Egregiously, terribly, horribly blind
On September 10, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform set up its photo mural exhibit at Middle Tennessee State University and MSM outlet WKRN was there to give a slanted report. Hard to believe it couldn’t find one student who supported the display, particularly since CBR can only come to campuses if invited by a student group, but not a shock.
But here’s the shock. While I’m used to pro-aborts rejecting the comparison between abortion and historical human atrocities, I’m unused to pro-aborts not even comprehending the concept.
Three students were quoted in the story, the third the worst:
“I think comparing mass graves from the Holocaust and Darfur and pretty much directly comparing them to women who just aren’t ready to have a child, that’s egregious, terrible.”
“The Jewish people, African-Americans, everybody else that is displayed here that has died in a genocide is a horrible, horrible thing. And the fact that they would abuse this and use this for their own political agenda is disturbing.”
“I find it horrific. I mean, I think comparing dead fetuses to a black man being hung and the Holocaust… I mean, one is hatred, the other one is a personal choice.”
Click on image to get to video link.
I myself have a comprehension problem. I really cannot comprehend the blindness. Really can’t.
[HT: moderator jasper]
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.
That is something I can’t understand. I always try to put myself in the other side’s shoes and attempt to think about the issue as they would and really understand their argument. I hate straw men and I want to take seriously the claims of the other side. If one understands our BASIC assertions, the comparison is obvious. I think it’s a lack of respect for our beliefs. God love you, Jill.
So, Student #3…
It’s okay to kill your child if you love it, but not if you hate it?
It’s so sad that they actually believe that a person’s worth – and life – depends on what someone else chooses to do with them. Wasn’t that called Slavery?
In Bernard Nathanson’s “Hand of God” he stated that he was not going to compare abortion and the Holocaust since they were two different “phenomena”. Ironically, he did do a couple compare and contrasts between the two.
Bless those college students’ hearts. Big black spots staring back at them just wasn’t enough I guess.
And notice how the newscast didn’t show the images because they were too graphic.
Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
It was a personal choice for the Hitler to hate the Jews and set up the concetrations camps. The nerve of her saying it was hatred on Hitler’s part.
or how about…
It was the slaves owners personal choice to own slaves.
Even better…
It is the raticals personal choice to be a suicide bomber.
um….just doesn’t work does it?
All of these senerio’s stopped a beating heart and prevented a human being from further development.
***Oops, I messed up in the first sentence…but I think you all get the idea…
Would you compare liposuction to genocide?
Seriously. Would you compare sucking out a wad of mindless, insensate, unwanted tissue to slaughtering and entire class of loved and loving, valued, thinking, reasoning human beings?
On his blog, Mark Shea has one category of posts titled, simply enough, “Sin Makes You Stupid”.
And he’s right.
Sin makes you stupid. It makes me stupid. It makes all of us stupid.
The more we sin, and the more we embrace a life of sin, whether we realize it or not (and in many cases, I suspect, we don’t), the farther we remove ourselves from reality — so much so that we can’t recognize something so bleeding obvious as the concept behind a CBR display.
I also like Mark Shea’s “Ever failing religious IQ of the media” and “Reason number 367823682346732876 to homeschool” categories (or whatever he calls them.) God love you, John.
Laura,
Give it up. I am so sick of reading your tired analogy that the unborn is a mass of unwanted tissue. *where is Jasper and his photos?*
You somehow think that abortions do not mutilate a very live kicking baby. What is the difference if this baby is living outside the womb or inside? It is still very much alive.
Do you think it would be ok for these babies to be born in tact and then torn apart outside the womb by the abortionist as a method to kill them???
I am not up on your personal life, tell me have you ever been pregnant??
And another thing..
Maybe you don’t love and value the unborn, but we do.
I am not up on your personal life, tell me have you ever been pregnant??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No.
Like more and more and more Americans, I have never wanted children. Childfree households have just surpased family households as the majority in this country, and child-free housing, restaurants and resorts are THRIVING.
If kids are your thing, GO TO IT! HAVE A FIELD DAY! Those of us who aren’t interested won’t participate. That’s the beauty of being an AMERICAN!
As Pro-Life Jews, We Will Not Be Deceived
By ‘Choice’
Jews For Life is an organization created to reflect the traditional Jewish pro-life perspective on abortion. Our purpose is to provide our readers with the facts about the tragic consequences that have befallen women and our culture since Roe v. Wade was enacted into law. Jews For Life maintains that life, both born and unborn, is sacred and worthy of protection. The current so-called ‘pro-choice’ position of mainstream liberal Jewish organizations is antithetical to the traditional teachings of our faith.
An Auschwitz in America
By Bonnie Rogoff
June 4, 2007
Not long ago, Fox News host Bill O?Reilly hosted a segment of ?The O?Reilly Factor? and the topic was late term abortionist George Tiller. Tiller, as many Americans now know, is the subhuman creature whose specialty is murdering babies in the second and third trimester of pregnancy at his chamber of horrors in Wichita, Kansas. Tiller performs abortions for any reason on girls as young as ten, and often they are victims of predatory males over 18. Although statutory rape is a crime, men who seek out abortions for children receive special privileges and are protected under Kansas law.
Did I mention that the infamous Wichita mill is responsible for butchering many ?patients? over the years? Nebraska abortionist LeRoy Carhart is a part-time Tiller employee. Last year, Carhart killed Christin Gilbert, a young woman with Down?s Syndrome. She hemorrhaged to death after a botched procedure in which Carhart ruptured her uterus. Neither Tiller nor Carhart testified or faced a grand jury. Tiller got away with that murder, too.
Mr. O?Reilly?s guest to discuss these issues was morally vacant feminist and pro-abortion writer Amy Richards. He hammered her with questions which she dodged with apparent ease, smug smiles, platitudes and glibness. Exasperated by Richard?s cool demeanor as she avoided discussing the murder of viable babies, O?Reilly asked if she was ok with 10 year old girls getting abortions and the Kansas government shielding rapists. Richard?s reply? She?s perfectly fine with 10 year olds ?terminating pregnancies.? Incredibly, she refused to comment on the abortion mill?s responsibility to report the rapist to authorities. Instead, Richards asks: ?Did she (the 10 year old) go to the hospital within 24 hours to 48 hours to take a rape kit?? Did she report to the authorities?? Like a 10 year old really knows how to do that!
It gets worse. It took two years of legal wrangling for former Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline to obtain the medical records proving that Tiller has performed late term abortions in violation of Kansas law. The facts bear out a history of illegal abortions in the unregulated and uninspected mill, and 30 criminal charges were brought against Tiller showing he refused to comply with state law regarding late term abortions. However, all charges were eventually dropped because key Kansas legislators and lawmakers are in Tiller?s pockets. It?s a horror story worth reading in World Net Daily (Complaint cites abortion judge’s money ties and Money trail connects Tiller case players). It is clear that when it comes to political corruption, there are striking similarities between the officials in the Kansas government and those in Pinellas County, Florida who murdered Terri Schiavo.
A new Kansas law would have required Tiller to report detailed medical reasons for every abortion he performs after 21 weeks. Patient records would not have been released so there were no concerns of violating patients? so-called ?privacy? rights. What happened next is inconceivable, but true. Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a recipient of huge campaign contributions from Tiller dating back to 1994, vetoed the bill. In other words, Sebelius is protecting Tiller. Young girls from out of state are shuffled to Tiller?s place without their parents? knowledge or consent, so it?s not just a Kansas issue. Bill O?Reilly covered this latest Tiller travesty, calling Sebelius ?not fit to serve,? and he asked all his viewers to write to the governor expressing their views.
The media has been working overtime to cover up Tiller?s crimes. When the Kansas City Star does report the story they sanitize the facts. Tiller is no different than Josef Mengele. Yet, he is celebrated by pro-aborts across this country while women and babies continue to die. He continues his dirty work because the voters of Kansas allow him to, by choosing politicians without care or concern.
If this is ?pro-choice? and ?safe, legal abortion,? then bring on the coat hangers! When women died back in the awful, unsafe pre-Roe v. Wade days, at least there was justice. Abortion butchers, serial rapists and child predators were apprehended and went to jail. Is it better that women are dying legally and the butchers and rapists get full protection by our government and go free? Can we look back now and say: ?See Roe save women?? What is our excuse for passive indifference and complacency? Will we be imprisoned for voting to protect the lives of babies and women? For victims like poor Christin Gilbert, justice will never be served as long as Americans turn a blind eye to Wichita.
Copyright 2007 by Bonnie Rogoff. All rights reserved.
Following Heather’s example,
Black Genocide
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
“The purpose of this website is to reveal the disproportionate number of black babies exterminated by the abortion industry in America.
Although black women constitute only 6% of the population, they comprise 36% of the abortion industry
The Jews are comparing abortion to the holocaust. Go check out ‘Jews for Life’……..I think it’s a very accurate comparison! Sorry about all of those question marks in my cut and paste.
Seriously. Would you compare sucking out a wad of mindless, insensate, unwanted tissue to slaughtering and entire class of loved and loving, valued, thinking, reasoning human beings?
Newborn babies aren’t aware of what is going on around them, and sometimes aren’t wanted. Do I see murder of newborns as just as tragic as the murder of children who have been loved and cared about for years? Yes.
In just the same way, I see the deaths of unborn children just as drastically horrible as the deaths of those who have had more time to be loved.
Thank you Bobby. Yes. It’s a real shame that the black community has given over 4 billion dollars to the abortion industry.
Bethany, so do I.
This high rate of abortion has decimated the black family and destroyed black neighborhoods to the detriment of society at large.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hilarious.
I don’t suppose you’d care to explain why White and Asian American women have been breeding below replacement level for two generation, while African Americans are second-fastest growing demographic in America – right behind Hispanics. (Better than 15% of Hispanic growth is due to immigration…)
How the HELL has abortion “decimated” African-American families? Might that have something to do with a 70% illegtimacy rate associated with African-American births? What would THAT have to do with abortion?
Godless liberals are mindless. These kind of responses to GAP on that campus are no surprise.
Read where Bonnie Rogoff pretty much sums it all up. We are in the front ally days. People are either callous or extremely misinformed. Why would women stand on a side walk with signs to support child predators, molesting abortionists, and the mutilation/murder of unborn children.
“Godless liberals are mindless.”
Zeke, we are all “godless,” some of us are just aware of it, while some of us are not.
Who would that make “mindless?”
Laura – a inuteros baby’s brain waives can me measured at seven weeks (that’s measured, who knows exactly when they start)…since my fat is non thinking, I have no problem gettin rid of it.
The fact that white and asian households are shrinking is very bad on many levels. The only reason the US has a positive growth rate is due to immigration-mostly illegal. The only reason western europe has a positive growth rate-immigration, mostly middle eastern. This has very sore consequence for the future of the US and Western Europe-however, I doubt you care no understand this.
Godless liberals are mindless. These kind of responses to GAP on that campus are no surprise-
If mindless means lack of morals and spiritual wisdom, then I would concur
Ratio – Here are the stats: 491 abortion per 1,000 live births were black women. 165 abortions per 1,000 live births were white women. So 33% of black pregnant women had an abortion VS 14% of white pregnant women had an abortion.
Rate – Here are the stats: 29 per 1,000 black women of reproductive age had an abortion. 10 per 1,000 white women of reproductive age had an abortion. 3% of black women have abortions. 0.9% of white women have abortions
This information was obtained from CDC’s MMWR report November 2006. The numbers are based on 48 reporting areas.
Either way you look at it the black population is getting more abortions.
I do have the stats on the other races…I just need to find them…
And I didn’t know that humans were in any “breeding” program…..
valerie –i’m sure that is what margaret sanger wanted…she was into eugenics.
Either way you look at it the black population is getting more abortions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…And yet they’re still having a huge rate of pregnancies and births.
What’s the problem?
Eugenics?
How’s this for Eugenics. It has been estimated that approxamately 90% of Down Syndrome children are aborted.
Eugenics: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
And yet they’re still having a huge rate of pregnancies and births.
What’s the problem?
Could it be moral decay perpetuated by the breakdown of the family? It’s only strung up by a socialist (more like communist) welfare system?
“The Jews are comparing abortion to the holocaust”
THE Jews? You say that “Jews for life” speak for all of the Jewish people in the world. There is no possible way that every Jewish person agrees that abortion is like the holocaust. Especially considering the second person on the video quoted as saying it was wrong to compare abortion to the Holocaust IS Jewish, and many Jewish students at the university were protesting the comparison.
“Last year CBR came to campus and it prompted many to protest in favor of abortion alongside the display of graphic images. This year, concerns have already been raised by many, including several concerned Jewish students who are protesting the use of images of the Holocaust next to those of aborted fetuses.
This has very sore consequence for the future of the US and Western Europe-however, I doubt you care no understand this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you kidding?
I work with two rabid, right-wing FAUX News-watching maniacs.
If I have to listen to the Pat Buchanan “End of Western Civilization” rant ONE MORE TIME, I’m gonna hurt some people…
jessie, good answer!
Hitler got rid of his unwanted, we get rid of ours. The difference is what?
valerie–its the same way hitler was into eugenics…margaret sangers ideas was to get rid of minorities through abortion. A little slower then concentration camps but same idea.
I think it’s horriffic so I hope you understand that I don’t agree with it. One of my daughter’s best friends has downs and life wouldn’t be the same without Carla :-)
Grethchen, I appreciate that, but I disagree!
Well obviously Laura, you need it explained one more time por que no entiendes…I do hope you speak Spanish
You know, I hear Fox is right slanted but I never see that….
Back on point, it doesn’t really matter what color a baby is. He/She has a right to live!
Gretchen, I never said “all Jews” However, the Jews that DO shouldn’t be bashed for their opinion just because you don’t see it that way!!!
Jessie –
“I think it’s horriffic so I hope you understand that I don’t agree with it. One of my daughter’s best friends has downs and life wouldn’t be the same without Carla :-)”
HUH? I never said that was okay! I was saying that we are already into the realm of Eugenics and the proof is with the slaughter of Down Syndrom babies.
Sorry – Sarcasism doesn’t come across very well……
Laura –
“Childfree households have just surpased family households as the majority in this country, ”
“I don’t suppose you’d care to explain why White and Asian American women have been breeding below replacement level for two generation, while African Americans are second-fastest growing demographic in America – right behind Hispanics. ”
“And yet they’re still having a huge rate of pregnancies and births.”
You have alot of stats here. In all fairness, since “prove it” is huge on this blog, can you tell us where these come from?
oh..I gotchya valerie…I thought you were questioning why I made the comment. You are right sarcasm gets lost and yes we are at that point. Who is worthy to live and who isn’t. Hitler went after the mentally impaired too.
I just read an article not to long ago about socialized medicine and how the elderly are being denied certain care in Canada, and GB etc…so basically the line of Life worth is being squeezed on both ends. Makes me think of that cheesy logans run movie from the 70’s.
You said “the Jews” kind of like “the blacks” or “the Muslims” When you use the article “the” in reference to a group of people, it implies all of them in a stereotypical fashion. That is what I found offensive, because obviously, not all of “the Jews” agree with what you said.
Excuse me. Some of the Jews. Sorry for offending you.
Jessie –
Are you ready for Carousel?
No, I’m not!!!!….I’m going to run like the wind Fforest…seriously sometimes I wonder if that is where we are going.
I think we may be. With Abortion and euthenasia….we are on the way to it!
I just hope we won’t have to wear those horrible robes and mask! I would look horrible in that!
;-)
You have alot of stats here. In all fairness, since “prove it” is huge on this blog, can you tell us where these come from?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s a start:
Children? Or are we ‘adult-centered’?
As more Americans decide not to have children and boomers are living longer, we are becoming a more adult-centered nation
By Ben Arnoldy | Christian Science Monitor
Published: 8/29/2007 12:18 AMSend To:
Kids just aren’t as big a part of American life as they used to be.
Americans’ child-free years are expanding as empty-nest seniors live longer and more young adults delay — or skip — childbearing.
In 1960, nearly half of all households had children under 18. By 2000, the portion had fallen to less than a third, and in a few short years it’s projected to drop to a quarter, according to a report from the National Marriage Project.
Suburban households trail national trends.
More than half of all households in DuPage, Kane, Lake and McHenry counties had a child under 18 years old living at home in 2005, U.S. Census figures show. Only Cook County dipped below the 50 percent threshold.
That the shift toward child-free homes has not yet gained momentum locally is not surprising, experts caution, as many families with children settle in suburban neighborhoods with larger homes, good schools and green space.
Yet suburban families are not exempt from the challenges of having — or not having — children.
Youngsters increasingly take a back seat in perceptions of marriage’s purpose.
Since 1990, the percentage of people who said children were very important to a successful marriage tumbled from 65 percent to 41 percent, according to a Pew Research report.
For some child-free Americans, their growing numbers argue for greater equality with parents in government benefits, the workplace and social esteem. That worries family researchers and child advocates who see in the same trends a move to a more “adult-centered culture” — one that threatens the strength of families and the social compact to provide for the next generation.
“We are getting much more of an adult-oriented culture than has ever existed arguably, and that could prove problematic,” says David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “You can envision a society in which children are kind of an afterthought and not in the interests of society as a whole.”
He sees the priorities reflected on television: Almost gone are family sitcoms in favor of a generation of programs following the model of “Friends” and “Sex and the City.”
And he worries about a shift at the ballot box. In New Jersey, voters rejected nearly half of school budgets in the state last year — the lowest passage rate in more than a decade, according to a report from Popenoe’s center.
In Illinois — where homeowners on average fund a third of local school revenues — swaying voter support to increase tax rates is increasingly difficult.
In April, eight suburban school districts sought higher tax rates. Voters rejected all but three. Two years earlier, half the 10 bids to increase school districts’ tax rates gained the necessary voter support.
With parents a smaller presence at the polls — just under 40 percent in the 2004 presidential election — some child advocates say it’s getting harder to win empathy on issues.
“It’s not: Do people love children? It’s: Are they thinking about them?” says Robert Fellmeth, director of the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of California San Diego School of Law.
In California, older adults are not passing along opportunities to the next generation, Fellmeth said. He decries the lack of universal health coverage for children, low funding for foster-child families, and skyrocketing university tuition.
Fellmeth also sees children being jammed into extreme poverty by the growing trend of out-of-wedlock births — which now stand at 37 percent. The Pew report found growing acceptance among younger people for childbearing outside marriage.
When child-free adults and their advocates look at the political and cultural landscape, however, they still see inequalities that favor married families and children despite the demographic shifts away from Ozzie and Harriet’s day.
A major flash point: workplace benefits. Family-friendly policies such as flex leave and day-care options not only allocate more of the benefits pie to workers with children, but child-free workers also can be left picking up the slack for co-workers on family leave, says Thomas Coleman with Unmarried America, a nonprofit information service about unmarried adults based in Glendale, Calif.
Myriad government policies, he says, leave the child-free feeling like second-class citizens — everything from the exclusion of siblings under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to greater death benefits given to families by Social Security and the U.S. military.
But with only 35 percent of the U.S. workforce having a child under 18 at home, businesses have begun shifting to more neutral work-life programs. They include the same amount of paid time off for all workers, cafeteria-style benefits and generic benefits like gym memberships that all workers can use.
“No one is advocating ignoring the needs of children or those who are raising children. That’s important to everyone in society whether you have children or not, but things have to be more balanced,” Coleman says.
Part of that balancing act, he says, is taking into account the 19 percent of women in their early 40s who are childless. That’s up from 9.5 percent 26 years ago.
The birth rate among twenty- and thirty-somethings nationwide was 108 per 1,000 women in 2005.
Women of the same age living in Cook County had a lower birth rate, 2005 Census figures show. DuPage, Kane, Lake and McHenry counties all eclipsed the nation’s fertility rate — in some cases, dramatically. In McHenry County, for example, 142 of every 1,000 women from 20 to 34 years old had a child.
Women are marrying later, devoting more attention to careers and waiting longer to have children, research shows, which sometimes results in them not having children at all.
Other times the choice is deliberate. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 6.2 percent of women in 2002 between ages 15 and 44 reported that they don’t expect to have children in their lifetime — up from 4.9 percent in 1982.
It’s not a widely respected choice.
“There is a social stigma, but I think it’s not equally applied across the country and not equally applied to both genders,” says Vincent Ciaccio, a spokesman for No Kidding!, an international group for people without children based in Vancouver, British Columbia. “I am aware of some women who just don’t mention they are child-free in mixed company.”
Ciaccio conducted one of the few surveys of the child-free in the United States, involving 450 individuals. The more common motivations included concerns for personal space and time, and no feeling of a compelling reason to have kids.
Among married couples in Ciaccio’s survey, 62 percent said they were concerned children would undermine their relationship with their spouse.
Preserving spousal companionship ranked high in another survey of 171 child-free individuals that was conducted by Laura Scott, who is working on a documentary about being childless by choice.
In dozens of sit-down interviews with childless individuals, Scott also found generally high support for public education and community programs for children.
Ciaccio’s survey highlighted certain causes among the childless, including government subsidies for birth control, holding parents responsible for their children and the establishment of child-free areas in restaurants, movie theaters, and apartments.
Also of great importance: simple respect for their decision.
“People who don’t have children and parents have a lot in common. They are not natural antagonists,” says Ciaccio. “If parents respect the choices of people who have not had kids, and people who have not had kids respect the choices of parents, then we can all move forward together for mutual benefit.”
So Laura, this is good or bad for the US as a whole?
Laura, I found you post interesting, but if it were just women wanting to get their tubes tied, I’d say “Fine, have at it!” I worked with a woman who DID NOT want kids. She and her husband signed the proper documents, so she could have the procedure. Ever seen the LA tattoo artist on LA ink? She had her tubes tied. I have a problem with the women who decide to pick and choose how many abortions that they can/will have.
Heather –those are good points! My sister does not want children. Her husband had a vasectomy and she’s still on the pill. If she did get pregnant, my sister would NEVER get an abortion. However, she has taken the necessary precautions with her husband not to have a child.
She is free to spoil mine as much as she wants :-)
jessie, I agree. These are 2 totally different procedures. Abortion/TL. You have taken responsibility for yourself. I’ve also worked with women who talk about abortion like it was a part of life’s daily routine. I remember one woman saying “I’m gonna go get me an abortion.”* and yawned* after finding out she was newly pregnant. This is the kind of gunk that turned me towards the Pro life movement. They would all start talking about their abortions like it was “no big thing,” and it really bothered me.
Their attitudes were so lackadaisical and lazy. I don’t have the same reaction when a woman says “I’m going to get my tubes tied.”
So Laura, this is good or bad for the US as a whole?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s always good when children aren’t born to people who don’t want them.
I applaud women who have their tubes tied that don’t want kids or don’t want anymore kids. You are right, abortion is the lazy irresponsible way out.
jessie, so do I. Laura, you get 2 thumbs up here. You explained that you didn’t want children, so you had your tubes tied at a young age. To this day you have no regrets. I think that’s fine, because not all women are cut out to be mothers. Some women treat abortion like they are ordering a Big Mac. Legalized abortions without restrictions has become a “great enabler for women,” and it hasn’t solved one social problem.
Other times the choice is deliberate. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 6.2 percent of women in 2002 between ages 15 and 44 reported that they don’t expect to have children in their lifetime — up from 4.9 percent in 1982.
******
Childfree households have just surpased family households as the majority in this country, and child-free housing, restaurants and resorts are THRIVING.
*******
Sorry. Does not compute…
6.2 hardly constitutes surpassing…
Some women treat abortion like they are ordering a Big Mac. Legalized abortions without restrictions has become a “great enabler for women,” and it hasn’t solved one social problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And?
Big Macs have become a great enabler for women and haven’t solved a single social problem, either. That’s not the point.
Whether a woman chooses to eat a Big Mac, have her tubes tied, have an abortion or have a child is nobody business but her own.
Whether a woman chooses to eat a Big Mac, have her tubes tied, have an abortion or have a child is nobody business but her own.
Unless of course she tries to do them all at the same time…
:)
Oh no Jill! We’ve upset the college liberals!
I did the GAP project at Portland State
It’s always good when children aren’t born to people who don’t want them.
I knew you couldn’t answer the question so I’ll make it even more specific…Is a negative growth rate of a sector of society a good? Ie is it good economically and socially that the caucasian protestant base of American society is has a negative growth rate? If so, why..please explain how this will benefit society. To narrow it down..how does this affect social security, the job market etc?
Laura, I find you a very hateful spiteful person. You have every right not to have children. My sisters the same way. The difference is my sister knows the value of human life…that all text books say start at conception…and she would never kill a child.
I’m gonna go with this. Eat 1 too many Big Macs, and you’re bound to become obese or contract heart disease. Have too many abortions, and your uterus just may fall out, or in the case of a woman I knew, had to be removed D/T extreme damage from too many abortions.
Heather did you read that article about the women in Florida I think where the doctor perforated her uterus in an abortion and she almost died. yikes!!!! That’s pretty scary.
jessie, yes, and there are so many stories just like hers all over the net. Women who really care about women don’t advocate abortion. I knew a woman who had 7 abortions, and she had to have a hysterectomy. She did have 1 living child, but this almost drove her to suicide. The hospital doctors told her that her uterus had been damaged from the abortions.
wow..heather..that is really scary. It’s mentally detrimental too. I pity any woman that has made that decision because they have to live with that knowledge the rest of their life.
jessie, there are some PCers who will tell you that PAS is a bogus Dx. It isn’t. I watched this woman self destruct. She turned to the bottle, and she struggled to bond with her child. She wound up in the ICU after almost drinking herself to death.
I don’t think anyone would say PAS is bogus, at least I wouldn’t. But it doesn’t affect *every* post abortive woman just like post partem depression doesn’t affect *every* mother with a newborn and post traumatic stress syndrome doesn’t affect *every* person who has experienced a trauma.
Other times the choice is deliberate. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 6.2 percent of women in 2002 between ages 15 and 44 reported that they don’t expect to have children in their lifetime — up from 4.9 percent in 1982.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Part of that balancing act, he says, is taking into account the 19 percent of women in their early 40s who are childless. That’s up from 9.5 percent 26 years ago.
THAT does compute.
JKellar, that’s fair enough.
oops, i keep writing kellar..i see it’s keller. sorry.
JK,
I don’t think anyone would say PAS is bogus
You know I love you, but we’ve done whole posts where the pro choice side says this…loudly! But I love you for admitting that it does. You are very brave. Now duck, cuz I fear some intense responses comin’ on…
Part of that balancing act, he says, is taking into account the 19 percent of women in their early 40s who are childless. That’s up from 9.5 percent 26 years ago.
THAT does compute.
Sorry, but I still don’t see that as SURPASSING households with children. Are less women having kids. Okay, I’ll give you that. But less than before, not less than women who are…and duh, 45,000,000 dead children…I guess that would make for childless homes.
Hey Val, how bout a little statistics dance here?
MK,
I guess PAS is just something Xenu has brainwashed us into believing in….
;-)
JK,
Those danged Thetans…now they’ll have to lock us all in a room until we cry uncle…Blast you Tom Cruise! You’ve ruined it for all the loonies!
Did somebody say Tom Cruise? *jumps off couch*
Although,
Really JK, you might be onto something here. The only person to truly benefit from Scientology was L. Ron himself. Everyone else was just so much sheep.
Much like planned parenthood. I mean, who is making out like bandits, and who ends up with an empty womb and soul?
Typical cult. Give me everything you own, and I promise you happiness…except it’s a lie and in PP’s case everything means your first (un)born child…Should have called themselves “Rumpelstiltskin”hood.
Only 35% of American homes have a child under 18.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
America less focused on kids, more on adults
By Thomas F. Coleman
American society was very centered on marriage and highly focused on children in 1970 when more than 70 percent of the nation’s homes contained a married couple. That year, the Census Bureau reported that more than 40 percent of homes consisted of married couples with minor children.
Those demographics have drastically changed.
Last year the Census Bureau reported that a majority of the nation’s households are now headed by unmarried adults. And according to 2005 census data, there are 30 million one-person households as compared to 24.1 million with a traditional nuclear family consisting of a husband, wife, and child under 18.
Looking at all household variations in the nation, the most recent census figures show that only 35 percent of American homes contain a child under 18 years of age. Statistics from the Department of Labor show that working parents with minor children account for only 35 percent of the nation’s workforce.
According to the National Marriage Project, the demographics will continue to change until, in a few more years the percent of American households without children will climb to 75 percent.
A report released last week by the Pew Research Center indicates that more than demographics are shifting. Attitudes are too.
In a 1990 Pew survey, 65 percent of Americans said that having children was “very important” to a good marriage. Back then, having children was third on a list of nine factors often associated with a successful marriage.
In this year’s survey, only 41 percent listed having children as very important to a happy marriage. It ranked eighth out of nine factors.
At the top of the list of the new survey were “sharing household chores,” “good housing,” “adequate income” and “faithfulness.”
Last week the Christian Science Monitor published a story entitled “America becomes a more ‘adult centered’ nation.” The author, Ben Arnoldy, interviewed me for it.
“When child-free adults and their advocates look at the political and cultural landscape, however, they still see inequalities that favor married families and children despite the demographic shifts away from Ozzie and Harriet’s day,” Arnoldy wrote.
I explained to him that workplace benefits were at the forefront of a struggle for more fairness for employees without children.
For example, so-called family-friendly policies such as flex leave and day-care options not only give more benefits to workers with children, but child-free workers also can find themselves picking up the slack for co-workers on family leave.
With workplace demographics changing so that two-thirds of the nation’s workforce have no children at home, businesses have begun shifting from “family friendly” policies to more neutral “work-life” programs. Some companies, for example, give all employees the same amount of paid time off, while others create cafeteria-style benefits, and many offer generic benefits like gym memberships that all workers can utilize.
But unlike many private employers who are adapting to changing workplace demographics and attitudes, the American government seems stuck in the Ozzie and Harriet mode when it comes to public policy.
There are many government policies which treat the child-free like second-class citizens. Take the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, for example. Parent-child relationships are covered, but siblings are not.
The Social Security Administration gives a $255 death benefit to help pay for the burial of a worker who leaves a surviving child or spouse, but nothing to help a surviving sibling bury a single person without kids. The military treats personnel with children more favorably than those without.
“No one is advocating ignoring the needs of children or those who are raising children,” I told the Monitor. “That’s important to everyone in society whether you have children or not, but things have to be more balanced.”
Part of that balancing act, I explained, is taking into account that 19 percent of women in their early 40s are childless. That’s up from 9.5 percent 26 years ago.
Vincent Ciaccio, a spokesman for No Kidding!, an international group for people without children, told the Monitor about certain causes among the childless, including government subsidies for birth control, holding parents responsible for their children, and the establishment of child-free areas in restaurants, movie theaters, and apartments.
With more adults choosing to delay marriage, many foregoing parenting altogether, and older Americans spending more years in their child-free years, I suspect that we will be hearing more about the need to revise workplace benefits and government policies. Things are not quite balanced yet.
Calm down Heather…And tell Tom to calm down too! I just bought that couch! :)
Laura,
With all due respect, I don’t think anyone knows what point you are trying to make…
Poor Katie…..
Rising Number Of Childless Women
44 Percent Of American Women Age 15-44 Have Not Given Birth(CBS/AP) Anne Hare and her husband made a momentous decision three years ago: They would not have children. It’s not that they don’t like kids, she says. They simply don’t want to alter the lifestyle they enjoy.
“With kids, especially young kids, infants and toddlers, you really can’t do the active stuff we like to do,” said Hare, 43, a fitness program coordinator from Gainesville, Ga.
Hare is among 26.7 million women ages 15 to 44 who are childless, according to new Census Bureau data from a June 2002 survey. That’s 44 percent of all the women in that age group – a record number, and ten percent more than in 1990, when roughly 24.3 million women that age had not given birth.
Direct comparisons before 1990 are not possible because the bureau didn’t track women younger than 18 until then.
The Census Bureau report tells only which women have given birth to children, according to age, income, educational background, ethnic background, occupation, and geographic location, and does not report on whether women are childless by chance or by choice.
The women counted as childless are those who have never given birth – including those who may later give birth.
Martha Farnsworth Riche, a demographer and former head of the Census Bureau, says she believes the latest numbers reflect the well-established trend of more women going to college and entering the work force, then delaying motherhood or deciding not to have children. She notes that increasing numbers are are choosing adoption.
Hare said she and other childless friends often are incorrectly tagged as “kid-haters.”
“It’s just difficult to explain to people that we don’t hate kids, it’s just that we don’t want our own,” she said.
The percentage of women 40 to 44
jkeller, ohio state is in the houseeeeee! sorry, im nibbling on a piece of cheese. too good to put down. typing one handed.
Must be a great piece of cheese to demand such attention from you!
:-)
It was that crumbly cheddar. It breaks easily, and I didn’t want the pieces to fall into my keyboard. Okay, now to my ice cold Diet Pepsi.
Laura,
They simply don’t want to alter the lifestyle they enjoy.
If you are trying to say that women are choosing not to have children, I already agreed with you. How many of the women between ages 15 and 44 were married? How many got pregnant, but aborted?
We’ve already said that marriage was in danger, and that this generation is unbelievably selfish…you’re just proving us right…
ME,ME,ME,ME,ME….
Oh and by the way, as someone pointed out awhile ago…do the math. You have no kids, I have six. You have no kids, Val has 2. You have no kids, Bethany has 3 (and hopefully more), Same with Lauren and Rosie (God willing, they’ll have large families)…so while you choose not to have any kids, we’ll soon outnumber you and the whole argument will be moot. It’s just a matter of time…
Argh! I get so frustrated reading things that anti-lifers write (these are a very, very specific group of zero-population growth type people).
Anyways, these no-choice, anti-lifers like to talk about how to best create insentives for women to hack out thier uterii(?).
Apparantly in lala land, family planning is not encourage *enough*. Forget the fact that almost every married woman in America is on some sort of birth control, and families of more than 2 are shunned as “weirdos”, it seems we are not doing enough to limit the “breeding” of evil evil people who want to hurt our mother Gaia Earth.
Gag me with a spoon.
Sorry, I know this is way, way, way off topic, but sense Planned Parenthood falls into this catagory, I figured this was as goo a place as any!
To see what started this rant, go here-
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/09/12/6035/
and here
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/09/12/maintaining-control/
Apparantly, the evil Republicans would use their precious system to whipe out the African Americans! Hmm, isn’t that what Margaret Sanger wanted to do from the beginning? How quickly they forget their roots.
MK: Much like planned parenthood. I mean, who is making out like bandits, and who ends up with an empty womb and soul?
MK:Laura,
With all due respect, I don’t think anyone knows what point you are trying to make…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s the point: people who choose to be childfree – sometimes through abortion – don’t wind up with an “empty womb and an empty soul.” They end up with the kind of life they want to live. They’re happy. They’re fulfilled. They ARE mainstream America.
Heather,
How much do you hate Florida, then?
Lauren,
I see why you were a little put off…nice video. Would never occur to him to use a little discipline.
NOooooo…just get rid of the kid…
Here’s the point: people who choose to be childfree – sometimes through abortion – don’t wind up with an “empty womb and an empty soul.”
Time will tell, Laura, time will tell…
@ JKeller, I am not a sports fan, so I don’t hate. I congratulate. May the best team win! I’d like to see OSU win though. Why not?… @Lauren, I answered you on another post. That Amanda Marcotte is about as evil as they come. I can’t stand her. That blog is pure evil! She is definitely a self absorbed, selfish, racist.
Laura, you can harldy claim that childfree are “mainstream” America.
A recent Gallop Poll showed that
52% of Americans thought 2 children made the perfect family size, 25% said 3, 7% said 4, 2% said 5+, 3% said 1, and… 1% SAID NONE.
Hardly “mainstream.”
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/297295/poll_over_half_of_americans_believe.html
I was having some problems with my posts being verified, and when I was tinkering with my settings, I realized that this theard was WAY more on topic than the other, so I moved it over here. I hope that’s ok.
lauren, did you see Amanda’s nasty response to commenter, Sharon. Sharon took up for women and families. Amanda’s reply “Sharon, don’t you have some men to obey and some dishes to wash?” *SNAP!* That’s not pro choice. That’s no choice.
You are right MK. The only ones who are having children are people who have a certain set of values (labelled “conservative”, “right-wing”, “religious” etc.) These people tend to believe in the sanctity of marriage (incidentally between one man and one woman), are pro-life and therefore open to having many children in their lives and usually some kind of belief in a higher power (at the very least). As the pro-aborts, pro-contraceptive, pro-“culture of death” individuals will not reproduce at comparable rates, it will be only a matter of time (perhaps over several generations) before they will become the MINORITY. They will abort/contracept themselves out of existence…
Nathan, 5:06p, said: “I did the GAP project at Portland State
You are right MK. The only ones who are having children are people who have a certain set of values (labelled “conservative”, “right-wing”, “religious” etc.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Laura Ingraham, Condaleeza Rice, Ann Coulter?
Face it, the heroes and role models in your movement are single and childless.
On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi has five children.
I think many of you are stuck into the mindset that everyone who is pro choice will never choose to have kids. Yet many people do. Do you think people who use birth control will always do so? No. Many many couples who use birth control now may not if they get to a point in their lives where they choose to want to have kids. Many atheists and agnostics have children. Many people who advocate for giving homosexuals the right to marry are themselves heterosexual, and may be married and have children or want to have children in the future. I’m sure quite a few liberals have and are continuing to have children. We are not aborting ourselves out of existence.
Cheers, JK. I want kids someday. I might even be in the 4.2% that says 5+ … all depends on the guy.
If I were to have kids, I would probably adopt. There are too many children born into horrible lives.
And before anybody says anything, it doesn’t mean I think they should be exterminated or anything…..
Laura, I don’t know about the so called “role models” you’ve picked. But, the everyday women I know who do not use contraceptives tend to have more than 5 children. It’s a fact of marriage, if you don’t contracept, you will probably have more than 3 kids. It’s really a life style choice to welcome children and not to view pregnancy as a disease for which one takes a pill everyday to avoid. A contracepting couple simply does not have this mindset. I can appreciate many couples cannot afford 6 children, but MOST couples CAN afford more than the 1 or 2 they are choosing to have. Instead they are opting for the vacation in Cuba (Im from Canada and many go there for vacations), the SUV, the HD TV, etc. etc in place of another child. An interesting theory, deserving of more study, is that put forth by Dr. Dominic Pedulla of the possible effect of contraception on women whereby the contracepting woman’s response to pregnancy is impaired, that is, she is unable to accept pregnancy as a normal part of a woman’s life. Of course, we see evidence of this cultural phenomena reflected in the arts with pregnant movie stars who gain little weight and quickly exercise themselves back into their hard-body physiques…
I used to think I’d want to adopt too (though a lot of that was because when I was younger I was TERRIFIED of needles and I saw my mom hooked up to an IV after giving birth to my brother–emergency c-section). Then I got older and I started getting super curious as to what a person who was half me and half someone else would look like.
My reasonings have evolved. Now I can’t wait to have kids… even though I’m way too young and unprepared at this point. But I love children…
Patricia: where in Canada are you from? I’ve got friends in Canada (a few in Ontario and one in Alberta) so I’m always curious.
Hitler…. anti-choice. He wanted some people to have abortions, and forbid it to others.
Slaves… were forced to provide offspring for their masters, even against their will.
Doug
Oh, and one Newfie. :)
Southern Ontario. by the way the newfoundlanders are wonderful people, very warm and friendly with a great sense of family
Anyone see Rachael Ray on Larry King Live tonight? He brought up the topic of whether she was planning on children. She was obviously uncomfortable and made several excuses as to why she thought it would be irresponsible and such. It was obvious that she just doesn’t want children, but was afraid of the politic backlash that would have ensued if she had said so. Maybe ‘stay-at-home moms’ are the topic of some prejudice, but so are women who don’t want children.
I’m a huge fan of Canada. I was there this summer more times than I had been in my entire life. I met my Albertan friend while I was in France–that year I learned more about Canada than France. I can name all the provinces and territories (VERY rare for the States). I do still get tickled when I hear Tim Horton’s referred to as “Timmy’s” though.
I also got in a car accident on the 401. Boo.
My Newfoundland friend is amazing, you’re right.
hal claimed:
“Zeke, we are all “godless,” some of us are just aware of it, while some of us are not.
Who would that make “mindless?””
Thanx for providing some evidence showing that Godless liberals are indeed mindless Hal.
Leah, sorry about ur accident on the 401. It’s a bad highway that’s for sure.
Erin, i was in library school 2 years ago and I met a young woman who told me she did not want to have children. This was the first time I’ve met someone who doesn’t want children and I have to say that it struck me as very strange… She seemed to abhor children. I really believe this is a product of the contraceptive culture.
I was a stay-at-home mom and now work part time. There is considerable discrimination against moms who choose to stay at home with their kids. It’s like my 16 years at home have meant nothing.. and I homeschooled my kids for 9 years so I didn’t sit on my fanny (not that say at home moms who don’t homeschool sit on THEIR fannies either!) I’ve endured some of the crassest remarks…
Erin,
Yeah. They get the “you’re how old? and you don’t want to settle down?” and the “Oh, you say you don’t want any kids but wait until you find a man, you’ll change your mind”
FYI – Jews are the people who MOST NEED to see images of aborted babies next to Jews who died from the Nazi holocaust.
Zeke,
I actually think it was Hal that pwned you. Perhaps you are too preoccupied threatening adulterers with death to recognize a good pwn.
Yes, let’s please trivialize the physical and mental anguish of millions of people………
Patricia- I don’t want children. I dislike them. It’s because my personality is fast-paced, impatient, and independent. Certain personality types are not conducive to wanting or liking children. I don’t care if you want them or not, I just don’t want people assuming, like you do, that something is wrong with a person just because they don’t really like children. Heck, I didn’t like other children when I WAS one.
Erin, I simply don’t understand the mindset – maybe it’s a generational thing. Children change people – make them less self-centred, more patient and able to see the simple things in life. I believe you have made a choice to miss out on one of life’s great blessings.
MK –
“Hey Val, how bout a little statistics dance here?”
Working on it…….
Will be back later tonight or tomorrow.
One comment I have noticed that i will point out which is important to remember…
“The women counted as childless are those who have never given birth – including those who may later give birth. ”
some of these stats are from survey of women from 15 – 44. If some of these women may later give birth than the statistic is null and void. Here is one statistic based on the above statment.
“26.7 million women ages 15 to 44 who are childless, according to new Census Bureau data from a June 2002 survey. That’s 44 percent of all the women in that age group – a record number, and ten percent more than in 1990, when roughly 24.3 million women that age had not given birth. ”
Why did it go from “childless” to “given birth”? How can the include 15 year olds with 35 year olds? Of course the majority of 15 year olds don’t have kids and don’t want kids NOW, but will want kids later.
I am working on this…..
I do want to say that it looks like Laura cut and pasted…which means the info is directly from a/the website and not her manipulation.
I am very curious about this….I do think it is a good point that has been raised, but maybe not in the same idea as Laura…
More to come….
Patricia: by the way the newfoundlanders are wonderful people, very warm and friendly with a great sense of family
Oh so right, Patricia! I worked in NFLD for a few months, and the people there are the friendliest I have ever seen, bar none, and that’s in a half-dozen countries and all the Cdn. provinces and all the US states except Hawaii (haven’t been there).
Newfoundlanders are amazing – it has to be seen!
Doug
Leah: I do still get tickled when I hear Tim Horton’s referred to as “Timmy’s” though.
Tim Horton – a heck of a hockey player, but couldn’t drive worth a crap.
Erin,
We’re your parents effectionate towards you?
Oh, dear. The combination of Doug and Patricia… I’m going to get all excited about Canada again. Don’t get me started…
Doug: Tim Horton – a heck of a hockey player, but couldn’t drive worth a crap.
Makes a good cup of coffee, though. Or at least… you know, the people that work there. :)
Oh Canada…
“The women counted as childless are those who have never given birth – including those who may later give birth. ”
Valerie: some of these stats are from survey of women from 15 – 44. If some of these women may later give birth than the statistic is null and void. Here is one statistic based on the above statment.
Nope, not null and void. Sure – some will have kids later on, but for now they are in childless households, as defined.
……..
“26.7 million women ages 15 to 44 who are childless, according to new Census Bureau data from a June 2002 survey. That’s 44 percent of all the women in that age group – a record number, and ten percent more than in 1990, when roughly 24.3 million women that age had not given birth. ”
Why did it go from “childless” to “given birth”? How can the include 15 year olds with 35 year olds? Of course the majority of 15 year olds don’t have kids and don’t want kids NOW, but will want kids later.
It’s “had not given birth” and that often equates to “childless.” As stated though, it’s hard to mentally juggle the mathematics, and I think something is wrong there.
If 44% is 26.7 million, then the total is about 60.7 million in 2002.
34% being 24.3 milllion would give a total of 71.5 million in 1990.
Now surely there were not a lot more women in that age group 12 years earlier…?
26.7 million is right about 10% more than 24.3 million in raw numbers, but from this we don’t know what percentage of women in that age group were childless in 1990. Quickly checking, it looks like the total US population went up 16% in the intervening 12 years, so something is decidedly amiss there – 24.3 million on a basis that was 16% less would actually be a couple percentage points higher than the “44.”
Just rough calculations, but I think there must be an error in the figures somewhere – I certainly wouldn’t think the percentage of childless women went down.
Doug
jasper- I have wonderful parents.
Laura and Doug –
There isn’t anything wrong with the math. What is wrong is the lack of information that was provided by the articles. I don’t think the articles were being malicious or anything like that…the info left out wasn’t part of their topic.
I’ll post more this afternoon…..
http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/801/householdsmu5.png
I rounded these off:
Most common type of household is the householder living alone – 27 million.
Two spouses and at least one natural child – 24 million.
Two spouses, no kids – 22 million.
Householder with at least one natural child, no spouse – 9 million.
Those are by far the most common, comprising about 78% of all households.
Of the top 20 types of households, which make up 92% all households, 38% have kids in them, whether natural, adopted, or grandchild.
Doug
oh –
Doug – the thoughts I wrote down were off the top of my head. However it is very odd for a report to interchange adjectives when identifying the group. The reason for this on this one is that the information was found in two seperates sections of the research paper where the “topic” was different, but stats the same……
so, that mystery is solved!
;-)
There isn’t anything wrong with the math. What is wrong is the lack of information that was provided by the articles. I don’t think the articles were being malicious or anything like that…the info left out wasn’t part of their topic.
I’ll post more this afternoon…..
Okay, Valerie, sounds good.
If the numbers are correct, then at the least I take issue with the way it was presented.
The theme was less families or households with kids, and in 1970 the percentage of married couples with kids at home (minors) was over 40. In 2000 it was not much over 20, so there have indeed been big changes at work.
There are many more single parents, so it’s not purely a lesser percentage of people having kids, but that is a part of it. In 2000 the percentage of single parents with at least one kid in the household was 8.4%, so even if there had been nobody like that in 1970, it wouldn’t account for the difference. And of course there were some such households in 1970.
“26.7 million women ages 15 to 44 who are childless, according to new Census Bureau data from a June 2002 survey. That’s 44 percent of all the women in that age group – a record number, and ten percent more than in 1990, when roughly 24.3 million women that age had not given birth.”
When you hear that 44% is a record number, and “ten percent more than in 1990,” then you think the 1990 rate would be 34%, no?
Yet those numbers are only saying that the raw number of childless women went up, and so what? The US population increased by 16%. If the total number of women in that age group went up by more than 10%, then the childless rate actually went down, and that isn’t consistent with the overall demographic trends.
Doug
Bobby Bambino: I always try to put myself in the other side’s shoes and attempt to think about the issue as they would and really understand their argument. I hate straw men and I want to take seriously the claims of the other side. If one understands our BASIC assertions, the comparison is obvious. I think it’s a lack of respect for our beliefs.
Bobby, I agree with that, though it’s not quite that simple. Pro-Choicers are okay with somebody saying, “I don’t feel right having an abortion due to my religion.”
But saying, “It’s not okay for you to have an abortion due to my religion” is a different deal.
If the “claim” of pro-choicers is that not everybody has your beliefs, can that really be argued with? If you are saying that your beliefs are a good enough reason to take away the freedom that women have in this matter, then yes – you’re going to find a lack of respect for that, often.
Doug
Hi Doug.
“But saying, “It’s not okay for you to have an abortion due to my religion” is a different deal.”
Well I don’t believe it needs to be argued from the perspective of religion. In fact, I never argue abortion from the perspective of “my religion tells me I can’t,” I try and argue it from the natural law and human exceptionalism point of view, both grounded in only (what i believe to be) pure reason. I believe abortion is intrinsically evil, like stealing, rape, murder, etc.- all these things that we can agree need to be outlawed for the good of society, as opposed to trying to force a law to not eat meat on Fridays. And my point way, way above is that if the other side understands our argument, which they should, comparing abortion to genocide shouldn’t seem outrageous. I do this when I try and understand the arguments of the other side. If abortion is not murder, as some but not all pro-choicers claim, then I see nothing wrong with unlimited abortions. I see no reason why it should matter if a women has 1 or 10 abortions, why we should feel the need to reduce the number of abortions, etc. That follows logically from the assumption that abortion is not murder. So that’s all I’m sayin. God love you, Doug.
Laura, must you so devalue anybody who is inconvenient to you?
A baby isn’t a blob of fat cells. You know it full well. Be HONEST about what it is you defend. Killing a human being on the grounds that he or she is smaller, weaker, and less capable than you.
Be honest about it, okay? I can respect honesty. I can’t respect comparing a human being to a blob of fat cells.
Laura, nobody is saying to you, “Go have a baby.” We’re just saying that if you create one, you have an obligation to refrain from killing it. That doesn’t seem like much to ask, but you’d think that “Don’t kill babies” was some wierdo new thing that we just cooked up this past week.
What part of “Pick on somebody your own size” did you miss in kindergarten?
Laura, unlike Planned Parenthood and the other Pill-pushers, I don’t think it’s some horrible thing if a Black or Asian or Hispanic woman has children.
Erin, there’s a world of difference between not caring for the company of children, and thus not wanting any yourself, and the attitude that children are vermin. Especially, I’ve noted an attitude on the Left that poor and minority children are vermin.
As P.J. O’Rourke so well summed up population alarmism: “Just enough of me, way too many of you.”
Doug, the point isn’t, as you claim, “It’s not okay for you to have an abortion due to my religion” . To recognize a fellow human being doesn’t take any particular religious faith. To say that it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being is wrong doesn’t require any particular religious faith. It just requires basic human decency, which last time I checked was freely available to everybody, including atheists and agnostics and Wiccans and everybody else with a conscience.
“Pick on somebody your own size” is something all human beings ought to recognize as just basic human decency.
Doug, the point isn’t, as you claim, “It’s not okay for you to have an abortion due to my religion” . To recognize a fellow human being doesn’t take any particular religious faith. To say that it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being doesn’t require any particular religious faith. It just requires basic human decency, which last time I checked was freely available to everybody, including atheists and agnostics and Wiccans and everybody else with a conscience.
“Pick on somebody your own size” is something all human beings ought to recognize as just basic human decency.
Bobby: Well I don’t believe it needs to be argued from the perspective of religion. In fact, I never argue abortion from the perspective of “my religion tells me I can’t,” I try and argue it from the natural law and human exceptionalism point of view, both grounded in only (what i believe to be) pure reason. I believe abortion is intrinsically evil, like stealing, rape, murder, etc.- all these things that we can agree need to be outlawed for the good of society, as opposed to trying to force a law to not eat meat on Fridays.
Okay, though I’d say that your belief, there (the “pure reason” and “intrinsically evil”), might as well be called religion.
…….
And my point way, way above is that if the other side understands our argument, which they should, comparing abortion to genocide shouldn’t seem outrageous. I do this when I try and understand the arguments of the other side. If abortion is not murder, as some but not all pro-choicers claim, then I see nothing wrong with unlimited abortions. I see no reason why it should matter if a women has 1 or 10 abortions, why we should feel the need to reduce the number of abortions, etc. That follows logically from the assumption that abortion is not murder. So that’s all I’m sayin.
I disagree there. Abortion isn’t murder but in no way does that mean that there is any necessary “logic” that prevents you from being against it – it’s up to you.
Doug
Christina: Doug, the point isn’t, as you claim, “It’s not okay for you to have an abortion due to my religion” . To recognize a fellow human being doesn’t take any particular religious faith. To say that it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being doesn’t require any particular religious faith. It just requires basic human decency, which last time I checked was freely available to everybody, including atheists and agnostics and Wiccans and everybody else with a conscience.
It’s all the same there – your assumptions of “wrong” and what is “basic human decency” and “conscience” are no different from what many religions involve. You have your beliefs, yes, but this is still you wanting your way to be mandated for the pregnant woman.
…….
“Pick on somebody your own size” is something all human beings ought to recognize as just basic human decency.
Well, I think that everybody should realize that the unborn in this argument are not “somebody” in that respect (suffering is implied, which isn’t true) nor in several others, all of which matter to many people.
This is not to say there is any necessary causation between the two ways to go, but I’d rather see the ending of a thousand unwanted pregnancies versus having a pregnant woman suffer. Or versus some of the horrible suffering going on in the world today.
Doug
I have visited your site 090-times