New Year’s resolutions for abortion clinic escort
I will not engage in exchanges with antis.
It doesn’t matter what I hear them say. It doesn’t matter how incorrect their information is.
Even when they say EMW earned $3 billion (!) performing abortions last year. Even when they quote breast cancer, sterility and post-abortion syndrome nonsense.
Even when they say hurtful things to clients and companions. Even when they scream at me.
I will not engage.
~ Abortion clinic escort Servalbear’s list of New Year’s resolutions, Every Saturday Morning, December 31
Jan.02, 2012 6:00 am |
Free Speech, Industry watch |
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.
Reminds me of a temperamental toddler with hands covering her ears and screaming at the top of her lungs to drown out anything others might say.
his new years resolution should have been to get away from the baby killing job.
As the United Negro College Fund used to say:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
A minion to the evil that is abortion. The blood is on his hands as well.
They never “engage”. They’ll scream and cuss at us but never “engage”. They can’t stand dialogue with us because they can’t answer to the truth. Thats why they delete our comments on their pro-abortion sites. We let the pro-aborts come here and comment. We don’t attempt to censor. We love to engage. Truth is always easy to defend.
right sydney m. i have never had any good exchange with a pro death clinic worker. the goon squad would come out and start snapping pictures of us. for what? nobody said a thing to them. they would start screaming profanity at us just for being there. since when have they ever lived up to being the ” bastions of tolerance ” they have always claimed to be?
This seems pretty consistent with what I’ve seen from the pro-lifers as well…no room for compromise, debate, or conversation – I think he’s doing what almost anybody on this board would do, which is to say they are 100% firm in their position and are going to go about supporting the cause they believe in.
Those who have commented – how much time do you ponder and wrestle with the arguments that pro-choice folks present?
ex there isnt anything to ponder about babies being ripped apart skulls crushed. a house of death. but never mind that as long as you have your comfort and nobody will be ripping off your limbs today.
Ex-GOP,
To answer your question, quite simply, pro-aborts do not provide any reasonable arguments based on any kind logic or sound critical thinking because it’s not possible to do so in the case of abortion. Abortion kills a human being, something that so called pro-choices don’t ever admit. It’s a verifiable scientific fact. Inside their hearts, they know this, but instead of debating honestly with this in mind, they fall back to angry rhetoric. If you support abortion but can’t admit to what it does, then your arguments have no legs to stand on. Either abortion kills a human being or it doesn’t. If it does, then what is your justification for doing so? Doesn’t appear to be justified, does it? C’mon EX-G, gimme something honest from your side.
heather –
yes, you are correct – I’m sitting in my living room and I don’t fear being ripped apart. And I believe you are too. I don’t know what you are trying to get at with your last sentence. Do you really get that upset when a fellow pro-lifer questions the sincerity of your mocking?
So you are saying you don’t sit and ponder their arguments, but you are shocked that they won’t ponder yours?
typical pro choicer. me me me its all about me. my money my comfort what i need what i want. do you even care about these babies who feel pain? i felt every one of mine kick like mad. but its not your pain or your death. selfish! cold blooded!
CWK – from my side?
I believe abortion is wrong (if I were President, day one I’d send a bill that banned abortion, put a singer payer health care system in place, and expanded education spending) – but this isn’t that difficult. If a person doesn’t believe, at some point before birth, that you are dealing with a person, than it is pretty easy to justify abortion.
I’m just saying, the pro-lifers on this board seem *shocked* whenever pro-choice people exhibit the exact behavior that they exhibit themselves.
hey ex lets say some robber broke into your home and told you after he robbed you he was taking you to the woods to cut your arms off and slash you with a knife a few times and then kill you. would you go or try to fight for your life?
Heather –
How big is he/she?
What are they armed with?
Where is the rest of my family?
ex if you are pro life i sure cant tell at all.
Ex-GOP says:
how much time do you ponder and wrestle with the arguments that pro-choice folks present?
******************************************************
I wrestle with the fact that I used to be pro-choice and with memories of a scare in college when I would have had an abortion without a single thought about the baby. I ponder what has happened these last 20+ years that have converted me to pro-life.
I have never yelled at a pro-choicer and don’t imagine that I ever will. I’ve never heard the pro-lifers that are outside the abortion clinics yell nasty things. I’ve never heard the pro-lifers holding graphic abortion signs during the Face the Truth Tour yell. I have, however, heard pro-choicers yell all kinds of nasty things at us.
I’m happy to have a conversation with anyone.
By the definition of some on this board, I wouldn’t be pro-life – I don’t typically close my eyes and vote for “pro-life” candidates (I must use quotes) who also argue about how quickly they would bomb other countries, how many criminals they would like to execute, or how many sick people they would like to revoke the health care of.
So in that way, sure, maybe I don’t fit the bill of this board.
But what, in this whole thread, makes me anti-life? That I would question a pro-lifer in regards to how much they listen to the arguments of a pro-choice person?
Does being pro-life mean that I need to just get in line, not challenge people or think, and just throw out the same tired cliches over and over? Is that what pro-life is to you?
ex i guess i have to make my question a little more simple. okay he has a gun hes huge. you are going to die. will you just go? and add on he has your hands and feet tied. you goin?
Lrning – that is great. I’ve seen some pretty nasty things said by both sides on this board, but have not been out to an abortion clinic to hear or see anything being yelled.
At the end of the day, every body on the other side of a viewpoint is a human being that has gotten to their belief set through their life experiences. I haven’t found a single heart that is changed through yelling at that person. Understanding, conversation, prayer…those are the tools for change (in my opinion).
“Does being pro-life mean that I need to just get in line, not challenge people or think, and just throw out the same tired cliches over and over? Is that what pro-life is to you?”
Not to me.
I do wish that more people would become active in trying to stop the #1 killer in the U.S. though. Abortion kills more than heart disease and cancer combined.
It depends Heather – I have a wife and three daughters. If they were downstairs and quiet, I’d want to be taken out of the house to keep them safe – so yes, I would go. i’d fight at some point, but to your question “will you just go” – my answer, in some cases, would be yes.
I’m not sure where you are going with this one…
as we speak babies are being killed. 4000 will die today. their arms heads and legs ripped off. saline burning them to death. born alive? no problem. abortionists will slash their throats and finish them off.
Lrning –
Personally speaking, there are two things that keep me from fighting it harder:
1) The candidates that say they are pro-life…I typically thing they are dead wrong on issues like health care, education, immigration, and other topics I find important.
2) I feel that (some) pro-lifers don’t want to stop at ending abortion. I think they want to ban birth control, sex education, and become a sort of morality police.
my point is this….4000 babies will die today and thats why we try to stop this. now let me teach you a lesson here about selfish vs selfless. even though i dont know you ( lets just say i knew some guy was tossing you into his car to kill you) i would do whatever i could to save YOUR life! i wouldnt care if i died trying.
heather – This is exactly the kind of B.S. that drives me crazy on this board.
How is this at ALL relevant to the conversation we are having? What post of mine is this even in relation to?
“Might makes right” is all they have. I see how recently the pro-abortion chatter has spiked a lot. We must be doing something right!!
I’m glad that the abortion advocates are becoming so shrill and irrational, though. It makes our case quite nicely. Thanks for all the help!
PS I love being an anti and an auntie!! :>) !!!
@Ex-GOP: Of course I investigated abortion apologetic arguments. For two reasons. One, this issue is too important to get wrong (yes, it’s that big a deal) and therefore demands a thoughtful examination of both positions. Two, it is utterly impossible to formulate appropriate and reasoned counter-arguments to arguments with which you are unfamiliar.
However, what you seem to be saying is that I should stop and go through that whole process again every time I am presented with an argument in favor of abortion–even if it is an old one that has been addressed/debunked multiple times in the public arena. However, the fact that I’m not doing truth tables on logic I already know to be invalid does not mean that I can’t/shouldn’t engage the people making them. In fact, when the argument is crappy, and I know it’s crappy, and it’s easily demonstrated as crappy with only a brief comment or two, then there is no reason not to engage the speaker.
So, if this woman is saying that she’s flat refusing to enter into debates, even when she believes she could win them quickly and easily, then yes, that is a departure from the behavior of someone who believes they have a strong position from which to make an argument. It is not the choice of someone who is interested in “winning hearts and minds,” as the saying goes. It is the decision of someone who does not care to discuss the issue at hand. Now, granted, it’s true that as a clinic escort, that is not her main goal. From that point-of-view, this is an understandable decision. On the other hand, when the sidewalk counselors make good points about the wrongness of abortion–and they will–if she flat refuses to engage the arguments on any level, she’s not doing her job very well.
Which, now that I read it off that way, is actually a really good thing. So I wish her good luck with her Resolution. :P
Ex-GOP says:
Lrning –
Personally speaking, there are two things that keep me from fighting it harder:
1) The candidates that say they are pro-life…I typically thing they are dead wrong on issues like health care, education, immigration, and other topics I find important.
2) I feel that (some) pro-lifers don’t want to stop at ending abortion. I think they want to ban birth control, sex education, and become a sort of morality police.
****************************************************
Perhaps you’ve been fighting abortion in the wrong places? I haven’t met an abortion-bound woman yet that had the positions of various political candidates at the top of her mind. I guess there might be some people that want to ban birth control and sex education. I don’t let them stop me from trying to save lives.
It’s possible to have passionate opinions about things and yet not want to legislate that opinion. I’m against birth control, but I’d rather educate people so they know the full ramifications of their choice rather than fight for a ban.
I feel that….
is the root of both relativism and abortion’s lack of biologic and scientific basis. It’s ALL based on how they FEEL.
Well, I don’t care how you feel today, but a dead baby in a bucket is the same whether you “feel” it’s alright or whether you “feel” it’s barbaric. It’s not any less dead just because you “feel” it should be legal to end it’s life “on demand, without apology.”
what bs ex gop? when that man went to the Florida school board with the intent to kill them and then himself little Ginger used her purse to try to knock the gun out of his hand. why? he let her go. Because she valued the lives of her co workers. Ginger could have headed for the hills. its called caring about the life of someone else.
ex i care about babies going to slaughter. besides the bible tells us we must be there. now dont tell me youre some type of coward. if i ever saw someone smack an elderly lady id get right in the middle and id call the cops. would you? it really is the same. abortion is murder and there are 4000 more dead children today. mass genocide.
Alice – actually, I would only be saying that if you felt that the pro-choicer, at the crux of this message, was being unreasonable by saying he wasn’t going to listen to those arguments.
I’m saying if somebody finds him to be unreasonable, then they would have to do what you are suggesting – consider those arguments as presented.
Smart move. I can’t imagine that the intellectual caliber of the kind of people who protest outside an abortion clinic would make for very enlightening arguments anyway.
heather – your arguments are still bizzarre in the context of where the conversation was actually at. Yes, I understand that babies are dying. I simply had made the argument that their person isn’t being unreasonable in saying they are going to ignore pro-lifers. I still have no idea what prompted about 95% of what you’ve been talking about on this thread – it is as if you’ve made up this argument in your head that you think I’ve said, and then are debating against that.
Again, my only real point is, don’t dog a person for not wanting to debate or listen unless you are willing to hold the same respect of the others position.
ex dont you realize how nutty you sound? change your screen name to THE PROUD LIBERAL you are a walking contradiction. hot wind bag and a coward!
lmao then we have joan who watches movies too good for a teen boy!!!!!! i will never take you seriously. id rather talk to cc any day.
and too bad i cant curse here cuz i do in my real life….working on it cuz ex i would love to just let you have it with your double talk.
heather –
I’m not sure where all the anger and confusion in you comes from. I presented a fairly simple argument – heck, Lrning and Alice got it right away without issues…but you seem to not grasp what I’m saying. It isn’t that hard, but you are trying to twist it into something that it is not.
I’m talking more about debate, other’s opinions, and being firm in one’s stance. This argument isn’t about old ladies hitting people with purses or kidnapping people into the woods.
Again, I seem not to fit in the tiny box of reason you have in regards to pro-life viewpoints, and that seems to threaten you. I don’t get it.
I would appreciate though, until you get it, if you would read posts completely and not fire off insane ramblings at things you don’t seem to understand. I’m not trying to be a jerk here – but this just isn’t working. You can go yell at somebody else, or kick a dog or something.
i didnt threaten you either ex but you dont make a single valid point. everything i said or everything i asked you ignored it. you sir are nutty!
Again h (heather), other folks have understood the argument – it isn’t that complex. And your points have not been ignored – they are simply so far off topic, I would need to know what they are in reference too. I mean, I answered your silly post about being kidnapped, which I think was in reference to me being on a pro-life board and saying that pro-choicers have viewpoints to? I’m not really sure.
you started swingin with your “bizzarre” jab. i dont believe i asked any strange questions. also i believe you are a fraud and fake. i dont believe you are anti abortion and if you are your pov is wishy washy. im done talking with you.
Me (11:41) Those who have commented – how much time do you ponder and wrestle with the arguments that pro-choice folks present?
You (11:52) ex there isnt anything to ponder about babies being ripped apart skulls crushed. a house of death. but never mind that as long as you have your comfort and nobody will be ripping off your limbs today.
me (11:57) So you are saying you don’t sit and ponder their arguments, but you are shocked that they won’t ponder yours?
You (12:02) hey ex lets say some robber broke into your home and told you after he robbed you he was taking you to the woods to cut your arms off and slash you with a knife a few times and then kill you. would you go or try to fight for your life?
Really, that’s all I have to say. I think I was being FAR too nice with the bizzarre jab.
no further comments to the undercover liberal nutter butter;)
If you hold to your pledge, you’ll make my year.
For a very long time, I heard that there were 1 and 1/2 million abortions per year in America. I recently read there were 1.2 million abortions here last year. That is quite a decrease.
Has there been such a decrease?
If so, why?
@Denise: As far as I know, the number of abortions per year in the US has hovered around the 1 million mark for the past ten years or so. In fact, 1.2 million may be a slight increase from last year, though I am not 100% sure that is the case. Either way, though, I believe 1.5 million is a very inflated number.
denise i want you to know that i now loveb jane mansfield. i never got around to reading her bio but thanks for the info.
Denise
Some will say access to abortions are harder and thus the numbers are lower.
Some will point to teen stats that less teens are having sex, and more are using contraception when they do (look to the Guttmacher numbers from end of the year)
Some will say better health care coverage (almost total in some states – new laws allowing young adults to stay on parents plans) has more people believing they can afford to have a baby.
I don’t think it can be summed up neatly in one argument. My hope is that as health care access increases to more people, less folks will think that they can’t afford having a baby.
“Those who have commented – how much time do you ponder and wrestle with the arguments that pro-choice folks present?”
A lot. Some of us have survived crisis pregnancies and chose life. I had a child out of wedlock. He was not planned. He was not convenient. His father was cruel. I cried. I was coerced, threatened and recommended to abort. I enjoyed my life of drinking and smoking and didn’t want to change.
I didn’t think I could handle being a parent. I did not want to be a parent. I had little money or assets. I had just started my first ‘real’ job. I was stressed and cried a lot.
But what was to ponder? I knew how babies were made. I knew babies were not made the day they exited a female’s body. Me and his father had made choices that brought about his life. We had no right to end his life.
I have lived 44 plus years and the absolute best day of my life was the day that my little boy was born. I looked at him for hours wondering how God could have sent me such a wonderful gift in spite of my arguing with Him that I couldn’t and didn’t want to do it.
Abortion should not be a legal choice. We need to help women and men make healthy choices that don’t include killing humans. You will never convince me that killing your child will ever be anything near a healthy choice.
Prax – thanks for the story and information. Glad you did what you did.
Our pastor talked about abortion recently, and said that he tries to be pro-life by supporting single mothers, helping them out, and doing what can be done to support the life they now have. I’m hoping/assuming that you had folks that stepped up like that after you became a mother.
Hi ex,
I know you’ve been going back and forth with the others but I wanted to jump in and answer your original question.
When it comes to abortion, if pro-abortion people could show me that the unborn baby is NOT human, NOT alive, NOT a child then yes, I would listen to their arguments on bodily autonomy and I would be persuaded and be pro-choice. Their arguments are great libertarian arguments. And I would agree with their arguments if only the situation didn’t pertain to a young human early in his/her development getting crushed and chopped up. The problem is no pro-abortion person has ever been able to address that issue. That a human being in the early stages of development who is alive is killed during an abortion.
There are issues I truly don’t have an opinion on, for instance, the death penalty. People that argue for it have been convincing and many here who argue against it also are convincing. I can honestly say I have listened to both sides of the issue and yes, I ponder what they say.
Abortion is not such an issue to me. There is no argument that can convince me when an innocent human being is being butchered.
Sydney – thanks for the response.
I have a sinking suspicion that 99% of pro-lifers outside clinics protesting, and 99% of pro-choicers that are escorting people in will never change there minds. Furthermore, my guess is that 1% won’t change their mind due to anything that the other side says while hanging out in those parking lots.
So is the pro-choicer quoted any different than many pro-lifers? My guess is that they feel firm in their views, feel that they are right, and that arguments towards them are a waste of time. I might be giving them too much credit – who knows.
Ex-GOP says:
January 2, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Denise
Some will say access to abortions are harder and thus the numbers are lower.
Some will point to teen stats that less teens are having sex, and more are using contraception when they do (look to the Guttmacher numbers from end of the year)
Some will say better health care coverage (almost total in some states – new laws allowing young adults to stay on parents plans) has more people believing they can afford to have a baby.
I don’t think it can be summed up neatly in one argument. My hope is that as health care access increases to more people, less folks will think that they can’t afford having a baby.
(Denise) There is probably more than one reason the abortion rate has been going down. Encouraging young people to abstain from partnered sex + use contraceptives if they do engage in it is important as it affordable health care. These are good things and people concerned about the appalling rate of abortions have got to act to increase the trends that are DEcreasing this practice.
I agree Denise.
I think the traditional route to decreasing abortion rates has been making it harder for people to have abortions. I think that people also often support legislation that will actually lead to an increase in abortions as more pregnant women will think their only/best choice is abortion.
Realizing that abortion isn’t going anywhere for a long time, if ever, I hope that things can be done to continue to promote an environment where women don’t become pregnant until they want to become pregnant – and when they do, that the resources and systems are in place so that they feel having the baby is a better option than having an abortion.
Not all abortions are reported and tallied, plus abortion pills may be taken by women who have not concieved, plus abortion pills may be slipped to women who think they’ve miscarried (there have already been news stories about this and some men have been charged with crimes). There isn’t any real accountability to we don’t know the exact numbers.
But what I know is this: there weren’t 50 million abortions in the 35 years BEFORE Roe v Wade. The increase is based on one word: MARKETING.
Would you let a tobacco company salesman into your child’s classroom to lecture about safe smoking? Then why is Planned Parenthood in our schools telling underage children that they have a right to sex without becoming parents themselves?
Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, admitted in his books that the inflated numbers of how many women were harmed in illegal abortions were an outright lie. A lie. A lie that he and his colleagues made up because legal abortion promised to be an extremely profitable business. Did Planned Parenthood make BILLIONS in the years before 1973? No, they did not.
Don’t be fooled by abortion advocates who tell you that abortion will never go away. It’s going away. And good riddance.
I’ve tried debating deathscorts outside the clinic entrance. When they start to lose, they either put in their ipod headphones, or have one of the others jump in and change the subject.
ninek – a few thoughts:
– There are certainly more abortions now than pre r v wade – a lot of states didn’t allow abortion, and there were a lot less people in the US back then.
– You are more optimistic than I am. I think if abortion goes away, it would be a modern day prohibition. It wouldn’t be because of public opinion – it would be legislation or the courts, and it would be short lived. I can see tight legislation that allows for only certain abortions – but I just don’t see, at least within the next 50 years or so, abortion being gone from the US.
Ex-GOP says:
January 2, 2012 at 6:46 pm
I agree Denise.
I think the traditional route to decreasing abortion rates has been making it harder for people to have abortions. I think that people also often support legislation that will actually lead to an increase in abortions as more pregnant women will think their only/best choice is abortion.
(Denise) The best way to reduce abortion is to go back one step: reduce demand. If teens are having less partnered heterosexual activity, there will be less pregnancy and less demand for abortion. If they use contraceptives, ditto — although contraceptives can fail. If there is a more solid social and financial support system for those with kids, fewer will seek abortions.
If abortion has decreased from 2.5 million to 2.2 million, something right is happening! We’ve all got to cheer — and to build on it.
“The increase is based on one word: MARKETING.” – no, it would be demand. The demand was obviously always there hence the illegal abortions which previously took place and the push for it to be legalised.
“Then why is Planned Parenthood in our schools telling underage children that they have a right to sex without becoming parents themselves?” – not quite. They are letting them know the truth, that once they are old enough they do have the right to sex without becoming parents.
“Don’t be fooled by abortion advocates who tell you that abortion will never go away. It’s going away. And good riddance.” – it has always been with us, in most cultures and even when it wasn’t legal. It isn’t going away. Ever.
“When they start to lose…” – no, it’s when they get bored with hearing the same tripe over and over that they ignore you.
“it would be a modern day prohibition” – yet people still drank during the period of alcohol prohibition. And organised crime increased. Bad laws are flouted.
Like ninek says, any drop in abortion numbers may well be attributable to the increased use of the chemical alternatives.
Reality says:
They are letting them know the truth, that once they are old enough they do have the right to sex without becoming parents.
************************************************************
What is “old enough”? And no one has the right to “sex without becoming parents”. People can try to avoid it, but sometimes it happens anyway. Then they feel they have a “right” to eliminate that life they created. That’s the crux of the abortion mindset…thinking that sex without consequences actually exists. It doesn’t.
Ex-GOP says:
I have a sinking suspicion that 99% of pro-lifers outside clinics protesting, and 99% of pro-choicers that are escorting people in will never change there minds.
***************************************************
Mostly, I think the same thing. But that’s okay. There are plenty of others to convert that aren’t clinic escorts. Abortionists have been converted. Clinic workers have been converted. There is always hope. The pro-lifers at the clinics where I go to pray are very respectful and nice to the abortionists, the clinic workers, the escorts, and the abortion-bound women. Love will conquer all.
Ending abortion is not like Prohibition. It is more like ending slavery. We got rid of legal slavery in this country. Nobody tells me that it’s just impossible to get rid of slavery. Imagine saying, “But women MUST have the right to own slaves!” But that is what it is when you treat a living human like a piece of property that can be destroyed at will.
The children who are destroyed in abortion are all in the same category: between fertilization and a birth certificate. Genocide is killing a large number of humans of a certain group. Abortion is comparable to genocide. Abortion is comparable to the Holocaust.
Comparing slavery and the Holocaust to Prohibition is pretty lame. Comparing abortion to Prohibition is pretty lame.
Happy New Year and remember, it’s never too late to embrace life!
“And no one has the right to “sex without becoming parents”. – well actually they do. Nature deems it so much of the time. Some people have sex which does not include penis/vagina action. Some use NFP. Others use contraception. And some use abortion. Nor is there any legal requirement that sex lead to parenthood.
“Ending abortion is not like Prohibition” – it is in that neither did or will achieve their aim to any level of success.
“It is more like ending slavery.” – no, it would be more like ending womens right to vote, have their own bank accounts or attain equal pay. It would be more like reintroducing slavery.
“Abortion is comparable to the Holocaust.” – repeating the same untruth over and over again doesn’t make it a truth. The Holocaust was a centrally planned agenda aimed at the complete removal of a particular group within society. Abortion is a choice made by individual women to terminate individual fetuses. It has no aim to remove all fetuses from society. There is not one specific group of people intending to terminate all fetuses. The same goes for genocide.
Comparing abortion to the Holocaust and slavery is really lame.
“that the resources and systems are in place so that they feel having the baby is a better option than having an abortion.”
What resources do you think a woman needs to have in place so that she feels having the baby is a better option than having an abortion?
gee reality my husband is Jewish and he always says abortion is just like the holocaust. so i guess either hes lame or you LOSE! are you Jewish?
EX-GOP:
“This seems pretty consistent with what I’ve seen from the pro-lifers as well…no room for compromise, debate, or conversation ”
And you said this on the most widely read, hotly engaged pro-life blog. Do you think before you speak?
Ex,
My comment got eaten, sad.
Ex, from what I have seen, most pro-choicers have much more in common with a lot of pro-lifers than either side is willing to admit. Most pro-choicers want abortions reduced to as close to zero as possible,and a lot of them agree that abortion kills a human. The main difference with these more moderate pro-choicers and pro-lifers is that the don’t think criminalization will do much to prevent abortion, and might cause more harm. I disagree with them, but I can see where they are coming from. I wish that both sides could actually work together on what they actually agree on.
Reality, because “nature” doesn’t cause pregnancy to occur every single time a couple has sex does not mean its a “right” to have sex and not get pregnant. How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?
Bit of a literalist are you Gerard? Did you read Ex-Gop’s whole sentence?
The facts of the matter speak for themselves heather.
Sydney M. – Lrning stated that “no one has the right to “sex without becoming parents” which infers that all acts of sex must result in pregnancy, and since nature makes it highly possible to have sex without pregnancy as an outcome, this would mean that people don’t have the right to have sex at those times. Yet that is clearly not the case.
Gerard – I’ll let Reality’s first sentence stand as my response.
ninek – you might think it is lame – it isn’t my argument solely as I’ve seen it quite a few places elsewhere.
Do you believe, based on the polls out there, that if abortion is banned at the federal level that the public would embrace that ban, and move forward indefinitely into that new reality? Again, based on all the various polling out there, is that what you feel?
Feel? I deal in facts.
yeah ninek i deal with facts. polls are often inaccurate. i put this on the other thread by mistake. a poll was taken on ” who are the top 10 ugliest women on tv? the top 5 were nancy grace whoopie goldberg cher kathy griffen and number one was berta the housekeeper from 2 and a half men. i was like huh? i wouldnt say any of them were ugly. thats just opinion. and everyone was going on about how ugly berta was in the comment section. i was like ….. i never thought twice about her looks. shes just the housekeeper. sheesh!
all of those women look okay to me. just like the average lady you would meet out in society.
Facts never seem to get in the way of a good opinion for most on this board…
If you can’t answer the question though Ninek, I will…based on the statistics, the polls, and the few times it has actually come to a vote, the public wouldn’t be willing to sit by quietly and watch a total federal abortion ban come into place.
American’s don’t like to see “rights” taken away, even if it is a dangerous or stupid right.
I think one could make a very strong argument that the worst thing that could happen to the pro-life side would be a total ban on abortions.
For Heather re Berta the housekeeper: She’s more than “just the housekeeper.” Women’s Lib taught that traditionally women’s work such as housecleaning was automatically demeaning and that women were “servile” as a result. However, popular portrayals of domesticated women, whether housewives (June Cleaver, Donna Reed) or housekeepers (Aunt Bee, Berta) don’t show them as hopelessly “servile.” Women who do domestic work are often both assertive and respected. So are men such as Benson in “Soap” and Max in the classic “Sunset Boulevard.” Perhaps housekeeping, because it is so very necessary, is also ultimately powerful.
While heather and I don’t directly speak (maybe somebody can step in and be our go-between), I find it quite funny that the defense of using facts over feeling rests on the argument that Berta the housekeeper isn’t really that ugly because, well, she’s just the housekeeper.
You can’t make that stuff up folks.
@ denise….i dont feed the trolls. my point was that people took that poll and gave the answers they did on opinion. berta plays a housekeeper like aunt bee. shes not playing the part of a sex kitten. thats why i couldnt believe that so many people said she was ugly. shes not ugly!
no need for any go betweens dont like my posts? ask mods to delete them or dont read them just like i skim over most;)
just like someone took a pot shot at john boehner and his skin being spray tanned? lol you cant make this stuff up folks. a man went there. john is from my state very pro life and very handsome. anyone who would say anything so stupid must be jealous.
oh boy Obama will be here this week to do what else? speak. he just loves Ohio but i talk to more and more people who voted for him and are now so very sorry they did.
back @ denise…i see you mentioned aunt bee as i did. i am not a 2 and a half men fan. my husband used to like it when sheen was on. i understand what you mean. i saw the poll and got curious. it was a mean thing but sandra bernhard was in there. i do agree with that after her inner racist ugliness came out as she was dissing sarah palin.
I was not suggesting that all acts of sexual relations will result in parenthood. Sex, by its very nature, will sometimes result in new life. Steps can be taken to avoid that, but they are not always successful. To say that we have a “right” to sex, the very act that perpetuates our species, without parenthood is ridiculous. We have the “right” to try to prevent parenthood.
**************************************************
Reality says:
And some use abortion.
**************************************************
Abortion doesn’t prevent parenthood. It just makes you the parent of a dead child.
And let’s not go down the road of trying to redefine “parent” please. If your egg or sperm has fused, you are a parent.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parent
“gee reality my husband is Jewish and he always says abortion is just like the holocaust. so i guess either hes lame or you LOSE! are you Jewish.”
From Bettysue Feuer, Cleveland ADL Regional Director, regarding comparing the holocaust to abortion:
“While Holocaust analogies generate headlines and get attention, they do little in the service of truth, history or memory. When commentary writer Melissa Jones says that abortion makes the Holocaust appear “mild” in comparison, she, knowingly or unknowingly, undermines the historical truth of the Holocaust as a singular event in human history.
Statements of this variety are offensive and betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of the Holocaust.”
http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20060319-Lexington+Herald+.htm
From Abe Foxman, President of the ADL
“No Christian who understands Jewish suffering should resort to inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust to send a message that abortion is wrong. This was one of the most painful chapters in human history. Must the memory of the 6 million and millions of other victims be continually misused and abused by those with another agenda?”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/adl-condemns-film-likening-holocaust-abortion
And Heather, will you be doing the Seder this year?
Heather, I agree that he’s handsome and as far as the tan, well, I cover my gray, so have no problem with a little cosmetic fibbing, lol!
Ex, who defines himself still by his former affiliation,
I am not pro-life because of polls or opinions. Even if there were only 10 pro-life people in the world, I would work with the other 9. Why? Because that’s what a species does to survive and for its kind to survive…Because we are wired for life. Our DNA is programmed for life. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, an event happens that changes what the two were into what one now is.
A process begins that moves forward of its own volition. The embryo develops, how? Does the mother or father tell it to develop? No. Innately, the cells divide and the embryo develops, each hour becoming more and more mature, each day growing toward infancy. Fact. But does this fact inspire feelings? You bet! I admit I feel that the development of an embryo into an infant is a wonderous, awesome process.
I don’t consult a Gallup poll to find out if the embryo deserves his or her life. I don’t assess whether I will win the battle before I engage. Abortion advocates decades ago declared war on the embryonic human, pitting parents against their own children. The war we fight is a defensive one, from that perspective, but as you can see the pro-life movement is growing.
Abortion advocacy is a sickness, and it’s casualties are the millions of pre-born children who were killed because of this advocacy. Our DNA is programmed to reach out, to grow, to be alive. So, biologically, we have the wherewithall to heal ourselves, individually and as a culture, and as a world community. If my finger is cut, my body innately heals. If I am depressed, I long to feel better. My DNA is programmed for life. All of us, our DNA is programmed for life. I healed from being pro-choice. You can too. Others can too. And they will. The question to ask yourselves, abortion advocates, is will you willfully deny life? Will you willfully embrace illness? Or will you heal?
“We are climbing Jacob’s ladder. We are brothers, sisters all.”
Dear Deathscort:
Please do maintain your position, fingers in ears, singing loudly, and I’ll continue sidewalk counseling, using my handheld ultrasound and describing current stage of fetal development to women outside the abortion mill. People near the concentration camps used to sing in church to drown out the noise of the truth and the sound of the cattle cars passing by, too, but guess what-we freed the camps and their leader committed suicide. So, please do keep singing-and we’ll keep showing America what abortion is and passing prolife legislation while you’re busy shrieking, K? Have a nice day.
“I’ll continue sidewalk counseling, using my handheld ultrasound and describing current stage of fetal development to women outside the abortion mill.”
Holding ultrasounds and shouting about fetal development to women walking into a clinic isn’t “counseling” (which takes place in a neutral, calm environment with a credentialed professional)but rather harassment and an attempt to guilt trip women. Rather than “counseling” it’s more like street theater. And given the signs and plastic fetus necklaces, to name some of the visuals, it’s actually quite a freak show that alienates the reality based community from the anti-choice movement that’s represented by the clowns.
Any surgery situation is stressful. So for the “counselors” create more stress while attempting to shame these women is truly shameful. And while you folks claim you “save” “babies,” I can say that I have been thanked for my escorting services by those women who have to run a gauntlet of bizarre zealots who, in medieval times, would have been walking through the villages whilst warning of the end time and flagellating themselves.
What women do with their bodies is none of your business. But keep on “counseling” as it just exposes you as the strange, misogynistic zealots that you are. And while you have your priests walking the line, we have pro-choice religious clergy on ours. And that’s why there will never be consensus on this issue.
CC says:
What women do with their bodies is none of your business.
*******************************************************
1) Abortion involves a body other than the woman’s. The body that is killed.
2) Your statement is true to an extent. Except when a woman wants to use her body for prostitution, illegal drugs, murder, assault, child abuse, trespassing, and the multitude of other activities that are restricted by law. Guess a woman doesn’t always get to do what she wants with her body, eh? Sometimes it is our business.
“And that’s why there will never be consensus on this issue.”
Because of pro-choice clergy?
While consensus would be nice, we don’t need it to stop abortion.
Lrning says, “Abortion doesn’t prevent parenthood. It just makes you the parent of a dead child.”
Touché
CC, all you have is a wounded mom and a dead baby at the end of your venture as a sidewalk counselor. And yet you will get one this site and shriek about us being zealots. Do you see the irony?
Oh, and to take it just one step further: there will be between 3,000 and 4,000 abortions today. Half of those will be female babies. I want them to live. You want them to die. And I’m the misogynist?
You have to do better than that. The bloody baby parts in the big bucket is the only freak show going on here.
Reality, are you ready to talk about God yet?
“To say that we have a “right” to sex, the very act that perpetuates our species, without parenthood is ridiculous.” – so, no change there then. The physiology of human sexuality is that procreation is but a part of human sexual activity.
“Abortion advocates decades ago declared war on the embryonic human” – there is no declaration of war, no-one aims to terminate all fetuses. And abortion has been going on for much, much longer than decades.
“a wounded mom” – now and then maybe, not as a rule. And some who give birth are wounded too.
“And I’m the misogynist?” – you are if you wish to impose your belief on other women.
Which one Tyler? Whose? Thor?
Are you ready to talk about the tooth fairy yet?
“Half of those will be female babies. I want them to live. You want them to die. And I’m the misogynist.”
Yep, if you care more about the rights of a fetus than the woman who carries it, you’re a misogynist because you don’t respect a woman’s reproductive autonomy.
“Except when a woman wants to use her body for prostitution, illegal drugs, murder, assault, child abuse, trespassing, and the multitude of other activities that are restricted by law.”
But a woman (as well as a man) can ingest anything they want and it’s not a crime except if they are charged with possession which is not the same as consumption of drugs. If you attempt suicide, you will not be charged with a crime. If a pregnant woman is found to be a drug addict, there is no crime other than possession. And as long as she’s not driving, she can drink herself into oblivion. Guess in your word, the state would be taking custody of the fetus or would it be the woman. Hmmm, seeing that one thing is inside another might make that difficult especially if the carrier is an adult not deemed incompetent.
nO, i BELIEVE all women are equal, born and unborn.
Reality, I am ready to talk about the tooth fairy.
But I am more interested to hear about which God you believe in?
Do you believe that truth exists?
Reality, have you ever wished for a more perfect world than this one?
Have you ever wished for a world where there is no suffering, no pain, and all the righteous are appropriately rewarded, and all the wrongders are appropriately penalized?
Have you ever wanted to be free of the burden of choice, so that all of your decisions worked out perfectly and caused no one, including yourself, pain?
“If a pregnant woman is found to be a drug addict, there is no crime other than possession. And as long as she’s not driving, she can drink herself into oblivion. ”
****************************************************
Actually, several hundred women have been charged with fetal abuse. To my knowledge, only one conviction ever made it through appeals, so far…
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93022&page=1#.TwOwH_L3Gxg
LOL @ ‘CC.’ We stand quietly to the side when counseling and let the women approach us if they want to. And they do. Prochoice, on the other hand ‘trusts women’ so much they have brawly orange-vested manginas who trust women so little they shove them through the clinic doors before they can change their minds. It isn’t prolife spitting on others, cussing, or shrieking. Check out the videos on youtube of escorts mocking prolife people praying to see the real freak show, or some of the videos from your own ‘slutwalks’ and other marches of the estranged lefty minions. We have been thanked more times than I can count by women for countering the nasty tactics of proaborts at mills with reason and sanity. If prochoice actually cared about women, they’d be out front offering to help women keep their babies, feeding the ones already born, helping them get jobs and housing etc, but they’re not. Prochoice doesn’t give a damn about women, women are only political tools to abortion zealots. The agenda is all. If I had a dollar for every time a woman’s told me some escort scared the hell out of her, I’d have a porsche.
CC, reproductive autonomy is non-sequitor when it comes to the issue of abortion. A woman has reproductive autonomy irrespective of her decision to continue her pregnancy or to kill the unborn child. Simply narrowing “bodily autonomy” to “reproductive autonomy” does not revitalize the “autonomy” concept as an argument that supports abortion. The concept of autonomy, reproductive or bodily, is merely a description of a women’s ability to choose, a woman’s reproductive autonomy doesn’t tell us how she should choose.
ninek – in no way did I say that you shouldn’t fight the fight you are fighting – I’m just saying that I don’t see a ban every happening, or sticking. That’s all I am saying. I’d love for a lot of things to be gone from society – abortion, adultery – I just don’t know if legislation outlawing those things will ever be effective.
PS You seem to have an issue with my name – I chose it early, and the board rules say not to swap rules. Truth be told, I vote for GOP folks about 30% of the time. It simply used to be about 100%.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy Tyler? If so, why? If not, why?
Why don’t you believe in Thor?
I don’t believe in any god/s. so there’s not much to talk about from my perspective.
‘Truth’ may exist but we don’t always know what it is – its existence, sometimes it isn’t what we think it is, it has been known to change, has elements of variation between people and is also subject to change in some areas. So does ‘truth’ indeed really exist?
I think we all wish for a better world Tyler.
“Have you ever wished for a world where there is no suffering, no pain,” – I’d like there to be less but I don’t imagine we’ll achieve the status of ‘none’.
“and all the righteous are appropriately rewarded, and all the wrongders are appropriately penalized?” – who am I to say who are the righteous and who are the wrondoers, beyond what we as a society have determined to be broad guidelines, derived from the experiences of mankind. And who decides the appropriate rewards and punishments?
“Have you ever wanted to be free of the burden of choice, so that all of your decisions worked out perfectly and caused no one, including yourself, pain?” – certainly not. That would make me someones pet at best, or a mindless automaton or toy. It would belie my sentient humanity.
“Yep, if you care more about the rights of a fetus than the woman who carries it”
I thought you didn’t think fetuses had rights, CC, so I was glad to read that you do. And FYI – prolifers don’t care more about the rights of the fetus than the mother, we care EQUALLY about both their rights.
In your opinion do you think it is reasonable or unreasonable for me to conclude that a person who engages in discussions about the “right to abortion” has some concept of right and wrong?
I believe in God, the Father of Jesus Christ, because I believe it is reasonable. I believe God, the Father, is a transcendent God, but I also believe that he sent his son Jesus to this world. My belief in God is therefore also based on the testimony of people who have confirmed Jesus as a historical person and as the divine son of God, the Father. No human on the otherhand has ever testified to seeing Thor here on this planet. Thor is strictly an invisible transcendent God. And although being a transcendent God does not nullify his existence, it does mean that we have to be clear what the full and complete nature of who the God Thor is. According to Greek Mythology Thor is only one god among many. He is the God of Thunder, he is not the Creator of all that is like God, the Father is. Reason has informed us of how thunder is produced so it is no longer neccessary to believe in Thor to explain Thunder. However, there is still something (“universe”) rather than nothing so we still need an explanation of how existence, and us, came to be.
You say that you don’t believe in God/s, so I was wondering how you account for existence? Has the natural world, the universe always existed in your opinion?
From your response aboce may I reasonably conclude that you can imagine/conceive of world without pain?
Also may I conclude from what you said above that you acknowledge that people commit wrongdoing according to the standards of society?
As a society we decide the appropriate punishments and rewards.
Will you concede that the justice in this world is not perfect and that our society sometimes fails to achieve/provide true justice for its citizens?
My mistake Reality, Thor is a God of Norse mythology not Greek mythology.
Your conclusion seems reasonable Tyler. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ aren’t fixed commodities though.
Yeah, yeah, I got a pretty good idea of your religious beliefs the last time you decided to undertake some exercise by digging in quicksand.
“the universe always existed in your opinion?” – I don’t have that answer. ‘always’ is a very long time, maybe I just can’t comprehend the applicable timeline. Or maybe what we know as the universe was formed from something else.
I think I can ‘conceive’ a world without pain, what my imagination makes of it might be something else. It is quite likely different to what you would imagine.
“Also may I conclude from what you said above that you acknowledge that people commit wrongdoing according to the standards of society?” – (contemplative sucking of teeth) – to an extent. There are obviously disagreements over whether some things are a ‘wrongdoing’ within any particular society at any particular time in each society’s history.
“As a society we decide the appropriate punishments and rewards.” – on the face of it (not so much in a theocracy). There are disagreements and things change and different societies apportion different levels.
“Will you concede that the justice in this world is not perfect and that our society sometimes fails to achieve/provide true justice for its citizens?” – yep.
Reality: “‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ aren’t fixed commodities though.”
How does “Right” change? Please tell me what you mean when you use the word “right”. Where do we humans get our sense for right and wrong? When our laws prosecute the innocent why do we feel so aggreived? Where does the feeling of injustice? How is it that we know that our man-made laws have failed to provide true justice all of the time? Is it fair to say that each human being has an innate natural sense of justice based on our understanding of our human nature and the nature of the world?
Reality: “I don’t have that answer. ‘always’ is a very long time, maybe I just can’t comprehend the applicable timeline. Or maybe what we know as the universe was formed from something else.”
But humankind most certainly did not create the universe correct? Do you think the universe created itself? If the question has no value/interest for you, please let me know.
Reality: “I think I can ‘conceive’ a world without pain, what my imagination makes of it might be something else. It is quite likely different to what you would imagine.”
How were able to conceive of this world without pain? Have you ever experienced a world without pain? How did it come to pass that your mind was able to formulate this conception of a world with no pain? Why do all human beings desire such a world?
Reality: “yep”
So it is fair to say our society fails to achieve/provide true justice for its citizens. Where did you get this sense of “true justice?”
You previously acknowledged that people commit wrongdoing according to societal standards only to an extent. If wrongdoing is only partially defined by society, who defines the other part? How else do we come to conclusions about wrongdoing in your opinion?
Reality, would you concede that for humanity there are two sets of laws: one eternal and unchanging and one natural and changeable? And that it is by this eternal and unchanging law that we judge the outcomes of the natural, changing man-made laws?
“How does “Right” change? Please tell me what you mean when you use the word “right”. – in the most simplistic of terms, right is the opposite of wrong.
Women voting used to be ‘wrong’, now its not. People marrying another race used to be ‘wrong’ and now its not. So maybe they are ‘right’ or are they just ‘not wrong’.
“Where do we humans get our sense for right and wrong?” – from both intrinsic and extrinsic sources. Both can change.
“When our laws prosecute the innocent why do we feel so aggreived?” – because we are not happy. Be aware though, we may not agree on what is ‘innocent’. It is subjective. As is “How is it that we know that our man-made laws have failed to provide true justice all of the time?”
“Is it fair to say that each human being has an innate natural sense of justice based on our understanding of our human nature and the nature of the world?” – to an extent, on ‘our’ understanding. And not always fixed. And again, subjectively.
“But humankind most certainly did not create the universe correct?” – correct.
“Do you think the universe created itself?” – yes, allowing for not yet known scientific possibilies such as something taking place in another universe or dimension which caused it to come into existence.
“How were able to conceive of this world without pain?” – only to the extent that I can contemplate a world bereft of the pain that I feel ours has. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes ‘pain’ either.
“Have you ever experienced a world without pain?” – no.
“Why do all human beings desire such a world?” – do they?
“Where did you get this sense of “true justice?” – again, intrinsic and extrinsic. And yours would differ to mine to at least some extent. And it can change.
“If wrongdoing is only partially defined by society, who defines the other part?” – individuals, according to beliefs, tastes, experiences etc.
“Reality, would you concede that for humanity there are two sets of laws: one eternal and unchanging and one natural and changeable? And that it is by this eternal and unchanging law that we judge the outcomes of the natural, changing man-made laws?” – nope.
CC, reproductive autonomy is non-sequitor when it comes to the issue of abortion. A woman has reproductive autonomy irrespective of her decision to continue her pregnancy or to kill the unborn child. Simply narrowing “bodily autonomy” to “reproductive autonomy” does not revitalize the “autonomy” concept as an argument that supports abortion. The concept of autonomy, reproductive or bodily, is merely a description of a woman’s ability to choose, a woman’s reproductive autonomy doesn’t tell us (or provide a framework for) how she should choose or even if she should be allowed to choose/to exercise this autonomy.
Human beings have their freedoms constrained by laws all the time in society. Why should a woman’s reproductive autonomy be left unregulated/unconstrained? Society has an interest in regulating abortion so that the population can grow, and take care of its elderly members. However, more obvious is the self-interest the unborn have in regulating abortion. So three groups (men, women, and the unborn) definitely have an interest in regulating abortion.
Finally, a woman’s interest in regulating abortion comes from both her personal interest in Motherhood and her communal interest in a flourishing humanity.
More fundamental than a society’s right to regulate reproductive autonomy is whether reproductive autonomy is a true and good freedom.
Reality: “in the most simplistic of terms, right is the opposite of wrong. Women voting used to be ‘wrong’, now its not. People marrying another race used to be ‘wrong’ and now its not. So maybe they are ‘right’ or are they just ‘not wrong’.”
How did society come to know that women should be allowed to vote? How did Society decide that it is “Right” to allow women to vote? How come society collectively changed its mind/attitude to the woman’s vote?
I think your answer shows that you understand that man made laws change. Indeed you have said as much. So what is causing and prompting the change in man-made laws?
If right and wrong are determined in part by society why do certain individuals have different views from the rest of society? Where are these individuals getting their sense of “right” and “wrong” from? Also why do we see a societal change toward granting more individual “freedom”? Isn’t the truth that all societal laws, in this world, are man-made and are changeable?
Reality” “from both intrinsic and extrinsic sources. Both can change.”
What are the intrinsic and extrinsic sources you referring to? Can you provide examples?
Resolved:
I will encourage courtship or chaperoned dating.
I will encourage sexual alternatives to vaginal-penile intercourse.
I will never say anything lesbophobic or in any way discourage females from selecting members of their own sex for partnered sexual activity.
I will help ensure that every fertile female has the option of the most effective sort of contraception.
I will work to ensure that there is a floor on income for every citizen and a family allowance for children.
I will support measures that will aid mothers in caring for children.
I will do everything I can to ensure that pregnancy is always greeted with joy and the tragedy of abortion continues to decrease — as it statistically appears to be decreasing.
“Society has an interest in regulating abortion so that the population can grow, and take care of its elderly member.”
Badda Boom, Tyler just underscored what we, who are pro-choice, know is one of the motivating forces of the anti-choice movement – i.e. women are breeding machines!!!! Abortion is all about demographics. And that underscores the misogyny of the anti-choice movement – i.e. control women.
And BTW, if society has an interest in regulating a woman’s fertility for an end, then China is correct with their one child policy because unfettered reproduction would mean too many people with not enough resources. The argument cuts both ways.
“No human on the otherhand has ever testified to seeing Thor here on this planet.” And apart from two small comments from Josephus, there is no testimony of direct contact with Jesus. What was written about him was some very effective PR from those who were part of a Middle Eastern cult that was an offshoot of Judaism and which was rejected by the Jews.
BTW, Thor is a Norse god – not Greek.
Religious autonomy does not include the right for the government to insitute a state religion.
Speech autonomy does not allow a “legal person” to incite violence.
Male reprodcutive autonomy is restricted by the State when it forbids a man to force a woman to have intercourse.
Why does reproductive autonomy allow the Mother to kill her unborn? Why are there no limits to female reproductive autonomy?
Ex-GOP: Again h (heather), other folks have understood the argument – it isn’t that complex. And your points have not been ignored – they are simply so far off topic, I would need to know what they are in reference too.
Let’s cut through all the crap and have Heather tell us about the secret stuff going on, up on the moon, right now.
Tyler: Religious autonomy does not include the right for the government to institute a state religion.
I’d say it’s more that religious autonomy prevents there from being a state religion. The gov’t has a good bit of power, but there are limits.
____
Speech autonomy does not allow a “legal person” to incite violence.
Yeah, there are limits.
____
Male reprodcutive autonomy is restricted by the State when it forbids a man to force a woman to have intercourse.
Yeah, there are limits.
____
Why does reproductive autonomy allow the Mother to kill her unborn? Why are there no limits to female reproductive autonomy?
Well, there *are* limits – the restrictions we currently have on later-term abortions, among other things.
The gov’t can’t force a religion on us, but it can levy taxes.
You’re not supposed to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater (you’d probably be okay doing it if there was a real fire), but you can ask your neighbor what time it is.
The man is not allowed to rape the woman, and in turn others are not allowed to rape him.
The woman is allowed to have an abortion, to a point in gestation, in general, and not allowed to after that point.
CC: “And BTW, if society has an interest in regulating a woman’s fertility for an end, then China is correct with their one child policy because unfettered reproduction would mean too many people with not enough resources. The argument cuts both ways.”
If you re-read my entire post you will notice that I did not state that only Society has an interest in protecting the unborn. I also stated that the unborn have an interest in being born! China doesn’t recognize the interest of the unborn, hence this is why their one-child policy is immoral.
Women as breeding machines. Interesting – an astute biological observation. But I would not say that this is a woman’s only role in and for society.
Tell me CC do you know of another way that humans reproduce? Are men, (meaning real men and not surgically altered females), capable of having babies now? Can men have abortions now? Enough said. Please use a real argument.
In addition to Josephus there are the 4 canonical Gospels, the gnostic Gospels, St. Paul gives testimony of encountering the transfigured Jesus, etc…
CC says:
“And apart from two small comments from Josephus, there is no testimony of direct contact with Jesus. What was written about him was some very effective PR from those who were part of a Middle Eastern cult that was an offshoot of Judaism and which was rejected by the Jews.
*******************************************************
No other testimony of direct contact with Jesus? You have to ignore a whole lot of written testimony to come up with that. I think you mean no testimony that you accept.
Rejected by the Jews? Many of the first Christians were Jews. I think you mean rejected by Judaism.
Doug: “Well, there *are* limits – the restrictions we currently have on later-term abortions, among other things.”
Doug, most of the limits today don’t have much teeth. There has been some progress but too many born people place their interest above the interests of the unborn so that the laws do not protect the unborn to the full extent that they should. Society’s privileging of the interests of the born over the interests of the unborn uncovers the pure selfishness and opportunism of elected officials. It also reveals a lack of generiousity on the part of the born in general. The selfish pro-abortion interest of the born displays a lack of understanding and appreciation of how they, the born, came to be born. In trying to be compassionate to women they had to disregard the unborn as a legal person with interests. Abortion supporters need to be purposefully ignorant of the needs and interests of the unborn.
Since abortion results in the death of the unborn it should be completely forbidden by law at any point in time, except if the Mother’s helath is at risk, and even then the aim should be to save both lives, and not simply to kill the baby.
Outlawing abortion does not mean that Society has a say on a woman’s other reproductive choices such as choosing to use condoms, to abstain from sexual intercourse, to practice NFP, to refuse to have children, to space her children, or to have many children, etc…
Tyler says:
January 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Since abortion results in the death of the unborn it should be completely forbidden by law at any point in time, except if the Mother’s helath is at risk, and even then the aim should be to save both lives, and not simply to kill the baby.
(Denise) I’ve read of women who committed suicide when abortion was illegal because they psychologically couldn’t stand to carry to term.
Did the laws forbidding abortion work effectively to bring about the birth of the unborn in those cases?
“Badda Boom, Tyler just underscored what we, who are pro-choice, know is one of the motivating forces of the anti-choice movement – i.e. women are breeding machines!!!!”
Wow and this coming from someone who just this week referred to a man that she CHOSE to have sex with as the “sperm donor”.
Badda Boom. I wish you would get some counseling to help you with your obvious hatred and paranoia of men, CC. They are not all out to hurt or impregnate you.
Denise “I’ve read of women who committed suicide when abortion was illegal because they psychologically couldn’t stand to carry to term.
Did the laws forbidding abortion work effectively to bring about the birth of the unborn in those cases?”
____
Denise, thanks for raising this point. This is a very important point. Indeed, as you example indicates, laws or the lack of laws have life and death implications for the born and unborn.
The situation you describe is a tragedy. However, I can’t help but think that things might have been different for this young girl if she lived in a culture (or lived with a Family, or had a circle of peers) that supported all life.
Denise, what would prompt a woman to want kill herself so that she not want to give birth? Do you know what caused her to do this?
Was it fear of the biological process of pregnancy, was it peer pressure, boyfriend pressure, husband pressure, family pressure, culture pressure. financial pressure? Or was it none of these external pressures but something internal such as fear of motherhood, or losing her identity as a non-parent?
Saddly, any reason she had for doing what did was obviously not “life” affirming, and not pro-life. This example really provides another reason why our culture needs to become pro-life, for all of its members, born and unborn!
Laws are not perfect, but just because certain people like this young woman do not understand the intent of anti-abortion laws does not mean the law on the whole is not good.
You seem to imply that this young woman committed suicide because she felt restricted by abortion laws rather than liberated by them. I would argue that she committed suicide because she failed to see the value of human life.
Lrning: the phrase that comes to mind is “CLOUD OF WITNESSES.”
Our troll also forgets that in his time, many Jews considered Josephus a traitor and would not have put much stock in his testimony on any subject. Our troll is obviously a “cafeteria Jew wannabe,” which means it picks and chooses among Jewish items and conviently pretends to ignore others. Its obsessed with pro-choice Jews who are finishing Sanger and her colleagues’ work. Where do pro-choice Jews come from? According to the Septuagint, the ancient Hebrews were so pro-life that one of them, rather than kill her son, put him in a basket and floated him down to the Pharoah’s daughter, who loved and educated him.
For Tyler: The cases involving suicide that I read about did also involve stigma. The women were unmarried and it was decades ago when unwed motherhood was stigmatized. The other horror story, about the woman who stabbed herself in the stomach, had been impregnated through rape and apparently was unable to stand the incessant reminder of the attacker.
As I’ve said before, a lot more attention must be given to prevention.
Reality: “Like ninek says, any drop in abortion numbers may well be attributable to the increased use of the chemical alternatives.”
Excellent.
Reality: ““The increase is based on one word: MARKETING.” – no, it would be demand. The demand was obviously always there hence the illegal abortions which previously took place and the push for it to be legalised.”
Reality surely you have to acknowledge that some of the change in people’s attitude toward smoking was the result of a massive educational/marketing campaign about the detrimental effects of smoking. As the scientific evidence of the harms of smoking mounted and became disseminated to the public the public’s view of smoking changed. The increased knowledge of the public about what constitutes good health, along with their divinely instilled sense of justice, led the public to change its attitude towards smoking. Their sense of justice led them to conclude physical health was not only a good for oneself but that it is a good that others in the world should share in as well.
Reality: “‘Truth’ may exist but we don’t always know what it is – its existence, sometimes it isn’t what we think it is, it has been known to change, has elements of variation between people and is also subject to change in some areas. So does ‘truth’ indeed really exist?”
How can a person talk about right and wrong without knowing what truth is, or whether or not it exists. It does not make sense that you would talk about truth at all if “you don’t always know what it means.” How can you hope to have a rational conversation at all if you do not have an understanding of what truth is?
Tyler, excellent post about how we have changed our view of smoking in this country. I think if all people (not just moms) knew what abortion really looked like, more folks would be repulsed by the idea of killing the unborn and do more to foster a culture of life.
How scary the world must be to those who don’t acknowledge Truth!
Denise: The cases involving suicide that I read about did also involve stigma. The women were unmarried and it was decades ago when unwed motherhood was stigmatized. The other horror story, about the woman who stabbed herself in the stomach, had been impregnated through rape and apparently was unable to stand the incessant reminder of the attacker.
As I’ve said before, a lot more attention must be given to prevention.
—-
Thanks for the additional info.
One of the many inadvertent good’s from the women’s movement is that people realize that their values can cause some people to feel stigmatized, and that stigmatizing and shunning often backfire and produce undesired results for those doing the stigmatizing.
For good or ill pre-mairtal sex, and pre-marital pregnancies no longer carry the “stigma” they used to in our society, generally speaking. Therefore, I do not see this argument as very persuasive in today’s culture which glorifies and promotes teenagers to be sexually active.
Likewise, society’s understanding of and compassion toward the rape victim have also changed dramatically for the better over the years. Furthermore, Society’s attitude, and even the attitude of the rape victim herself, toward the child conceived in rape has become more positive and accepting.
In short, reality for women has changed a lot since 1973. The “need” for legal abortion is simply no longer there. Pre-1973 a woman’s understanding of contraception was no where near the understanding of contraception that a modern woman has today. Futhermore, women are now more able to acquire contracpetion methods that would have been socially awkward for her to acquire in 1973, whether she was married or single.
—-
PS – My “Excellent” remark at 2:59 was tongue-in-cheek.
For Tyler: As I’ve pointed out before, abortion might never have been legalized in the first place if people had been doing what they should have been doing to decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies and to help and support mothers more generally. Measures that should have been taken to ensure that the vast majority of pregnancies are greeted with joy were not being taken. That is why abortion was legalized.
Denise: As I’ve pointed out before, abortion might never have been legalized in the first place if people had been doing what they should have been doing to decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies and to help and support mothers more generally. Measures that should have been taken to ensure that the vast majority of pregnancies are greeted with joy were not being taken. That is why abortion was legalized.
Denise, I think you have overlooked the “zeal” many women had to obtain “sexual liberation and equality.” Certain women and men who had motivation to sell contraceptions, abortion, and the Pill, and Eugenics, co-opted the women’s movement for their own end. Pharmaceutical companies dumped women in treating themselves like guinea pigs. I have never understood why so many bright women bought into this Handmaid’s Tale version of reality. The Pill and Abortion have primarily benefited men with bad motives, big business, and the population control advocates. I think many women bought the hype, were sold the sizzle, and didn’t examine the substance of what was being done to them.
The Church and Good People always advocated abstinence and the virtue of virginity and no pre-marital sex. What concept is more liberating and ennobling for women (and men) then the concept of cherishing virginity and having sex only in the context of marriage. People who had bad marriages, and loud mouths ruined the institution for many later generations.
“How did…..women should be allowed to vote? How did…..it is “Right” to allow women to vote? How come…..changed its mind/attitude to the woman’s vote?” – because it was realised/recognised/admitted/whatever that women were not the lesser of men.
“So what is causing and prompting the change in man-made laws?” – changing paradigms, new discoveries, knowledge, recognition of realities, the waning power of certain groups.
“If right and wrong are determined in part by society why do certain individuals have different views from the rest of society?” – are you kidding? They also differentiate between different societies.
“Also why do we see a societal change toward granting more individual “freedom”?” – beacuse of the reduction of power and influence of those who based that power and influence on factors which have been shown to be spurious and/or invalid.
“Isn’t the truth that all societal laws, in this world, are man-made and are changeable?” – pretty much.
“How can you hope to have a rational conversation at all if you do not have an understanding of what truth is?” – indeed, outside of the sciences its mostly conjecture and opinion.