the money and the brochures.
Oh well, it’s not like anyone would have read them anyway.
Reality, most people aren’t as hardened as you are. Most people feel uneasy about abortion and would be at least cuious what the pamplets had to say.
Virginia, parting is such sweet sorrow :0}
After all our time together you leave without saying good-bye????? Here are a few highlights for your scrap book:
1)ts said:
You are the one who said that it is not until birth that babies are scientifically and undebabteably human. I thought it was kind of stupid when you said that too. I was just questioning the premise you had put forth. I also thought it was really a kinda very stupid thing when you said it at 8:17. Here, read it for yourself:
********
It seems you are actually asking me do I think Planned Parenthood is against life or for life? Well, since they perform abortions it’s safe to assume that they do not believe that it is human at conception. So they would not see abortion as murder. Therefore I see no evidence that they are anything but pro-life, as most humans are (I say most because murderers probably wouldn’t be considered to be pro-life)
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:17 PM
******
Now Virginia, does it look as stupid to you as it did to me?
Posted by:truthseeker at Nov 16, 2008 8:35 PM
Nope!
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 9:05 PM
Well, since they perform abortions it’s safe to assume that they do not believe that it is human at conception.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:17 PM
lol… If not human then what species is it Virginia?
Posted by: truthseeker at Nov 16, 2008 10:52 PM
*************
2)
Well, I don’t know if it’s just a religious objection. Is it? Is there a scientific/medical debate that personhood may begin before birth?
You asked me at what point do I think it is no longer debatable that the life form is a human.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 8:04 PM
*****
Does it look as stupid to you as it did to me. I felt silly just repeating what you had posted that up until birth it is debateable wether or not the baby is a human life form. lol
Posted by: truthseeker at Nov 16, 2008 8:44 PM
3)
As for extending the civil rights currently available to married heterosexual couple to all COMMITTED couples be they married or not, heterosexual or homosexual, I am all for that. Completely. I do not know what the law is in the U.S. for common-law couples, but in Canada when a couple has lived together for a certain period of time they are considered the same as married couples in terms of their rights and privledges.
Posted by:Virginia K at November 16, 2008 5:56 PM
So unmarried heterosexual couples have all the same common law rights as married couples but they are not married. That proves then that homosexual couples could get those same rights without getting married. So why do homosexuals insist on the need to change the definition of marriage in order to get your rights?
Posted by: truthseeker at Nov 16, 2008 6:33 PM
Every woman’s situation is unique and she should have the right to choose.
So long.
Posted by: Virginia at November 21, 2008 9:31 AM
Virginia, since you are not here to finish that statement, let me finish it for you.
‘Every woman’s situation is unique and she should have the right to choose’ to have their babies sucked or plucked from their womb in bloody pieces. vomit
Virgina: “…So long.”
See ya later.
I have some good news to report from Allegheny.
After phone calls, emails and a visit form a local HLA supporter, student editors have agreed to insert “We Know Better Now” in the January 19, 2009 issue of “The Campus” student newspaper.
We’re thrilled these students have communicated with HLA and agreed to give us a voice on their campus.
Virginia, since you are not here to finish that statement, let me finish it for you.
‘Every woman’s situation is unique and she should have the right to choose’ to have their babies sucked or plucked from their womb in bloody pieces. vomit
Yup, truthseeker, that is absolutely correct. It sounds like you’re learning something. And since the concept apparently upsets your stomach, it’s a very good thing you do not have a uterus yourself and don’t have to worry about such things.
Not Virginia,
Is that just a clump of cells or a living human being you want sucked from your womb?
Mot Virginia, If I had a utersu I wouldn;t have to worry about it anyway cause I wouldn;t have sex with a guy if I wasn’t ready to have his children. It is a very simpe life with no worries.
Not Virginia, If I had a uterus I wouldn’t have to worry about it anyway cause I wouldn’t have sex with a guy if I wasn’t ready to have his children. It is a very simpe life with no worries.
BTW Not Virginia, men should have to make the same “choice” when it comes to responsibility and sex, and your “right” to abortion only keeps men from thinking they have any responsibiloity at all.
Check my name again before you address me as “Virginia,” honey.
And yes, it is a clump of cells, just like you and me are both giant clumps of billions of cells. I’m not going to deny that a fetus is a living being. If I do not want to host another living being inside my body for 9 months, I don’t have to. It’s my right.
And it’s nice to know you wouldn’t have sex with a man if you didn’t want to have children. That would be your choice to make.
Virginia,
You really sound scared. In this post, the discussion was about giving young men and women information to make an informed decision. How can that be wrong or bad? When my child had to have ear tubes, I did research on what will happen, is it really necessary, what are other options. I became informed. I have children in highschool. I want them to become informed. There is not such thing as a free lunch. Our choices ALL have consequences.
I suggest you read ‘UNPROTECTED’, written by a Dr. Miriam Grossman a medical doctor, but originally published under Anonymous, MD.
A review from my local paper:
What does Dr. Grossman believe that is so dangerous to admit? Well, start with ordinary sex. She believes that casual, promiscuous sex is tough on many women. They are hard-wired to bond with those they have sex with (the hormone oxytocin is implicated), and she sees countless female students reporting stress, eating disorders and even depression for reasons they cannot understand. After all, the world sells them on the notion that sex is pure recreation, that the “hook-up” culture is natural and even empowering to women, and that love and sex are two completely different things.
She describes a 19-year-old, “Heather,” who is depressed. She has a “friend with benefits,” but only with the help of psychotherapy is she able to acknowledge that the relationship is causing her pain. She’d like to do things with him, like see movies or go out for dinner, but he is interested only in sex. Dr. Grossman helps Heather to see that her needs are being neglected.
Another student, “Olivia,” is devastated after her first serious boyfriend breaks up with her. Her grades suffer, she weeps constantly and suffers a relapse of an eating disorder, making herself vomit up to six times a day. “‘Why, doctor,’ she asked, why do they tell you how to protect your body — from herpes and pregnancy — but they don’t tell you what it does to your heart?'”
And that may be the least of it. Health service physicians and nurses at UCLA and other colleges actually cheerlead for promiscuity. The author points to goaskalice.com, a question and answer service of the Columbia University Health Education Program. A man who was considering a menage a trois was told, after a few advisories about discussing the matter with his wife, “As far as where to find a third, often personal ads are placed in local alternative newspapers for people seeking different types of sexual encounters. And, don’t forget to think about people you know as possibilities. . . . Have fun and BE SAFE!” The site also offers tips on how to clean a cat-o’-nine-tails between uses and advice on drinking urine. At the University of Missouri, “external water sports” is described as one form of “safer sex.” (Hint: It has nothing to do with swimming pools.)
“Stacey” is paying a heavy price. An athlete and vegetarian who avoided preservatives, sodas and nicotine, and prided herself on discipline and a low body mass index, Stacey showed up at the health service after repeatedly cutting her forearms. Dr. Grossman reports that such self-injurious behavior is epidemic on campuses.
Stacey, it seems, had been diagnosed with HPV, a sexually transmitted disease. And while college health brochures and women’s magazines suggest that the virus is no big deal, that’s rubbish. In some cases it can lead to cancer. In every case it requires time-consuming and emotionally draining tests. And 43 percent of college women get it. Stacey’s strain can lead to cancer, so she must be tested every six months for the rest of her life. Chlamydia, which is difficult to detect and cure, can cause infertility. Each year, 3 million women are treated for it. An unknown number never get treatment.
American campuses are, for the most part, laboratories of liberalism. You want an abortion? No problem. But if you grieve afterward, your pain is ignored or delegitimized. Dr. Grossman does not contest that most women may be emotionally fine after undergoing an abortion, but notes that a significant minority, perhaps 20 percent, do suffer depression and other symptoms afterward. Yet the politically correct position is to deny this medical reality.
No effort is spared to teach young people about the dangers of smoking, saturated fat, “unsafe sex” and even osteoporosis. But no one tells young women that if they want to be mothers they would do well to plan their careers around the unavoidable biological fact of declining fertility after age 35. The establishment encourages the fiction that women can expect to remain fertile well into their 40s.
It’s sad that this book is so necessary, but all the more welcome for that. Buy it for yourself, for your sons, but especially for your daughters.
On second though, Virginia, don’t read it. It could upset you and your ideals.
Not Virginia, I noticed you couldn’t quite get the word “human” out in your response. Did you mean to say that you admit the fetus is a living humam being?
Not Virginia, I noticed you couldn’t quite get the word “human” out in your response. Did you mean to say that you admit the fetus is a living human being?
Sure, truthseeker, if it makes you happy I will call the fetus a living human being. Do I need to post it twice, as you have done?
And lovethemboth, rehtoric like “Unprotected” might work on middle school kids with a flair for melodramatic, but I do not think it would have your desired effect on college students. You need to rething and update your tactics to reach today’s young adults.
I’m not going to deny that a fetus is a living being. If I do not want to host another living being inside my body for 9 months, I don’t have to. It’s my right.-Not Virginia
NV, please explain to me why privacy rights allow you to kill a preborn child, but not a born child.
Not Virginia, if you ran a red light and crashed into another car and the person in the other car needed a blood transfusion for nine months in order to survive, woulod you feel morally obligated to provide said transfusion?
Today’s young adults are,for the most part, a bunch of spoiled, self entitled jerks.
You know what, Jacque always says that it is really crappy having to beg and plead to convince someone not to kill her own child. I agree.
I am sick and tired of having to try to empathize with a movement that says that it’s perfectly ok to kill your kid. It’s not. It’s wrong and you know it. I’m sick of the bull****. NV, you’re a really crappy person. I know this will probably get deleted, but I am sick to death of coming on here day after day after day and hearing people gleefully explain that they hold a sacred right to kill their children.
Of course, they go beyond just explanation and take it too boasting and dancing in the streets while thumbing their noses as mocking everything that I hold sacred.
What is wrong with our society that we are even having this debate? It’s disgusting.
Virginia: “Check my name again before you address me as “Virginia,” honey.”
Oh please. What is this 7th grade AIM chat? Dont respond dude, she is just trying to trick you into letting her warn you!!
Can we not grow up a little?
NV, please explain to me why privacy rights allow you to kill a preborn child, but not a born child.
What privacy rights are you talking about? Are you asking me why abortion is legal? Why the laws were passed?
Not Virginia, if you ran a red light and crashed into another car and the person in the other car needed a blood transfusion for nine months in order to survive, woulod you feel morally obligated to provide said transfusion?
I don’t think anybody’s body could handle an continuous blood donation for nine months, truthseeker, and what are the chances that our blood would even be compatible, but I will humor you.
I would do what I could to help the person, yes. I would be under no obligation to do so, though, and if a person ran a red light and hit ME and I needed nine months of continuous blood transfusions I would not hold any expectations for that person to come forward and give me all their blood, or even some of their blood. It woudl be their choice. The government forcing someone to give their blood to a person they injured in an accident would be pretty close to something like socialism, don’t you think?
Lauren, I do not care if you think I am a crappy person for being pro-choice. I think you are a crappy person for trying to take that choice away from me, so I guess we’re even.
There are millions of pro-choice people in this country. According to the last election there are apparently more pro-choicers than pro-lifers in many areas. I do not know the statistics. If you want to carry around so much hate towards all those people, go right ahead, but I cannot imagine that it is very good for you.
If you’re that sick to death of coming here and arguing, then by all means stop coming here. It will probably be better for your health and well being.
That’s probably what I’ll be doing, too. The amount of stupidity floating around here (I’m looking at you JAMES) is making me depressed for our nation and mankind in general.
Adios, all.
Virginia: “Adios, all.”
Ill say it again, but probably not the last time.
See ya later.
Have a mod check the IPs if you want, but I’m not Virginia. She had a lot more patience than I do.
Whatever, though.
Sure, truthseeker, if it makes you happy I will call the fetus a living human being.
Posted by NV.
NV, I always prefer the truth. There are some who would willfully kill other human beings but most would not and in the abortion debate calling the fetus a living himan being is an important truth. Many pro-aborts like to use the term “clump of cells ” to dehumanize or devalue the baby’s life. Only a small few like you are comfortable with killing when they understand that the babies are living human beings. My goal is not so much to change the mind of a murderer, but rather to share the truth with the younger generation so they don’t get misled with pro-abort propoganda that devalues or dehumanizes the baby that they might choose to kill. That’s why I think the insert that is the subject of this thread is such a great idea and also why the liberal pro-abort school administrators made an effort to prevent it from being distributed.
NV, my question is that if the supposed “right to abortion” is based on the “right to privacy” which is an extrapolation of the ammendment that states that we are not required to house soldiers, why does other types of domestic killings not fall under the umbrella of “right to privacy”.
Even Blackman, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe, realized that this was flawed reasoning and so he came up with the smoke and mirrors of “penumbras”. My point is to get you to realize that there is no sound “right to abortion.”
Oliver@ 3:07 was me.
Not Virginia, if you ran a red light and crashed into another car and the person in the other car needed a blood transfusion for nine months in order to survive, woulod you feel morally obligated to provide said transfusion?
I would do what I could to help the person, yes. I would be under no obligation to do so, though,
Posted by: Not Virginia at Nov 21, 2008 2:36 PM
NV, I think you should be obligated to make the health nof the injured person right again. That is not socialism it is responsibility for your actions. Tell me the, why wouldn’t you do all you could to help the person who you gave life through consentual sex?
NV, I’m not the person advocating the “right” to kill children.
Truthseeker,
If you ran a red light and caused me to need your blood for nine months, would you give it to me knowing that I am pro-choice?
Lauren,
Are you suggesting eleminating all privacy rights, or just the ones you disagree with? I do not see how any of them are related to housing soldiers.
As far as other domestic killings go, I do not believe abortion should be legal past the point of viability. Does that answer your question?
NV, I’m not the person advocating the “right” to kill children.
I wouldn’t refer to a fetus as a “child.”
Not Virginia…….
It certainly is an unborn baby wouldnt you agree?
I dont usually use the word child either but baby. In any case, its definitely a human being and not just a “clump of cells” or “fetus”
An unborn baby is not a baby. It’s unborn.
An uncooked steak is not dinner.
An unbaked cake is not dessert.
An unplanted seed is not a flower.
There is the potential, yes, but a fetus is not a baby.
Okay, you know what? I’ve seen enough on this sight to confirm everything I ever suspected about the pro-life movement. I’m out of here.
Reply if you want, but I won’t see it.
Hal, Doug, Josephine… good for you. Carla, I am glad I have heard your personal story. It shows that for some women abortion is not the choice for them. Every woman’s situation is unique and she should have the right to choose.
So long.
Posted by: Virginia at November 21, 2008 9:31 AM
Virginia or not, the truth always hurts sweetie. See ya on the other side when you find out we were right all along….:-D
“Women who abort are 144% more likely to physically abuse their children.”
Does anybody know where this came from? I can’t make it out from the picture. “Long term effects of abortion.”
I remember it, though, and in that report or study there are some “wild” statistics.
An unborn baby is not a baby. It’s unborn.
An uncooked steak is not dinner.
An unbaked cake is not dessert.
An unplanted seed is not a flower.
There is the potential, yes, but a fetus is not a baby.
Posted by: Not Virginia at November 21, 2008 4:11 PM
your analogies don’t work
you are comparing apples and oranges.
an uncooked steak is STILL a steak
an unbaked cake is still a cake
an unplanted seed is still a seed
an unborn baby is still a baby
the words uncooked, unbaked, unplanted and unborn are adjectives describing each of these nouns.
it is also poor because if the uncooked steak is left UNTOUCHED it will never be anything more than just an uncooked steak.
a baby once conceived (the steak in it’s package stage) will never just stay the same. by itself it begins to direct it’s own development, controlling even the mother’s body and hormonal system. Independently, within hours and the first five days, prior to implantation, when the mother is not even aware yet of it’s existence, the baby has already taken control of it’s destiny, growing and developing, multiplying cells and organizing. It is no longer the “steak in the package”!
Doug it is no coincidence that with the rise in abortion, child abuse and murder rates have skyrocketed.
It was pretty rare to see a baby thrown in a dumpster or drowned in a toilet in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Pretty common nowadays though.
Patricia,
I do not consider a fetus a baby, I’m sorry. An “unborn baby” is still not a baby, just as a 7 year old child is not a baby. You could call him a “really old baby” or a “post-baby” but he is not a baby anymore.
so what Virginia.
The human baby is a person who has the right to live.
Not Virginia, do you have any children? I have a 21 year old who is still my baby. My 18 year old is my bad baby, but I have high hopes. :o) I have a 3 year old who is my baby doll. Okay, I am sure they cannot be defined in society as babies, but you know what I mean. They are my babies and I am their mother. And that is sacred, the mother / child relationship. I am sorry if you don’t see it that way when the baby is a fetus, a zygote, or whatever. You are a precious life, but no more or less precious than your “baby”… Your right is paramount in the law of the land but what about the law of your heart?
Lisa: shame on you. Not Virginia has lost her heart, somewhere between her right to choice and her right to behave as a man….
NV”Lauren,
Are you suggesting eleminating all privacy rights, or just the ones you disagree with? I do not see how any of them are related to housing soldiers.
As far as other domestic killings go, I do not believe abortion should be legal past the point of viability. Does that answer your question?”
You’re missing the point, NV. I am trying to get you to question the basis of the supposed “right” to abortion. It is based on punumbras in the “due process” clause as well as the ammendment that releases households from being obligated to house soldiers. You know very little about the supposed right that you champion.
The problem is this. There is nothing in the Roe decision that explicitly limits the privacy rights to bodily rights. The constitutional logic used to come to the Roe decision could just as easily be applied to a “right” that allowed me to kill my children within my own home.
This isn’t just my opinion, but also the opinion of even those justices who supported Roe. They decided that even though there was no real constitutional grounding for their ruling, they were covered by “due process.” The trouble of this is that taken to it’s conclusion, we see that “due process” rulings could cover any number of crimes within the the umbrella of privacy.
So, the court took an alternative view and looked outside of our constitution to review historical evidence of abortion. They ignored key facts such as the fact that at the time of the writing of the 4th ammendment, there were several anti-abortion laws in existence that were obviously deemed constitutional by our founding fathers, as noted by Justice Rienquest.
There is no “right to abortion” within our constitution. Even Blackman recognized this fact. It was an invented right, which is why it is so vulnerable to being overturned should more strict constitutionalist judges come to the SC.
As for child, this conversation has been argued again and agian, but suffice it to say that “child” simply means progeny. I am my mother’s child although I am an adult. My infant is my child, as is my toddler. It does not refer to a specific time in life, but rather is a relational term.
Oh, boy howdie, Doug. You have just stumbled upon my love in life- digging up studies!
I shall return in a moment with the study in question. :)
Dun dun dun dun!
Here’s the one I believe you are thinking about. Note, it is involving low income women, but the study itself is solid.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a727291069~db=all
Lauren – right on. : ) I found another citation but it’s the same text.
I don’t know about “solid” since the sample sizes were so small, i.e. “119 neglecting mothers,” etc.
Still, this is exactly what I was thinking of.
This study explored maternal history of perinatal loss relative to risk of child physical abuse and neglect. Methods: The 518 study participants included 118 abusive mothers, 119 neglecting mothers, and 281 mothers with no known history of child maltreatment. Interviews and observations were conducted in the participants’ homes, and comparisons were made between women without a history of perinatal loss and women with one and multiple losses relative to risk for child maltreatment.
Results: Compared to women with no history of perinatal loss, those with one loss (voluntary or involuntary) had a 99% higher risk for child physical abuse, and women with multiple losses were 189% more likely to physically abuse their children. Compared to women with no history of induced abortion, those with one prior abortion had a 144% higher risk for child physical abuse.
So, “Human Life Alliance” isn’t telling people that just having multiple miscarriages resulted in a 189% higher likelihood of being abusive.
Finally, maternal history of multiple miscarriages and/or stillbirths compared to no history was associated with a 1237% increased risk of physical abuse and a 605% increased risk of neglect. Conclusion: Perinatal loss may be a marker for elevated risk of child physical abuse, and this information is potentially useful to child maltreatment prevention and intervention efforts.
And this is the great one – from a “wild” statistical conclusion perspective. By this, we could say that women with multiple miscarriages or stillbirths are by far the most likely to be abusive.
(I don’t think that makes sense, either. If anything, I’d think that after having several miscarriages, born children would be treated at least as good as those in families where no miscarriages had occurred.)
Still, though, if we’re going with this study, then “Human Life Alliance” ought to be telling people that it’s a lot better to have one voluntary abortion than to have miscarriages or stillbirths.
Doug it is no coincidence that with the rise in abortion, child abuse and murder rates have skyrocketed.
Patricia, you’re assuming causation, which is not valid there.
…..
It was pretty rare to see a baby thrown in a dumpster or drowned in a toilet in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Pretty common nowadays though.
And without legal abortion it stands to reason that there would be many more unwanted babies being born and hence a lot more of what you describe.
There are many factors at work. For abuse – reporting rates are much higher now. It was not that the rate was so much less back then, rather it just wasn’t reported nearly as much, or even considered “abuse” nearly so much.
yup, just keep tryin to explain it all away Doug. Anything but abortion. Abortion can’t possibly have any serious repercussions for society. Nope, surely not at the rate of 1.5 million per year.
You make me sick.
Dough, the abstract doesn’t specify if the wildly increased child abuse rates area due only to involuntary pregnancy loss or include multiple abortions. If I remember correctly, the rate of child abuse after multiple abortions was “incalculably high”, but I’d have to look at the full text, not just the abstract.
Truthseeker,
If you ran a red light and caused me to need your blood for nine months, would you give it to me knowing that I am pro-choice?
Posted by: Not Virginia at Nov 21, 2008 3:12 PM
Of course I would
“There is the potential, yes, but a fetus is not a baby.”
Patricia @4:26 PM,
your analogies don’t work
you are comparing apples and oranges.
an uncooked steak is STILL a steak
an unbaked cake is still a cake
an unplanted seed is still a seed
an unborn baby is still a baby
the words uncooked, unbaked, unplanted and unborn are adjectives describing each of these nouns.
it is also poor because if the uncooked steak is left UNTOUCHED it will never be anything more than just an uncooked steak.
a baby once conceived (the steak in it’s package stage) will never just stay the same. by itself it begins to direct it’s own development, controlling even the mother’s body and hormonal system. Independently, within hours and the first five days, prior to implantation, when the mother is not even aware yet of it’s existence, the baby has already taken control of it’s destiny, growing and developing, multiplying cells and organizing. It is no longer the “steak in the package”!
Very good!
NV,
You never answered my question I posed above so I will repeat it here:
*****
I think you should be obligated to make the health nof the injured person right again. That is not socialism it is responsibility for your actions. Tell me the, why wouldn’t you do all you could to help the living human being who you gave life through consentual sex?
Posted by: truthseeker at Nov 21, 2008 3:08 PM
*******
Why should any college newspaper allow editorial content that it does not as an editorial board agree with? Colleges drop alcohol related content or smoking related content from their ad slots all the time. If you want this content in the paper, find someone who works for the paper and write an honest-to-goodness editorial about it. But don’t complain because an ad got rejected.
YLT,
What about the ad is there not to “agree with”?
yup, just keep tryin to explain it all away Doug. Anything but abortion. Abortion can’t possibly have any serious repercussions for society. Nope, surely not at the rate of 1.5 million per year. You make me sick.
Patricia, what makes you sick is that you don’t have a logical leg to stand on.
If you want “serious repercussions” in society, imagine an extra million plus unwanted kids in the system.
Doug,
As long as we are imagining. Imagine a world where all parents are willing to take responsibility for their “choice” to enage in intercourse and cared for every child conceived. WOW. Now thats my kind of world.
Truthseeker, if everybody wanted to continue their pregnancies, fine with me.
Doug, the abstract doesn’t specify if the wildly increased child abuse rates area due only to involuntary pregnancy loss or include multiple abortions. If I remember correctly, the rate of child abuse after multiple abortions was “incalculably high”, but I’d have to look at the full text, not just the abstract.
Lauren, I’d like to see the whole thing.
If nothing else, I think that shows that some people just should not have kids (which I think we all know anyway).
I also think the study was very flawed. You take one group, like the 118 abusive mothers, and divide it into the different groups:
No prenatal or perinatal loss.
Only voluntary loss.
Only involuntary loss.
Just one voluntary loss.
Multiple voluntary losses.
Just one involuntary loss.
Multiple voluntary losses.
Mixtures of losses – voluntary and involuntary.
I don’t know if that’s all the groups, but that 118 is going to be divided by enough numbers that some of the groups are going to only have a few people in them, and thus far away from statistical validity. I think that the woman that did most of it sometimes teams up with David Reardon, making her suspect, but even without that, the small sample size kills it, IMO.
I thought Virginia left?
Oh wait, no I didnt.
Oh by the way..
“Main Entry:
1ba·by Listen to the pronunciation of 1baby
Pronunciation:
\?b?-b?\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural babies
Etymology:
Middle English, from babe
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): an extremely young child ”
”
Main Entry:
child Listen to the pronunciation of child
Pronunciation:
\?ch?(-?)ld\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural chil·dren Listen to the pronunciation of children \?chil-dr?n, -d?rn\
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat?hara belly
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: an unborn or recently born person”
Notice the etymology on child by the way. Thought that was interesting.
I cant find the dictionary that has child as “fetus,” maybe Doug remembers.
Once again, Virginia, you have demonstrated your wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence with your posts.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson “In case you cant tell, I was being sarcastic.”
Truthseeker, if everybody wanted to continue their pregnancies, fine with me.
Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2008 9:21 PM
Glad to hear you have been able to overcome your fear of the “serious repercussions” you spoke of
in your 8:56p.m. post.
NV,
Do you have the nerve to read the book? This is no book for NORMAL middle schoolers. It details, with pages of medical references, dangers of free love. Her point is exactly where you are coming from. No one has the guts to actually look at the FACTS and see the dangers in casual, promiscuous sex. Read the book and become informed.
“Truthseeker, if everybody wanted to continue their pregnancies, fine with me.”
Glad to hear you have been able to overcome your fear of the “serious repercussions” you spoke of in your 8:56p.m. post.
Ha! Right on, Dude. Yes – I’d rather see women keep the freedom they have, there too.
More later, at work, gotta go.
Posted by: truthseeker at November 21, 2008 8:52 PM
There is everything not to agree with, and as a newspaper they have a right to accept or reject any content they don’t feel fit to publish.
Imagine a world where all parents are willing to take responsibility for their “choice” to engage in intercourse and cared for every child conceived. WOW. Now thats my kind of world.
Truthseeker, again – if everybody was willing then it wouldn’t even be an argument. In the here and now they are not responsible to what you want, but rather to what they want.
I’ve been wondering what will happen when we get into some really tough economic times. In the Depression of the 1930’s, there was a significant drop-off in the birth rate, though I think it was mainly in one year.
It’s surprising how fast “the economy” can change, and we’re seeing it now. Last I saw, the birth rate had actually gone up…
Truthseeker, again – if everybody was willing then it wouldn’t even be an argument. In the here and now they are not responsible to what you want, but rather to what they want.
Posted by: Doug at November 22, 2008 1:15 PM
I wasn’t talking about being responsible to what I want, I was talking about being responsible for their own actions.
There is everything not to agree with, and as a newspaper they have a right to accept or reject any content they don’t feel fit to publish.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at Nov 22, 2008 11:36 AM
Like the gestational stages of developement of humans. You are saying a school of higher learning should reject that for it’s students?
the school does not have to accept a dogma or theology if it does not want to, nor does a newspaper have to accept content if it does not want to. If your arguement stood, then i should be able to place a pro-abortion ad in the catholic newspaper because I find nothing to object about it and the newspaper has no right to object (by your standards) to ad or editiorial content).
TS: I wasn’t talking about being responsible to what I want, I was talking about being responsible for their own actions.
Oh yes you were talking about what you want.
They are already responsible for their own actions, and it’s up to the woman whether to continue a pregnancy or not.
Doug, “responsibility” for caring for the new life they created?
You want them to value the unborn positively,TS, you want them to care for them and want them to be born, etc., but it’s not always that way.
It’s not their responsibility to do anything different than what they want, in this case, though again I realize you wish things were different.
YoLa,
The gestational stages of developement of humans. You are saying a school of higher learning should reject that for it’s students?
Posted by: truthseeker at Nov 22, 2008 3:04 PM
It’s not their responsibility to do anything different than what they want, in this case, though again I realize you wish things were different.
Posted by: Doug at November 22, 2008 4:23 PM
Is it the mother’s responsibility to care for the after the child is born, or only her responsibility to do anything they want?
TS, to viability I am saying that it’s totally up to her. Doesn’t matter what you want, doesn’t matter what I want, doesn’t matter what Joe Blow across town wants.
“After the child is born” then yes – it’s the mother’s responsibility if she keeps the child.
So, according to you, she has responsibility to care for the child both before and after birth but she can choose to shirk all responsibility and kill the child instead until the child is born?
Why is it the mother’s responsibility after the child is screw. Why can’t she just say screw you Joe Blow and anybody else, I can do whatever the “f” I want?
Why is it the mother’s responsibility after the child is born? Why can’t she just say screw you Joe Blow and anybody else, I can do whatever the “f” I want?
TS, from viability to birth is the “gray area.” The restrictions that some states have makes for some “responsibility” you could say, yes, though of course in some cases the fetus can still be legally aborted.
I think at least one woman has been charged for taking drugs, endangering the unborn baby…?
Furthermore, since delivery is then an option, the woman can end the pregnancy by having labor induced early, thus it’s sort of a compromise between her wishes and those of the state, there.
I’m not saying it’s a “good thing” for babies to be born early, either, but in this case it’s as opposed to being aborted earlier in gestation.
After the baby is born, the woman doesn’t have to do anything – she can give the baby up if she wants. But, if she takes the baby home from the hospital then yes, society says she’s gotta do certain things.
She can say whatever she wants, but if she’s the legal guardian of a born baby, then society does have rules.
It doesn’t make any legal sense to me. If she can kill the baby unborn then se should be able to kill the baby after birth too. Not that I would agree of course, I think mother’s are morally obligated to care for any children she gestates and should be legally resonsible to care for reasonable care of same childen if she consentually chooses to engae in intercourse.
Patricia, what makes you sick is that you don’t have a logical leg to stand on.
If you want “serious repercussions” in society, imagine an extra million plus unwanted kids in the system.
Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2008 8:56 PM
you must be bloody stupid, you know that Doug. Honestly, there is no other conclusion I can come to. Where do you get off with the assumption that every one of those 1.5 million kids are unwanted? You’d love to believe that this is true but this is one of the main myths of the proabort movement.
Henry Morgentaler keeps telling himself and anyone who will listen to him, how he singlehandedly reduced crime in Canada by killing off all our unwanted babies. Yeah, right.
Many women have gotten pregnant and not wanted their baby only to give birth and be utterly thrilled with the baby.
You don’t have a leg to stand on – you have no idea what a blessing children are. I pity you.
yup, just keep tryin to explain it all away Doug. Anything but abortion. Abortion can’t possibly have any serious repercussions for society. Nope, surely not at the rate of 1.5 million per year. You make me sick.
“Patricia, what makes you sick is that you don’t have a logical leg to stand on.
If you want “serious repercussions” in society, imagine an extra million plus unwanted kids in the system.”
you must be bloody stupid, you know that Doug. Honestly, there is no other conclusion I can come to.
Oh come on – you were theorizing about the effect of abortion and I asked a theoretical question about all the extra kids that would result from not having legal abortion.
…..
Where do you get off with the assumption that every one of those 1.5 million kids are unwanted? You’d love to believe that this is true but this is one of the main myths of the proabort movement.
I don’t assume that. You’re falsely trying to put words in my mouth. Granted that some would be adopted, loved, and be just fine. The fact remains that there are lots of kids in state care and foster care now, and that when you talk about an additional 1.5 million per year, it’s going to make a huge difference.
…..
Henry Morgentaler keeps telling himself and anyone who will listen to him, how he singlehandedly reduced crime in Canada by killing off all our unwanted babies. Yeah, right.
I know you don’t like the guy, and he may be outspoken at times, but you have to admit that had he done no abortions, some criminals would be in Canada that aren’t there now.
…..
Many women have gotten pregnant and not wanted their baby only to give birth and be utterly thrilled with the baby.
And that’s totally fine with me. I’m Pro-Choice.
…..
You don’t have a leg to stand on – you have no idea what a blessing children are. I pity you.
Nah – you’re just bein’ a grouch.
Truthseeker: It doesn’t make any legal sense to me. If she can kill the baby unborn then she should be able to kill the baby after birth too.
It’s because rights are attributed at birth. I know you wish it were different, and I am not saying it cannot be different, but for now that is the way it is.
…..
Not that I would agree of course, I think mother’s are morally obligated to care for any children she gestates and should be legally resonsible to care for reasonable care of same childen if she consentually chooses to engae in intercourse.
TS, I certainly believe that you feel that way.
It’s because rights are attributed at birth.
Posted by: Doug at November 23, 2008 8:55 AM
Unborn babies are the only individuals I can think of that can be kiled just because they are not wanted. Logically, the baby has the same value regardless of his/her location. Practically it is the same baby. So one persons rights are being based not on their own dignity but instead on the wishes of another person.
TS, society executes people at times because society deems them unwanted. Same for imprisoning people.
A society is basically a group of people with stuff in common, and if an individual goes far enough outside the dictates of society, then society will “put them out.”
Society does not want murderers, as an example – they’re unwanted enough that they are imprisoned or killed.
Plenty get killed because they are unwanted – enemy combatants, home invaders, etc. And this is after right-to-life has been attributed. (It’s not “absolute” nor irrevocable, etc.) The situation at hand can make all the difference.
This is not to say that the unborn have committed crimes or wilfully violated society’s rules, but the unborn have not had the right to life attributed to them, yet, either.
….
Logically, the baby has the same value regardless of his/her location.
No, “logic” has nothing to do with it. It is valuation. It is how people feel. All born kids are certainly “human beings,” for example. But there is a wide range of how their parents feel about them and how they are treated.
…..
Practically it is the same baby. So one persons rights are being based not on their own dignity but instead on the wishes of another person.
That’s just the point – the unborn are not granted the status of being a person. They are not attributed personhood. Personhood are rights are quite a bit the same thing.
However – yes, rights are based on “the wishes” of other people. Rights are a concept of the mind.
NV: “An unborn baby is not a baby. It’s unborn.
An uncooked steak is not dinner.
An unbaked cake is not dessert.
An unplanted seed is not a flower.”
I’ve been correcting shoddy analogies such as these for more than a decade now.
“your analogies don’t work
you are comparing apples and oranges.
…
an unbaked cake is still a cake”
Hey, Patricia… just saying, I think your wrong here. Isn’t an unbaked cake just… ingredients? Doesn’t it become a cake when it’s all done?
If you were putting the ingredients for a cake together, someone would ask “what are you making?” and you’d say “a cake”… but, they wouldn’t ask “what did you make?” because it’s not a cake ’til it’s done.
I’m not surprised. I mean, my student news paper wont publish anything that could be misconstrued as the paper taking a stance on any issue. Heck, they wouldnt publish a resolution the student senate passed advocating the student body’s position on a ballot question.
Dan, why is it that way? What is the big worry if they are seen taking a position?
TS, society executes people at times because society deems them unwanted. Same for imprisoning people.
A society is basically a group of people with stuff in common, and if an individual goes far enough outside the dictates of society, then society will “put them out.”
Society does not want murderers, as an example – they’re unwanted enough that they are imprisoned or killed.
Plenty get killed because they are unwanted – enemy combatants, home invaders, etc. And this is after right-to-life has been attributed. (It’s not “absolute” nor irrevocable, etc.) The situation at hand can make all the difference.
This is not to say that the unborn have committed crimes or wilfully violated society’s rules, but the unborn have not had the right to life attributed to them, yet, either.
Posted by: Doug at November 23, 2008 12:48 PM
Say no more Doug. You just said that society treats the unborn like enemy combatants, home invaders, and murderers. What the “fark”. theyb are just cute little innocent babies.
Say no more Doug. You just said that society treats the unborn like enemy combatants, home invaders, and murderers. What the “fark”. they are just cute little innocent babies.
Oh come on, TS. You first said, Unborn babies are the only individuals I can think of that can be kiled just because they are not wanted.
Well, “not wanted” covers a variety of things, as I noted, and it’s certainly not that it can only be applied to the unborn.
All right – I agree with you – they are cute little innocent babies. But society is not “treating them like” (anything). Society is leaving the decision up to the woman or the couple.
Society takes a position on criminals, the enemy, etc., while an individual pregnancy is the province of the people directly involved.