Weekend question 2/27-28/10
Did you know? Creepy, filthy abortion clinics run by the scum of the earth are all our fault, and they’re only spotlighting due to media bias. According to Kate Harding at Salon.com, February 24…
A Philadelphia medical facility has been shut down by the PA Dept. of State’s Board of Medicine, following a raid in which federal agents found conditions at the clinic “deplorable and unsanitary.”
It’s a sad and troubling story, but quite frankly, not the kind that would ordinarily make national news…. [T]ragic errors happen every day. Undoubtedly, so do health and safety violations and license suspensions. So why are we hearing about this one? Because one of the services Dr. [Kermit] Gosnell‘s clinic provided was abortion, and as the AP story notes in its opening lines, those “deplorable and unsanitary conditions” included “blood on the floor and parts of aborted fetuses in jars.”
The evidence against [Kermit] Gosnell fits neatly into an anti-choice narrative that casts abortion providers as soulless ghouls with no regard for patients’ safety or the law.
Days after the murder of Dr. George Tiller, for instance, anti-choice writer Jill Stanek posted pictures of abortion provider Dr. LeRoy Carhart’s clinic in an Omaha suburb and declared that “no self-respecting bonafide doctor would step foot in Carhart’s filthy mill.”
Never mind that Carhart is licensed to practice medicine in 7 states and has enough self-respect that he’s refused to let decades of harassment and threats from anti-choice zealots stop him from helping women. And never mind that, presumably, Stanek has never been inside the clinic. Why would any of that stop her from implying that Carhart is not a real doctor or that his medical facilities are unsanitary?…
Unfortunately, though, sometimes doctors who provide abortions do behave unethically, bizarrely and unforgivably, and Gosnell seems to be one of them. And even though physicians of every stripe cross legal and ethical boundaries, the existing stigma surrounding abortion providers – the notion that doctors offering safe, legal medical procedures are “baby killers” operating out of “filthy mills” – combined with some especially gruesome details means that a story like this is bound to catch fire….
And the problem with focusing on stories like this is that it casts even more suspicion on dedicated doctors operating within increasingly restrictive laws….
Access to legal, high-quality abortion care has saved countless women from undergoing surgery in conditions like those found at Gosnell’s clinic, or from suffering at the hands of “butchers” like [Raquel and Bertha] Bugarin. So if anti-choice crusaders were really concerned about women’s health or abortion providers operating in “filthy mills,” then instead of conflating compassionate, committed physicians with a few true rogues who absolutely deserve to be shut down and prosecuted, they would be pushing for all women to have greater access to the full range of reproductive healthcare options. I won’t hold my breath.
Interesting logic I’m honestly not quite sure I understand.
Is Harding saying we should loosen rather than tighten abortion clinic regulations, the end result being a decrease in the number of front alley abortion mills? I don’t observe liberals applying this logic anywhere else in their ideology. Rather, they press for increased regulations when observing what they consider crimes against innocent people.
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.
Its just the OPPOSITE! UNDER-regulation of clinics has led to this. Its PRO ABORTS that fight regulations that would require abortion mills to have the same standards as outpatient surgical centers. But pro aborts FIGHT these. Pro Lifers care enough about women (Even though they want the abortion facilities CLOSED) to at least want SAFE and clean environment.
Wow, I sure would be willing to go in there and remove my clothes and lie down on one of his tables! NOT!
Why would Jill suggest Carhart’s clinic is unsanitary? Well let’s pretend the sign above says “dog kennel” and not “clinic of Nebraska”.
Would Ms.Harding leave her dog in this building?
I suppose we shouldn’t make assumptions about the safety and sanitation of dilapidated buildings powered by outdoor generators with rusted pickup trucks in a muddy parking lot and tacky murals on the brick wall. Of course being nextdoor to what looks like a drug den and the unsavory characters that may be hang around there is no issue either.
The abortionists practice with even more restrictive laws. I thought that was the whole point of legalizing abortion. To keep the docs ethical and the clinics clean and safe.
All physicians and dentists must practice under restrictive laws and let’s be thankful for that fact.
Ms.Harding should be asking where NOW and NARAL are when these situations exist, not where the PL people are. Aren’t they the ones who promised women legal meant safe? PLs long maintained that legalizing abortion, would only give the criminal and unethical free reign.
Oh cry me a river about “stigma”. Would legalizing rape somehow make it more acceptable and respectable?
Hardly. Live with it, abortionists, though tolerated in the medical field, are looked down on by fellow physicians. Even those who support “choice” and will send a pregnant mistress or two to the local abortionist, will not dirty their own hands.
Its sort of like, sure,I’ll engage in a little illegal drug enjoyment, but I am NOT some low life drug dealer.
Jill,
Harding is vexed because she perceives you tarring all of those good and noble abortionists, modern day Albert Schwietzers, with the brush of the ‘few’ rogues who bring shame upon an otherwise laudable branch of modern medicine.
In her world, you’re a Neanderthal. I must say that I’m proud to share a cave with you!
Too bad Kate can’t seem to screw up enough intellectual honesty to act like a real journalist and investigate the ocean of scientific literature, PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE, that gives rise to our claims that abortion hurts women.
Even for those women who suffer no immediate sequellae, there are 40-95% increased risks of breast cancer, future episodes of incompetent cervix, inability to conceive or sustain pregnancy, post-traumatic stress disorder characterized by successive failed relationships with men and women, alcoholism, drug abuse, depression and suicide.
Of course, if Kate were to do so, abortion would in all likelihood claim another vicim,
Kate’s Career.
We will always be blamed for the unsanitary conditions of abortion clinics because they blame us for the women who were hurt or died getting abortions when they were illegal.
However, ‘illegal’ abortions could be performed safely in a home because sanitation doesn’t result from owning a clinic, but from good character. Women often have safe and sterile homebirths.
I think all medical facilities should be regulated and clean, but I don’t trust the Health Dept to tell me which ones are sanitary and which aren’t. I can tell that by looking around and asking questions.
If a doctor’s clinic is not clean, then he does not care about my health and should not be practicing. Doctors who perform legal or illegal abortions in unsanitary conditions don’t care about women, just money.
I couldn’t agree more with Mary’s assessment of this article and the current abortion situation. That’s exactly how pro-lifers should react to such an “argument” posed by the pro-abortion community.
Legalizing abortion did nothing but allow it to become rampant throughout the nation and increasingly extreme, and released the ultra unethical and criminal abortionists to run free.
Women who want abortions are visiting unsafe and disgustingly unsanitary mills anyway, regardless of the fact that abortion is no longer illegal. Why should we support them with a law that ALLOWS them to do so?
This pro-abortion argument is simply inapplicable for this reason. Period. And pro-lifers should not waver.
They’re conveniently forgetting that an abortion clinic REFERRED THE DEAD WOMAN TO THAT CLINIC. And a group of abortion advocates brought a busload of poor, minority women to Gosnell and Harvey Karman in 1972 for seedy abortions. Where was their alleged concern for safety then?
What these dumps really prove is that prochoice doesnt care about women. They defend this crap. It wouldnt matter if Carhart was running a mill out of his garage, as long as they could get their legal babykilling. Look at who they admire-a woman who has swallowed poison to kill her unborn baby is elevated to hero status, as was Tiller, in spite of all the charges and scandals he faced over the years. The agenda must be protected at all costs; any women that die in the crossfire are collateral damage.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 27, 2010 9:42 AM
“Of course, if Kate were to do so, abortion would in all likelihood claim another vicim,
Kate’s Career.”
—————————————————
From the ‘Quiet Man’ with John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara:
“Would ye like a stick to beat the mrs?”
Gerard,
I don’t which is better and/or which is ‘badder’ [as in 'smokin'] the sophisicated and articulate professor or the ‘Incredible Hulk’.
I love me both.
‘Real men’ don’t resort to words when a flamethrower or a handgrenade will work just as well.
yor bro ken
It’s YOUR fault. You made this happen. I hope that you’ve been thoroughly put in your place by some finger-wagging. You FORCED Gosnell to be a boil sprouting from humanity’s armpit. He didn’t want to be, but you held him up against a wall until he complied….
And I bet that the extinction of the dinosaurs was all your fault, too. And Pluto being stripped of its planetary status- thanks a lot.
Go…you’ve done enough.
Has anybody ever pointed out the dark humorous irony of the “Wacker” brand generator at a place that kills people?
Hi Christina,
Kind of makes one think of Chicago thugs.
These modern day junkshop clinics do need to be shut down. But make no mistake. These don’t exist because we pros are heartless, evil monsters. They exist because there is a lack of hospitals in the middle of the country with real OBGYN divisions.
It’s like any other industry. Some businesses are first class. Others aren’t up to code.
When some of you antis need terminations (and a few of you will, based on the statistics), get yours at a clean, safe hospital. Its the only way to be sure, and it’s the only way to have it done without any of the antis finding out.
If abortion providers were just a sampling of average physicians then the rate of ghoulishness should be on par with that of the ghoulishness of the medicial community at large. And being that there are such small numbers of medically licensed folk who are interested in performing abortions then the actual number of ghouls interested in performing abortions would be quite tiny. Instead we have just the opposite – a single individual in an entire state willing to perform abortions and, hmmmm, they just so happen to be creepy.
Salon is, quite frankly, usually full of crap.
They exist because there is a lack of hospitals in the middle of the country with real OBGYN divisions.
You can’t seriously mean that, in your opinion, to be a “real OBGYN” you must not only deliver live children but kill them every day as well?
Kate Harding: Never mind that Carhart is licensed to practice medicine in 7 states and has enough self-respect that he’s refused to let decades of harassment and threats from anti-choice zealots stop him from killing women’s preborn children for money.
Emphasis and rephrasing are mine. I’m certain that our feminist foremothers like Anthony and Stanton didn’t view chopping up our growing children as “helping women.” (But Carhart and friends can tell themselves whatever they want to to so he can do what he does every day.)
Very sad that “modern feminism” seems to think you can only have true freedom by denying your own biology and killing whatever innocent “parasite” stands in your way of your neat and tidy little plans.
Dhalgren,
LOL. You folks will look for any excuse and not take a long hard look at yourselves. Oh no, they don’t exist because WE did anything wrong. Nahhhh, they exist because of the lack of hospitals in middle America with real OB/GYN divisions. I’ll give you points for originality and none for having any idea what you are talking about.
I trained in a hospital that performed a minimal number of 1st trimester abortions. Even these caused quite a hassle since only a limited number of staff would involve themselves with them. Hospitals also choose not to perform them. The abortionist in our city does them in his office complex like he has for years, prior to and after Roe.
The point is Dhalgren if there was no stigma, if abortion was not viewed as taking human life, then any number of reputable doctors would be willing to do them. For instance, our city has no shortage of physicians who perform every type of service you can imagine. Maybe you should question what these doctors know that turns them off to abortion or only allows them pay lip service but not dirty your hands.
Also, you wouldn’t see these dumps if strict regulations, inspections, and licensing were enforced. Speak to your friends at NOW and NARAL. They are the ones who have fought regulation tooth and nail. Also ask our HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius why she, as governor of Kansas, turned a blind eye to the blatant violations of licensing and regulation that went on in Tiller’s clinic.
Its a good example of how legalizing an activity does not keep out the criminal element, but all too often gives them opportunities they never dreamed of.
Also, you wouldn’t see these dumps if strict regulations, inspections, and licensing were enforced. Speak to your friends at NOW and NARAL. They are the ones who have fought regulation tooth and nail.
************************
Exactly, Mary. Why worry about sanitary conditions and women’s “health” when there is money to be made? I mean, that will only slow things down.
Look at who they admire-a woman who has swallowed poison to kill her unborn baby is elevated to hero status, as was Tiller, in spite of all the charges and scandals he faced over the years. The agenda must be protected at all costs; any women that die in the crossfire are collateral damage.
Posted by: Jill Guidry
Exactly. They’re expendable.
I counted 40 (FORTY) separate fallacies in that piece (just the part highlighted by Jill). I count it a fallacy every time a word is misused or an unsound argument is made.
Any time an advocate of criminal abortion (abortion crime, prenatal homicide, unborn child killing, etc.) makes an “argument”, said “argument” always contains numerous fallacies. This is because the abortionist mentality is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
Once again, as with all anti unborn human rights advocacy, the claim is made that the abortionist movement is trying to “help” women. Apart from the fact that this is simply not true, the real fatal weakness here is that opponents of basic human rights are claiming to care about a group of human beings, born women, ALL of whom they would have allowed to have been destroyed in the unborn stage.
In fact, they would have been incensed if we had tried to save the lives of some of these women 20 or 25 years ago when they were unborn, if threatened by their mothers with abortion.
It is beyond preposterous, abortion crime enthusiasts, for you to claim to care about a group of human beings all of whose destruction you would have supported.
Finally, this dreary piece of abortionist propaganda suffers from one more fatal weakness common to that inhuman movement: the absolute refusal to recognize the existence of unborn children. Everything is “safety”, “choice”, “care” and “services” but no recognition that human beings (half of whom are women!) are killed everything abortion “care” is “provided”.
It is absolutely pathetic for an inhuman movement which believes in destroying the lives of ALL human beings in the history of our species to pretend to care about the lives or rights or well being of anyone at anytime.
NONE of US will NEED “Terminations” because I am sure a few of us would rather do the thing that Gianna Beretta Molla did: save our baby rather than ourselves.
I’m not trying to incite a riot here, but am asking a legitimate question.
Has there ever been any published article in which those who were fervently against abortion were questioned if they had adopted a baby? Those were were “on the fence” about abortion, what were their rates of adoption? And then, of course, those who were pro-choice (or pro-abortion, if you prefer), what percentages of those polled had adopted a child? And what are the rates for those adopting outside their race/ethnicity?
It seems that very liberal people are less religious but more likely to support abortion. They also seem to be more likely to adopt a baby/child of another race. Alternately, it seems more religious people seem to be more conservative and would not be willing to adopt outside their race. But of course that is the perception. I’d be very interested in seeing if the truth is the same or flip-flopped.
I think people who take such a stance that they think abortion is murder should all be required to put their money where their mouths are… go adopt a child. Become a foster parent. Find a woman who is thinking of aborting her baby and tell her you will financially support that child til it reaches the age of 18, similar to a man paying child support. I want to see actions, not just words.
Please don’t use euphemisms such as “terminations” when you mean to say “killing human beings in the unborn stage”.
Opponents of unborn human rights need to learn to speak plain English instead of hiding behind words so as to avoid facing the hard and brutal reality of the lethal and criminal violence they believe in inflicting on helpless innocent children.
Dhalgren:
“When some of you antis need terminations (and a few of you will, based on the statistics), get yours at a clean, safe hospital. Its the only way to be sure, and it’s the only way to have it done without any of the antis finding out.”
The love of a mother and father has compelled not a few parents to run back into a house engulfed in flame to rescue their child.
Many more have perished at the windows of flaming houses passing their children to safety. Such is the power of parental love.
Many more than these have died of complications in childbirth, who could have aborted, but chose to do all in their power to ensure that their baby lived. These are less spoken of in the media because their stories are not so dramatic as the photo-ops presented by a gutted home. Also, they run counter to the MSM narrative that abortion is an absolute good.
One reason that I am so ardently pro-life is because in 1960, my mother was counseled to have a therapeutic abortion. I write this as I hear my three children playing in the snow outside, children whose light never would have entered the world had my mother not sought the intercession of the Patron Saint of Expectant Mothers, the saint for whom I was named in gratitude, Saint Gerard Majella.
My mother was a brave young girl, only 21 years old when she made a simultaneous act of faith and declaration of love. It could have gone very differently for her, leaving behind my dad, older brother, and quite possibly me, and she knew it. That’s the heart of a lioness. My dad knew it too and wouldn’t have had it any other way.
Faith, Hope and Love. They had all three. Kids in their twenties putting their entire future together in love on the line for the child who was the resulting expression of their spousal embrace.
My fondest hope is that you, Artemis, and other like-minded individuals will remove the shackles from your hearts and allow that mother’s heart, which is constitutive of every woman by her nature, to run wild in your lives. Stop wasting your energy on self-imprisonment. Be free.
If it was up to Obama (as when he was a state senator in Illinois) not only would these type of “clinics” be welcomed, they would flourish. He was willing to go so far as to allow live babies thrash about unattended until they died. So what’s the problem with a little filth here and there? The bottom line is that pro-abortion ideologues do not care what the “clinics” look like or how they operate. All that matters is that they are there.
Granted, not all pro-abortion people are as crass as our president. One can conjecture that most pro-choicers who contribute here favor sanitary conditions. But that should give them no solace. Would it have been better that the gulags and concentration camps have nicely adorned “dying rooms” for the poor souls slated for extermination?
The primary reason we see so many stories like this from around the country year after year is because these facilities truly reflect the sick mindset of their operators. Where there is no respect for the inherent dignity of the human person this is what you get: depravity.
I’m not trying to incite a riot here, but am asking a legitimate question.
Has there ever been any published article in which those who were fervently against abortion were questioned if they had adopted a baby? Those were were “on the fence” about abortion, what were their rates of adoption? And then, of course, those who were pro-choice (or pro-abortion, if you prefer), what percentages of those polled had adopted a child? And what are the rates for those adopting outside their race/ethnicity?
****************************
Not that I know of, but you know, there’s always Google, which you could’ve checked.
It seems that very liberal people are less religious but more likely to support abortion. They also seem to be more likely to adopt a baby/child of another race. Alternately, it seems more religious people seem to be more conservative and would not be willing to adopt outside their race. But of course that is the perception. I’d be very interested in seeing if the truth is the same or flip-flopped.
Really? It seems the opposite to me. And I notice that many, many orphanages around the world, taking in “unwanted” children in the first place, are run by conservative religious groups.
And we can assume all we want to, but you know where that gets us. The way things “seem” to a particular individual are not always as they “are.”
I think people who take such a stance that they think abortion is murder should all be required to put their money where their mouths are… go adopt a child. Become a foster parent. Find a woman who is thinking of aborting her baby and tell her you will financially support that child til it reaches the age of 18, similar to a man paying child support. I want to see actions, not just words.
Posted by: DB at February 27, 2010 12:17 PM
Interesting. So, say I adopt as many children as I possibly can and do everything that the almighty DB says I need to do in order to win his/her respect. Oh, no, wait, they have to be MINORITY children, too, because of course, we’re all racist, religious nutjobs. I forgot.
How does it follow, then, that an abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being? (Shout out to Bobby!)
How will I have stopped this grave injustice to a particular class of human beings? And do you realize that there are many, many women, whom I’ve personally spoken with, who say, “Oh, no, I could NEVER give my baby up for adoption” and then they choose to abort? It’s that whole “parasite” mentality. “My body, my choice,” and everything can just go back to “normal.” And nothing is ever normal again…
BTW, we abort 1.5 million children per year while 2 million couples wait to adopt. But I suppose they’re all just racist, and that must be the real issue, huh?
DB,
We do put our money where our collective mouth is, so you may want to remove your foot from yours.
In one breath you question whether pro-lifers adopt, and in the next you proclaim that pro-choicers have higher rates of adoption. So how do you get to make such inflated claims about pro-choicers, absent a baseline of pro-lifer adoption rates.
Of course, we welcome your furnishing us with some scientific data which buttresses your assertions. Check out Chris Bell, Co-founder of Good Counsel homes who has a small army of adopted children. I know dozens of pro-lifers who have adopted children.
Ultimately, yours is a non sequitur as arguments go. We do not determine what fraction of children may be slaughtered based upon the length of the adoption rolls. That’s a pretty grotesque and twisted philosophy of supply and demand you have there.
Hint: children are not commodities subject to economic supply laws, although that is precisely what the pro-choice crowd has reduced them to.
IVF is big business. Do you suggest that we shutter all IVF clinics? What of surrogate parenthood?
Pro-lifers stand on a very simple (not simplistic) principle:
All human life is sacred. Period.
The worth of a child whose procreation was unplanned does not depend on any extrinsic variables such as numbers of children on adoption rolls, the relative state of the parent’s finances or educational achievement, etc.
Human dignity is intrinsic to being human.
It’s just that simple.
Hi Kel,
Maybe we should ask such groups as NOW and NARAL the following questions:
1. How much of the billions of dollars the abortion industry rakes in is donated to or used to establish mother’s and infants homes, adoptions, crisis pregnancy center, emergency assistance for pregnant women and mothers?
2. How many members of NOW run shelters for battered women or take battered women into their homes? Certainly if you object to domestic violence you must be willing to turn your home into a shelter.
DB-i offered to adopt Angies baby before she aborted. i was met with insults. (read it for yourself if youre interested)the sad fact of the matter is proaborts are unwilling to sacrifice nine months of their time to preserve the entire lifetime of another. They are more concerned with their own physical comforts and how ‘hearth-wrenching’ it would be for them personally to give up a baby for adoption, its just easier for them to kill the unborn and avoid all responsibility. My husband and i have offered to adopt babies destined for abortion more than a few times. Except for Angie, all the other babies had happy endings-their mothers decided to give them life. How motivated do you think people are to offer to adopt when they are met with the kind of nastiness i got from Angie? Prochoice isnt about preserving life-its about keeping abortion legal, even when other alternatives are offered. Why are Americans going to China and Romania to adopt, while unborn Americans are slaughtered at a rate of 4000 a day? People are offering to adopt. Dont believe that old strawman.
One more point Kel,
Legal abortion was supposed to mean no unloved and unwanted children. All children would be born to loving parents that want them. No children would be born drug or alcohol addicted or with physical and mental challenges, there would be no child abuse, and no children born into poverty.
So, why is there any need for adoption?
Posted by: Mary at February 27, 2010 12:48 PM
**************************
Hi, Mary, I agree! Excellent questions.
But we know that the abortion industry is attempting as we speak to shut down as many crisis pregnancy centers as they possibly can. Why? Because they’re bad for business. Never mind that CPCs actually DO help women. And their children.
DB,
There’s so much, I don’t know where to begin.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers are funded by churches and private donors, etc. Just one of the many near us give away free maternity clothes, baby clothes, and will give away thousands of items of baby furniture and necessities this year. They provide free diapers, etc.
I am pregnant with my fifth child, but when my husband and I just had 3, we were approved for adoption from the foster care system. We wanted to keep a sibling group together, because it broke our hearts to hear of them being placed in separate homes. We would have taken as many as they would give us, we also stated that race was no issue. We offered to take a hard to place group of 3 african-american siblings (7,5,4). They told us they needed too much attention. I am a stay at home mom, I have 24 hours a day to attend to the needs of these children and ours.
Those children are still posted for adoption on the DHS website today. They are not in the same foster home. I guess the liberals thought it was better to keep them separated in a temporary home than for them to be raised together in a permanent one.
A young girl in our church wanted to get an abortion. 5 couples offered to adopt the baby. She ended up keeping him.
Another woman approved by the foster care system waited 3 years to get a call to adopt a child. it never came, she ended up adopting privately.
At the hospital where I have my babies, they have a waiting list of couples hoping to adopt a child that might be born there. One of my friends is a nursery nurse there and she calls girls who find out there pregnant if they indicate they might e thinking of abortion. These couples pay housing and medical expenses as well as the lawyer fees and maternity clothes before the baby is even born.
Besides the fact that many pro-life christians adopt, foster, or support a pregnancy center, it is not necessary to do any of those things in order to oppose a great moral evil.
Many Americans who opposed Hitler were not able to hide or feed a Jew, but it was still right to let their voices be heard.
Domestic abuse is wrong, but not everyone against it invites a battered woman into their home.
Abortion is also an issue of personal responsibility. No one should be forced to pay for someone else’s irresponsible behavior. Contraceptives of all forms are available free at many health clinics, if not all of them, around the country. Sex has consequences. Killing another human life because you took a risk and it proved detrimental should never be an option.
‘Real men’ don’t resort to words when a flamethrower or a handgrenade will work just as well.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at February 27, 2010 10:24
are you saying what i think you’re saying?
“Has there ever been any published article in which those who were fervently against abortion were questioned if they had adopted a baby?”
Would you care if it turned out they had? Both Ronald Reagan and John McCain had/have an adopted child, but I’ve never seen any pro-choicers give them credit for that.
I live in Minnesota, which has the highest rate of Korean adoptees of any state in the US, and I went to Catholic school from kindergarten through high school with several kids who were adopted from Korea. And no, they weren’t all the children of liberals. What’s your basis for the belief that more liberals adopt children? Brangelina?
I haven’t adopted a child because I’m a twenty-three-year-old law student. That’s also why I’m not risking getting pregnant.
Hi Marauder,
I know Brad is an ardent liberal and Obama supporter but I understand Angelina is no longer.
Her father Jon Voight is a conservative.
Mary: I looked it up, and yeah, it seems Angelina might have bailed on Obama. I hope so.
Hal: I kinda thinks he says these things just to see how long it’ll be before you react…
Oh, forgot to say before: Majorly laughing over the “logic” of the Salon article. Access to legal, high-quality abortion care has saved countless women from undergoing surgery in conditions like those found at Gosnell’s clinic? Well, if it’s legal, why do we still HAVE places like Gosnell’s “clinic”?
I have offered to adopt any child who would otherwise be aborted. No one has taken me up on it. If there came a time I could not take in a child who would otherwise be aborted I would not rest until I found him or her a home.
I have pursued adoption in the past and likely will in the future.
I have offered to pay for the storage of IVF embryos for an acquaintance who could not afford her fee one year (she managed to work something out with the storage company though).
Many, many more pro-lifers would adopt if it were more affordable and other obstacles were removed (like the need to have a home of a certain size, a certain number of children, or no children under a certain age, sometimes).
Thank You, ycw. I could have posted word for word the exact same thing. Especially when you said “Many, many more pro-lifers would adopt if it were more affordable and other obstacles were removed (like the need to have a home of a certain size, a certain number of children, or no children under a certain age, sometimes).” That is the case with my husband and me. To DB: Just because I can’t adopt a child doesn’t mean I can’t be opposed to KILLING a child
are you saying what i think you’re saying?
Posted by: Hal at February 27, 2010 2:37 PM
—————————————————
Just using a little hyperbole to illustrate a point.
I plagarized the line from something I read somewhere long, long ago in a distant galaxy.
Maybe I should have substituted hydrogen bombs for handgrenades to make it less obtuse.
['I am the president. That is why I get to talk twice as much as all you congresspersons combined.']
I am not at an airport or on an commercial airliner so I thought I would be safe making an attempt at humor that involves fire and explosives.
yor bro ken
“children whose light never would have entered the world had my mother not sought the intercession of the Patron Saint of Expectant Mothers, the saint for whom I was named in gratitude, Saint Gerard Majella”
Aw come on, Nadal, you’re a science professional. Surely you don’t hold with the same kind of religio-magical thinking that abounds in the non scientific world!!!! The type of thinking that believed that plagues were God’s punishment and so forth.
“My fondest hope is that you, Artemis, and other like-minded individuals will remove the shackles from your hearts… Stop wasting your energy on self-imprisonment. Be free.”
Your “virtual” psych diagnosis of me (and other pro-choice women) is laughable as it would appear to be a projection of what you want us to be – unhapppy and angry women – when that just isn’t true. You don’t know me; but as the song goes “if it makes you happy, it can be that bad.”
And BTW, I answered your question about my uterus; but you didn’t respond to my query. Let me repeat. How do you deal with non religious and/or non Catholic pro-choice members of the scientific community who support a women’s right to choose?
I am not at an airport or on an commercial airliner so I thought I would be safe making an attempt at humor that involves fire and explosives.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at February 27, 2010 9:35 PM
When militant anti-abortion types do “humor” about fire and explosives, law enforcement should take notice. Hopefully clinics in (is it Texas?) have good security. This type of homicidal “humor” is not funny. Wonder if Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, and the other “heroes” made this type of “joke.”
Artemis,
Please show us what a steel pair you have and how you abhor violence. Lecture the militias to which Roeder and Rudolph belonged on the importance of not promoting violence and lawlessness. Neither Roeder or Rudolph involved themselves with PL groups.
If you’re a little nervous about contacting them, I certainly understand. But I’m certain that someone of your strong convictions will only laugh at the danger.
Artemis,
I never asked you any questions about your uterus. Please reference the post that you believe was a querry about your uterus. I asked about you child. Big difference.
If someone asks how you are doing, you don’t reply with telling them that the roof is leaking. Get the difference?
“How do you deal with non religious and/or non Catholic pro-choice members of the scientific community who support a women’s right to choose?”
Usually we kidnap them and send them for reprogramming. What a stupid question.
BTW, you forgot your usual bump-in with “Bless me Father”. Are you not feeling well today? You have the opening correct. The forgiveness for killing your child is waiting for you. Try uttering those words in humility and sincerity with a priest.
BTW Atremis,
You are not so bright as you think. You mock the idea of an eternal God and then suggest I am being less than scientific in believing.
Yet, science has relatively few LAWS, which are airtight pronouncements. One of those is the First Law of Thermodynamics which states,
“Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. It only changes form.”
Got that? Energy has no beginning, and no end. It is eternal.
That isn’t the Pope speaking. That’s Physics speaking. The religious person understands that God is not some anthropomorphized Zeus sitting on a cloud, but an eternal being. Pure energy and source of all first principles.
Science and religion are not so far apart, as both make the same declaration of belief in an eternal energy.
If you stopped acting like a churlish 12 year old, you might actually start growing up. You might even learn a thing or two from the others here, beginning with the fact that God, and not you, is the center of all reality.
Artemis (11:21):
“…unhappy and angry women, when that just isn’t true.” If we could count the times pro-abort women have flipped us off and cursed us–I suppose that reflects happiness? Actually, it reflects seething anger.
Here is the real problem, Artemis. How we define happiness is subjective, we all know that. The real question is what really is in our hearts, and do we have joy in our lives. Joy is not present in abortion mills.
The conundrum faced by pro-aborts as they scurry about while dismembering unborn babies is this: How do they pretend that they are happy doing this? It is this conundrum that has made hundreds of former abortion industry workers see the light and abandon their posts.
Ashley,
There’s a reason why these places are stigmatized, with the NIMBY mentality. Still, PP doesn’t open a proportional amount of their mills in poor white neighborhoods.
God Bless
Hi Gerard,
Great point. Is PP building clinics in Appalachia?
I’m asking, if anyone has an anwer.
Try uttering those words in humility and sincerity with a priest.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 28, 2010 12:18 PM
If I were to speak with a priest regarding my past transgressions, the priest would be an Episcopalian woman priest and they don’t believe that abortion is murder. I know that you believe in the “one true church” and all that – but there are other religions which have a very different perspective on abortion. While you might believe that the Catholic position on abortion is the only valid one, non Catholic theologians might beg to differ. But back to my question, if a non Catholic scientist argues on behalf of reproductive choice, do you tell him/her to go confesss their sins to your God? Just saying….
Artemis,
It’s hard to take you seriously when you come here and mock what others hold sacred. You may be post-abortive, but I truly believe that you were always just a nasty little snot. It’s evident in how you deal with people here.
As for how I discuss this with my scientific peers, unlike you, they actually present well-reasoned lines of argumentation in a civil manner. Again, I realize that civility was never your gig, so it’s probably impossible for you to envision such a scenario.
Now, don’t let me interrupt your anti-Catholic bigotry.
If you stopped acting like a churlish 12 year old, you might actually start growing up. You might even learn a thing or two from the others here, beginning with the fact that God, and not you, is the center of all reality.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 28, 2010 12:36 PM
Professor, you’re entitled to your beliefs. Can you really state, however, that your God is a “fact?”
A statement like that might interfere with your career in academia.
Hal,
Science is aware that it makes the same profession of faith that religious people do. It cannot explain whence energy comes, and therefore declares it eternal-no beginning and no end. There is no empiric evidence for this statement.
The first law of thermodynamics is a construct that is rooted, in part, in Aristotle’s Prime Mover Theory. In that, Aristotle recognized that all things are in fluxuating states of potency and act.
In order for a thing’s potential to be activated or actualized, it must be acted upon from without. That entity similarly requires an outside agent to activate ITS potential, etc. Aristotle recognized that this could not go on backwards into infinity.
Therefore, he posited that there must be that which is pure action, having within itself no potential. That entity for Aristotle set all things in motion and was referred to as the Prime Mover.
Physics is faced with the possibility that there was once nothing and matter and energy simply came into existence of their own; a prospect no one will seriously entertain.
The next issue is that some entity created matter and energy, some dynamic source of first principles (God) made them. But then, where did God come from? So physics takes the same position the Christian does. It simply proclaims that matter and energy always were, as the Christian proclaims God always was.
Serious, thoughtful scientists do not have an issue with deism. They begin to take issue with revealed truth, as revelation begins to shape human behavior with a set of expectations.
So, yes, God is a fact. Science will not laugh at this because they proclaim energy to be a likewise eternal entity.
Even if all that is true, it doesn’t make the Christian God a “fact.”
Well Hal, I’m not willing to bet eternity on that one.
The great paradox is that faith is a gift that must be requested. Then it is granted. As a scientist, I am OBLIGED to consider that God is a fact, but that God is not the formal object of inquiry in any scientific discipline. Therefore, having ruled God out as a formal object of inquiry, science may not proclaim either way on the existence of that which they refuse to hold as the formal object of their study.
Our method does not admit such study. Therefore, our scientists must remain decidedly neutral on God. We must admit the possibility of God’s existence at the same time that we must admit or inability to prove that existence empirically.
However, I was not baptized a scientist. I was baptized a Catholic Christian and see through the eyes of faith, with its associated graces, with the same clarity and certitude as I see the formal objects of my discipline in the lab.
I’m so tired of the idea that Christians ‘check their brains’ at the door of their church. Want to look at the facts, the evidence?
The Case for the Creator is awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM
One of my all-time favorite quotes, in an interview with Stephen C. Meyer about DNA (see/read full http://cnsnews.com/news/article/50821 )
The fact that that “Intelligent Design” is a loving God who wants everyone He’s created to KNOW Him is nothing short of amazing.
Meyer: Well, that’s where I think the story gets very interesting. I have a software engineer friend. He is doing some work for us; he retired early from Microsoft–means he was about 38 or 40. Young guy. Brilliant architect level programmer at Microsoft. He’s writing code for us to–working with our molecular biologists to write a simulation of how genetic information is expressed for us to build proteins. So, we’re having an artificial-based, computer-based simulation of what’s called the gene expression system. He walks into my office one day, throws a book down on the table. It’s called Design Patterns–standard textbook for computer design engineers–and he says, “I get the eerie feeling, when I’m looking at what’s going on in the cell, that’s somebody’s figured this out before us.”
And I said, “What do you mean?”
And he says, “Well, it’s the design patterns,” and then he points to the book. He says, “We have” – design pattern is a term of art for design strategy or design logic, and he says: “We’ve got design logic for processing information, for doing error correction, for doing distributed data retrieval and reassembly, and for hierarchical organization–we’ve got files within folders, like on your desktop, you know, in the hierarchical filing system.”
And he says, “All those design patterns are inside the cell, except they’re using a design logic that’s like an 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 version of ours. It’s the same basic logic, but it’s more elegantly executed,” and he says, “It gives me an eerie feeling.”
Every cell in our body could have the Intel Inside logo on it.
Sorry to go OT. Regarding the Weekend Question, all the legalization of abortion did was move the butchers from back-alley to hanging out a shingle. The so-called “women’s groups” have assured them they will turn a blind eye to filthy conditions and the maternal deaths and maimings that continue despite the promise that legal abortion would eliminate these. If every abortion were performed in a sterile operating room by a skillful butcher, it would not change the fact that a unique human life is ended in a brutally violent fashion.
I’m so tired of the idea that Christians ‘check their brains’ at the door of their church.
Posted by: klynn73 at February 28, 2010 5:23 PM
Then stop doing it.
Hal,
Pretty arrogant stuff in that 8:30 PM post. If the Christian cannot prove empirically the existence of God, then you similarly cannot prove the negative.
Absent the ability to prove a negative, you act as though you have, and in so doing are the one acting as though he checked his brain at the door.
Sauce for the goose and all…
DB: I am an adoptive mom, and when I retire I would love to be a foster mom, too.
I am African American and my son is biracial, so I don’t know if this counts as another race.
I don’t have any statistics, I did know a white couple who adopted black and biracial children, and they were strongly prolife.
When people threaten hospitals that perform abortions, more of these situations will occur.
You people want your cake and eat it too. Abortion is legal. The question now is whether you really care about the conditions or you just want to find any way to make access less available.
Pedro,
We could perform abortions exclusively in the pristine operating rooms of Johns Hookins, The Mayo Clinic, The Cleveland Clinics, etc.
That will not reduce the 33-95% risk of contracting breast cancer as a result.
It will not reduce complications such as incompetent cervix.
It will not reduce complications such as punctured uterus.
It will not reduce complications such as inability to conceive.
It will not reduce complications such as difficulty in maintaining pregnancy.
It will not reduce future complications such as placenta previa, which occurs in greater frequency for women who have had abortions.
It will not reduce complications such as post-abortion syndrome.
It will not reduce complications such as increased incidence of suicide in post-abortive women.
No matter how pristine the conditions Pedro, they will not prevent the above from happening. The filthy conditions are, however, a stunningly superb graphic representation of the filth that is abortion itself. The filthy conditions reflect the soul of the industry that sparkling operating rooms cannot even cover.
Come to the March for Life next year and stand at the steps of the Supreme Court. Listen to the dozens of women from Silent No More give their testimonies. They all describe the same experience.:
Cold room.
Cold metal table.
Cold impersonal staff.
Cold, unfeeling physicians.
Cold and despair filled post-op rooms.
The word here is COLD, which conveys the essence of murder, of lifelessness, of lovelessness.
Yes we want those death chambers shut down and the slaughter of innocents to cease. We make no apologies for that.
But we want it equally for the sake of the mothers who are almost never making a “choice”, but are there because of overt and covert coercion. Most do it through default. They simply feel that they have no other choice.
The measure of a man is the extent to which he will protect the young, protect women from predation.
Join us Pedro.
Gerard, I saw you work for Covenant House. Now I understand you more. Bruce Ritter founded it, and we all know what he was involved with.
Pedro, If you are talking about his personal sins, they were his, not mine.
If you mean the rest of us ministering to homeless teens and teens escaping prostitution, yes, that was my work for seven years.
Gerard,
God bless you for you work!
Thanks Janet!
Hal, Artemis, and all others on here trying to start in with the false dichotomy between science and faith and suggesting that Christianity is unreasonable…etc….
I have a name for you. Dr. William Lane Craig. He is a Christian apologist, author, scholar, and philosopher who has spent the better part of the past 20 years debating and refuting the best atheism has to offer. He recently made Mr. “God is Not Great” Christopher Hitchens look silly in their debate. Also, Richard Dawkins refuses to debate him. Do check him out.
His website.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer
A variety of videos. Some a few minutes long,
others are full debates can be found at the following link.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.channel&ContributorID=31703864
And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
This abortion mill is a great picture of the entire industry IMO. It is sleazy and nasty.
Posted by: klynn73 at February 28, 2010 5:53 PM
Fascinating! Thanks for posting.
Gerard, shut up. I don’t apologize for my incivility. You have NO idea what you’re talking about. I’ve sat on “cold, metal tables” in an abortion clinic and many hospitals. Ho-hum. Neoliberalism dictates that efficiency is our highest virtue, rather than attentive care and compassion. When my mother was hospitalized with sequelae from her second pregnancy, nobody tucked her in with fluffy pink pillows. “Coldness” characterizes the ENTIRE medical system. Oh, and if you (or anybody else here) had actually READ the article posted from Salon, you’d realize you’re perpetuating exactly what the author’s talking about: sensationalizing stories of unlicensed, unqualified abortion providers while curiously ignoring other, more common occurrences of medical malpractice.
If somebody wanted to amplify the voices of men who regretted their vasectomies, I’m sure hordes would come a’calling, but they wouldn’t be representative of the entire population of individuals who’ve undergone the procedure. Stick to teaching freshman bio and pumping out more kids the world doesn’t need.
“Stick to teaching freshman bio and pumping out more kids the world doesn’t need.”
I think I know where Megan’s mom should’ve stopped…
Meg’s totally ignoring that the piece is just a giant excuse note for every shady operator who isn’t even supposed to exist since they won Roe. I mean, they said “Stop back alley abortions!!” by what? Making those same dirty dumps front alley? We read the article, Megan. It STILL doesn’t make any sense. “We have to stop back alley abortions by legalizing abortion so that the illegal conditions we once fought against can be considered legal!” LOL, WUT?
I had my live babies I didn’t kill in a cushy bed with warm blankets in a room that was very nice, and after the birth, yes, the nurse even tucked me in.
Oh, and “sensationalizing stories of unlicensed, unqualified abortion providers” Wasn’t that Kermitt dude licensed and qualified? Lies, lies, lies.
Ah Megan,
I’ve missed your ice cold, vile and vituperative charm. Actually, I DO know what I’m talking about.
Tell us Megan, how is the world a better place for your child having been butchered? The world does need my children. Each of them is worth at least a thousand of you: cold and bloodless little monster that you are. What’s the matter Megan, mid-terms didn’t go well, so you decided to come here and vomit on us? Being post-abortive is not a free pass for behaving as you do.
Grow up sweetie. You made your ‘choice’ and are enjoying the plum benefits that come with it. Now respect the other choice: life. You made your choice and I made mine. Respect that. Not for my sake, but for the sake of at least keeping up the illusion that you really respect ‘choice’.
Can’t wait to hear from you after finals.
“Neoliberalism dictates that efficiency is our highest virtue, rather than attentive care and compassion.”
“Stick to teaching freshman bio and pumping out more kids the world doesn’t need.”
I could almost feel sorry for you, but in the words of a famous psychologist:
“It’s hard to feel sorry for someone in a wheel chair when the wheel chair is on your foot.”
Neoliberalism is a failure. Look in the mirror if you doubt my word.
Why should any pro-lifer “shut up”? Megan, you have it all wrong. Talk about perpetuating a perception! Megan, pro-aborts regularly scream obscenities and yell “shut up” and gesture towards pro-lifers who are reaching out with real “choice” options. Sometimes this is annoyance with pro-lifers. At other times the coarseness of their dispositions and their lashing out reflects seething rage and utter contempt towards pro-lifers. And even though you and other pro-aborts know this we will never hear you admit to it.
Do pro-aborts not want “choice”? Apparently they do not. Judging from their behaviors the only “choice” they seem to want is the “choice” for them or other victims to proceed into an abortuary uninformed and blissfully ignorant of that which awaits them.
If you were intellectually honest, you would contact organizations of women who regret their abortions and listen to their stories. Talk to them, feel their pain. They too sat on cold tables and have lived to severely regret the worst decision they ever made. But no, most pro-aborts do not want to hear about those women and they would rather block them out of their minds as if they did not exist.
Jerry-
I think Megan is destined to be one.
Xalisae and Jerry,
I hope Megan becomes a member of SNM sooner, rather than later. It’s evident that she is in considerable pain, though I will not give her a pass on that sort of broadside.
She has my prayers, as I’m sure she has yours.