Weekend question
I previously reported on Internet RU-486 abortions being offered in countries where abortion is illegal.
Now, Susan Yanow and Kinga Jelinski at RH Reality Check are proposing US law be relaxed for RU-486 abortions.
Currently, mothers must be assessed and given the medication regimen (mifepristone, i.e., RU-486, to kill the baby and misoprostol, i.e., Cytotec, to expel the baby) at a dr’s office or abortion clinic and must return for assessment to ensure the abortion was complete.
Yanow and Jelinski maintain…
As early as 2002, well-respected researchers were questioning the over-medicalization of the procedure, citing evidence that most women can safely and effectively handle the medical abortion process themselves, effectively and safely….
[M]edication abortion is a safe, straightforward option for ending an early unwanted pregnancy, and could be made more available and less expensive if home use were an option.
But Sky News reported in July 2008:
But a study in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found 11% of 400 [Internet] customers went on to need a surgical procedure – either because the drugs had not completed the abortion or because of excessive bleeding.
The question is, how do pro-lifers approach the likely future push to make RU-486 available in the US over the Internet? Do we argue it is safer for mothers to abort in abortion mills? Or do we ignore that fight – removing ourselves as the likely sole barrier against it – and continue to focus on overturning FDA approval of RU-486 in the first place?
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.
“Do we argue it is safer for mothers to abort in abortion mills?”
I can’t see any reason why, no. To me that seems to be saying “don’t do that evil action that way; do the evil action THIS way.”
“Or do we ignore that fight – removing ourselves as the likely sole barrier against it – and continue to focus on overturning FDA approval of RU-486 in the first place?”
Yes, I think so. We can not put ourselves in a situation where we are “forced” to choose between two evils. It’s like when someone argues “if you’re against abortion, you should be all for more birth control which REDUCES the need for abortion.” Well, I’m sorry, but I will not support something that is less evil (though still gravely evil) in order to prevent something that is a greater evil. I think that same principle applies here. Abortion shouldn’t be happening. Period.
That picture is horrible. I mean, it’s so flippant. They might as well have a picture of some cyanide pills and a corpse.
Quite honestly, you are unlikely to overturn approval of RU-486. So if you think there should be some control over it, then you should focus your efforts on that rather than waste them elsewhere.
Same with abortion: You are unlikely to make it illegal. But you can probably do something to make the rare cases like baby Rowan never happen again. Or work toward improving the options for pregnant woman, as well as ensuring every woman understands them all.
I realize that that this is quite different from what jill is asking and how many of you feel: Why fight one aspect when we oppose the whole thing? Well, what I am suggesting is you may as well focus your efforts on that one aspect if that’s where you might make a change.
Well said, astis. I think we can all agree that all of us want less abortions happening, though we all have different reasons for it. It is possible, you know, to make a collaborative effort to reduce abortions by non-legislative means until inshallah one day they don’t happen any more.
I cannot support abortion, as it goes against my religious viewpoint, but I cannot impose my beliefs on others (that also goes against my religion). But we can be productive, pro-choice, pro-life, and not-quite-sure, all together. To do that, though, people on both sides have to get over themselves.
If you prohibit abortion, women will find another way to get it done. This accomplished nothing! In fact, if a woman gets hurt then it causes even more evil. When everyone takes their fingers out of their ears, perhaps we will be able to get something done other than having a back-and-forth push-and-pull fight like children.
Leah, opposition to abortion need not be based on religion. It is a crafty lie of the abortion industry that the belief that abortion is wrong is merely a religious view that shouldn’t be forced on others.
We “force” our belief that theft and murder are wrong on general society. Sure, the bible teaches that these thigns are wrong, but one does not have to believe in the bible in order to support them.
Yes, people will continue to have abortions despite laws making it illegal. People still steal and they still kill. We don’t abandon laws because people might continue to break them.
I strongly support the legalization of murder, rape and armed robbery because history has shown that people will commit these crimes anyway.
I believe we have 15,000 illegal back-alley murders and about 200-300,000 illegal back-alley rapes each year (FBI statistics), along with who knows how many thousands of illegal back-alley armed robberies. Large numbers of people are injured or killed each year after being forced to commit these crimes illegally, since our society refuses to face reality and allow these crimes to be committed safely and legally.
Also, statutes opposing “choice” in murder, rape and armed robbery are based on religious beliefs, if you can believe that! “Thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not steal” and all that.
Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Why are we forcing Christian and Jewish (and Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist, etc.) religious beliefs on our society like this?
Let us have “choice” in everything and live happily ever after (well actually NOT live, but what are you gonna do, life’s a bith).
“But we can be productive, pro-choice, pro-life,…”
This is an oxymoron: you cannot be pro-choice and pro-life. Impossible.
“I think we can all agree that all of us want less abortions happening, though we all have different reasons for it.”
No. Some of us want NO abortions at all. Not less, NONE.
“If you prohibit abortion, women will find another way to get it done.”
Maybe. Maybe not. But that will be the woman’s decision solely. It will not involve society as a whole supporting this nor will it require the medical profession to train “professional” baby killers.
Would you apply the same argument to rape? I think not!
“I cannot support abortion, as it goes against my religious viewpoint, but I cannot impose my beliefs on others (that also goes against my religion).
Another fallacious argument. All laws support some kind of belief system. The current law supports the hedonistic religion whereas previous bans on abortion and contraception supported the Judaeo-Christian view that sex is sacred and babies are human beings that should NOT be murdered.
See? This is what I mean! If you don’t get over yourselves nothing will get done! For heaven’s sake, does your baseless rhetoric really get you anywhere? With that sort of holier-than-thou attitude and the belief that only YOU can be right will have your cause stuck in the deepest of ruts.
And toostunned, my religious statement is not fallacious. I am Muslim, alhamdulillah. Not Jewish or Christian.
We should focus on what we all want: less/no abortions and then come up with reasonable ways to get that done!
Posted by: Leah at February 7, 2009 11:46 AM
I cannot support abortion, as it goes against my religious viewpoint, but I cannot impose my beliefs on others (that also goes against my religion).
———————————————————-
“To say men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.”
Barrack Hussein Obama
Leah,
Your assertion is wrong on at least two points:
1). It presumes or implies that ‘religious’ people are incapable of making a reasoned logical case against killing pre-natal human beings.
2). It incorrectly asserts that ‘law’ must be or even can be, morally free. How do you, as an individual determine what is right or wrong for you? If you were born into and grew up in a ‘western’ culture such as North, Central or South American, then your ideas of ‘right or wrong’ have been informed by at least a post Christian worldview.
Why do we make theft illegal? Why is polygamy or bigamy illegal? Why is incest illegal? Why is prostitution illegal? Why is murder illegal?
Because someones worldview will always prevail and that dominant worldview will inform a societys laws.
In the United States we have an orderly process for creating, changing and repealing laws. We do it through our elected representatives who are supposed to represent our collective world view.
But they are both restrained and constrained by the federal constitution.
(You know one of the beauties of the U.S. Constitution is that in not only protects the people from their government, it protects the government from the people.)
The federal constitution does not ‘grant’ rights. It recognizes and protects pre-existing rights.
I am a free man, not because the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution says so, but because I am endowed by the Creator who formed me in His image and gave me breath.
I will refuse with my last breath and last ounce of energy to ever acknowledge that any but God has made me such.
To do so would be beyond stupidity.
Because if ‘government’ bestowed on me life and liberty, then it can remove them by a majority vote.
The weak link in our constitutional system is the Unites States Supreme Court, because as one former Supreme Court Justice stated, “The constitution is what we say it is.”
Nine men and women are all that stand between you and oppressive tyranny. American history is repleat with examples where the United States Supreme Court has embraced the most heinous barabarism and called it ‘constitutional’.
I suggest that you take full adavantage of the second ammendment, because the primary responsibility for your life, freedom, saftey and well being resides with you.
If you doubt my assertions read the Declaration of Independence. It is some of Thomas Jefferson’s better work made better at the insistance of his peers. Jefferson spells it out very clearly.
yor bro ken
See? This is what I mean! If you don’t get over yourselves nothing will get done! For heaven’s sake, does your baseless rhetoric really get you anywhere? With that sort of holier-than-thou attitude and the belief that only YOU can be right will have your cause stuck in the deepest of ruts.
This is just nothing but goobledegook! Really! Get OVER myself? What? I should shed my views because they are offensive to whom? Muslims, Baptist, JW’s? Who cares if you are Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Moonie.
The fact is that it is barbaric to kill unborn children. Never mind religious arguments -This is written in the heart of all human beings – children are something special. Sex is special.
Regardless of religion, the truth is that abortion and contraception are the hallmark of hedonism and a distorted view of sexuality.
The development of Judaism and eventually Christianity changed our understanding of sexuality and of the human person. They elevated our understanding to see the beauty in the human person and to see sexuality as a gift.
Are you suggesting we settle for the lowest common denominator?
Just because I am opposed to abortion on many levels, one of them being religious, does not make my position any less tenable.
I will refuse with my last breath and last ounce of energy to ever acknowledge that any but God has made me such.
To do so would be beyond stupidity.
Posted by: kbhvac at February 7, 2009 1:57 PM
Ken, believing in a deity or not has nothing to do with intelligence.
Leah well said, all round. And good to hear from a Muslim here.
kbhvac: It is specifically against my religion to force my beliefs onto others. I don’t care what Obama has to say about it.
toostunned: I never said your religion had anything to do with whether or not your viewpoint was tenable.
I think my idea is a great one. I wish others would join me.
I should have also mentioned IVF in my original comment.
You’re unlikely to ever ban IVF. You’d be better off focusing your efforts on certain aspects: restrict the number of embryos implanted (to avoid a case like the octuplets, and to not put health and lives at great risk), restrict the number of embryos created or provide alternatives for embryos that are not implanted…..
I think my idea is a great one. I wish others would join me.
Posted by: Leah at February 7, 2009 3:01 PM
Leah, I get the impression there ARE people who feel the same way already. They would be the more moderate pro-lifers and pro-choicers. You just don’t find too many of them here.
Just wait till there is a woman die. lawsuits
wait till a man slips a mom some meds and she miscarries. Or a woman for that matter.
but no they want to remove bibles and weapons.
wait till a man slips a mom some meds and she miscarries. Or a woman for that matter.
Posted by: xppc at February 7, 2009 3:18 PM
Yes,that would be a risk if they change the law xxpc. Good reason to keep the current process.
xppc, 3:18PM
We had such a situation in a city not too far from me. He skipped the country before he could face prosecution.
Hi Mary. Why did he do such a thing and how did they find out? How did he get the meds?
we should oppose ru-486 every step of the way…
Mary, I found the news reports on that guy. I hadn’t heard any of this! What a creep! I guess in this case, the laws here would make no difference since he got them from a foreign source.
Right now I’m in a sour enough mood to say — The women who have that sort of enthusiasm for abortion would be doing the world a favor by removing themselves from the gene pool. Let Darwin sort them out. They’ll be idiotic enough to be popping their abortion pills without first bothering to even determine if there’s a viable embryo, so most of what they’ll be risking hemorrhage and sepsis for is to rid themselves of hydatidiform moles and blighted ova that they just think are living embryos.
I can not and will never understand saying they don’t agree with abortion because of their religion but can’t impose it on someone else…. HELLO. This is not about religion. Murder is forbidden in the Bible… in my religion. Should I not expect our nation to outlaw murder? Of course not. We impose that on others all the time.
Abortion is NO different. It is murder. It is taking of innocent life. Innocent HUMAN life.
If I can not prevent all murders because of the law (and we can’t) should we then make it legal?
I will fight and fight for this issue, whether or not it ever gets passed. I can not support medicated abortion any more than surgical. I will fight to get its approval overturned. I will fight for abortion to become ILLEGAL AND RARE.
Shame on our nation for promoting one million murders per year. I can not and will not accept that. Ever.
Hi Asitis, 5:42PM
I don’t recall how he got the RU 486, only that he slipped it in his girlfriend’s drink and she aborted. I was under the impression he got it locally, one can obtain anything if they want to badly enough, but I could be wrong about that.
Jill may have had something about it on her blog, you may want to check her archives.
Maybe they ran some blood test on her to determine he had slipped it to her, I’m not certain. Only that he was facing prosecution and fled the country.
LOHF: you are quite right!
I note that Leah did not answer my question about extending this kind of logic to rape or other forms of murder. Maybe even abuse or internet child porn.
Why is it that thinking consistently is thrown out the window when it comes to abortion? Why is it that we are willing to compromise?
Would this sort of thinking do for rape? Maybe we could make “exceptions” for rape on certain days or in certain circumstances?
nonsense. Rape, murder, abuse are all a violation of human rights.
mary I Googled it earlier and got news reports. Sounds like he might have done it more than once and she got suspicious.
Mary:
A Wisconsin man has fled the United States after being charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child for spiking his girlfriend’s smoothie with the abortafacient drug, RU-486.
Manish M. Patel, 34, was charged on November 29 with seven felonies, the maximum punishment of the combined offenses is 99½ years in prison with fines of up to $92,000. Patel was freed from jail on December 3 after his friends raised the money necessary to post his $750,000 bail.
Darshana Patel became pregnant in September 2006 – a child Manish denied was his – but she miscarried two months later. According to court records, Manish made Darshana drink a glass of milk with saffron in it. Manish denied Darshana’s accusation of being responsible for the miscarriage.
She became pregnant with his child a third time in August 2007, and this time she noticed how attentive Manish became, the criminal complaint said. He even prepared meals for her, up to the days before her second miscarriage, in September.
Investigators interviewed Manish Patel, asking whether he used abortion pills to cause the miscarriages, but he refused to answer. In a follow-up interview, he admitted to giving Darshana “one pill” but would not give any further details.
*************************************************
then there is this case:
A Maryland man is in police custody after being accused of spiking his pregnant girlfriend’s drink with a cattle hormone in an attempt to cause an abortion. The case is the latest in what has become a national phenomenon of boyfriends or husbands attacking their pregnant partners to kill their unborn children.
In this case, 25-year-old William Stanley Sutton III added the ProstaMate to a soft drink his 21-year-old girlfriend Lauren Ashley Tucker was about to consume. The chemical is given to cows to stimulate pregnancy or cause an abortion in certain circumstances.
Both Sutton and her 15 week-old unborn child survived the incident and Sutton has been charged with reckless endangerment, assault and contaminating Tucker’s drink. Police are also investigating whether Sutton spiked Tucker drink on a previous occasion.
*********************************************
oh well. So much for choice eh?
I have to agree toostunned. Those women had their right to choose taken from them( or almost in the latter case) It is horrible.
Same with abortion: You are unlikely to make it illegal. But you can probably do something to make the rare cases like baby Rowan never happen again. Or work toward improving the options for pregnant woman, as well as ensuring every woman understands them all.
Posted by: asitis at February 7, 2009 10:41 AM
Artis,
UMMM…….I think Jill’s legislation was all about, making cases (not rare) never happen again.
Obama made sure it would happen again over and over.
By “you”, do you mean “you pro-lifers”? Prolifers have been trying to make sure women are well informed of their options since 1973, which has never gone over well with the pro-abort industry.
Pro-aborts fight every single piece of legislation that would give women the right to know what their options are,what the procedure entails, health risks, long term affects etc. They want to sell women into abortions. That’s their focus. Until the “pro”-choicers get on board with this and stand united, it will never happen. Pro-aborts are never the group who compromise anything. Why aren’t the pro-aborts out there making sure their clinics are safe, clean and staffed with licensed medical professionals. Offer assistance to women like Rowan’s mother who desparately wanted to save her baby. It’s always the pro-life groups who must play watch dog over the clinics and report bad behavior.
As far as improving options for pregnant women, why don’t the “pro” choicers help out here.
The federal govt. loves to give money to the biggest profitable “non-profit” in the US which is Planned Parenthood. PP lobbies and are granted millions of our tax payer dollars.
Very little money is ever given to crisis pregnancy centers to help women who choose to keep their babies or help with adoptions.
There have already been several reported deaths by this abortion method and that’s with a prescription.
There was a great article not too long ago in a popular magazine about a woman who choose this method of abortion. She got violently ill and was shocked that her abortionist had down played the side effects. He made it sound like it was taking candy.
She wanted to warn other women to really understand that taking this drug is not just a quick simple fix. She felt like she was going to die.
BTW, I spoke to a therapist I met today and she counsels many women who are post-abortive. She can not believe the emotional devestation this
“empowering right” brings to women. They are broken, depressed and sad that they were sold into the idea that killing the life inside of them would be q quick fix and their lives could move on like nothing ever happened.
They were never informed of any long term effects from their abortionist. Maybe “you” should try and make sure this never happens.
Pro-aborts fight every single piece of legislation that would give women the right to know what their options are,what the procedure entails, health risks, long term affects etc. They want to sell women into abortions. That’s their focus. Until the “pro”-choicers get on board with this and stand united, it will never happen. Pro-aborts are never the group who compromise anything. Why aren’t the pro-aborts out there making sure their clinics are safe, clean and staffed with licensed medical professionals. Offer assistance to women like Rowan’s mother who desparately wanted to save her baby. It’s always the pro-life groups who must play watch dog over the clinics and report bad behavior.
Posted by: Sandy at February 7, 2009 8:50 PM
Pro-choicers actually fight legislation to let women know what their options are? Can you give me an example of what you mean by this please?
Pro-choicers do not want to sell abortion. In fact, that want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and REDUCE the number of abortions.
It should not be up to pro-choice nor pro-life advocates to ensure that clinics are clean, properly-staffed and inform women of all of their options. Instead, there should be regulations and agencies that ensure they are being adhered to.
Unfortunately, staunch pro-lifers are not interested in any of this. Just as Jill asked
“Do we argue it is safer…. ? Or do we ignore that fight…. and continue to focus on overturning.. approval….in the first place?”
They actually don’t want to make things safer or cleaner or less likely.
Yes, people will continue to have abortions despite laws making it illegal. People still steal and they still kill. We don’t abandon laws because people might continue to break them.
Lauren – indeed not (at least usually) but we do sometimes abandon laws (not to mention not instituting them) when there isn’t suffficient opinion for them, as with barring interracial marriage. Do you want it to be illegal? Well, lots of people don’t want abortion to be illegal.
Bobby: We can not put ourselves in a situation where we are “forced” to choose between two evils. It’s like when someone argues “if you’re against abortion, you should be all for more birth control which REDUCES the need for abortion.” Well, I’m sorry, but I will not support something that is less evil (though still gravely evil) in order to prevent something that is a greater evil. I think that same principle applies here. Abortion shouldn’t be happening. Period.
Bobby, would it really be “putting yourselves” in that situation, though?
You are such a good guy, and ’tis certain sure that you want what you see as best for everybody.
Yet isn’t it true that you’re really already in that situation, in the real world, because both are not going to go away? Trying to ban abortion while at the same time trying to ban birth control would be most ineffective.
On the one hand I see the “situation” as a statement of your beliefs, and that is one thing.
As far as effecting the changes in society that you’d like to see, however, it’s quite a different matter.
25-year-old William Stanley Sutton III added the ProstaMate to a soft drink his 21-year-old girlfriend Lauren Ashley Tucker was about to consume. The chemical is given to cows to stimulate pregnancy or cause an abortion in certain circumstances.
Whoa, what if it stimulated pregnancy and she literally “had a cow”?
That’s some fair points, Doug. Now I don’t know if I would necessarily want to ban birth control, although if I do really believe it is intrinsically evil, shouldn’t I want to? Well it does seem that way but intuitively I don’t feel that that’s the right way to go. Obviously that isn’t an argument.
But I do have to say that even if I was in a situation where I KNEW that my compromising on a less serious position would bring about a positive change in a more serious position, I would not do it. I first and foremost believe I have a moral duty to uphold those values which hold as absolute. Now obviously the reason that I hold so strongly to this is that I believe that God will always bring about good from evil, that he never perfectly wills someone to do evil or compromise with evil in order to bring about some greater good.
It’s a very interesting question, though, that if one does not hold to this idea of God, at what point would they be willing to work with what they can by tolerating some things they fine wrong in order to bring about a greater good? And I don’t think my use of the word “tolerate” there is quite right. It’s more than tolerate. Be somewhat complicit?
But anyway, that is how I see things. I would never argue about the safeness of aborting in a mill to keep away something that is even more dangerous because I believe they are both intrinsically wrong. God love you, Doug.
Pro-choicers actually fight legislation to let women know what their options are? Can you give me an example of what you mean by this please?
Pro-choicers do not want to sell abortion. In fact, that want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and REDUCE the number of abortions.
Posted by: asitis at February 7, 2009 10:03 PM
Artis,
Just one example would be the Women’s Right to Know Bill that was passed in my state. It required clinics to provide medically accurate information to women along with medical risks short term and long term.
The pro-aborts were in full force fighting this.
I called a local pro-abort organization and asked why they would want to prevent women from medical information that would help them make a more informed decision about this “choice”
All the gal who answered the phone could say over and over again was “this law will chip away at a woman’s right to choose”, “this law will chip away at a woman’s right to choose”, “this law will chip away at a woman’s right to choose”
She didn’t have one original thought in her head.
She couldn’t answer this simple question.
How about states who try to enforce laws that would require clinics to ask women if they want to see the ultrasound prior to the procedure?
Pro-aborts fight this tooth and nail evdry time.
How does passing FOCA reduce the number of aborrtions. Please explain how this will reduce the number of abortions.
Sandy, what specifically in the bill was being challenged by Pro-choice?
Asitis,
I am not sure since the only response I received was “this law will chip away at a women’s right to choose” I never got to engage in any real dialogue.
well she wasn’t necessarily well-informed, so probably a good response for her to give.
Often there is something included in a bill that makes people oppose it regardless of things that are in the bill that they are for. What’s the case with this one????
well she wasn’t necessarily well-informed, so probably a good response for her to give.
Often there is something included in a bill that makes people oppose it regardless of things that are in the bill that they are for. What’s the case with this one????
toostunned: It’s an interesting thing to think about. Is anyone deterred from murdering or raping just because it is against the law?
The point of the laws, though, are to make it possible to prosecute criminals. I think we should be compassionate to women who chose abortion. We should do everything we can to ensure women are never faced with such a choice. That’s all. I think making unenforceable legislation is just kind of a waste of time.
toostunned: It’s an interesting thing to think about. Is anyone deterred from murdering or raping just because it is against the law?
yes I would say there are people who are deterred from murdering others and from raping. Not all rapes and murders are crimes of “passion”. Some are premeditated and while premeditating, may reconsider the consequences.
Certainly laws against stealing and laws against speeding and drunk driving deter most people.
I am certain a law against abortion would result in a dramatic drop in abortions especially if doctors were prosecuted. We certainly would not have 1.5 million abortions per year – maybe a couple hundred at most.
Laws do change behavior but there will always be a subset who will not be influenced by law.
Pro-abortion individuals do not want a woman to have an ultrasound to see their LIVING baby before making the decision to abort. They fight this. They prefer a woman not see their baby because this inevitably leads to fewer abortions.
And, it was said rape and murder are about human rights…. SO IS ABORTION. Abortion is the taking of a human life.
Just look at a baby after and just before it is born… what transformation has occurred that changed the baby from non-human to human? None. There is NO point at which you can say, “Aha! There is the point at which it is not a human baby! There is when life begins.” And do you know why??? Because it is a human life from conception. There is no other moment of change that makes it a human life.
And the pro-abortion movement fights for abortion to be accessible at every moment up until COMPLETELY born. Obama even seeks to over-turn the ban on partial birth abortion… and does not even want to protect an infant that is born alive!
Obama does not seek to make it rare… and neither does Planned Parenthood. In fact, planned parenthood says that only half of desired abortions occur because of funding limits… and they seek to change that. Therefore, both Obama and PP SAY they want rare abortions but they seek to double the number of abortions that occur.
Obama does not seek to make it rare… and neither does Planned Parenthood. In fact, planned parenthood says that only half of desired abortions occur because of funding limits… and they seek to change that. Therefore, both Obama and PP SAY they want rare abortions but they seek to double the number of abortions that occur.
Posted by: lambofHisflock at February 9, 2009 9:46 AM
?????????????
Asitis,
Why the question marks?
If Nobama wants to make abortion rare, why did he state he would pass FOCA as one of his first initiatives. FOCA will only increase abortion rates.
Are you a supporter of FOCA?
On another note:
well she wasn’t necessarily well-informed, so probably a good response for her to give.
Posted by: asitis at February 8, 2009 6:06 PM
Yes, It was obvious she wasn’t informed at all. Just the way you most pro-aborts are. Uninformed and that’s just the way the pro-abort organizations love to operate. Keep women in the dark, only tell them what you want them to know.
I have no respect for anyone who chooses to work to support a cause and than be so uniformed to not be able to answer simple questions about their cause. Really, how stupid.
Well Sandy, you were asking “a gal” whose job it was to answer the phones to explain to you the organization’s position on a political issue. I can see why she might not know or was instructed to not speak for them.
And by the way, people who are pro-choice are not “kept in the dark”. They simple have different beliefs and viewpoints than you do.
Sandy: If Nobama wants to make abortion rare, why did he state he would pass FOCA as one of his first initiatives.
The two aren’t tied directly together. Less abortions, fine, and Obama’s not against that. But he also isn’t saying “Deny such-and-such woman an abortion if she wants one,” and FOCA seeks to prevent the chipping away at women’s rights pursuant to that.
Well Sandy, you were asking “a gal” whose job it was to answer the phones to explain to you the organization’s position on a political issue. I can see why she might not know or was instructed to not speak for them.
And by the way, people who are pro-choice are not “kept in the dark”. They simple have different beliefs and viewpoints than you do.
Posted by: asitis at February 9, 2009 11:51 AM
Artis,
If this were a gal answering the phones at GE and she was asked how many lightbulbs were sold in the North American market, I would cut her some slack.
Anyone who believes in a political cause enough to volunteer to help out in the office should be well versed at what they are representing. She could have offered to transer me to someone else, but I am sure I would have gotten the same ridiculous answer.
Doug,
I have decided to not even take your bait. You will talk in circles and circles which usually go nowhere but around and around. Sorry. Not trying to be rude, but I just don’ have the time.
Anyone who believes in a political cause enough to volunteer to help out in the office should be well versed at what they are representing.
Doug,
I have decided to not even take your bait. You will talk in circles and circles which usually go nowhere but around and around. Sorry. Not trying to be rude, but I just don’ have the time.
Posted by: Sandy at February 9, 2009 7:55 P
Sandy, for starters, most people don’t see PP as a “political cause”.
And you were wise to say “no comment” to Doug, beacuse he was right on.
FOCA is not about women’s rights.. it is about destroying the rights of children.
And, frankly, anyone who supports FOCA is in the fringe of this nation, among the most radical of pro-abortion advocates. FOCA overturns the ban on partial birth abortion. FOCA overturns EVERY state law that limits abortion… including parental notification or waiting periods. It essentially makes abortion legal throughout the entire pregnancy. These are not widely held beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the ban on partial birth abortion and parental notification.
FOCA would force doctors to perform abortions, regardless of their beliefs. FOCA will cause hospitals to close or at least close parts of their facilities. It will force doctors out of these fields.
FOCA increases funding. Tax payer funding for the murder of babies. It will force ME to pay for murder.
FOCA does not seek in any way to reduce the number of abortions. FOCA seeks to make abortion easily accessible throughout the entire pregnancy to all women.
FOCA is an evil bill that would lose by a huge margin if the public was well-informed on the matter and could vote on it. You need only look to all the laws passed across the United States by voters to put in place parental notification or other restrictions for the evidence of that. But of course, informing the public is NOT what planned parenthood wants to do. It fights legislation for more informed consent.
And Planned Parenthood and Obama seek to go against the will of the people. FOCA is an extreme bill proposed by an extreme president.
“FOCA would force doctors to perform abortions, regardless of their beliefs”
not sure how that would happen. You put a gun to their head?
“FOCA is an extreme bill proposed by an extreme president.”
Well, not really “proposed” by Obama. It’s been out there a few years. He’s been president a few weeks.
This is all the act says:
(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not–
(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;
Note the “prior to viability” part. Obama is already on record saying the “health of the woman” means real health issues, not emotional heath or wanting to fit into a prom dress.