Jivin J’s Life Links 3-17-09
by JivinJ
Obama is suggesting that abortion is a human need, which can be reduced but never eliminated. He is suggesting that we all will “support” (meaning affirm the decisions of) women and families, even if they abort a child. He assumes that we all can unite, as he said in his Roe anniversary comment, “to ensure that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons,” suggesting that abortion is not just a need but also a right.
It’s savvy rhetoric precisely because it is so subtle. It quietly isolates pro-life advocates (who now appear extremist) while appealing to those who are tired of the abortion debate (with calls to reduce abortion)….
We checked the box.
Because we’re heartless monsters who wish death on our babies? No. Just the opposite. Because we love our children too much.
Apparently, they loved their embryonic children too much to risk having them be adopted by a “family that might not be able to care for them — or worse.” Michelle claims she thought of her embryos as children but I wonder if she would have chosen the same option with a born child? “We love little Billy too much for him to be adopted, instead we’ll donate him to be killed for medical research.”
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.
I wholeheartedly thank those such as Ms. Kayal who donate their unused embryos. Through efforts such as that meaningful research into Embryonic Stem Cell Research can hopefully be achieved.
I also support President Obama’s support for reducing abortions while at the same time protecting a woman’s right to receive an abortion free from an “undue burden” under the Supreme Court’s well-decided Casey Opinion.
God Bless You Mr. Obama
Jill: “Apparently, they loved their embryonic children too much to risk having them be adopted by a “family that might not be able to care for them — or worse.” Michelle claims she thought of her embryos as children but I wonder if she would have chosen the same option with a born child?”
Zing. That’s the response we should be giving for all of these faulty arguments they have. Since we know these embryos are, scientifically, human beings, it’s a perfectly pertinent question.
RE:The idea of having frozen embryos of my children somewhere, let alone having them cannibalized would keep me up at night.
Actually, abortion gives me nightmares. I have regular nightmares of dismembered little children…
With regards to Obama’s comments on abortion- lack of abortion does not hinder women or their progress. Women are capable of great things. We are not, as “evidenced” by the abortion camp, so pathetic that we need to take a life to be equal to men. Women are equal to men because of strength, intelligence, and capabilities. But, according to the law, that is all ridiculous because without abortion, we’re nothing. I always bristle at this misogyny. Frankly, abortion is no one’s right anymore that rape is a right. And, furthermore, Obama has done much to restrict the rights of children but nothing to ameliorate their situations. I pray to God that he does make good his promise to instate quality social programs, but he seems to have forgotten what he promised on the campaign trail. I wish that he would remember though, that no one has the right to force others into the duty of second-class citizen.
D-man, would you support measures that simply reduced the killing of the holocaust while at the same time re-affirming the nazi’s right to kill anyone they decided was unfit?
Would you applaud someone who killed their child instead of giving him up for adoption?
Would you, in fact, ask God to bless these actions and the men who supported them?
Vannah, I completely agree.
I take great offense to the fact that liberals seem to believe that I have to supress my femininity and or kill my children in order to be “equal” to a man.
Re: Lauren
I abhor the actions of the Nazis as it was a systematic industrialized killing of an ethnic group and is without question the most reprehensible act perpetrated by mankind in history. So without question in no way would I support such a policy.
Additionally, I would in no way applaud a person who killed a child rather than give it up for adoption, that would be barbaric and cruel. And of course I would never ask god to bless people who performed such acts.
With that said, I feel that these acts are not analogous to allowing abortions to be continued in this country. The acts you described are the killing of a person whereas abortion is simply preventing the an unwanted or deformed child from being born.
If you would ask whether I would ask god to bless someone who allows a woman who is unwilling or unable to make a decision which would prevent a child from being born into that environment, I would say that I would ask god to bless them.
Have a Blessed Day
D-Man said “The acts you described are the killing of a person whereas abortion is simply preventing the an unwanted or deformed child from being born. ”
D-man, what happens to prevent these children from being born? They are killed. They are every bit as alive as anyone else in the world. It is not simply “stopping someone from being born” it is killing that individual.
You say, and I agree, that the nazi’s participated in a “systematic industrialized killing of an ethnic group.” Abortion also systematically targets a specific group, in this case preborn humans.
You say you would not applaud someone who kills her child rather than give it up for adoption, but this is exactly what you have done by lauding the actions of those who choose to have their children killed for research instead of allowing them to be adopted.
“unwanted” describes not a condition of a child, but an attitude of adults. The problem is not unwanted children but unwanting adults. “Wanting” is simply one person’s subjective and changeable feeling toward another. The unwanted child is a real person regardless of anyone else’s feelings toward her. For years women were degraded when their value was judged by whether or not they were wanted by men. Just as a woman’s value is real whether or not a man recognizes it, so a baby’s value is real whether or not his mother or father recognizes it. “Every woman or child a wanted woman or child” is a good goal, but if a woman or child is not wanted, it does not justify killing her.
Planned Parentood’s mantra Every child a wanted child should really be
Every unwanted child a dead child.
I would disagree with Lauren’s analysis of the situation,
First to state that these embryos are every much as alive as everyone else in the world is factually incorrect. Although these embryos have the seed of potential life in them, in no way can they be considered as living until such time as they would be able to survive outside of the womb of a woman, I would argue that they are not alive until such time as they are born but I can at least see the argument that they are alive when they become viable.
Secondly, you say that abortion is the same as a woman killing a child rather than giving it up for abortion, again this argument fails since in that circumstance the child was alive and killed whereas most abortions occur prior to the point where a child could possibly be considered alive.
As for the support I provide for my arguments, I would like to present the majority of the US Supreme Court in its decision in Casey to bolster my argument that prior to viability, a child can not be considered alive and therefore the interests of the mother in privacy trumps the state’s interest in protecting life.
D-Man 10:54am
Why do you want to see abortions reduced? If its such a great thing, why do you want it reduced? Are there any other rights such as freedom of speech or religion that you would want reduced?
Carla 12:09PM
Excellent point. How many of us would still be alive if the worth of our lives was judged by how much we are “wanted”. Do our lives have less worth because someone, maybe a spouse, a neighbor, or an employer no longer “wants” us?
Re: Mary
I would like to see abortions reduced because they are there are cheaper and safer means of preventing unwanted children.
As to the tenuous analogy you offer as to rights which should be reduced I would argue that these rights are already limited much in the same way that a woman’s right to have an abortion is already limited by the federal and state governments. I am merely supporting the current situation where abortions are permitted to occur which reasonable restrictions placed on the manner and means of receiving one.
Have a Blessed Day
12:20 post is mine
Do you support killing “unwanted” 3 month old babies as well?
Re: Carla
Of course I do not support the unwanted killing of 3 month olds. They have past the point of viability, (as seen by their birth) and as such the government’s interest in protecting life trumps the mother’s right to privacy. See Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood
Perhaps we ought to stop blaming children for being unwanted and start asking ourselves why we reckon them worthy of being unwanted. If a child is unwanted, then it is not because of his own faults, but because of our inability to accept, Mr. D-Man. Regardless of whether they are wanted by their parents or not, they are here. They are alive and they inhabit the earth. Their lives are not less valuable because they are physically fragile. This is the same argument that pro-life and pro-choice always come back to, though, isn’t it? Mr. D-Man, no human is a wretched creature because of society’s notions of him or her.
So D-man you are all for late term abortions performed on the woman’s due date?
You show me Roe V Wade, Casey V. Planned Parenthood.
D-Man 12:20PM
Why do you want to prevent “unwanted” children? How about unwanted old people, spouses, and teenagers? What about the child who is the result of a planned and wanted pregnancy and becomes an unwanted child as a toddler? How do you suggest we dispose of him/her?
You didn’t answer my question concerning our other rights. Do you want to see these rights reduced? Do you want less freedom of speech and religion?
D-man says “First to state that these embryos are every much as alive as everyone else in the world is factually incorrect. Although these embryos have the seed of potential life in them, in no way can they be considered as living until such time as they would be able to survive outside of the womb of a woman”
I’m going to stop you right there, D-man. Nothing you have said is factually accurate.
They are not the “seed of potentiall life” they are living human beings. At amphimixis, two haploid cells fuse to become one diploid cell. When this occurs a new, unique human life has been formed. It is every bit as alive as you are, and every bit as human. The fact that they are alive within the woman does nothing to diminish the fact that they are alive. They are living human beings. This is not a subjective opinion, this is science.
Re: Lauren
While I do not disagree with you that when an egg and sperm cell fuse it creates a unique combination of Human DNA, I would dispute that this combination of Human cells are alive. I would argue that a Human does not exist until such time as it would be able to survive outside of a woman’s womb (i.e. the point of viability)
Hi D-Man. You seem to be saying that the right to an abortion is found and grounded in US law. Suppose Roe v Wade is overturned and in addition, abortion is outlawed. Would you then be against abortion?
But their views don’t count, says the Prevention First Act, which requires the hospitals to tell victims explicitly, “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion,” even though, by most women’s definition, it does.
What utter nonsense! Emergency contraception works no differently than standard birth control pills, and the vast majority of American women take those at some point in their life. And just last November in Colorado, a bill that would have defined personhood as beginning at conception was voted down by a 3 to 1 margin!
Abortion is a word with a meaning: ending a pregnancy. Pregnancy begins at implantation. By any measure, the vast majority of Americans DO NOT believe that birth control is abortion, and they are correct. That is absolutely a false and extremist point of view that should have no place in public policy. Rape victims taking emergency contraception are not aborting anything; they are preventing pregnancy, which they should have every right and ability to do.
Emergency rooms absolutely should always provide victims of sexual assault with the option of emergency contraception, so they won’t have to get pregnant and resort to abortion. That is the mainstream, sensible, compassionate thing to do, and God bless the sponsors of the Prevention First Act for trying to make that happen. I pray that they are successful.
D-man, you do realize that a few activist judges finding penumbras and shaddows didn’t settle the arguement, right?
Roe V. Wade and subsequent rulings are based on flawed logic, both constitutionally and generically.
The ruling itself can not hold up to scruitany. If we apply the same reasoning used to determine Roe V. Wade to other issues of privacy, we should have the “right” to kill born children who are infringing upon our right to privacy.
As there seem to be a number of responses please allow to me respond in kind to any of the directed statements.
Re: Carla
I am not in favor of late-term abortions as I concur with the Supreme Court’s interpretation that once a fetus passes the stage of viability, the state’s interest in protecting it surpasses any right the woman would have in her privacy. With that said I do mention that if it were necessary to protect the life of the mother I would not be fundamentally opposed to the late-term abortion but that would have to be analyzed in a case by case basis
D-man,
When did you become fully alive inside of your mother?
The idea of life is philosophical. The law, as much as I prefer philosophy, ought to run on the basis of science. Mr. D-Man, science says that they are human, then you may not say, “You’re not human until I believe you’re human.” The idea of humanity is unique to us all, but the knowledge of science is what determines the law which we all must abide by, for it is not determined by individual philosophies but universal fact. Why should we come together and determine who gets rights and who doesn’t? That’s the deepest level of bigotry, and to use it against children is simply unbelievable.
D-man said “While I do not disagree with you that when an egg and sperm cell fuse it creates a unique combination of Human DNA, I would dispute that this combination of Human cells are alive. I would argue that a Human does not exist until such time as it would be able to survive outside of a woman’s womb (i.e. the point of viability)”
D man, you are wrong. An embryo is alive. It meets all the criteria for life, and specifically a unique, human life. It exists. There is no question or debate in this matter.
“ensure that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons,”
PBHO is not suggesting that our teen age sons should have the same right to a dead baby as our teen age daughters, is he?
Now that will fix the economy and bring about universal justice and peace and love and the dawning of the age of aquarius.
Excuse me while I experience an o’basm.
That is that feeling of euphoria that sweeps over you at the sound of one PBHO’s rhetorcial flourishes. Just the sight of the text on the monitor gives me goose bumps.
For some it begins at the foot and undulates up the leg in waves of tingling sensations that ebb and flow in amplitude and magnitude until you are transported to another dimension where there is no time or space, no rhyme or reason, no right or wrong. Just you enraptured in the infinite moment of ecstasy provided by PBHO.
Even non-humans are subject to the enchantments of the ‘djos’ and ‘ughs’ and ‘ahs’. Why PBHO is the embodiment of the wizard of ‘aaaahs’.
Sea gulls caught in the vortex of sweetness and light float above the assembled and enthralled masses and shower them with displays of uncontrollable emotion and tokens of knowing appreciation.
I am waiting in anxious expectation for the cosmic echoing thunder clap of a ‘pop’ as millions of heads are extricated in one contagion of epic proportions from each of the respective colons of the assembled throng.
The concussion will be off the sphincter scale. It may rival the ‘big bang’. It will be o’basmic.
yor bro ken
Re: Mary
I will try this again, while I do not feel that the aforementioned freedoms should be reduced further from their current level, it is clear that under current law they are limited rights with well-defined boundaries. I feel this is a well-balanced solution. Much in the same way although the right to have an abortion exists, protections have been put in place to prevent the right from being unlimited. Again I feel that this is a well-balanced solution.
Kbhvac, you made me lol with that one.
Let me throw my little list of embryology quotes from textbooks into the mix.
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). … The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. … The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.” (O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).
“the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.” (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.
“every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.” [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
The “product of conception” is clearly alive, as it begins as a one celled organism and is up to around 40-60 cells by day 5.
D-man, there are untold millions who have been killed who would disagree that Roe was a “well-balance” solution.
Re: Carla
I would posit that I became alive inside of my mother a some point around the 22nd week of gestation(standard point of viability). Again that is speculation due to the fact that I was full-term so the actual level of viability was never tested.
D-Man,
Is there any scientific evidence (not philosophical) you can point to in order to argue that an embryo is not alive?
D-man:
There are no unwanted children. Just because his or her parents don’t want to be pregnant doesn’t mean that there is not a family out there that wants the child.
To reality:
Why would you support requiring a doctor to say something they believe untrue? How would it hurt anyone for the doctor to explain the two mechanisms by which the emergency contraception works? Why doesn’t the woman have the right to know that it will prevent ovulation and implantation, but not fertilization? And your statistics on “most women” having used the pill–do they include the many women who were never informed how it worked, but stopped before or once they found out? I resent being part of that statistic, myself.
D-Man,
You said you want to see abortions reduced. You do not want to see freedom of speech and religion reduced. BTW, exactly how have these rights already been reduced?
What is wrong with abortion that you want to see it reduced but you would not want to see the other rights I mentioned reduced.
The reason I ask is because biology is the study of living organisms, so if the embryo (which biology studies) is not alive, I question why biologists study it. God bless.
D-man said “I would posit that I became alive inside of my mother a some point around the 22nd week of gestation(standard point of viability). Again that is speculation due to the fact that I was full-term so the actual level of viability was never tested.”
This is completely false. You became alive inside your mother at conception. You were alive before you implanted into her womb, and you continued to be alive throughout the pregnancy.
Unique human life is a continuem that begins at amphimixis and ends at natural death. You are fully alive during this entire continuem. Fully alive, and fully human.
Re: Bobby Bambino
I have several responses to your question pertaining to Roe v. Wade and its progeny.
1st I think that any argument about the overturn of Roe v. Wade being overturned is unrealistic. The decision has been upheld for over 35 years despite a vast majority of appointments to the Supreme Court being made by politicians opposed to abortion. The chances of this decision being overturned are so minuscule that I would not worry about such a situation.
With that said, if by some chance the decision was overturned and several states decided to outlaw abortion (thankfully mine would never), I would not oppose abortion. I simply feel that the current law which allows abortion to the point of viability with the states being permitted to place restrictions which do not rise to the level of an undue burden is a pleasant balance which should be maintained
D-Man 12:23PM
But I thought you want to prevent unwanted children? Unwanted children are unwanted children. What difference does it make how old they are or when you dispose of them?
What were you at 21 weeks gestation?
What I find interesting is the idea that our daughters need as many rights as our sons… um, in this case, the girls have ALL the rights. If my son were to father a child (either as a teen or within a marriage) and the mother of that child chose an abortion, he would have NO say in the matter whatsoever. Even if he were willing to take the child and raise it with no support or help from the mother…. that child would be half his, but he has no rights.
D-man, I would hardly call anything relating to abortion “pleasant.”
Please explain to me, using only the logic used to derive Roe V. Wade, why I can kill my preborn children to uphold my right bodily domain, but can not kill my born children to uphold my larger privacy rights.
D-Man said: “I would posit that I became alive inside of my mother a some point around the 22nd week of gestation(standard point of viability).”
So, before that you were dead? How did they raise you from the dead? Are you alive now?
Why abortion sounds positively delightful!!
There was a time when a child born at 24 weeks would not have been “viable”… was that child less alive than children born today at 24 weeks who survive?
And by that logic, if my child becomes injured to the point of requiring a ventilator or other mechanical life support due to a near-drowning or car accident, do I have the right to kill that child? I don’t mean in terms of a DNR… I mean, this child is ON life support, do I have the right to walk in and smother him or her or administer a fatal drug to stop their heart simply because they can no longer maintain ventilation without assistance?
Once something has a different DNA than mine, I no longer have the right to destroy it… that happens before implantation, much less before known levels of viability (which are consistently being nudged backwards).
D-Man,
I agree that R v Wade will probably never be overturned anytime soon, but this is just a thought experiment.
“I would not oppose abortion. I simply feel that the current law which allows abortion to the point of viability with the states being permitted to place restrictions which do not rise to the level of an undue burden is a pleasant balance which should be maintained”
So would you say that people have an inherent right to an abortion regardless of the law? In other words, is there some outside, overarching principle that should make it possible to obtain an abortion? God love you.
Re: Lauren
You have the right to terminate a pregnancy prior to the point of viability because the Mother’s Right to Privacy trumps the State’s Interest in Protecting Life at that point.
Once a fetus passes the point of viability then the State’s Interest in Protecting Life increases and trumps any interest you have in privacy.
As any born children would be past the point of viability then any interest you have in terminating their life would be trumped by the state’s interest in protecting life.
Hope I’ve Cleared that up for you, Have a blessed day.
Posted by: D-Man at March 17, 2009 12:51 PM
“a pleasant balance”
————————————————–
Should we kill all the liberal humanists as quickly as possible with no distinction to age, physical condition, intelligence, productivity, usefullness
or
should we start with the weakest, dumbest, least productive, least usefull and make the transition from some liberal humanists to no liberal humanists as inobtrusive as possible?
How do we preserve ‘the pleasant balance’?
yor bro ken
D-man,
So basically you’re saying that a completely artificial line in the sand that was never mentioned in the constitution and has nothing to do with the humanity of the involved party completely changes the State’s rights?
I know that this is what was decided, but I don’t believe that this view can hold up to any sort of scruitany. Why, based on the constitution, is a child younger than the point of viability entitled to less rights than a child older than the point of viability?
Re: Kbhvac
Just a reminder….
Do’s
* “Criticize ideas, not people.”
* Be civil and considerate.
* You’re responsible for what you write.
Do Not’s
* Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.(i.e. liberal humanists)
Have a Blessed Day
Re: Lauren
Clearly this line is arbitrary but must be drawn at some point that protects the interests of the mother while at the same time respecting the state’s interest in potential life. The fetus prior to the point of viability deserves less protection because it is unable to survive outside of the womb of a woman.
Re: Bobby B
The right to receive an abortion is not a right in and of itself so much as an action that can be taken and must be respected associated with the privacy rights that people have to allow or reject something that is within their bodies.
Re: Carla
I would disagree and argue that Abortion is anything but delightful but rather a sad result of people not being willing or able to bring a child into and raise a child in this world. Make no mistake, a world where people did not wish to have abortions and would be able to raise a child anytime they became pregnant would be fantastic, but sadly it is not the world we live in.
Have a Blessed Day
RE: Elisabeth
At no point following the birth of a child does the parent’s privacy or any other right trump the state’s interest in protecting life. That can only occur prior to the point of viability.
Now the termination of life once a person is born is a whole different can of ethical worms which I would rather not open in this discussion.
D-man,
For the final time, human offspring, from the earliest stage of development are human beings. They are alive. They are not “potential lives” they are actual, human lives.
The state’s interest in protecting life is obvious. We all have a right to life. Zygotes, Blastocysts, Embryos, Fetuses, neonates, infants, ect. are ALL alive. They all have an equal right to life.
The state’s interest is equal in all cases. It is, at best, intellectually dishonest to claim that the constitution supports the notoin that the state has less of a role in protecting some human lives than others.
Hey, D-man….what does the “D” stand for?
I personally know all about abortion, D-Man. Experienced the joy myself.
Re: RSD
D stands for Danny Boy in honor of Saint Patty’s Day.
;-)
D-man says “At no point following the birth of a child does the parent’s privacy or any other right trump the state’s interest in protecting life. That can only occur prior to the point of viability”
Why? And no, you can not say because Roe V. Wade says so. What, using both the constitution and scientific fact supports this belief?
Posted by: D-Man at March 17, 2009 1:32 PM
You really didn’t have a blessing for me, did you?
The only rule I may have violated was the ‘threat’. But in the context responding to your comment I believe any objective observer would conclude the post was purely rhetorical repartee at your ‘delicate balance’.
But if you actually do ‘feel’ threatened by the comment then you now know how precarious ‘the delicate balance’ is for the prenatal human being who is about to be arbitrarily subjected to vivisection, poisoning, or dismemberment.
Even the amoeba moves away from unpleasant conditions. The prenatal child does not have far to run.
yor bro ken
Re:
Turning first to the Constitution, the proposition I put forth has been agreed with by a majority of the United States Supreme Court who spend more time than I will ever dealing with the meaning of the US Constitution. If in their learned opinion the right of privacy (which permits the choice of abortion) is a fundamental right to be protected by under the due process clause then I will accept that as good enough for me. (Constitutional Support- Check)
Now turning to the Scientific Facts- It is undisputed scientific fact that a fetus is unable to survive outside of a mother’s womb prior to the point of viability which has reached its general extreme at around 22 Weeks. Short of that period the fetus is not capable of existence independent of the mother and as such is not alive. (Scientific Support- Check)
Have a Blessed Day
Carla @ 12:09pm, thank you for your comments regarding unwanted children and unwanting adults. You stated it beautifully.
Re: Kbhvac
I accept your apology for your threatening comment. I truly do wish you a joyous day from the bottom of my heart, As a true christian I never would offer a blessing in jest.
Fed Up,
I should have stated that is paraphrased from Randy Alcorn’s book Prolife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. The book never leaves my computer desk. :)
D-Man,
Then you must agree the Supreme Court was correct when it “found” justification for the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v Ferguson, which sanctioned segregation. I’m sure you also agree with the Supreme Court backing of Franklin Roosevelt’s executive order putting thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps as well.
These were after all men who spent more time than anyone dealing with the meaning of the US Constitution and as such their “learned opinions” can never be wrong and should be accepted without question.
Mary already addressed why your constitutional sidestep doesn’t actually answer the question, so I will just reiterate her questions. Do you agree with Dred Scott, Plessy V Ferguson ect. since they were once found to be constitutional?
As for science:
I don’t know how more clear science can be. Are you purposefully trying to remain ignorant. your statement that “Short of that period the fetus is not capable of existence independent of the mother and as such is not alive.” is simply NOT TRUE.
The fetus is alive. Science proves without any shadow of a doubt that the fetus is alive. Please stop repeating the lie that it is not. It is as alive as any other person in the world. It meets all the critria of unique, human life. The fact that it is reliant upon its mother for nutrients and housing does nothing to lessen the fact that IT IS ALIVE.
Please, please stop making the ridiculous assertion that the fetus is not alive.
Re: Mary
Thank You for citing a number of cases where the US Supreme Court limited the rights of US Citizens and then upon review decided that they were incorrect and overturned the decisions to allow greater rights to citizens. (See Brown v. Board of Ed of Topeka, and Korematsu v. United States II). They are particularly applicable to this discussion as they are analogous to the pre-roe anti-abortion laws which upon review of the court were overruled.
History will view Roe v. Wade and its progeny as a historical turning point where a branch of the government turned away from limiting the fundamental rights of its citizens (i.e. Pre-Roe Anti Abortion Laws) and turned towards permitting its citizens to freely utilize their fundamental rights.
Re: Lauren
“Short of that period the fetus is not capable of existence independent of the mother and as such is not alive.” is simply NOT TRUE.”
Please inform me of any instances where a fetus was able to have existence independent of the mother prior to 21 weeks. Possibly I am uninformed but more likely you are inaccurate with this statement
The fetus exists as a living human being within its mother’s womb.
I am not saying that a child can live outside the womb prior to 21 weeks, I am saying that a child is a living human being during the time that it is living within its mother.
You assertion that living within another makes someone “not alive” is what is not true.
D-man, First of all no one has a fundamental right to kill her child.
Secondly, you are admitting that you believe some judgements have been subsequently found to be decided without constitutional merit. Thus, you can not say that the “right to abortion” is constitutional simply because one court found it to be so.
That should read:
“Some judgements have been subsequently found to have been decided without constitituinal merit.”
Posted by: D-Man at March 17, 2009 2:10 PM
Re: Kbhvac
I accept your apology for your threatening comment. I truly do wish you a joyous day from the bottom of my heart, As a true christian I never would offer a blessing in jest.
——————————————————
I made no apology that I am aware of. I made an explanation or a clarification. No excuse or apology was intended.
If you took offense, then I suggest you examine your heart to see why.
If I intended to offend you, then you would know it and I assure you I would know it.
We are not discussing something as subjective and as inconsequential as taste in music. The subject is serious. I will not mince words in an effort to be nice.
I attacked your comment. If you are emotionally attached to your opinions then seeing them skewered might be an unpleasant sensation.
Again, I would liken the experience to that of the human embryo/fetus who is being probed by the abortionists instruments. Even an amoeba, as simple a life form as it is, moves away from life threatening conditions. A human embryo/fetus is much more aware of it’s surroundings. Fear is an emotion that the prenatal human experiences. Dead things do not experience fear.
yor bro ken
D-man,
Nice try.
The Supreme Court reversed segregation. How big of them. Why was it ever sanctioned in the first place?
Why were American citizens put in concentration camps to begin with?
Exactly how are these injustices reversed?
Black Americans were not given anymore of anything. Segregation was ended. They still had years of struggle just to get their basic civil rights.
Japanese American citizens still lost their homes, businesses, property, and rights. Korematsu v the United States was an effort of an American citizen to avoid internment. Imagine. The supposed security of the country outweighed his rights and those of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. Korematsu’s conviction for evading internment was not overturned until 1983 by a Federal District Court.
The Korematsu has not been explicitly overturned and remains significant both for being the first instance of the SC applying the strict scrutiny standard to racial discrimination by the government and for being only one of a tiny handful of cases in which the SC held the government met that standard.
You were saying something about the learned opinions of men who spent more time than anyone dealing with the US Constituion?
(Posted by: D-Men at March 17, 2009 2:29 PM
Thank You for citing a number of cases where the US Supreme Court limited the rights of US Citizens and then upon review decided that they were incorrect and overturned the decisions to allow greater rights to citizens.
——————————————————
From the human embryo/fetus’ perspective Roe v Wade would not be seen as liberating or a granting of greater rights.
yor bro ken
Correction to 2:49PM post,
I should say that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the security of the country outweighed the rights of Korematsu and other American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Re: Kbhvac
Despite your efforts to rescind your apology I nonetheless do not rescind my acceptance. Hopefully as time goes on you can open your heart to the lord and find the strength to apologize when you have insulted another. You almost had it there and with patience you develop the ability to seek forgiveness.
Perhaps D-man
You would do us all the honor of defining some terms for us so that we can see if we are speaking the same language.
What is a Christian?
What is a ‘true Christian’?
What is forgiveness?
How does one receive forgiveness?
How does one grant forgiveness?
yor bro ken
I simply feel that the current law which allows abortion to the point of viability with the states being permitted to place restrictions which do not rise to the level of an undue burden is a pleasant balance which should be maintained
Posted by: D-Man at March 17, 2009 12:51 PM
Don’t see anything pleasant about abortion.
Secondly, women do not have abortions because they can’t raise the child.
They have abortions because the child is inconvenient.
They have abortions because the child is a unwanted product of promiscuous sex – a choice most of them made willingly and in which at least half of the couples were using some form of contraception.
They have abortions because in many cases, the woman feels she has NO choice.
So for being, unwanted, the product of failed contraception and no choice, the baby must die. It would seem to me that the problem is not the baby but that the problem is the sex which is occurring in a situation not conducive to accepting the responsibilities and consequences of one’s actions – the hallmark of adulthood.
Re:Kbhvac
If I really need to explain to you what these topics are then I feel that you need to spend much more time reading the good book and less trying to argue online. To get you off to a good start try dictionary.com
Re:Angel
To clarify I stated that the balance between the conflicting interests was appropriate.(Pleasant may have been a poor choice of words and I apologize if I offended anyone that is far from my intention).
As for the situation you described is the solution preventing these people from having sex or is it to force a child on a person clearly unready to have one?
Hats off to you oh Danny boy. You have taken over the thread and kept us busy and now the pipes, the pipes are calling.
You shall join the legion of trolls.
D-man, no one is “forcing a child on a person clearly unready to have one.”
We’re not dropping random children off on people’s doorsteps and telling them to raise them. We are saying that a person’s own actions create another person who is then completely reliant on the mother to not kill him.
We aren’t saying that the mother has to raise the child. We’re just saying she can’t kill it.
No one forced “a child on a person clearly unready to have one”.
The choice is made prior to having sex. Any adult knows that contraceptive methods fail and that there is ALWAYS a possibility that sexual intercourse will result in a child. Women get pregnant on the pill, on IUDs, on shots, using condoms, jellies, foams, diaphrams and withdrawal. There are hundreds of thousands of children conceived despite contraception.
What you and other proaborts are advocating is that the child should die because the adults are not willing to accept the child’s existence as a consequence of their actions and be responsible toward that child who is wholly innocent. I think it’s labelled “freedom”.
If you can’t take the responsibility for a child then would it not be better to avoid sexual intercourse?
No one is “forcing a child on a person” in that after birth there is always the option to offer the child up for adoption.
But as feminists have made quite clear, death is better than adoption for a child.
So for being, unwanted, the product of failed contraception and no choice, the baby must die.
Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 3:23 PM
“Angel” you forgot about no contraception. Half the women who abort were not using contraception.
The other half claimed to have used contraception during the month they got pregnant. You should have writen:
“So for being unwanted, the product of failed contraception OR NO CONTRACEPTION, and no choice….”
failed/no contraception: so WHAT?
The point is that the child pays for the fact that the parents won’t accept responsibility.
You’ve contributed nothing to the discussion.
Funny how you left that out………..
Sure I contributed something “Angel”.
Why did you point out failed contraception (largely from user error) and not that from failure to use any contraception?
What I find interesting here, is that Danny Boy D-Man has made several references to religion with the terms “the good book”, “opening your heart to the lord” (BTW, it’s Lord).
Are you a proabort “Christian” (an oxymoron)?
May I make the suggestion to you that you open your heart to the possibility that these unborn babies, are the least among us. What did Christ say about the harm done to children and to the least of us?
Why did you point out failed contraception (largely from user error) and not that from failure to use any contraception?
Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 3:57 PM
my point was that these people are engaging in a behavior which naturally creates life
We know that ~ 60% of women who seek abortions, were attempting to thwart this natural outcome by methods that are not fail-proof.
Therefore, as responsible mature adults, they really should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.
(After all, we expect them to do this in other areas of their lives – driving, not cheating on tests, be honest at work etc.)
Except when it comes to sex, apparently, responsibility, maturity fly out the window. We do not have this expectation of sexually active couples. Why? Likely, because the third party involved is a tiny, helpless unborn baby with no voice, hidden in what should be the safest place on earth – his mother’s womb.
“It is undisputed scientific fact that a fetus is unable to survive outside of a mother’s womb prior to the point of viability which has reached its general extreme at around 22 Weeks. Short of that period the fetus is not capable of existence independent of the mother and as such is not alive. (Scientific Support- Check) ”
Exactly. This is a philosophical understanding of personhood. Just because it can not live outside the mother’s womb does mean it is not alive. I can not survive in the middle of the ocean, or on Mars, or with a plastic bag tied around my head. Scientifically, the embryo is alive. But it is simply your philosophical belief that an embryo who is not able to survive outside of the womb is not worthy of life. So to say it is not alive is a completely inaccurate and anti-scientific statement. I provided several quotes from college-level embryology texts to show that after fertilization, the embryo is alive.
D-man
That is exactly the reason I asked ‘you’ the questions.
I suggest you keep your own counsel.
If you throw words around in an attempt to create an impression of who you are and where you are coming from then you should be prepared to define your terms.
PBHO professes to be a ‘committed Christian’, but I have never heard him or read of him defining or describing what those words mean ‘to him’.
I have no knowledge of PBHO ever doing anything with his own resources that was charitable.
In fact there seems to have been plenty of missed opportunities to contribute to the needs of his own family, but I am not aware that he has not availed himself of those opportunities, yet.
Being the consumate politician that PBHO is (all his claims to the contrary not withstanding) then I am sure PBHO or his handlers would have made sure there were some cameras and a gaggle of reporters present to catch the moment.
But maybe like a ‘true Christian’ all his good works were done in secret and his left hand does not know what his other left hand is doing.
Where is the love and where is the fruit that we may judge him by. It seems the ‘lack’ thereof is the only available evidence.
yor bro ken
We know that ~ 60% of women who seek abortions, were attempting to thwart this natural outcome by methods that are not fail-proof.
Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 4:10 PM
That’s right, 54% of abortions are on women who cliamed to be using birth control the month they got pregnant. And it’s true the methods are not fool-proof, but even at “typical use” they are better than no birth control. And the error associated with typical use is largely caused by the user not the method.
We also know that 46% of abortions are on women who did not use any form of contraception. And that…. now this is important…. these women represent only 11% of the sexually active population.
my point was that these people are engaging in a behavior which naturally creates life
Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 4:10 PM
But why did you point out failed contraception but not failure to use contraception “Angel”? You didn’t answer that.
Well it appears the second shift has reported for duty.
Same tune, second verse, an unending refrain of ‘words, just words’ and a few djo’s, uhs and ahs thrown in for the sake of variety.
yor bro ken
“Short of that period the fetus is not capable of existence independent of the mother and as such is not alive.”
A newborn baby is really not that much more independent than is an unborn baby.
Does this mean that newborn babies are not truly “alive”? What are the criteria that make a new born baby alive?
But why did you point out failed contraception but not failure to use contraception “Angel”? You didn’t answer that.
Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 4:22 PM
I explained my point. Sorry you don’t understand. :)
Hi angel,
How are you?? I like what you wrote. :)
“Short of that period the fetus is not capable of existence independent of the mother and as such is not alive.”
A newborn baby is really not that much more independent than is an unborn baby.
Does this mean that newborn babies are not truly “alive”? What are the criteria that make a new born baby alive?
Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 4:27 PM
My 15-year old wouldn’t survive w/out us. Heck, I wonder about my 25-year old brother w/out my folks.
you left it out for a reason “angel”.
Carla: I wanted to tell you that I was very impressed with your video on the other thread. Your scripture spoke to my heart. God bless and keep you safe!
@PansyM: yeah most men wouldn’t qualify as “alive” until well into their 30’s!! hehe! (sorry Bobby, Ken)
Posted by: Pansy Moss at March 17, 2009 4:30 PM
“My 15-year old wouldn’t survive w/out us. Heck, I wonder about my 25-year old brother w/out my folks.”
—————————————————
Whoa, there lassy. You’re hittin’ awful close to where I was sittin’ when I was 25.
I resemble those remarks.
But I can not argue with your evidence and your conclusions.
The problem is more with the adults/parents than it is with the children. We expect too little of our children.
yor bro ken
angel,
I would rather be wounded by my friend speaking the truth than deceived by the flatteries of my enemy.
A true friend has your best interest at heart.
yor bro ken
Thank you angel. God bless. :)
Well, Ken even though I don’t know you at all, I’m quite sure you qualified as “alive” at the age of 30.(I’m assuming you’re a 30+ gent) I’m betting you were even a human being by then too! lol
I suffered from arrested adolescence. I did not get married till I was 32 and did not experience my ‘mid life crisis’ until I was 58.
If my math is correct, then I should live to be over 100 years old (My sympathies, but not remorse, to liberal humanists everywhere), assuming my prolonged existence does not threaten the ‘pleasant balance’ of some liberal humanist bureaucrat or I become ensnarred in the national health care system.
I am still working on becoming fully human.
Some of us are just more equal than others.
yor bro ken
“…I become ensnarred in the national health care system.”
May God help you! Might you be comforted by the fact that the liberal humanists may not want your organs for transplantation, especially your heart!
Oh come on “Angel”… You know as well as I do that national health care isn’t all bad.
Wow, this discussion exploded! Perhaps we ought to stop debating whether or not life begins at conception. It is scientific fact (basic science, in fact) and perhaps on this discussion board we ought to, instead of bickering, work on discussing pro-life arguments (in a positive light), children’s rights, and other such related news.
But, uh, this comment may go largely ignored…
Oh, sure, I’m sure it’s just great… I mean, Obama has his watchful eye out protecting all of us, right? I mean, really… just because he’s making proposals to force veterans who become wounded to pay for their treatment through private insurance doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about them. They’re just veterans, they don’t deserve free health care, that’s just for everyone else.
Oh, and of course, HB 1388… that’s for everyone’s good, right? Mandatory volunteerism for all citizens complete with mandatory uniforms??? Sorry, but the Nazi comparisons are getting more accurate every day that passes.
And we are supposed to trust THIS administration under UHC to continue to pay for life saving treatments? Not on your life… they’ll pay for suicide, but not for care. If this country doesn’t wake up and fast, we’ll be living in 1930s Germany…. with increased surveillance technology… how fun.
“@PansyM: yeah most men wouldn’t qualify as “alive” until well into their 30’s!! hehe! (sorry Bobby, Ken) ”
Yeah, in fact, I was going to say that if it wasn’t for my wife, I wouldn’t be viable :)
“Perhaps we ought to stop debating whether or not life begins at conception. It is scientific fact (basic science, in fact)”
yes I agree Vannah, except that there are a ton of people who do not accept this premise.
Why do you think that ACOG defined pregnancy as the beginning of implantation? It was exactly to avoid this quandry of experimenting on human babies only cells into their development, but human beings nonetheless.
Elisabeth: I think it won’t be very long before the darling Obama’s are turned against. I recently read an article dissing Michelle about flaunting her biceps! So it’s starting already (even about trivial things like this!).
I say if you’ve got ’em, flaunt ’em. And she’s got ’em! :)
Yeah, in fact, I was going to say that if it wasn’t for my wife, I wouldn’t be viable :)
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 17, 2009 5:27 PM
sadly, this WILL make your organs useful for transplantation!
;)
Anyone have any Happy News Blips to add to the discussion? Something positive about children’s rights?
So we’re being a bit flippant with the understanding of “viability” (and this may also address what Vannah said above), but what I would like is a good, well-thought out and thorough definition of what it means for a being to be viable, preferably from one who supports abortion until the time of “viability.” Perhaps that will spring-board a discussion on pro-life arguments via. pro-life apologetics (i.e. how to answer common personhood theory objections).
Michelle is flaunting her bisepts?
I did not know she was a switch hitter.
yor bro ken
The problem is, Angel, with the entire country focused on economics, they are slipping through truly devastating pieces of legislation (which is the most probable reason for all the tanking of the economy that has gone on. They couldn’t all be that stupid).
Seriously, read the text of HR 1388 and try to explain how this is not a total takeover… you’ll have to do mandatory volunteerism at state certified volunteer opportunities for 3 or more years in order to be qualified for federal student aid… even LOANS. If you’re retired, you’ll need to do this in order to receive your retirement funds both public and PRIVATE. Volunteer organizations will be required to submit to state certification (wonder how many CPCs will be approved?) and schools from elementary through college will be forced to participate. States will receive federal funding based upon what percentage of their citizenry comply with the provisions of the act.
Everyone is focused on trivialities… the White House is partying like its 1999 while dissing foreign dignitaries (who was the genius who decided that Obama should give the Prime Minister of England 25 DVDs as a present… in a format that is US only, doesn’t play in many English/European DVD players… crappy gift to begin with and then its unplayable???
And while people obsess over Obama’s grey hair and Michelle’s biceps… Congress quietly puts forth these pieces of legislation… with little to no resistance since nobody seems to know about it (This is being reported in the Canada Free Press… not really much reported here in the US except for on the blogs.)
Go read the text yourself… all of it. Warning, I read quickly and it took me the better part of a day.
It has special corps for educators, medical professionals, seniors, scientists… every walk of life. What are the chances that these people will have rights of conscience? That they will be free to do what is right over what the government wants?
I haven’t read the legislation Elisabeth but I do know that people are beginning to see the Obama’s for who they are.
They are fixated on their work-outs apparently. And yes, apparently the White House is “party-central”. Maybe they will all wear pjamas like hugh hefner.
Michelle Obama was quoted as saying she had to “pinch” herself to believe she was really in the White House. Somehow this comment struck me as odd for a First Lady.
My take on all the abortion legislation is that Obama’s are the darlings of the abortion and feminist movements who likely have financed his entire political career to the tune of millions.
Now it’s payback time. There won’t be a prolife law left in America when they get done.
It will be interesting to see what our society looks like when he’s done.
“My mind’s made up. It’s medical experiments for the lot of you.”
You know the world has gone screwy when it makes less sense than a Monty Python movie.
D-Man, go watch this video.
Why are you grateful to somebody who is offering tumors and tremors, and so hateful to those supporting the kinds of treatment that video features?
Mengele isn’t dead. He’s alive and well and promoting embryonic stem cell research.
The ruling itself can not hold up to scruitany. If we apply the same reasoning used to determine Roe V. Wade to other issues of privacy, we should have the “right” to kill born children who are infringing upon our right to privacy.
Posted by: Lauren at March 17, 2009 12:34 PM
What a convolution of the idea of a right to privacy in our own bodies – originally articulated by John Locke. Privacy in this sense should be read as right of self-determination of our bodies or right to labor (or not as we choose.) Generally this is described as bodily autonomy. The fetus is within the woman’s body, and her giving of nourishment through the placenta is labor. Only she can determine if she wants her body to labor in this enterprise.
No woman who has given birth need no longer be personally, hands-on involved with the caring for the child, thus, her bodily autonomy is not at stake. We have never even forced women to breastfeed their own.
A part of bodily autonomy includes respect for each and every body, regardless of its physical capabilities, CL. Any who argues that abortion is autonomy is twisting Locke’s words. No human is property of another. In abortion, the child is property of the mother. And why should women wish to own children? Do women want to be owned by men? Absolutely not!
No one is wishing women to become pregnant if they don’t want to. But they do not reserve the right to remove another of his or her rights should they become pregnant. CL, please do not honestly try to get away with propagating that all that we seek to do is “enslave women.”
“angel”, as someone who actually lives in the US, people see the obamas for who they really are and are pleased. That the First Lady has to pinch herself sometimes is refreshing to hear.
Whoops! Missed a few words……
“angel”, as someone who actually lives in the US, I can say that people see the obamas for who they really are and are pleased. That the First Lady has to pinch herself sometimes is refreshing to hear.
CL says “What a convolution of the idea of a right to privacy in our own bodies – originally articulated by John Locke. Privacy in this sense should be read as right of self-determination of our bodies or right to labor (or not as we choose.) Generally this is described as bodily autonomy. The fetus is within the woman’s body, and her giving of nourishment through the placenta is labor. Only she can determine if she wants her body to labor in this enterprise.”
CL, The right to bodily domain is a subset of a larger right to privacy. If we can not kill our born children in order to maintain our right to privacy, we should not be able to kill our unborn children in order to uphold a subsidiary of that right.
And I live where? Pluto?
Those of us outside bastions of insanity… I mean liberalism… are not only fed up with the idiots in the administration. We have:
*a president who can’t talk without a teleprompter
*a White House Chief of Staff with serious ethics issues
*a giggling idiot of a press secretary who threatened a private citizen (Rick Santelli) for not toeing the Obama line during one of his broadcasts
*a treasury secretary who is a tax cheat
*an administration that tells us to buy American automobiles but aAmong the eight members named to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and the 10 senior policy aides who will assist them in their work, two own American models. Add the Treasury Department’s special adviser to the task force and the total jumps to three.
*Obama and the left accused GWBush of being a former “frat boy” but they’re the ones having party after party in the White House, to the point that Michelle Obama once had to warn them not to break White House property! (Courtesy of Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch)
*It took 70 years of spending to reach a trillion dollar deficit but in only six weeks Pelosi and Obama managed to QUADRUPLE that amount (and snuffed out any hopes of a free market economy recovery)
*Upset about Bush’s wiretapping? Obama voted FOR it, btw. In addition, Jacki Schechner, the national communications director for Health Care for America Now, a labor-backed alliance of groups that support Democratic efforts to expand health care says: “There’s a coordination in terms of exposing the people who are trying to come out against reform —they’ve all got backgrounds and histories and pasts, and it’s not taking long to unearth that and to unleash that, because we’re all working together.” So, if you don’t go along with the Obama regime, you’ll have your background probed a la Joe the Plumber.
*Even Camille Paglia, a liberal Democrat, has said, “First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration’s weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics.”
*Nancy Pelosi, et al, missed a global warming protest they were scheduled to appear at because of snow. That one just makes me giggle, I have to admit.
*The federal government, after years of welfare reform that worked, will now, for the first time since 1996, start paying states to increase their welfare rolls. Hello, like in this economy they need incentive???
*Obama lambasted GWBush for abuses at Guantanamo. These abuses have apparently gone up sharply since Obama took office.
*Obama said that the U.S. invented the automobile. The Germans were probably not pleased to be informed that they were deemed not worthy of that title… considering they actually DID invent the automobile.
Shall I go on?
oh please do!
You live on Pluto Elisabeth? I had no idea! Well that explains everything!
I very much live in the United States, as you well know.
The fact is, the White House is now staffed with incompetent, unethical, morally bankrupt idiots who don’t even know how to properly greet a visiting dignitary… or properly converse with those they go to visit (Hillary’s infamous mistranslation on that idiotic button in Russian… I miss the days of a Secretary of State who could actually speak Russian!)
But hey, if running the country into the ground is your thing, which it apparently is, you would be very happy, which you apparently are. Enjoy your time in the mandatory volunteer corp! (Orwell must be rolling over in his grave.)
well why did you say you live on Pluto then?
So…no good news to report? Anyone?
Cricket. Cricket.
I think there’s a website that only reports good news, Vannah. Let me look.
http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/
The bad news? After s 30 day trial you have to pay 2.00/month. :/
Hooray (for a free month)! Thanks!
D-Man…
So, you’re saying, that at the time this ultrasound picture of my daughter was taken (9w6d gestation), she was not alive? (BTW, said child is now 4 years old.)
Huh. That’s funny. On the ultrasound screen she was waving her arm and legs, and I could clearly see her heart beating.
So if she wasn’t alive at the time, what was she, exactly?
Elisabeth, I feel your pain. Never thought I’d actually hear a Dem bold enough to admit this. FF to 0:50 in the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
@JoAnna: sooo cute!
Of course, you know those kicks you felt in your belly when you were pregnant weren’t signs of life either, nor was the measurable heartbeat you likely heard through the stethoscope.
Ms. JoAnna:
How adorable! Squee!
To “asitis”
From “Carla”
Hi “asitis”,
This is “Carla” and I was wondering why you keep putting “quotes” around the name “angel”? Maybe you will be doing that with “Bethany” “Elisabeth” “Vannah” and “others” as well. One never knows with “you.”
you’re a mod carla. I think you know!
What does being a mod have to do with anything? I think it has more to do with being an “asitis.”
;)
@Carla: Yes, I think she definitely HAS “as-itis”… (that would be a soft “s” sound, not a “z”)
Apparently she cannot tell the difference between a rhetorical question and a statement now.
@FedUp: Yup… Maxine Waters’ Freudian slip is showing….
Hey, two of my favorite blogs now have a great link between them… Illuminati Pictures…
I’ve seen this film about Jill before, but so nice to see it on one of my other fave sites: http://www.black-and-right.com Yay!!
oh sweet elisabeth! I know it’s impossible for you to live on Pluto! I know you live in the US. I figured we were just being silly!
Sorry, Asitis, I reserve that for people I respect.
hmmmm seems like you were being silly last night…. Well thanks then, I guess. Wonders never cease….
I find it very unlikely D-man is a Christian. If he is, he is extremely misguided.
An example of pre-viable humans existing outside their mothers? How about all those embryos (blastocysts, technically) you want to kill? If your argument is based on bodily autonomy, there is no reason to deny them rights. Also, are you against abortions after 22 weeks? Because they do happen. Why? Because abortion is about killing the child, not bodily autonomy. There is never a reason to slice the baby up like they do, they just want him/her to seem less human. Under a pure argument from bodily autonomy, all the “unwanted” unborn children should be removed from their mothers’ bodies with as little trauma as possible and given the opportunity to survive. Why not give them steroids to help their lungs develop? Why not try giving them oxygen? Maybe a 20-week preemie hasn’t made it yet, but there’s no reason not to give them a chance. I would donate as much time and money to such a cause as I could, adopt as many of these children as I could, and even volunteer my own womb when it is not otherwise occupied, if it would help.
But then, you don’t want those babies to live, so that probably isn’t what you want. And if a woman knew that her baby would struggle to breathe, surrounded by specialists, only to die or live life severely impaired… well, she probably wouldn’t be able to do it. And that would make abortion rarer… which isn’t really what those who are pro-choice-to-kill-babies want. Or maybe they’d decide to wait a few more weeks so the baby had a chance. And maybe they’d decide to just wait it out ’til the little one was born naturally. And then they might not want to lose their baby at all. And we all know that keeping and raising one’s own baby isn’t a “choice”; that only happens in forced pregnancy.
Oh, and asitis, the reason angel didn’t mention those who didn’t use birth control in her example was because it should have been even more obvious to them a life could result. She refuted the more difficult argument rather than the easier one.
Oh, and asitis, the reason angel didn’t mention those who didn’t use birth control in her example was because it should have been even more obvious to them a life could result. She refuted the more difficult argument rather than the easier one.
Posted by: YCW at March 18, 2009 10:36 AM
No, that’s not the reason YCW.
Oh, and asitis, the reason angel didn’t mention those who didn’t use birth control in her example was because it should have been even more obvious to them a life could result. She refuted the more difficult argument rather than the easier one.
Posted by: YCW at March 18, 2009 10:36 AM
No, that’s not the reason YCW.
Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 10:45 AM
******************************************
Well, since you seem to feel you know everyone’s motivations and “reasons” for what they do and do not post around here, please enlighten us.
Happy to Kel! Now I can’t say for certain, but here’s my guess at why “Angel” left “or no contraception” out of “So for being, unwanted, the product of failed contraception and no choice, the baby must die”: It’s because she is strongle opposed to contraception. And she didn’t want to highlight that not using contraception also results in abortion. In fact, it accounts for roughly the same number of abortions as failed contraception use…. and proportionally more.
I appreciate that you finally stopped playing the “guess the motive” game and just stated your thoughts on the matter. Now, was that so hard? ;)
It wasn’t hard at all Kel. And actually, it wasn’t me playing guess the motive. I had already made my guess.
Though you might want to ask “Angel” why it’s so hard for her to state her reason. ;)
It wasn’t hard at all Kel. And actually, it wasn’t me playing guess the motive. I had already made my guess.
Though you might want to ask “Angel” why it’s so hard for her to state her reason. ;)
Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 11:54 AM
***********************************************
You had made your guess, but hadn’t shared it with the rest of us. It was getting very annoying.
Why is it so hard for you, “asitis,” to carry on a normal conversation here without goading and harassing people and continually playing games?
Angel: “Here is my reason.”
“Asitis”: “No, that’s not your reason. Give me your REAAAAL reason.”
Angel: “I already posted this twice.”
“Asitis”: “Well, you might have posted twice, but you didn’t give your REEEEAL reason.”
It’s like a child taunting other kids on a playground. Grow up.
See, the thing is Kel “Angel” didn’t give a reason for why she left it out. Maybe you should wonder more about that. Or not………
Oh, and asitis, the reason angel didn’t mention those who didn’t use birth control in her example was because it should have been even more obvious to them a life could result. She refuted the more difficult argument rather than the easier one.
Posted by: YCW at March 18, 2009 10:36 AM
No, that’s not the reason YCW.
Posted by: asitis at March 18, 2009 10:45 AM
yes, you’ve hit it on the head exactly YCW! A person not using contraception is likely to be worried about conceiving and it probably wouldn’t be such a shock to conceive.
A contracepting couple simply isn’t expecting conception to happen at all. It’s the least of their worries.
Yeah, thanks for KNOWING what I’m thinking, asitis!:P
Thanks Kel for your support!
Or maybe you’re wondering a little too much about that. ;)
I have work to do. Cya later!
My last comment was directed to “asitis.”
No problem, angel.
Now I’m really going… :D
Now I’m really going… :D
Posted by: Kel at March 18, 2009 12:53 PM
me too!
Angel, honestly, I thought your point was obvious.
Seriously, the alternate explanation that Asitis insists is right doesn’t even make any sense.
Of course, she’ll insist that you’re lying and that YCW, Kel and I are all just seeing what we want to see…. but at least I wanted to add one more voice as noting the reasonable and obvious interpretation of your post.
Thing is though you were talking about why abortion happens “angel”. And you specifically mentioned failed contraception but not no contraception. And the reason for that is clear.
Angel, honestly, I thought your point was obvious.
Seriously, the alternate explanation that Asitis insists is right doesn’t even make any sense.
Of course, she’ll insist that you’re lying and that YCW, Kel and I are all just seeing what we want to see…. but at least I wanted to add one more voice as noting the reasonable and obvious interpretation of your post.
Posted by: Elisabeth at March 18, 2009 1:36 PM
thanks Elisabeth. That’s why I didn’t really bother to explain myself to her. I mean there’s only so many ways you can make a point. To me it seemed elementary.
I think it’s more likely she’s just arguing to argue. Who really knows. Who really cares…… The point is to discuss intelligently and maturely.
anon at 2:18 was me!
The point is to discuss intelligently and maturely.
Posted by: angel at March 18, 2009 2:22 PM
Exactly. So let’s go back to the beginning shall we? Where I noted that you mentioned failed contraception causing abortion, but not “no contraception.
So for being, unwanted, the product of failed contraception and no choice, the baby must die.
Posted by: angel at March 17, 2009 3:23 PM
“Angel” you forgot about no contraception. Half the women who abort were not using contraception.
The other half claimed to have used contraception during the month they got pregnant. You should have writen:
“So for being unwanted, the product of failed contraception OR NO CONTRACEPTION, and no choice….”
Posted by: asitis at March 17, 2009 3:47 PM
Oh my stars, “asitis!!” Put a sock in it.
I think I just did Carla. Let’s hope that ends it.
Oh my stars, “asitis!!” Put a sock in it.
Posted by: Carla at March 18, 2009 3:21 PM
thanks Carla! Talk about dead horses and flogging….hehe
Oh no…. she might be letting the sock fall out of her mouth, Carla. I’ll keep an eye on her for you.
:P
;)