Part I: Stanek WND column, "3rd annual Abortionist of the Year award"

wnd_logo.gif

I'm so excited! The National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers is just three days away - Saturday, March 10!

We will not likely get to celebrate this unholiest of unholy days with the actual dirty deed doers themselves, since I anticipate their inspirational work ethic will compel them to labor (pardon the pun) on coincidentally the most profitable day of their week.

But we can certainly show our support through the sincerest form of flattery, imitation, except... hmm... there's not much to imitate that won't get us thrown in prison. Well, at least we can wear red!

And, of course, we can all laud together the Third Annual Abortionist of the Year!

Before I name that person, I must confess it was difficult to dredge up nominees for this year's prize, because we lost an alarming number of shop choppers to arrest or license revocation during the past 12 months.

Oh dear, and we were already scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Take abortionist Reffat Kamel Abofreka of Virginia, for instance, who would have made a spectacular nominee had he not....

Continue reading my WorldNetDaily.com column today, "3rd annual Abortionist of the Year award."

**Due to the extended number of comments to this post, I am closing this thread and launching a new post. Please go here to comment on this topic. Thanks.


Comments:

Wasn't there also an abortionist in Kansas who kept aborted babies in the refrigerator and ate them?

Posted by: Disgusted! at March 7, 2007 9:56 AM


Jill, thanks for the great satire on the awful crime of abortion with the honoree, Dr. Tiller, nominated as the worst American of us all.

Posted by: Gene M. at March 7, 2007 10:28 AM


Disgusted, yes, Krishna Rajanna, coincidentally last year's Abortionist of the Year! (www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49205

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 10:31 AM


Excellent piece, Jill. Will the devil himself be handing out the awards? Or will he wait until the next life to reward these minions - with eternal damnation, that is.

Posted by: Dan G. at March 7, 2007 10:39 AM


I followed the link for the Abortion Appreciation Day and responded to their invitation to explain why I am pro-choice. This is what I wrote:

Why I Am Pro-Choice

I am pro-choice because I believe that everyone should freely choose how to live their life. I believe that the ideal form of government is enlightened anarchy such as Ursula K. LeGuin described in her novel The Dispossessed. Each citizen, motivated by a desire for what is beautiful, true, and good, makes choices not because they are forced to by law but because they know the choice is good and will benefit the community -- even when they choose those things that directly benefit only them, the community benefits because they become a happier, more fulfilled person.

Sadly, we live in a world where citizens are motivated often by fear, acquisitiveness, anxiety, ignorance, woundedness, and other factors that influence their choices away from the beautiful, the true and the good. Even LeGuin had to allow for that in her book, which is why it The Dispossessed is the only utopian novel I have ever read that I ever wanted to read again.

In our world, we have a government that is not an anarchy -- although there are times it may seem like one, for better or for worse! -- but is enlightened self-rule, with laws created through a complex process of negotiations, compromises, checks and balances. Some of our laws are coercive, but these laws were deemed necessarily so. Our laws against theft and against murder are two examples of coercive laws.

The existence of coercive laws does not impact on my ability to be pro-choice and to live my life as I wish. If I bump up against a coercive law, I still have the choice to do as I wish.

A people governed by self-rule accept coercive laws for the sake of the common good and the protection of all.

Abortion kills a living human being. A coercive law is needed to protect unborn human life, for the sake of the common good and the protection of all. We once had such laws, but an overzealous judiciary overturned them.

It is not at this time possible to obtain new embryonic stem cells without killing a living human embryo. A coercive law is needed to protect embryonic human life, for the sake of the common good and the protection of all.

I am pro-choice because I believe that all choices are possible to me, and to you, and because I do not want to live in a society
that has no laws that limit choice. We are not yet ready for enlightened anarchy.

Rae Stabosz
President, Catholic Scholars of Delaware

Posted by: Rae Stabosz at March 7, 2007 11:33 AM


George "The Killer" Tiller is the winner! Great selection.

You can watch O'Reilly interview one of Abortionist Tiller patients "Kelly" at the following link. Scroll down about a third of the way and you will see VIDEO bolded in red. Underneath it, click on "Watch This Segment".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236279,00.html

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 7, 2007 12:56 PM


On another note Dred Scott's Great Great Granddaughter Holds Pro-Life View on Abortion!

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2968.html

It seems she watched Dr. Bernard Nathanson's (one of the founding members of NARAL) internet video on SilentScream.Org and this solidified her pro-life position.

The list keeps getting larger and larger. We are winning everyone over (those who have a conscience) to the Pro-Life side!

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 7, 2007 1:02 PM


Jill,thank you for a wonderful article!The world needs more like you to help expose the dirty world of abortion! Are thay serious? An award for baby killers? Or is the award for the women he's killed and maimed?This disgusting killer makes me want to puke!

Posted by: Heather at March 7, 2007 1:20 PM


You're being ever so judgemental, which goes against Jesus' teachings. Enjoy hellfire, you worthless slime. Maybe I should act like a "real man" and come to your house to beat the piss out of you.

Your bestest buddy,

Justin


Posted by: Justin at March 7, 2007 1:23 PM


You incorrectly assessed "judge not, lest ye be judged," Justin. To do that is to say someone is going to hell, as you did me. Only God can judge.

On the contrary, Jesus called as spade a spade. Recall in Matthew 23:33, He was quite opinionated for instance when he called the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees, "You snakes! You brood of vipers!"

And, by the way, are you threatening me?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 1:24 PM


Thanks, Dr. Tiller, for providing a much-needed service to women in the face of opposition from people like this who hate freedom and the right to choose. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Joy at March 7, 2007 1:25 PM


But Jill, I thought real men hit women when they disagreed.

That was a quite interesting blog you just had that referenced the wonderful source of the Godfather.

Posted by: Jessica at March 7, 2007 1:26 PM


No Jill. He's merely asking if you want him to do as you said. You said a real man hits women. Should he hit you?

Posted by: Ilana at March 7, 2007 1:26 PM


Jill, I am a nurse like you.I don't give a damn what these pro aborts say. Don't let them rattle you.They are evil people that are in need of prayer. They are wicked! They should do some researching on abortion before spouting off about things they know nothing about. We know the truth. Look at an aborted baby once and get back to me. Women that don't regret their abortions make terrible mothers anyway. Please do us a favor and get fixed! Jill I applaud you.

Posted by: Cathy at March 7, 2007 1:46 PM


Jill,

I did not know your emails also go to Klan Parenthood, NOW and NARAL. Just kidding. Wow, where did all these Pro-Abort posters come from?

Anyhow you have one of the best Pro-Life websites on the web. Don't worry about the negative posts. I just had a few days off work and I am battling with you on your website. Keep it up & I will keep you in my prayers!

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 7, 2007 1:55 PM


Your column was informative, and written in a style which produced a smile and a heavy heart at the same time. Keep up the great work.

Posted by: Holly at March 7, 2007 1:56 PM


Cathy and Mike, thanks for the words of encouragement. Mike, I appreciate the links you've provided in other spots. I wish you weren't going back to work!

For the first time since I started this blog, I'm banning nuisance commenters today.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 2:00 PM


Hi Jill, some of the "pro-abort" commentators might be a nuisance, but others (hopefully me) are just ones who don't agree with you, but are mostly respectful and are trying to understand and be understood. Are you banning all of us?

Posted by: Hal at March 7, 2007 2:18 PM


Anyone who disagrees with you gets banned?

Wow... democracy and free speech in action.

HYPOCRITE.

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 2:22 PM


Jill

I have you ever been raped? Or as a nurse, experienced someone who has been?

I would like to hear how you would counsel a pregnant rape victim on keeping a seed of violence alive in their womb for nine months.

If you could be successful in that, I would like to hear how you suggest following up after this baby was possibly adopted and asks who his parents are.

Do you lie to this child?

What of the pregnancies created by incestual relationships? Do you honestly believe that god kills these children in the womb to save them from the misery of life outside?

They don't all die.

I guess both sides of this argument can sting eachother with comments that prove vaild points about this issue, but I'd really like to know how much experience with the subject we truly have. Until you've truly been there Jill, how can you pass such scathing judgements? You'll never know what it's like to be raped. Rape victims have no choice in being raped just as "innocent fetuses" have no choice in being aborted. The area is so gray and will be gray forever, and that is why we can't fully ban abortion in this country.

Posted by: sara at March 7, 2007 2:32 PM


Hal - no, I've just banned two, although another is close. I certainly don't mind dissent. It makes us all think.

Sara, are you saying your solution to pregnancy as an outcome of rape is to kill the child for the crime of her father?

Statistics show that most women who have been raped do not become pregnant, because rape is an act of violence, and men often cannot complete the act, i.e., ejaculate.

Statistics also show that most women who become pregnant from rape do not abort. These women are no different than you and I. They often believe abortion is murder. They furthermore believe two wrongs won't make a right. They believe, actually, that the child can make something good come from the heinous crime.

The only major study that has been conducted on this showed that women who aborted following a rape were psychologically worse off than those who did not. These women sadly ended up agreeing too late that abortion compounded the crime.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 2:49 PM


"The only major study that has been conducted on this showed that women who aborted following a rape were psychologically worse off than those who did not. These women sadly ended up agreeing too late that abortion compounded the crime."


Would you care to provide a source/citation for this information?

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 3:13 PM


Jill,

I find it shocking that you would ban those who disagree with you merely for using the same sort of blatant appeal to emotion, ad hominem argumentation, and biting style that you yourself indulge in when stating your views. The use of the sort of strategies that you tend toward in your writing invite the sort of responses that pro-choicers have been giving.

I also sincerely hope that you have not banned any of those pro-choicers who have been attempting to engage in rationally defending their views despite attacks like "pro-aborts are all wicked" and the like. The free marketplace of ideas is crucial to expanding our horizons and getting at the truth, which, one would hope, is what we are inevitably after.

Oh, and I, too, would like to see the source for the study your reference with regard to rape victims.

Posted by: Diana at March 7, 2007 3:39 PM


Abortionists have no respect for the women that come to see them.That's why a lot of them are getting away with rapes and molestations.Women write in horror stories to these web sites about abortionists asking them out on dates or asking them for their phone numbers after their abortion procedures.This is really sick.Most women said that they were filled with shame and didn't come forward right away.As a woman myself,I can't imagine women not telling.What about the next patient?This is just one more reason that supports the claim that abortion is bad medicine.

Posted by: Lally at March 7, 2007 4:00 PM


"Statistics show that most women who have been raped do not become pregnant, because rape is an act of violence, and men often cannot complete the act, i.e., ejaculate."

I was raped, I got pregnant. It wasn't the stereotypical "dark alley" rape, either, but I'll spare you the details.

"Statistics also show that most women who become pregnant from rape do not abort. "

I aborted.

"The only major study that has been conducted on this showed that women who aborted following a rape were psychologically worse off than those who did not. These women sadly ended up agreeing too late that abortion compounded the crime."

Nope, I do not regret it at all.

Guess I'm just a walking contradiction.

Posted by: Erika at March 7, 2007 4:20 PM


Lally -

At the Planned Parenthood I interned at, every single one of the OB/GYNs is a woman.

There are just as many complaints of sexual harassment against other specialists, including OB/GYNs who do not perform abortions, as there are against those who do provide abortions. Not all doctors are perfect human beings. There are sexual harassment claims against dentists and nephrologists too... but would you make a generalization about all of them as well?

Isnt it sort of ironic that you are concerned about women's safety, while supporting Ms Stanek, who last week published a column that advocated domestic abuse?

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 4:23 PM


"Statistics show that most women who have been raped do not become pregnant, because rape is an act of violence, and men often cannot complete the act, i.e., ejaculate."

You're joking... Why do you think that they rape in the first place? They get off on it. Same as those who watch violent porn. It's not going to stop them from ejaculating.

Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 4:23 PM


Lally,

First of all, I would like to see the reports you are referencing. Could you point me to some (non-biased) sources?

Second, even given that such tragic events are occurring, I don't think this gives us reason to claim that "abortion is bad medicine". I seem to remember that similar problems have been reported with dentists who have taken advantage of patients under the influence of anesthetic and with gynecologists. Are we now, on the basis of this, going to conclude that dentistry and gynecology are "bad medicine"? The sad fact that some people take advantage of others who are in their care has no bearing on whether or not the general practice is a good idea or not.

Posted by: Diana at March 7, 2007 4:25 PM


"Jill, I am a nurse like you.I don't give a damn what these pro aborts say. Don't let them rattle you.They are evil people that are in need of prayer. They are wicked! They should do some researching on abortion before spouting off about things they know nothing about. We know the truth. Look at an aborted baby once and get back to me. Women that don't regret their abortions make terrible mothers anyway. Please do us a favor and get fixed! Jill I applaud you."


"Evil" "wicked" "truth" "prayer"
Thanks for shoving the religion down our throats, Cathy.
Nurse or not, you don't have a choice on another woman's bodily autonomy. This goes for you, Jill, too. Just because you have been trained in the medical profession does not give you the right to make a decision for a woman that involves her body, which, coincidentally, pregnancy does. Even a doctor cannot decide for a woman. A doctor, not an "abortionist".

It doesn't matter if something is "innocent" as you so deem. If it is using the resources and suffering of another being to survive, it doesn't have a right to continue living if the person it is leeching from does not want it there. A woman's uterus belongs to her. Mandating that she allow a biological freeloader to usurp control of her uterus, HER property, is mandating that her body be government property. Maybe it does have a right to live, but it doesn't have that right if it is causing pain/suffering to the being that provides its life support and doesn't want it to do so (i.e. the mother).

That said, I am not "pro-abortion". I just think that the right to bodily autonomy and the choice of what one allows to be done to his or her body is paramount over the rights of a being trying to usurp control over said body, whether it be aware of said takeover or not. Innocence has no bearing on it, and you do not have any right to control or use my body for your benefit if I do not grant you the right to do it. The same goes for a fetus.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 7, 2007 4:26 PM


I remember awhlie back, that there was a doctor who raped a coma pacient and got her pregnant, does this mean that all doctors are bad and that I shouldn't go the doctor's anymore?

Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 4:27 PM


Statistics show that after 6 weeks, the fetus, if given the rights of an 18 year-old adult, is able to compose a symphony, draft a plan to bring peace the world, and integrate computer networks using only the power of its as yet nonfunctional mind.

Powerful stuff. Save TeH Baybeezzorz!

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 4:35 PM


In response to you Amanda,I agree that any doctor could get into trouble,however abortionists are low lifes anyway.I am an RN. I went to nursing school to heal.A doctor that murders babies is no doctor anyway.I have done too much research on abortion to know better.Most of the abortionists in my town are men.How are abortionists[pp included]getting away with NON-REPORTING of rapes of minors??That is inexcusable!!I have even heard audio tapes of this as proof.It doesn't matter if they are men or women doctors.They sent that minor child back into a cycle of sexual abuse.Many returned for repeat abortions.

Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2007 4:37 PM


"Statistics show that after 6 weeks, the fetus, if given the rights of an 18 year-old adult, is able to compose a symphony, draft a plan to bring peace the world, and integrate computer networks using only the power of its as yet nonfunctional mind."

Fantasy Fetii!!!

Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 4:39 PM


Lee---

Documentation? Sources?

Without them, I'm afraid you won't be able to get your point across. Or even sound credible.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 4:40 PM


"Fantasy Fetii!!!"

Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking and appeals to emotion. A fetus can do great things if it just believes in itself...

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 4:42 PM


Lee -

Im a healthcare professional too...

I guess I'm a "low life" because I work for an "abortionist"? Thats a wee bit judgemental coming from a nurse, no?

I work with at-risk pregnant teens. Some of them choose to have an abortion, many of them do not. I'm a low life for teaching them the sex ed their parents never bothered to teach them because it was too uncomfortable or they just didnt care? I'm a low life because I make sure girls know about WIC and girls homes and adoption before they make up their minds? I'm a low life for studying reproductive health and history and knowing what awful things go on when abortion is not legal?

In terms of reporting rape - if you really are a nurse, you know that HIPAA regulations forbid you from divuldging private patient information. We encourage them, even BEG them to report it, we refer them to battered women's shelters, to girls homes, to social workers, etc. But you cannot FORCE someone to report a rape, regardless of whether they're getting an abortion or not. There have been a handful of girls in my program that are keeping their babies, but REFUSE to report their rape. If I reported their rapes - they believe their lives and the lives of their babies are in danger - and they will stop coming for prenatal care, parenting lessons, breastfeeding education, counseling, and all of the other services they are offered. Until we as a culture (men and women) stop treating rape victims like criminals, how can we expect women to want to come forward, knowing full well that they will be judged, harassed, embarassed, and demonized? In ADDITION to the fact that just the act of reporting their rape may leave them homeless or dead?

If you think failure to report only happens in abortion clinics, you are very VERY mistaken. It happens every day in emergency rooms. Patients refuse to leave their names, get a rape kit so they can get the Plan B, and take off.

But what do I know? Im just a "low life"...

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 4:57 PM


"In response to you Amanda,I agree that any doctor could get into trouble,however abortionists are low lifes anyway.I am an RN. I went to nursing school to heal.A doctor that murders babies is no doctor anyway.I have done too much research on abortion to know better.Most of the abortionists in my town are men.How are abortionists[pp included]getting away with NON-REPORTING of rapes of minors??That is inexcusable!!I have even heard audio tapes of this as proof.It doesn't matter if they are men or women doctors.They sent that minor child back into a cycle of sexual abuse.Many returned for repeat abortions.
Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2007 04:37 PM"

Glad to see that you were trained so well as a nurse that you know the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Remind me never to visit your hospital.

Erik

Posted by: Erik at March 7, 2007 4:58 PM


The decision when it comes to a woman and her body should be made before a woman has sex!She should make the choice to have protected sexual relations!If you can't manage this much control over your body then DON'T HAVE SEX AT ALL!!!!!As far as your womb goes,remember that an abortion can damage it for life!My friend had 7 abortions-yes7!!!She had to undergo an emergency hysterectomy.SHE HAS NO WOMB anymore.All because of CHOICE/several poor ones at that. Here is another way to see to it that you wont have an unwanted pregnancy.It's called steralization.That's a great CHOICE!

Posted by: Rachel at March 7, 2007 5:02 PM


@Lee:
Believe it or not, not all rape victims want to endure the rape aftermath which currently consists her being called an irresponsible, lying, insane whore (who was asking for it, by the way) by the prosecution, the media, and random people who read the news that have not been (and in many cases, men that will never be) raped.

Case in point: I'd bet that you've never been raped, have you?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:04 PM


@Rachel: Your friend is the best example of why we need comprehensive sex education that I've ever heard, can I tell her story in the future?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:06 PM


Well Amanda,You work for baby killers.You are a low life.Erik,why don't you shed some light?Your so smart.And I will back up my facts after both of your replies.Amanda don't you get tired of helping rip babies to shreds?

Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2007 5:07 PM


Gee Rachel, your terribly uninformed and probably shouldn't talk but just to go ahead and fill you in on a little secret: most abortions are a result of a failed contraceptive. So your above statement is absolutely meaningless since the majority of women do take precautions to avoid pregnancy. And your friend who used abortion as a form of birth control is in a very small percentage of women, not everyone is that completely irresponsible.

Posted by: Erik at March 7, 2007 5:07 PM


Rachel -

First of all, it is incredibly silly for you to compare a woman who has had SEVEN abortions to the majority of women who have ONE. Thats like saying we should make BigMacs illegal, because theres always going to be someone who has 7 a week and dies of congestive heart failure while most people can have one on occaision and be perfectly healthy.

Also, the majority of doctors will not perform a tubal ligation or hysterectomy on a woman under 30. Even if they did, if there is not an underlying medical condition, it would be considered an elective procedure and would not be covered by most health insurance plans. Most women cannot afford such a procedure paying out-of-pocket. The best solution for your friend, who is obviously quite fertile, would have been an IUD.

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 5:10 PM


Psst, Lee. Fun fact for you. Us babykillers don't like idiots who use abortion as a primary form of birth control any more than you do, it's irresponsible.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:10 PM


Why don't you back up your facts before calling people names, Lee?
Also, Jill, we're still waiting on citations from you. If they exist.

Posted by: Jen at March 7, 2007 5:10 PM


Erik,have you ever read the signs at abortion rallies?It reads WHO BENEFITS FROM ABORTION?Women? Babies? Irresponsible men? Check mark by irresponsible men. BINGO.You are a man so..never mind

Posted by: Rachel at March 7, 2007 5:12 PM


@Jen: Citations from the last decade are preferable, I'm sick of seeing people claim that embryos can feel pain at six weeks because of a speculation made in a 30-year-old paper.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:13 PM


Rachel, no one reads the signs at abortion rallies because they're obnoxious and loaded with fake pictures.
He's a man, so he must be irresponsible? Nice logic train you have going there.
Why are you so angry?

Posted by: Jen at March 7, 2007 5:13 PM


Lee-

Wow. Such venom and hate coming from someone who is trying to get a point across... its very counterproductive, because it just makes you look angry instead of intelligent.

Please explain to me how I help "rip babies apart"? Are you referring to D&X? Because if you are, that procedure is not performed at Planned Parenthood. I'm also curious to know how I personally "help rip babies apart" from the patient education department. I must have very long arms...

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 5:14 PM


@Rachel: You're right, he is a man, so why should he decide that a woman must carry his child in her uterus for nine months? Oh, wait, it's not his choice because it's not his body.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:16 PM


Rachel

Who benefits from abortion? Erm, women who'd rather die than carry a rape fetus to term? Women whose health is threatened by a pregnancy? Women who already have a few children and cannot possibly afford to have one more? Women who simply do not want to take on the potential health risks every pregnancy bears for a child they don;t want?

Who do you think benefits from banning abortion? Right: Men. The controlling type who fears his woman could abort his offspring without him having a say. How about that?

And writing in capital letters does not make you more convincing.

Posted by: Andy at March 7, 2007 5:16 PM


1 abortion vs.3 HMMMMM let me see. We aren't talking about BIG MACS here lady. We are talking about HUMAN LIFE. Quite a difference. You sound incompetent to me.1 murder vs.3 All murderers should be in jail.

Posted by: Rachel at March 7, 2007 5:17 PM


Okay so I'm a man so I... am irresponsible and impregnate women and then force them to get abortions? That makes absolutely no sense, WHATSOEVER. I support a woman having complete bodily autonomy, becaue I wouldn't want anyone taking mine.

Jill, are you going to cite those resources anytime soon?

And by saying things like "rip babies apart" you are all only appealing to your deluded viewpoint that an abortion is tantamount to some grisly murder scene.

Pathetic.

-Erik

Posted by: Erik at March 7, 2007 5:18 PM


I'm waiting on several citations from several people. But, apparently calling people names and making no coherent sense in posts are more important.
Jill, you've got all this time to write inflammatory pieces, but you couldn't find the time to cite a statistic with it's source? Seems pretty ridiculous to me.
BTW, you've been nominated for the first annual Women's Rights Killer Award. Congratulations.

Posted by: Jen at March 7, 2007 5:21 PM


@Rachel: My mother had an abortion about 9 years before I was born. She was unmarried and the sex ed she received didn't mention that pulling out doesn't work, because that's what sex ed was 30 years ago. She got pregnant, and her parents would have disowned her if they found out. Would I give up my life to prevent that from happening to my mother? Yes, I would. I couldn't miss what I never had, anyway.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:21 PM


Jen, hold your horses. She has to beat out Ann Coulter first.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:22 PM


Rachel...

If I sound "incompetent" to you... I'm going to go ahead and take that as a compliment.

Thank you.

Also, using capslock does not make you sound more intelligent. You sound very angry. Perhaps this is not a great forum for you to be in - if it gets you so riled up, its actually very unhealthy for you.

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 5:24 PM


All I said was that she was nominated. Ann Coulter obviously gets a nomination, along with Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America. You should see her work on trying to stop CEDAW (Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) from getting ratified in the UN. Apparently, there's a lot wrong with ending discrimination against women.

Posted by: Jen at March 7, 2007 5:25 PM


While everyone is enjoying the coffee house at the same time, I have some pictures you all can look at. I know everyone here owns a camera and likes to look at pictures...

http://www.missionariestopreborn.com/default.asp?fuseaction=photoshome

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 7, 2007 5:31 PM


Amanda you can try to justify what you do till the cows come home.I don't care if the baby is 11 weeks old or 6 months.You are the one with the anger.Many nurses side with me. Murder will never be acceptable.You can too it and turn it any way you want to. It is what it is.Perhaps people don't read pro life signs.However they do look at pictures when the death clinics don't try to keep them from looking at them.A 10 year old could see that it's a baby-NOT a blood clot.

Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2007 5:31 PM


Well thankfully Lee, most people in this country are pro-choice so it doesn't really matter what kind of hateful, false, statements you make. A woman will still be given the right to dominion over her own body and that is that. So cry all you want and call whoever you want a baby killer, it will do you no good. And we will continue to educate people on the facts of this issue and not visceral reactions to fake pictures and emotionally-blinded slogans and rants.

Tah.
Erik

Posted by: Erik at March 7, 2007 5:36 PM


"However they do look at pictures when the death clinics don't try to keep them from looking at them."
I call it "being respectful of human remains". Tomato, tomato. Doesn't really work over the internet, does it?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:38 PM


Erik,

People are becoming more and more Pro-Life and the Supreme Court is changing. Roberts and Alito are now justices who are most likely Pro-Life.

Most grave human injustices are legal for roughly 40 years until they are made illegal. First slavery was made illegal and soon it will finally be abortion.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 7, 2007 5:42 PM


Amanda is so smart.That's why she's a baby killer!

Posted by: Andrea at March 7, 2007 5:42 PM


Amanda - I applaud you for what you do. We need more people like you in the world who dedicate themselves to helping women in an extremely difficult situation and who work to prevent such situations for arising in the future. Bravo!

Lee- You see extremely upset about the fact that abortion kills a "baby". But you're overlooking the important fact that the baby, even if it is a person (which I personally believe it is not), does not have a right to utilize the body of another person for survival. This is true of born, thinking, feeling humans, so it is certainly the case for a fetus.

Posted by: Diana at March 7, 2007 5:42 PM


And please inform yourself, abortion is one of the least-used services that "death mills" provide. More prominent in the array of services given are birth control, so they won't get pregnant in the first place, ordinary gynecological exams, STI check-ups and treatment, etc.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:44 PM


Mike-

Actually the pro-choice/pro-life split has remained about the same for years. So, your wrong. Have fun with being wrong though. And keep being a misogynist telling women what to do with their body, thats REALLY cool. Good thing your beliefs will never be put into law.

-Erik

Posted by: Erik at March 7, 2007 5:45 PM


@Mike: Slavery lasted a lot longer than "40 years". Also, abortion was already illegal. We're past that stage, now into the "Ha! What were we thinking back when abortion was illegal?" stage.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:46 PM


Amanda,I will go to any site I so choose.You believe in choice right? I choose to be here.

Posted by: Rachel at March 7, 2007 5:46 PM


Amanda,I will go to any site I so choose.You believe in choice right? I choose to be here.

Posted by: Rachel at March 7, 2007 5:48 PM


Sometimes it's necessary to protect people from themselves. That's why drugs are illegal and all that jazz.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 5:50 PM


Lee -

I am the one with the anger? Really? Thats interesting. Considering that in this particular case, the law and the majority of voters are on my side, and I have not resorted to calling those who oppose my opinion rude names or insulted them, I fail to see how I am angry.

Many nurses side with you. Many nurses don't. Whats your point?

Perhaps I don't read pro life signs? Its kind of hard to NOT see them, when people hold them in my face and call me a whore for going to work, tell me that Jesus hates me, I deserve to die, and all sorts of hateful ignorance. And why would I need to see a picture (probably a fake one at that) when I have seen it with my own eyes?

Granted, its sad, and its not pretty... no surgery is pretty. But I have also seen before my eyes girls who have intentionally overdosed on drugs to try to have a miscarriage, girls who cut themselves or attempted suicide upon finding out they were pregnant, one girl who went to an ethnic medicine woman who inserted an onion soaked in hot pepper juice in her vagina to cause a "natural" miscarriage, I've seen the autopsy photos of newborns who were dumped in bags or thrown out windows because the girl was too ashamed to admit she was pregnant.

Why are you insinuating that I referred to a fetus as a blood clot? I never did, in fact, you're the only one who has referred to it as such.

You also completley ignored everything I said about HIPAA and rape reporting in ERs, which makes me think you are probably not really a nurse...besides the fact that even the pro-life nurses I've encountered in my life have been kind and used intelligence and understanding to communicate their point rather than venom and name-calling.

You also failed to explain to me how I assist in "ripping babies to shreds" from the patient education department which happens to be on a different floor - depending on the day, sometimes in an entirely different building. Also, abortions are only performed on Saturdays. I don't work on weekends, and I assure you, I have no magic powers. Just an education.

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 5:51 PM


Hey Amanda,I don't applaud you. I am an Oncology nurse.Do you sit down with each abortion patient and let them know about the increased risk of breast CA linked to abortion? Do you leave that part out to help sell abortions?How about cervical CA and lacerations.Are you just a big liar like the rest of these clinic workers?Good news is these clinics are shutting down.Oh ya,Amanda do you see women after abortion with PAS? What do you do in cases like these?

Posted by: A real nurse at March 7, 2007 5:59 PM


A real nurse-

First, I find it very interesting that you have the same no-spaces-between-sentences writing style as Lee. Fascinating.

Second, most cervical cancer is caused by several strains of HPV. I've never heard of any cases of abortion causing cervical cancer. Would you like to send me an (un-biased) source on that?

Posted by: Diana at March 7, 2007 6:07 PM


I applaud Amanda. She's out on the front lines trying to make life better for people. She's not standing on a high horse ranting and raving about the precious fetii and claiming to know what is best for every individual based on a few generalizations and propagated lies.

Anyone who suggests that she is trying to "sell abortions" needs to pull their head out of that rather unsanitary place it is currently located.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 6:08 PM


"Dr. Tiller, nominated as the worst American of us all."

The man served for years as a Navy flight surgeon, keeping pilots alive and ready for duty. Yeah, he's a terrible American.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 6:09 PM


Amanda is definitely awesome. She's one of the most educated people that has posted on this board and the one making the most difference in the world! ^_^

Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 6:14 PM


Hey Zurg-Being respectful over human remains?Who created those remains?A murderer abortionist.He took that little baby that God created and tore it limb from limb.You people are wrong. The majority is pro-life.Women that I know who have had abortions regret them.When I ask people how they feel about abortion they reply "It's murder" It is!Most women I have spoken to with PAS say that PP turned a deaf ear to them when they needed help.They found love and support in pro life groups.They turned from their selfish ways and repented.Only then will the post abortive woman find healing.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 7, 2007 6:15 PM


What's up with people on this blog not using spaces after their periods?

Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 6:17 PM


"You people are wrong. The majority is pro-life."

ORLY?

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE � 3.

"Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?"


Would Would Not Unsure
29 62 9

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 6:18 PM


Hippa is patient confidentiality Amanda. Amanda is not awsome.She assists in murdering babies for her weekly pay.

Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2007 6:19 PM


"What's up with people on this blog not using spaces after their periods?"

I think they might be the same person. The general claims and writing styles are the same.

Remember, I am the Antrollpologist.

Posted by: Landon the Great at March 7, 2007 6:19 PM


"Women that I know who have had abortions regret them."

And I know women, including myself, who don't regret it at all. Who feel they made the right decision. The fact that people sometimes make a decision that is not right for them is no reason to take away the choice.

"When I ask people how they feel about abortion they reply "It's murder" It is!"

Is this an argument from the idea that people feel a certain way about abortion to the fact that it is that way? Then the conclusion does not follow from the premise

"Most women I have spoken to with PAS say that PP turned a deaf ear to them when they needed help."

I find that very difficult to believe, given that PP is dedicated to helping women. Follow up appointments are there for a reason.

Posted by: Diana at March 7, 2007 6:20 PM


Diana and Danielle,you both seem to need some attention.Tell me do you know anything about PAS?Please do elaborate.

Posted by: Andrea at March 7, 2007 6:22 PM


Andrea-

Some attention? I hope that wasn't meant to be demeaning.

I've heard of "PAS". I haven't seen it personally, nor have I seen a single unbiased study demonstrating 1) that it is a true medical condition and 2)that it is prevalent among women who've had abortions. Even then, I don't see the move from "Some women feel bad after they've aborted" to "Abortion should be illegal". Some women suffer PPD, should pregnancy and childbirth be illegal?

Posted by: Diana at March 7, 2007 6:25 PM


Landon,perhaps I am the same person.What's it to you? You have too much time on your hands.What do you have to add to this blog other than taking note of other people's posts?

Posted by: A real nurse at March 7, 2007 6:27 PM


"Amanda is not awsome.She assists in murdering babies for her weekly pay."


Perhaps you do not know what an intern is.

I do not get paid.


You still haven't responded to a single point that I've made, besides continuing to retort with childish name calling.

Very interesting.

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 6:29 PM


I wish I had too much time on my hands. This is more of an idle amusement for me than anything. As noted earlier, the true fight rages elsewhere.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 6:31 PM


Well Amanda,perhaps you are becoming a doctor or a nurse practitioner.I really don't care.I am tired and I am going to put my children to bed.I can't change your view and you can't change mine.I am going to shut my eyes tonight knowing that I never killed anyone or assisted in their death.The rest is up to God.I just get so upset and cringe when I think of babies being ripped from their mother's wombs.It is horrible and I pray that it will be illegal one day.God bless to all.

Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2007 6:41 PM


Who's ripping babies out of wombs? I'm pretty sure it's a fetus being removed, not a baby.

It's very hard to take people seriously when they can't even use the correct terminology.

Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 6:54 PM


The mental image of one-year-old babies trying desperately to escape the clutches of a cigar-chomping, mustachio-twirling "abortionist" has a strong influence on the weak minded.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 6:59 PM


Amanda - you go girl! Way to stand up for what you believe in, even in the face of ignorance. You're absolutely awesome.

And thank you to Dr. Tiller for making abortion a choice for so many women struggling to make a decision that is often times the hardest they have ever made.

Posted by: Wren at March 7, 2007 7:00 PM


"Jill, I am a nurse like you.I don't give a damn what these pro aborts say. Don't let them rattle you.They are evil people that are in need of prayer. They are wicked! They should do some researching on abortion before spouting off about things they know nothing about. We know the truth. Look at an aborted baby once and get back to me. Women that don't regret their abortions make terrible mothers anyway. Please do us a favor and get fixed! Jill I applaud you."


"Evil" "wicked" "truth" "prayer"
Thanks for shoving the religion down our throats, Cathy.
Nurse or not, you don't have a choice on another woman's bodily autonomy. This goes for you, Jill, too. Just because you have been trained in the medical profession does not give you the right to make a decision for a woman that involves her body, which, coincidentally, pregnancy does. Even a doctor cannot decide for a woman. A doctor, not an "abortionist".

It doesn't matter if something is "innocent" as you so deem. If it is using the resources and suffering of another being to survive, it doesn't have a right to continue living if the person it is leeching from does not want it there. A woman's uterus belongs to her. Mandating that she allow a biological freeloader to usurp control of her uterus, HER property, is mandating that her body be government property. Maybe it does have a right to live, but it doesn't have that right if it is causing pain/suffering to the being that provides its life support and doesn't want it to do so (i.e. the mother).

That said, I am not "pro-abortion". I just think that the right to bodily autonomy and the choice of what one allows to be done to his or her body is paramount over the rights of a being trying to usurp control over said body, whether it be aware of said takeover or not. Innocence has no bearing on it, and you do not have any right to control or use my body for your benefit if I do not grant you the right to do it. The same goes for a fetus.

feedback?

Posted by: Alyssa at March 7, 2007 7:03 PM


"It doesn't matter if something is "innocent" as you so deem. If it is using the resources and suffering of another being to survive, it doesn't have a right to continue living if the person it is leeching from does not want it there. A woman's uterus belongs to her. Mandating that she allow a biological freeloader to usurp control of her uterus, HER property, is mandating that her body be government property. Maybe it does have a right to live, but it doesn't have that right if it is causing pain/suffering to the being that provides its life support and doesn't want it to do so (i.e. the mother)."

Thank you Alyssa. I get so fed up with all the arguments about personhood and "does the fetus have rights or doesn't it". But when it comes down to it, inuitively, even another person, with all the rights that come with that status, doesn't have the right to leech off your body without your permission - even for their own survival.

Posted by: Diana at March 7, 2007 7:07 PM


So you were awake enough to call me names and make baseless, uneducated accusations, yet when it comes to addressing the points I brought up and engaging in a productive debate, you were too tired.

I also have to address what you said about changing minds...

Along with 2 other college educated women, I run an online forum to educate people about reproductive rights. As of tonight, the group has over 93 thousand members. Between the three of us, we have recieved multiple emails from men and women who did indeed change their minds after being better informed. I also helped to facilitate a meeting between the Pro Life and Pro Choice groups on my campus, with the intention of finding common ground - instead of using insults, propaganda, or advocating violence as many of you have, many members of the campus pro life group came to the meeting with open minds and dialogue, so we were able discuss how to reduce abortion using methods beyond laws and punishment. The information my classmates and I shared at that meeting helped me form the curriculum I plan to impliment once I finish my Masters Degree.

So in a way you are right - when people call one another names, use sarcasm, condemn people they don't even know, judge them, hate them, and advocate violence - no one's mind will change. But with responsible conversation, respect, compassion, and knowledge - you'd be surprised at how easy it is to get along and work together for a greater good.

Posted by: Amanda at March 7, 2007 7:14 PM


@Mom of 3: http://imnotsorry.net

"They turned from their selfish ways and repented."
How selfish of people to want autonomy over their bodies. Hey, if you won't be using your uterus, I want to rent out the space for storage. You're a portable safety deposit box, it's amazing. And if you say "no, you have no say over what happens in my body", you're damn right and you're claiming the same right to bodily autonomy that you'd deny to hundreds of thousands of women.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 7:17 PM


Besides, that Cathy has some nerve for saying that all women who abort and don't feel bad about it would make terrible mothers. Wow.


Cathy, I dare you to say that to the face of a mother who had a previous abortion. You're an abomination.


Posted by: Alyssa at March 7, 2007 7:19 PM


Funny how 'Mom' hasn't posted again after claiming that the majority of the people in the country are pro-life. Understandable, if I made a fraudulant claim and then moments later had the truth come back showing that not only was I kind of wrong, I was VERY wrong, I would feel horribly stupid and uninformed as well.

Oh, and I showed the article on how real men beat women to my sisters friend who is a priest, and very pro-lifer, and he said he was disgusted by Jill Stanek and ashamed that she considered herself pro-life. He actually said he'd rather have her on our side. I laughed and told him we didn't want her. Very strong words from a priest, no?

Anyway, I am done on here, and will sleep well knowing that the issue at hand is well protected and we are right.

-Erik

Posted by: Erik at March 7, 2007 7:45 PM


Hi Eric, Alyssa ...

I've been going over several threads here ... and the pro-aborts posts leave me very 'cold' and the pro-lifers seem to be massively confused by the emptiness. It is somewhat similar to taking rides at a 'fun park' ... while a few love the wild/different thrill-rides, many others relish terra firma.

There are a few things to help the situation: understand that the American constitution is not (and was never) designed as a replacement for religious experience. It is a very poor help in developing human-identity but good at self-identity (as in isolation) .

The core of the Christian life-experience is denoted by the simple words 'one' and 'in'. As ... 'I and Abba are one.' or, 'He is in me and I in Him'. Love is a community reality. Describing any human being as a 'leech' shakes my sense of human-identity to the quick. All human beings (including pro-choicers) are my brothers and sisters.

Can I expect that both you are I are attempting to achieve a much better world or, should I expect a knife-in-my-back? The most profound experience I understand is the bonding of identical twins, closely followed by the bond between a mother and her child. Too often that bond seems remote ... then let's attempt to fix the problem .... trying to destroy the bond by claiming life for a babe but worthless (a leech) is highly troublesome. Especially when knowing that the fetus actively sends stem cells into its mother, to repair organ defects.

Naming such a relationship as ownership ... as if your body is a possession distinct from you is even more frightening ... I took this years ago in a philosophy course, but knew no one who actually lived as a robot. The person who chooses to live this way cannot accept simple love of self.... as Cybill did (in the movie) ... cannot hug themselves.

(Editing disabled while spellchecking)
Stop spell checking

Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 9:45 PM


First let me thank you, John, for being civil towards myself and Erik. It is much appreciated.

However, I fail to see how a uterus is NOT property of the woman in which it "resides". Do you have the right to use any part of my body for your personal survival if I do not allow it? No. Why? Because any part of my body is my property, and property is an unalienable right. My uterus is an organ that belongs to me, my body, and I have the right to determine what does and does not use it to survive. I can choose to submit myself to suffering to bring a fetus to term (in fact, I plan on being a mother one day...when I'm ready, not when the government or pro-lifers decide I'm ready). I do not, however, have to feel that I am obligated to endure pain and suffering to grant life to another being, regardless of how it came to be dependent on my body, my property, my suffering.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 7, 2007 9:57 PM


Oh, but I do love myself. I have deep respect for myself, my powers as a woman, and my abilities as a human being. I do not, however, love and value myself just because I can bear children. I love being who I am because I am granted rights to decide when to become a professional in a career field, a student in college, or a mother. I would not love being who I am if fundamental rights, especially rights to my own person and bodily integrity, were infringed upon.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 7, 2007 10:04 PM


Hi again Alyssa,

I do not want to go on and on ad nauseum ... I am not a teacher. However, I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to word use. Why not try joy, peace, happiness, courage, hope, ... love, intimacy and such to describe human relationships ... loosen-up ... instead of fearfully anticipating carrying a leech ... so then you are the mother of a leech, try instead 'hoping to be Mom to my precious babe'. The very same scenario gives rise to a whole different approach. Do you believe he/she deserves less than your deepest cherishing? You CAN do this!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 10:35 PM


just read you post, Alyssa,

try to understand that being a mother might be equivalent to a career, but being some-one's Mom is in a whole different league ... "Mom" and "mother" are very, very different realities.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 10:50 PM


@John: not all unexpected pregnancies result from relationships that are accurately described by "love" and "intimacy". Also, as cool as babies are, they're expensive.
That amount of money (and time/effort, medical bills, the myriad of things that can go wrong with even the healthiest pregnancy, PPD, etc) are not "joys" to one not ready to handle them. Most pro-choicers plan to have children at some point, but I myself am not going to drop everything to raise a kid because my gf's pill nailed that 0.1% chance, nor would I be reasonable to ask a woman to do so on my account.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 10:55 PM


link which didn't work: http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 10:56 PM


Clarification: "I myself am not going to drop everything to raise a kid" RIGHT NOW. Give me a couple years to finish college, find the proper girl to settle down with, get a real job, set some cash aside, etc., then I'll gladly have a kid on my terms.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 11:03 PM


Hi ZuRG,

I'm (literally) on my way out! so relationships have become extremely important. Just last week, a buddy hoped he would be 'getting lucky' on his date. But figured for me, 'getting lucky' was just having someone (anyone!) to chat with. So what do I know, eh?

Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 11:21 PM


It means different things for different people. How important were relationships to you a month ago? Did that affect your thoughts on these issues? What might that suggest?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 11:28 PM


Hi again ZuRG,

I think perhaps a change of mindset might be ripe for you ... in describing those words, I was not at all thinking of man-woman relationships but more of child-to-parent (specifically Mom). However, the same applies to "Daddy" as well.

a Father sires a child; Daddy raises him! ::: a saying to think about!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 11:43 PM


@John: I applied the terms to both categories of relationships, both man-woman and parent-child. I maintain that kids are great, but not necessarily if you're not ready to take on the task that awaits you.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 7, 2007 11:58 PM


Could someone on this board please explain to me the difference between a fetus and baby?I really want to know.

Posted by: Fawn at March 8, 2007 7:58 AM


Amanda, 3:13p; Diana, 3:39p; Jen, 5:10p; and Eric, 5:18p: Here is the source for the information I gave on rape and abortion: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69

This study found 75-80% of pregnant rape victims choose against abortion. Four reasons:

1) About 70% believe abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children.

2. Some believe their child's life may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

3. Victims of assault often become introspective. Their sense of the value of life and respect for others is heightened. They have been victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child through abortion is repulsive.

4. The victim senses if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem.

Another study (Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987)) found the "experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women... is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women."

Yet another study (4. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest: Giving and Taking Life" The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (eds. Mall & Watts, Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 84-85) found that "incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to an abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity."

Source for all: www.afterabortion.org/healing/index.htm

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 8, 2007 8:02 AM


John, again, you cannot deny that what a fetus does to a woman's body is tantamount to "leeching". The point is, however,a woman may decide to nurture that fetus so that she may one day give birth to it and raise it lovingly as her child. A woman may also decide that she is not ready to sacrifice herself for nine months through pain and her own suffering to nurture another being. That is the beauty of pro-choice. A woman's body is still her own. No one, not even her future child, should be given rights over it even to survive, unless she truly wants to sacrifice herself. That's the meaning of motherhood, willing sacrifice. Not grudgingly because someone else wants you to.

I plan on sacrificing my body someday to bring a child into this world. I will do it willingly and lovingly. But I will also only do it when I am ready and on my own terms, because it is not anyone else's body that suffers to do so but my own. And believe me, after nine months of nurturing something, there will be a bond...and I will love that baby like no other.

But that's my choice. I will CHOOSE to love and care for another being, and I will not judge others who decide it's not the right time for them to do so. See the difference?

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 8:20 AM


For Erik-Please don't reproduce.You sound really immature and selfish.I was going to post again.So here I am. Don't be so silly as to think I would back away form you and your lame arguement.The people that I speak to tell me that they are pro-life.Tell me,what is the difference between a baby and a fetus?Also please tell me why you feel that the pics. of dead babies are fake. They look darn real to me.I'll wait for your reply.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 8:28 AM


How is a child leeching? This is the problem I have with pro-choice arguements.OK-It's my body as a woman.I made a choice to have sex. I am smart enough to know that sex produces children.The condom breaks.Now there is a child in my womb.It's now mine.Now am I going to kill the child because of my choice to have sex?My irresponsible behavior.I am excluding cases of rape.If a cop pulled me over for a DUI,there are consequences.In life there are consequences for our actions.I don't want murder on my record.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 8:41 AM


Mom-

Just because the people you speak to say they are pro-life does not mean you can make a statement like, "The majority is pro-life," when it is TOTALLY INCORRECT.

And if you think pro-lifers don't use fake pictures that just showed how incredibly uneducated you are on all aspects of this argument. Do they only use fake pictures? No. Are the majority of the pictures fake? Not sure. But they do use FAKE pictures, which is tantamount to the pro-life movement using PROPAGANDA. Which is wrong.

As far as me reproducing you can sleep soundly knowing that I fully intend on reproducing and instilling in my children the values I have, such as allowing a woman complete dominion over her body.

-Erik

Posted by: Erik at March 8, 2007 8:55 AM


Oh,Erik-Wait.You forgot to tell me what the difference was between a baby and a fetus.I'm waiting for that. Also,where is your proof that the pics.are not real? Who told you they were fake? Are you in denial about how ugly abortion really is? What do you think it would look like? A bed of roses.Even Amanda says it's not a pretty site,and she works for an abortionist.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 9:27 AM


Mom-

The difference between a fetus and an infant is that a fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body whereas an infant is not. A baby is no longer dependant upon another persons body, a fetus is.

http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html

The above is a link to site regarding several of the more "popular" photos used by pro-lifers and Dr.s and other specialists as to why they are fake. Sometimes they merely take one abortive late-term procedure that really can be quite visually unpleasant to see, and label it as the norm when actually late-term third-trimester abortions make up an incredibly small percentage of abortions.

And thank you, I know abortions aren't pretty. I am not as blind to the truth of a situation as most pro-lifers are. Abortion isn't pretty, it isn't fun, no one acts like it is. But just because something is disturbing viscerally has nothing at all to do with the reality of the issue. That is like showing pictures of dead soldiers in WW II and saying, "Oh my lord! Look how bloody and terrible this is! We must stop it!"

So, now that I have refuted everything you have said you can go ahead and apologize for lying about the majority of the population being pro-life, because that really made you look stupid.

-Erik

Posted by: Erik at March 8, 2007 9:42 AM


Erik,while your at it,run the names of these abortionists. Brian L.Finkle,Edward Allred,George Tiller,LeRoy Carhart.See for yourself how these perverts really feel about women.They hate us! I can give you more,but begin with these.Please don't tell me it's fake either.If you think it is,then please tell me why is Brian Finkle in prison.He's not in there for the heck of it.I'm sure the state of Arizona had a good reason.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 9:43 AM


You are trying to generalize doctors who perform abortions by pointing out a few bad apples? Want me to get a list of dentists or others doctors who have molested women while they incapacitated? It would be a list equal to if not greater to that. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever about the issue at hand.

Nice try though.

Posted by: Erik at March 8, 2007 9:49 AM


Erik,I took the time to go to your posted pic site.I have seen the pics of Gerri before many times.Former abortionist Bernard Nathanson explains that the facts were distorted by NARAL when it came to the number of illegal abortions being performed.Check out the Cemetery of Choice site.It will give you the names and details of women that are dying today from legal abortions.Personally,I see no difference.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 9:56 AM


Wow ... I really wanted to read this comment thread, but I lost patience. Jill really needs to ban a few more trolls, IMO.

---

On the original topic, I just can't go along with the idea of "safe" abortions when such shocking cases keep being discovered. Wasn't legal abortion supposed to save women's lives? (Except for the unborn women, I suppose.) Wasn't legal abortion supposed to put the back-alley butchers out of business?

Instead, it seems that legalization simply allowed the back-alley butchers to lease some office space on Main Street and become respectable businessmen.... :(

That said, I'd like to pass along a word of warning to some of the more caustic pro-life commenters (and perhaps to Jill herself): Abortionists are not your enemy. I know, I know ... it certainly seems like they are the Badguys here. And yet, many of them are suffering as they work in the business of death. Many of them are trapped -- either by conscience or circumstance -- in abortion. Read Dr. MacNair's book Achieving Peace in the Abortion War.

For those of you who are Christian, consider the following:
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12)

Posted by: Naaman at March 8, 2007 10:02 AM


Well, since I have answered everything you have asked me and all you can come back with is, "Well so-and-so said the facts were distorted," I can only assume you are at wits end. Not only that, but you cannot even admit that you blatantly lied. I wish people could just accept that abortions are just an unfortunate fact of life, no one likes them, but it is a womans right to choose. In any case I have made my point, and the only thing I have gotten back is links to propaganda sites and emotionally-blinded arguments. So, in the end, I am glad that the majority is pro-choice and that roe v. wade will stand. I will not be patronizing Jill Stanek's website any longer because while I don't mind debating the abortion issue, doing so on the website of a woman who advocates the beating of women makes me feel ill.

-Erik

Posted by: Erik at March 8, 2007 10:04 AM


Jill -

Your most recent source is more than 20 years old, and the two other ones are 30 years old.

If you're a nurse, you know as well as I do that medical/psychological studies get outdated VERY quickly these days and are usually re-examined every decade or so.

For example, plenty of studies that came out around 1987 projected that the AIDS virus would affect gays and Haitians with little impact on heterosexual whites. They were wrong.

Do you have ANYTHING recent, or do all of the new studies contradict what you're saying?

Posted by: Amanda at March 8, 2007 10:15 AM


You go, girl! I'm sending this one to all my friends. You are my all time FAVORITE columnist.

Posted by: Peg at March 8, 2007 11:04 AM


Oh Erik Please.I'm glad you're leaving. Where are your facts? Did you even bother to run the names of the abortionists? Let's see how many dentists you have for me. Let's see how they compare to the number of abortionists. You give me proof that CHOICE is ahead of the game.Let's say it was.It still doesn't make it okay.So give me several names of dentists,and I'll be happy to look them up.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 11:05 AM


Amanda, I said it was the only major study ever done on rape/incest, pregnancy, and abortion. I included two other studies on more specific topics within that one that corroborated it.

I don't know why the feelings of rape/incest victims would change. It certainly would not be that abortion is more accepted today. It's actually more contentious today than it was then.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 8, 2007 11:07 AM


Thank you. Abortion is such a vile act! Your article was a very good way to point out the monstrous things those people do. Many condemn the Nazis for the six million Jews who were killed under their regime while condoning the murder of fifty million or so children under the "Pro-Choice" rubric.

Please continue to cover cases where abortion chop shops have been successfully shut down.

Posted by: Greg at March 8, 2007 11:09 AM


I can tell you that the Metropolitan Clinic in New Jersey is closed after almost killing a 20 year old. Also,Dr.Ruddock's clinic in Ohio closed due to numerous health code violations. I hope the young lady suing Metropolitan wins a bundle.

Posted by: Jacki at March 8, 2007 11:20 AM


Dr.Ruddock/abortionist.Closed for numerous health code violations.Metropolitan/abortion center.New Jersey.-Closed.Botched 2 abortions.Killed 1 woman and almost killed another.

Posted by: Rachel at March 8, 2007 11:24 AM


lets try yet another tac OK Alyssa and Erik,

we do not seem to be going anywhere with Alyssa's tight determination of what constitutes 'self'. [Believe me, Alyssa I do understand your reasoning precisely because I once thought that way too.]

I have over some decades become increasingly disabled and this has forced me to reassess some very basic views. If these basic & incorrect precepts are held fast, they block a growth to freedom ... and in this sense such views are myopic ...

One such view which many American feminists would balk at is that their view on independence is one of these myopic tenents. Ad nauseum I have heard the preamble to the American Constitution - 'all men are created equal'- I've got little trouble understanding that all of us are created, but 'equal' ... nada! [I'll wager that you thought I would post about the rights of the child-in-the-womb vs the wishes (rights) of her Mom.]

In our day, the prevailing view of the human is that of 'independence'. All the universe ... every speck (including humans) are 'unique' beings ... not 'equal'. The word 'equal' is a comparative reality. How can some-thing be both unique and equal? Answer: not possible.

There are a whole bunch of changes that come from this kind of perception: a) the whole American constitution is much different than assumed. It is the Constitution of a republic (power) mainly, and very little about a democracy. ... there are very profound changes in many of our base relations.

For instance, the word to replace 'independence' is the way our whole society operates, with 'inter-dependence'. I love to use the example of simple shoelaces, as a product on inter-dependence in action ... our 'independence' consists of tying-them-ourselves [exactly as Dad taught us].

For the Christian, Jesus admonished us not to judge others [classify them as 'equals'] but to care for the 'other as yourself'... because we are unique but reliant on each other and we are committing suicide if the kill our children.

"Ah, just won't happen, John!" It happens in-me ... will this happen in you, too?

Posted by: John McDonell at March 8, 2007 11:33 AM


I think Greg just got Godwinned.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 8, 2007 11:33 AM


I was once an abortionist's client.

Sorry, I'm not able to nominate him for an award because I never knew his name and can not even recall seeing his face. But he did a real bang-up job.

Because of it, my uterus was shortly afterwards removed - ending my reproductive rights! So much for abortion being for reproductive rights.

Having been through the "mill," I know that my choice of legal abortion was a devastating, tragic "poor-choice." I would not recommend it for anyone!

Posted by: Myra at March 8, 2007 11:39 AM


Myra,I am so sorry to hear this. Thanks for sharing. This is happening more and more often than people would like to think.I hope you're ok.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 11:45 AM


Ok, John, so what you are trying to say is that since everyone is dependent on someone else in some way, that we should view the fetus as just another person who is dependent on its mother to grow?

I don't see the point, however, since dependence on someone else's body is different than dependence on, say, their patronage. Inter-dependence aside, yes, I depend on others to achieve a certain quality of life. But do I live off of their individual bodies? NO. That, my dear, is where inter-dependence breaks off. That is where true independence takes over, because if someone has lost complete control of their bodily integrity to another being, then no true independence and liberties can be achieved. A person's body is the only thing that they can truly have as their own. A car can be stolen. A house can burn down. But a body, no matter how incapacitated or disabled, will always be the sole property of the person that possesses it. That is the truly independent object. Just because it is my "child" that needs it to survive doesn't mean that I should be forced to sacrifice the one thing that is truly mine in the whole world. Inter-dependence ends at my body. That ability to decide what happens in and to my body is the most important. Not the "inter-dependence" of another being who may have to use my body to survive.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 11:50 AM


"I don't know why the feelings of rape/incest victims would change. It certainly would not be that abortion is more accepted today. It's actually more contentious today than it was then."

Jill, can you give me an unbiased source for this claim? Because it seems to me that the past thirty years have, thankfully, despite the attempts of some, seen the rise of the self-sufficiency of women and a greater acceptance of the rights of women. Thus it seems to me that more women today would feel comfortable terminating an unwanted pregnancy than may have felt that way 30 years ago.

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 12:03 PM


Alyssa,So you say that your body is the only thing you can call your own. Well,aren't you protecting it? Why would you want to put your body through an invasive,surgical procedure? Why would you want to risk a lifetime of possible emotional/physical suffering all because of an abortion? That would be bad for the body and soul. Why would you have sex with someone that you refuse to have babies with? Once that child has implanted,it isn't your body anymore.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 12:08 PM


"Once that child has implanted,it isn't your body anymore."

Mom- So if you wake up tomorrow to find that you have been plugged into a grown adult who will die if you detach him from you (he is using your body to survive), then it isn't your body anymore? You have an obligation to allow this person to use your body?

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 12:22 PM


"Why would you want to put your body through an invasive,surgical procedure?"

Every single surgical procedure is invasive to some extent. Abortion, especially early on, is statistically safer than childbirth, with its myriad of complications. Mistakes happen, but they happen in every medical field. They MUST be corrected, but right now, they do occur.

"Why would you want to risk a lifetime of possible emotional/physical suffering all because of an abortion? "

I'll turn that question around. Why would I risk the destruction of my entire life, both mentally, socially, economically, and possibly physically for a fetus that was placed inside me without my consent?

"Why would you have sex with someone that you refuse to have babies with?"

Wasn't my choice. But, once again, sex is not a contract for pregnancy. It is what we make of it.

"Once that child has implanted,it isn't your body anymore."

I resent that. If it's not my body, what's the point? I am an individual person, with my own dreams, hopes, and fears. I am not a walking incubator.

Posted by: Erika at March 8, 2007 12:22 PM


All surgical procedures carry a risk. Oh, maybe I shouldn't have had my knee surgery, because there was a risk I might never walk again. Just because of the occasional medical accident, you think that all abortions will end that way. I feel terribly for the women that are harmed during these procedures, but the fact still remains that ANY medical procedure carries risks. I've been through invasive procedures. Don't tell me that I shouldn't have taken those risks. And don't tell me, or anyone else, how they should feel about an abortion. Someone close to me has had one. She isn't scarred for life. Just because there is a CHANCE of that happening, doesn't mean that all women will experience it.

Why do I want to face nine months of possible emotional/physical suffering all because of a pregnancy? People lose the function of their uteruses due to pregnancy too, not just abortion. My mother's best friend has a hysterectomy because the pregnancy RUINED her body. Pregnancies are much more dangerous than abortions so don't give me your crap about "possible physical/emotional harm".


And who are you to tell anyone who to have sex with? You don't have to want to have babies with someone to love them. Even married people who don't want children still want to have sex. I know of several older married couples who never wanted children, but it's obvious they don't have to abstain from sex. The same goes for people who love one another and have sex. They don't need a child to validate their love.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 12:29 PM


Scratch that, I should've said a "lifetime" of possible emotional/physical suffering because of pregnancy. Not nine months. My mother's friend has never been able to recover fully from the havoc the pregnancy wreaked on her body. My God, you people all think the fetus is the only one a pregnancy affects.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 12:34 PM


I wouldn't tell you who to have sex with Alyssa That's up to you. An abortion is an invasive "elective" procedure. It is not something that you need. You should be preventing an unwanted pregnancy instead of terminating it. If you are sleeping with someone and the condom breaks,then why are you spreading your legs if having a baby with him is the worst thing that could happen.This is where taking control of your body comes in. How about respect for yourself? At 1 month of pregnancy I heard my baby's heart beating.That wasn't my heart.Not the heart of a parasite either{how dare Gloria Steinem and Elanore Smeal]2 liars.As far as problems in pregnancy-Well it happens.Things happen in life every day but it never gives us the right to kill anyone.That's just the way I feel.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 1:00 PM


How is having sex with ANYONE disrespectful to myself if I willingly choose to? Babies aren't the reason the sex is occurring. If pregnancy accidentally happens, it is my choice whether or not I'm ready to become a mother. That's the beauty of pro-choice. I can willingly sacrifice my body for a child I CHOOSE to bring into the world. Sex isn't beautiful just because babies can result. Babies aren't always a blessing to a relationship. I can spread my damn legs to the man I love without wanting to bear a child. I want to love him, not any potential child such a union might or might not result in. A baby might not be the "worst thing that could happen". But it still might not be welcome. Period.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 1:16 PM


Alyssa & Erika,

I'm not trying to impose a 'strange - foreign' thing here. We are by nature not independent but inter-dependent beings. I use the shoelace as only one analogy ... but this extends in all kinds of directions: INTELLECTUAL - who taught you language, dance, art, ... music, science, reasoning + + + who we are (and become) comes from other people ... we can choose which ideas seem to suit, and we do the same for words themselves ... do you know anyone who actually refuses (chooses not) to communicate????????????????
PHYSICAL - this is likely the easiest to refute. We somehow imagine that we are somewhat separate (independent beings) from our environment. Our bodies are a slew of chemicals ... not put together by us, and reacting to stimuli most of it not-originating from us either. Do I own the air I breath, then maybe the sun I play under .... the whole concept of ownership and property are learned realities and have less credence than 'equality'[from the 15th century - Descartes] One does not own their body; their spouse; their children ... in any form. Maybe reflect on how porous you body actually is ... then perhaps these firm concepts of 'independence' will disappear like a storm cloud. My logic is sound (and you know it). Your quest for uniqueness is not found in 'independence' ... that's illusive.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 8, 2007 1:53 PM


So a casual romp in the hay is okay? However you respect your body sooooo much. I'll bet it's a classic case of "Why buy the Cow when the milk is free" Such respect for that body of yours. Odd you never mentioned a husband. Well,now I get it.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 2:31 PM


Mom- Why is that casual romp in the hay indicative of disrespect for one's body? I'd really like to hear this. Because it seems like you're assuming that chastity and purity are indicative of respect for one's body. But chastity and purity became "virtues" because men had to ensure that their bloodline was being passed on, that their heirs were really theirs.

So what is the real reason for claiming that an act of consensual protected casual sex is disrespectful of one's body.

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 2:40 PM



I'm in with Myra. No awards for the abortionists in my life. Don't know their names, they didn't bother to tell me. Don't know their faces, they showed up only for the actual taking of my child's life.

They didn't come back to check on me in recovery even though there were complications and one even thought he left a "piece" (suddenly a piece and not a "blob") and I had to go back in.
I could have gone toxic and died from that and they showed no urgency at all. In fact, I didn't see him when I went back. He wasn't there to check on me or explain anything to me.

No awards for those guys from me. Nope.

My best friend could no longer have children bc her abortionist damaged her uterus so badly. Hmm, no awards for him, either...

Certainly no awards for the abortionists whose patients have died as a result of bothced abortions. And there are MANY. Get the book, "LIME 5."

And the list goes on and on...

This is important - these men and women need prayer. They need Jesus Christ. They are going to need His mercy and forgiveness. We all need it.

Posted by: Caron at March 8, 2007 2:58 PM


Caron,I'm sorry for you as well.I will say this. To anyone that wants an abortion,there is not much that anyone can say or do to stop you.It's there so that you may live as you wish.However,I'm not going to ever have any respect for these men or women that choose to kill unborn babies for a living.

Posted by: momof3 at March 8, 2007 3:28 PM


@Caron: There's stages of progression for TSS, why cause undue stress at something that's not a concern in the immediate future? There's a problem, they're fixing it, and if they're freaking out about a 0.01% possibility, it'd just stress you out over something that's almost certainly nothing.

Any one of us could have a brain aneurysm, get hit by a bus, choke on a chicken bone, and die tomorrow, but if I spent all my time worrying about that I'd never leave the house--and I'd still be at risk from the chicken bone.

PS, several people have asked the difference between a fetus and a baby. It's birth.
@Mom: Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy (but if pregnancy is all you're concerned about, then you're giving equal permission for same-sex couples to hump like rabbits), and likewise, a baby is not a punishment for sinful couples. You seem to be coming off more anti-sex than pro-life, hun.
Babies are cool, but it'd be irresponsible of me to try to take on such an immense task with no planning, so I would (if I had a uterus) prevent this with birth control and, as a last resort, abortion. If you've got a way to get that z/e/f out without killing it, I'm open to suggestions, but right now it's all we have.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 8, 2007 3:51 PM


Side note, granted there's a couple dumbasses who profoundly mess up, but that's bound to happen in any field. A handful of people have gone in to get their wisdom teeth pulled, weren't properly monitored and drowned on their own saliva--but nobody's calling for the ban of dentistry, why not?

I'd wager that, proportionally, there are more pedophile priests than incompetent abortion clinicians anyway. What's your point?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 8, 2007 3:57 PM


So Zurg,you aren't denying that abortion is killing a baby.I'm sure you're in heaven knowing that any "piece" that comes your way could be persuaded into the abortion clinic if you failed to pull out in time.I really do understand why some men love abortion.Real men a repulsed by it.As you stated earlier,that's your back up last resort.

Posted by: Mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 4:41 PM


Pulling out is ineffective, sperm is also present in precum which can result in pregnancy without an ejaculation. I always use condoms. Properly.

I don't "love" abortion, but I think nobody should be forced to bear a pregnancy that they're not ready to handle. I'd rather prevent the entire issue to begin with via birth control, though.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 8, 2007 5:12 PM


You people act like when things go wrong in an abortion procedure it just proves how abortion is evil. Well what about other types of surgery that go wrong? You can't take one example and apply to an entire field.

My sister became extremely sick and was in the hospital for three weeks because of an horrible reaction to a type of medicine the doctor put her on, does that mean that doctor should no longer be able to practice? Of course not. Doctors are humans too. They do make mistakes.

In any surgery performed there are numerous things that can go wrong and doctors work their hardest to prevent this from happening.

Posted by: Danielle at March 8, 2007 5:37 PM


George Tiller has my respect, for two reasons:

1. He's very good at his job. If you need a late-term abortion, your reproductive organs are safe in Tiller's hands.

2. He has been shot by a right-to-life terrorist. Anyone dedicated enough to remain in business after being twice shot by a right-to-life terrorist deserves respect, even from his enemies.

It is noteworthy that although right-to-life terrorists shoot doctors every few years, no one has ever shot a right-to-lifer just for being a right-to-lifer. Will the violence remain one-sided, or will 2007 be the year the pro-choice movement runs out of patience and begins shooting back?

Posted by: Doctor Defense at March 8, 2007 5:38 PM


I know from experiencing the 'poor-choice' of abortion myself, that regardless of situation-circumstances, when women and men terminate a pregnancy, they become responsible for the death of their child...

Nothing wounds women and men like taking the life of your own child -

One day comes the realization -
"Oh God, I've murdered!"

There is no other, Who can forgive and heal -

"Before I formed You in your mother's womb, I Knew you...you were in My Care before you were born...I have Loved You with an Everlasting Love; therefore, with Loving Kindness have I drawn you to Myself...Come unto Me, all you who are weary and heavy laden...as many as receive Me, JESUS, I give the power to become children of God...anyone who hears My Words and believes in Him, Who sent Me, shall not come into condemnation but has already passed from death to Life!...the wages of sin is death but the free-Gift of God is Eternal Life (now and forever) through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Is Jesus - my Lord, master, Savior?

He wants to be...ask Him to be...

be Forgiven and set Free

Posted by: Myra J. Myers at March 8, 2007 5:43 PM


Are you serious? He killed Christen Gilbert!!What is wrong with you people? How about Kelly? She went on TV to expose this idiot.So now what is she some paid actress or something? If anyone gave a sh** on this board you would be supporting people like Kelly.

Posted by: mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 5:48 PM


It's not a child, yet. Please use proper terminology.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 8, 2007 5:50 PM


Deuteronomy 27:25-Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person. That one is for the abortionists. Oh yes it is a person.

Posted by: mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 5:58 PM


Myra,I'm so glad you've turned away from supporting abortion.Every woman knows that the very core of her being is her womb.To have a child ripped from your womb is not natural or normal.The wrongs of abortion are all in the bible.Anyone who refuses to believe it is walking in their own selfish ways and beliefs.

Posted by: momof3 at March 8, 2007 6:05 PM


Exd 21:22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].

If a man causes a miscarriage, it's resolved with some gold. If it were considered a life, the consequences would be execution.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 8, 2007 6:06 PM


And what do we call inducing a miscarriage, class? Abortion.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 8, 2007 6:07 PM


PS I have never seen anyone holding up a sign that said:KEEP KNEE SURGERY SAFE AND LEGAL If abortion wasn't such a disgusting practice why would a sign be needed? Also it is not safe-just legal.

Posted by: mom of 3 at March 8, 2007 6:16 PM


Hey,Danielle abortion is and always will be an evil procedure.It is an elective procedure and it is a woman contracting with a doctor to kill her baby.The term baby killer has been around for a long time.I don't apologize for using it.I never did and I never will.Once a woman aborts she is a baby killer.Why should this upset them?They KNOW what they are. Even if people don't say it to their faces,it is said in hushed whispers.People know what abortion is.This is 2007.

Posted by: momof3 at March 8, 2007 6:28 PM


So by your reasoning, all abortions are performed by non-sterile institutions by quacks who know nothing? Yeah, ok. Considering a good friend of mine had one (I supported her wholeheartedly, even bought the pregnancy test and found numbers for her to call), she's completely healthy and perfectly able to bear children in the future under her own terms. You think I'd protect a fetus's rights over my own friend's? You have GOT to be kidding me. She deserved to be able to go to school and make a career and live her life the way she wanted. A kid was not part of that equation, and she DOESN'T have to sacrifice any of her body, even her WOMB, for it. I wouldn't expect her to sacrifice her body for ME if I needed it to survive. I respect her bodily integrity and rights over my own needs to survive. If she decided to allow me to use her kidney, that's her choice. CHOICE!!!


Besides, being awake during knee surgery lets you know it's definitely disgusting to watch. Any invasive surgical procedure is. Duh. Nutjob. It doesn't matter if it's on your womb or your knee.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 6:29 PM


You think knee surgery is puppies and licorice or something? It's because of the emotional attachment some people bestow upon themselves.

A properly performed abortion is safer than a routine pregnancy.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 8, 2007 6:29 PM


So Myra J. is a babykiller, too?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 8, 2007 6:30 PM


One patient death in your clinic does not mean your practice is unsafe. Not for someone in a surgical speciality like Dr. Tiller's.

Tiller knows more about how to protect his patients during late-term abortions than anyone.

I have not seen Kelly's testimony because I use an antique computer that doesn't show video. Does anyone know where I can get a transcript?

Posted by: Doctor Defense at March 8, 2007 6:38 PM


OK, I found a transcript on fOX web site. Sounds like Kelly didn't enjoy her abortion experience. But there's no reason to fault Tiller or any of the nurses in what she said. Most surgeons are impersonal with their patients. It's because they are very busy.

The point about Tiller is, if you're a doctor and you have a patient who needs a late-term abortion, for whatever reason, Tiller is one of the safest people you can send her to. Whatever happens during or after the surgery, he's seen it before. He knows how to kill the fetus without killing the patient, and how to get the dead fetus (all of it) out of the uterus with a minimum amount of stress on the patient's cervix and vagina.

Posted by: Doctor Defense at March 8, 2007 7:52 PM


Quote Alyssa:

However, I fail to see how a uterus is NOT property of the woman in which it "resides". Do you have the right to use any part of my body for your personal survival if I do not allow it? No. Why? Because any part of my body is my property, and property is an unalienable right. My uterus is an organ that belongs to me, my body, and I have the right to determine what does and does not use it to survive.

End Quote

Wow, Where do you live? Where I am, property is subject to government siezure and control all the time. They take a little of it every time I get some. And then they take some in sales tax when I use what's left to buy something. If I don't fork over a few thousand every year they come and take my house. If they decide that my neighborhood is historic they tell me what color I can paint my house and if I can have shutters or not. And if they decide they want to put a freeway or a library here, they can take my house and decide what to give me for it.

And, there are people surviving every day, without any approval from me, because the government takes part of the fruit of my labor, the result my physical exertion, and uses it for their benefit.
Worse, this extends to my actual person as well. Here, where I live, I can't put heroin into my body; and get this: in time of war, I can be taken from my home, put into field pack and helmet and made to march double-time into the sound of the guns.

Oddly enough, I'm OK with all this.

You might want to be careful using "unalienable" you are treading close to a place where there are moral absolutes. The Founding Fathers (who used "inalienable" by the way) linked these rights, in which they did not include property, closely to the phrase "Imbued by their Creator."

If there are absolute values, and I believe there are, one of the highest has to be the value of Human Life. Whether fetus or baby, it is biologically Human and it is definitely life. Deliberately killing it (and that's what we're talking about) is wrong. If it dies as result of some medical intervention to save the mother, that is tragic, but not necessarily wrong.

Conception must be regarded as a possible outcome of intercourse, and those that engage in it should be aware of this.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

God Bless You
Phil

Posted by: Papa Squash at March 8, 2007 9:08 PM


The difference between heroin and a fetus is that putting heroin INTO my body may cause it harm, and a fetus already IN my body my cause it harm. Taking it out of my body, my womb, is a conscious decision to protect myself and my property (you failed to see that I consider my BODY the only TRUE thing I own, money and other goods may be taken from me...they mean less than my only REAL possession). Abortions have always been proven statistically safer for women than full-term pregnancy and labor. I dare you to dispute that fact. Even so, any biological freeloader, whether it be adult, child, or fetus, has no right to live off of my BODY, and cause me pain or suffering, no matter if I had ALL-EVIL INTERCOURSE that may have caused it to be there. Eating pork may cause tapeworm eggs to be transported to my digestive system and I might contract tapeworm. It was my choice to eat the pork. But it's also my choice to preserve my bodily integrity. My body, my property. I don't care what you think, my body will NEVER be YOUR jurisdiction.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 9:24 PM


"The term baby killer has been around for a long time.I don't apologize for using it."

I'm a baby killer, then. I have never regretted my decision. I didn't want to be put in that position, but I made a hard choice and never looked back.

As a decent band once said, "God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes, 'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose."

Posted by: Erika at March 8, 2007 9:38 PM


Except it was "her shoes."

Dang. Self-pwn.

Posted by: Erika at March 8, 2007 9:42 PM


But it's also my choice to preserve my bodily integrity. My body, my property. I don't care what you think, my body will NEVER be YOUR jurisdiction.

Something you might want to remember this Easter Season...

"THIS IS MY BODY"

Did you ever realize that the same four words that were used by the Lord Jesus to save the world are also used by some to promote abortion? "This is my body." The same simple words are spoken from opposite ends of the universe, with meanings that are directly contrary to each other.

Scripture tells us that on the night before He died to save all people, the Lord Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "This is My Body, which is given up for you." He was pointing to what would happen the next day, when He would give that same Body on the cross. He sacrifices Himself so that we may live. He gives up His Body so that He can destroy the power of sin and death. As a result, He welcomes us into His life, into His Kingdom. He makes us members of His Body!

On the other hand, abortion supporters say, "This is my body. So don't interfere with it! It's mine, so I can do what I want, even to the point of killing the life within it. All is secondary to my dominion over my body." In fact one abortion supporter has written, "I say their (pro-lifers') God is worth nothing compared to my body" (Michelle Goldberg, "Rant for Choice," in University of Buffalo student newspaper, 1995).

"This is my body." Same words, different results. Christ gives His body away so others might live; abortion supporters cling to their own bodies so others might die. In giving His Body, Christ teaches the meaning of love: I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person. Abortion teaches the opposite of love: I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself!
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thisismy.html

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2007 9:43 PM


Jesus made his choice, women can make their own.

By the way, religious arguments hold no wait. Religion is fine for a personal code of morality, but enforcing it on all people is the height of arrogance.

Don't throw out the religious card.

Posted by: Erika at March 8, 2007 10:06 PM


Eesh, I can't type tonight.

Posted by: Erika at March 8, 2007 10:07 PM


I have some questions for those who are Pro-Abortion on here.....

---------

Are there any circumstances in which you would be against killing the baby in the womb? If so, what are they?

and what’s your position on partial birth abortion (killing the baby after it is three quarters born)? At what stage of life would you make killing someone illegal and why?

Would you be for making Abortuary’s contact the parents of a minor 48 hours before having an abortion?

Would you be for Illinois having “Choose Life” license plates and sending the proceeds to help adoption agencies? If not, why not?

Are you for chasitity education? Would you object to Jason Evert going into public high schools and giving this talk (listen at http://pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3 )? What did you think of the talk?

Are you against federal funds going to Crisis Pregnancy Centers?

Are you for a woman being able to do anything she wants with her body? If yes, then do you support legalizing protitution and all drugs?

Do you belong to any particular religion? If so, which one?

Are you for China’s one child per family policy? Do you think its OK to kill a baby in the womb based on their sex (male or female)?

I know this will never happen but let me ask you this scenerio anyhow. If it were proven homosexuality comes from a certain gene (which will never happen) — Would you be for killing the baby in the womb based on the baby having this certain gene? and please elaborate with your answer?

What do you think about the group Silent No More (women who had abortion(s) who want abortion made illegal)? Why do you think these women who once thought like you did want abortion made illegal?

Do you believe in killing the elderly if their “quality of life” is below your standards?

I would just like to know your opinion of these questions.

Thanks,

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2007 10:15 PM


I still have a few more questions to ask because I really want to try to understand your viewpoint on abortion. Here they are...

------------

Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?

Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing?

Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time?

Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. But is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?

We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?

Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?

If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics?

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a “legal right” to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already).

If it is true that “men cannot talk about abortion” because it’s a “women’s issue,” how come pro-abortionists have no problem accepting the ruling Roe v. Wade, which was exclusively made by men?

How come pro-abortion groups never would stand up and tell President Clinton it was wrong for him to cheat on his wife and mess around with another women (remember Monica Lewinsky)?

Why is it Pro-Lifers are the only group interested in saving the life of both the mother and the baby?

Are you OK with those who want to pray for women and their unborn babies at the Abortuary’s?

Are you OK with those showing pictures of what abortion looks like on college campuses? Why or why not?

Why is it 80+% of mothers intending on getting abortions change their mind and carry the baby to term after seeing the baby on ultrasound?

Do you know the story of Emmett Till and how his story started the civil rights movement?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947446/posts

Thanks,

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2007 10:26 PM


Not my jurisdiction.

I'm just pointing out that the government has, via military draft, shown that it is willing to take people (and their bodies) and force them to do things and that this is considered legally valid.

I've said nothing about the relative risks to the mother, and I have certainly never said intercourse is evil. in fact it is wonderful, but it is also a fact that it can lead to conception.

Posted by: Papa Squash at March 8, 2007 10:32 PM


and last...

-------

Why is it Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, millions of post abortive women from Silent No More, Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and many abortionists who were all once Pro-Abortion are now Pro-Life? Why is this?

The growing trend in America is many are becoming more and more Pro-Life especially our younger generation. The main group of people who want to keep abortion as a "choice" are those who lived during the Woodstock area. This group is aging and will soon be a dying breed. Therefore America will most likely become more and more Pro-Life and Roe v. Wade will soon be overturned.

My question to you is this -- Right now people are split roughly 50/50 on whether abortion should be legal or not in America. Since America is split right now whether or not "life exists" in the woman's womb, shouldn't the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT always go to the SIDE OF LIFE? Why or why not?

Have you watched the video “Silent Scream” on the internet which is narrated by Dr. Bernard Nathanson (one of the founding members of NARAL)

http://www.silentscream.org/

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2007 10:37 PM


"Are there any circumstances in which you would be against killing the baby in the womb? If so, what are they?"

---If the mother does not consent to it. Otherwise, she can control what happens inside her uterus. After 23 weeks or so, abortions should be performed at the discretion of and in consultation with a physician.

"and what’s your position on partial birth abortion (killing the baby after it is three quarters born)? At what stage of life would you make killing someone illegal and why?"

---You mean ID&X, right? PBA is a term thrown out to evoke emotional responses. By the way, I know the procedure, I don't need your description. Considering it is only used when the mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy, I have no problem with its current applications. As for what stage of life we can kill, that depends on the circumstances of the situation and who is doing the "killing"

"Would you be for making Abortuary’s contact the parents of a minor 48 hours before having an abortion?"

---Interesting term there. I'm wary of that, for the simple reason that there is a reason girls do would not want to tell their parents. I don't want to put them in a worse position than they are already in.

"Would you be for Illinois having “Choose Life” license plates and sending the proceeds to help adoption agencies? If not, why not?"

---If they are sold by the state, I would be against it. Same as if they were selling Pro-Choice plates. If it is a private thing, though, have at it.

"Are you for chasitity education? Would you object to Jason Evert going into public high schools and giving this talk (listen at"

--- I am against abstinence-only sex education. It can be taught, but needs to be taught as one of several options. There is nothing wrong with having sex, just as there is nothing wrong with choosing not to. Contraceptive strategies need to be taught and be made available, because like it or not, kids are going to get it on. People like that guy came to my Catholic high school, and people still *gasp* fornicated.

"Are you against federal funds going to Crisis Pregnancy Centers?"

---Depends. If the Centers are operated by a groups with religious affiliations (like most are), then yes, I am against it.

"Are you for a woman being able to do anything she wants with her body? If yes, then do you support legalizing protitution and all drugs?"

---I am for the legalization of prostitution. It is the "world's oldest profession", and will always be around. If properly regulated, we can help the people who find themselves in that profession get out of the gutter, in a sense. We can help avoid drugs and STD's while at the same time getting a nice revenue source for the government (taxes). As for drugs, marijuana should be legalized for the same basic regulatoru reasons. Harder stuff is interesting, but bears more thought an debate.

"Do you belong to any particular religion? If so, which one?"

---Used to be Catholic. I'm atheist/agnostic now.

"Ar Do you think its OK to kill a baby in the womb based on their sex (male or female)?"

---No. Aborting because of gender is not a good idea.

" know this will never happen but let me ask you this scenerio anyhow. If it were proven homosexuality comes from a certain gene (which will never happen) — Would you be for killing the baby in the womb based on the baby having this certain gene? and please elaborate with your answer?"

Nope. Homosexuality is part of a person's identity. I have no problem with homosexual people. I have several gay friends, and they are among the kindest people I have ever met. If people would just let them be themselves, I think they would realize that there is absolutely no sin in being gay. Aborting because the kid is gay is also not a good reason.

"What do you think about the group Silent No More (women who had abortion(s) who want abortion made illegal)? Why do you think these women who once thought like you did want abortion made illegal?"

---They have to right to make their opinions heard. I had an abortion and don't think that way, but that doesn't mean everyone will think like me. Personally, I believe (without any evidence, lol) that they have been told so many times that what they did was wrong that they have been convinced of it. Either that or they did not want to have an abortion in the first place and were coerced into it (that happens, and is reprehensible).

"Do you believe in killing the elderly if their “quality of life” is below your standards?"

---Not my standards, theirs. If someone wants to end their life, that is...of course...their decision. I support euthanasia if the patient gives consent. People claim that letting them suffer "respects their life" but what if that person wants to die? How much of a slap in the face is it to tell them that they can't make that decision because "we respect you."

Posted by: Erika at March 8, 2007 10:39 PM


Did you know there are over 750 Abortion Risks and Serious Complications to "legalized abortions" listed in Medical Literature/Journals?

Name me 3 other "legal" medical procedures which has over 750 risks to the mother/female? Then why is it abortion is "legal"?

I won't even mention the fact that abortion is lethal to the unborn baby.

--------

For more information...

write to ...

Rutherford Institute
P.O. Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
1-804-978-3888

and request "Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion."

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2007 10:49 PM


I'm not so sure about the younger generation, there. I am in college, and intend to go on to law school and fight to keep abortion legal, among other things.

As for the Silent Scream video...

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/abortion-access/anti-abortion-video-6136.htm

Medical Inaccuracies in The Silent Scream

* CLAIM: The 12-week fetus experiences pain.

* FACTS: At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26–27 weeks' gestation (24–25 weeks' fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus

We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.

To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.

* CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).

* FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.

An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

* CLAIM: Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.

* FACTS: The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.

* CLAIM: The fetus emits "the silent scream."

* FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26–27 weeks' gestation (24–25 weeks' fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.

* CLAIM: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.

* FACTS: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman's womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.

* CLAIM: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of "crushing instruments" for extraction.

* FACTS: At 12 weeks' gestation (10 weeks' fetal age) and even 1–2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 8, 2007 10:50 PM


Why doesn't Planned Parenthood report Child Molestor's when they are reported at Abortuary's (AUDIO)?

http://www.childpredator.com/

----------

Why does Klan Parenhood prey on black people (minorities)?

klannedparenthood.com

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2007 11:33 PM


Since Erika already answered the first batch in a way that pretty much mirrors how I would have answered, I'll go ahead and answer the second set of questions.

"Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?"

While I personally am on the fence about whether or not government should fund abortion (because I'm a classical liberal at heart), I assume it is because many women cannot afford this legal procedure, and just as we give government funding to women who make one choice (taking a pregnancy to term) so we should give funding to those who make another.

"Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing?"

Lots! Most of what Planned Parenthood provides is not abortion services, but access to contraception, help with obtaining WIC, counseling, PAP tests (cervical cancer screening), annual gynecological exams, the list goes on. These all help women, especially those who cannot afford heath insurance.

"Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time?"

I would not say that a fetus is part of a woman's body, so that would explain why it has a different genetic code, etc, etc

"Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. But is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?"

Yes. My right over my body makes it such that no one has a right to use my body, not even for their own survival. Think of it this way. You wake up tomorrow attached to a another man. He's plugged into you. And his friends, who broke through the bars on your windows and performed the procedure last night, tell you that you are the only one who can keep him alive. It's only for nine months, they say, and then he'll be all healed. His being attached to you has the potential to cause all sorts of physical problems for you, and you have a lot of stuff to do that being connected to another person would prevent you from doing. It seems to me that you are not obligated to stay attached to him. You do night violate his rights by reaching around and pulling the plug. You have no obligation to him. Would it be nice of you to stay plugged in for 9 mos? Sure, but that doesn't make it obligatory.

"We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?"

The fetus, of course. But it is (presumably) a fetus that a woman has choosen to allow to use her body for it's survival. The case I've give above is meant to show that she doesn't have to allow that, even if it is a person with rights.

"Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?"

There is a difference between informed consent and scare tactics. I firmly believe that all women should be informed of all of their options and the help that might be available to them from different sources. I also firmly believe, however, that it is wrong to attempt to use scare tactics to frighten a woman who is already experiencing a difficult and emotional situation, into doing something she may not really want to do.

"If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics?"

Eh? I'm all for requiring abortion clinics to meet requirements for safety. Do you have unbiased sources of what you're referring to?

"Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a “legal right” to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already)."

Crying already? I think not. The difference is that the premature baby is no longer using a woman's body - her most precious and real property, to survive. The other fetus is. This is not a matter of personhood. I'm not saying that the premature baby is now a person because it is outside the womb while the other is not. The difference is that one is usurping a woman's bodily autonomy, and another is not.

"If it is true that “men cannot talk about abortion” because it’s a “women’s issue,” how come pro-abortionists have no problem accepting the ruling Roe v. Wade, which was exclusively made by men?"

I have no problem with men discussing the issue. All people who can reason well should have a say on things.

"How come pro-abortion groups never would stand up and tell President Clinton it was wrong for him to cheat on his wife and mess around with another women (remember Monica Lewinsky)?"

Um, because his personal life is not nearly as crucial as other things going on in the world? I really don't care who sleeps with who as long as it's all consensual. Is cheating bad? Sure, but that's an issue for husband and wife, not the rest of the country.

"Why is it Pro-Lifers are the only group interested in saving the life of both the mother and the baby?"

All pro-lifers? That's certainly not true. Some think abortion should be illegal even in cases in which the health of the mother is in jeopardy (the SD ban is a good example of this.) And if you show me a procedure that keeps a 6 week old fetus alive outside the mother's womb (and hence without violating her rights over her body) and I'll be all for it.

"Are you OK with those who want to pray for women and their unborn babies at the Abortuary’s?"

That word is so odd. Sure I'm okay with people who want to pray for other people. I think it would be right decent of them if they would leave women who enter and exit the clinic alone, since the medical procedures others undergo happen to be none of their business. And most of what I've seen outside of clinics hasn't been praying. Or at least, screaming profanity and taunting others wasn't praying last time I checked.

"Are you OK with those showing pictures of what abortion looks like on college campuses? Why or why not?"

Free speech is free speech. Although I really wish they'd use real pictures, and tell the truth about the fact that D&X is an extremely rare procedure.

"Why is it 80+% of mothers intending on getting abortions change their mind and carry the baby to term after seeing the baby on ultrasound?"

(unbiased) cite for this?

"Do you know the story of Emmett Till and how his story started the civil rights movement?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947446/posts"

No. I'll check out the site, but I don't see how it's relevant at this point.

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 11:33 PM


"Did you know there are over 750 Abortion Risks and Serious Complications to "legalized abortions" listed in Medical Literature/Journals?

Name me 3 other "legal" medical procedures which has over 750 risks to the mother/female? Then why is it abortion is "legal"?"

Do you have an unbiased cite for this? Also, I highly doubt that many of those risks are as rare as the long list of risks that come with newer anti-depressants. Furthermore, all medical procedures are risky. That's no reason to ban them. Back alley abortions are far more risky.

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 11:35 PM


"Why is it Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, millions of post abortive women from Silent No More, Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and many abortionists who were all once Pro-Abortion are now Pro-Life? Why is this?"

You'd have to ask them. It's also important to remember the millions of women who've had safe procedures and don't regret it.

"The growing trend in America is many are becoming more and more Pro-Life especially our younger generation. The main group of people who want to keep abortion as a "choice" are those who lived during the Woodstock area. This group is aging and will soon be a dying breed. Therefore America will most likely become more and more Pro-Life and Roe v. Wade will soon be overturned."

Do you have a cite for this? I'm a graduate student in philosophy, and most of my colleagues are pro-choice. But anecdotal evidence is flimsy, so I won't bank on it. Maybe I just surround myself with like-thinking people, though.

"My question to you is this -- Right now people are split roughly 50/50 on whether abortion should be legal or not in America. Since America is split right now whether or not "life exists" in the woman's womb, shouldn't the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT always go to the SIDE OF LIFE? Why or why not?"

Do you have an unbiased source for that claim. I seem to remember someone on this blog posting a site that showed that something like 62% were pro-choice. And this issue is not about whether or not it is a life. It is a life. I don't believe it is a person, but even if it is, a fetus still has no right to use a woman's body without her permission.

"Have you watched the video “Silent Scream” on the internet which is narrated by Dr. Bernard Nathanson (one of the founding members of NARAL)"

See Lando's post.

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 11:40 PM


"Why doesn't Planned Parenthood report Child Molestor's when they are reported at Abortuary's (AUDIO)?"

Planned Parenthood does not report because of HIPPA. Without the consent of the patient, they cannot divulge such information. And, from what I've heard, they try to convince women to report. But, for a variety of reasons, some women just don't want to report.


----------

"Why does Klan Parenhood prey on black people (minorities)?"

If you're referring to the statistics which say that african americans and latinos are more likely than whites to get abortions, then you're setting up a straw man by claiming that Planned Parenthood prey's on minorities. It's a social class issue. African americans, sadly, are more likely to be lower class, and hence have less access to contraception, etc. Planned Parenthood actually works hard to change that.

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 11:44 PM


Grrr... my previous post said "I highly doubt that many of those risks are as rare..." I meant "I'm sure that many of those risks are as rare..."

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 11:55 PM


Zurg -all,

Yes, I was a murderer between Jan. 1973 and Oct. 14, 1974:

Although I was not a Christian the night before my appointment to abort, I asked aloud, "God is there anything wrong in what I am going to do? Man says it isn't even life. What do You say?"

When I did not hear a reply, I assumed it was okay. But in the morning, a clerk from the abortion facility called to inform me, "The abortionist has to cancel his appointments this morning. What do you want to do?"

I did not remember the night before. I did not make the connection. I wasn't listening!

I am so glad I listened Oct. 14, 1974...
now I am full of Life, joy, peace and love -
forgiven and set free -

you can be too

Posted by: Myra J. Myers at March 9, 2007 12:17 AM


"You'd have to ask them. It's also important to remember the millions of women who've had safe procedures and don't regret it."


I think the key phrase here is "millions" of women...
The fact that "millions" of women have had abortions with no regrets is a very scary thought. To me it translates into "Millions of women with psychopathic tendencies, (ergo no consciences), and or millions of women who think their comfort and convenience is more important than anyone elses."

But, that's just me...

MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 6:35 AM


You cannot serve transfats in New York,
You cannot smoke in Californina,
You must wear a seatbelt in all 50 states,
You cannot freebase cocaine anywhere in the US
You cannot smoke marijuana,
You cannot drive while under the influence of alcohol,
You cannot drive over the speed limit,
You cannot walk around naked,
You cannot have sex with a six year old (even if he consents),
You cannot commint suicide,
and now we are trying to make it a law that minors must have a mandatory vaccine against sexually transmitted diseases.

Man, I am sure glad we live in a country where the government can't tell you what you can do with your own body...

Or maybe some of you just live in la-la land.
Think I'll save my money, buy a plane ticket and visit you there.

Do you people not realize how ridiculous your arguments sound.

Rape? Kill the baby? Do we kill the rapists mother and father too? After all they are guilty by association also.

And what about rape? There are those who would say that they can't help themselves. Should we make exceptions for them. You know rape is illegal, except in the case of the well being or health of the rapist?

There are objective truths. Period. Not subjective, but OBJECTIVE. Once you accept this, you realize that it is OBJECTIVELY wrong to kill an innocent human being. For any reason. Ever.

But as long as you continue to live by the law of moral relativism you will be able to rationalize any behavior. Just like you rationalize abortion.

Sorry this was so strong. But I get so frustrated when I read the same old tired arguments and none of them are rational. They always come down to the same thing...people screaming "I WANT, I WANT, I WANT...ME ME ME ME..." In my preschool I often tell my kids (espcially the ones with feelings of entitlement) that they are the most important person in the world.

To their parents.

But to the rest of us, they are just another child in a room full of children. And each one is equally important.

One child's needs do not hold precedence over anothers.

Just like a woman's body does not hold precedence over her childs.

How sad that these little, innocent human beings, are not just being slaughtered. They are being slaughtered by the 3 people in the world who should be moving mountains to protect them.

Their mother, their father, and their "doctor"...

So who is left to trust, if these will betray them?

MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 6:50 AM


Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.


The contents? pray tell, what contents are those?
mk

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 6:54 AM


"Statistics show that after 6 weeks, the fetus, if given the rights of an 18 year-old adult, is able to compose a symphony, draft a plan to bring peace the world, and integrate computer networks using only the power of its as yet nonfunctional mind."

Fantasy Fetii!!!


And you have composed how many symphonies.

We have world peace due to you? Sorry, I hadn't noticed.

I thought Al Gore perfected the internet. My mistake.

So you are saying that a persons worth is determined by their ability to compose music at age 18?

Hmmm...interesting.
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 6:57 AM


I want to ask all of these pro-choicers a question.They all brag about how educated they are.Why should a man that guns another man down on the streets go to prison for life?[ Society would only expect intervention from the law/government in this case.]Why shouldn't a woman have to go to prison after abortion? Both are murders.What's the difference? I have to follow the laws that society put forth-Doesn't everyone?Why should you women get a free pass?

Posted by: momof3 at March 9, 2007 7:25 AM


I want to ask all of these pro-choicers a question.They all brag about how educated they are.Why should a man that guns another man down on the streets go to prison for life?[ Society would only expect intervention from the law/government in this case.]Why shouldn't a woman have to go to prison after abortion? Both are murders.What's the difference? I have to follow the laws that society put forth-Doesn't everyone?Why should you women get a free pass?

Posted by: momof3 at March 9, 2007 7:27 AM


Mary Kay,Very well put!! I was reading your posts.Mike-yours too.These people are suffering from reprobate minds.

Posted by: momof3 at March 9, 2007 7:41 AM


Erika became an athiest after her abortion.It was easier that way.It's easier to murder someone and not have to answer to God.I tried to take on the same attitude a few times in my own life when things weren't going so good for me.I always went back to him though.I realized that life meant nothing without him.You just can't live life wrong and expect things to be right for you.

Posted by: momof3 at March 9, 2007 8:13 AM


"Both are murders.What's the difference? I have to follow the laws that society put forth-Doesn't everyone?Why should you women get a free pass?"

El Salvador turned abortion into a felony a little while back. How's that turning out for them?

Banning abortion serves only to sweep the social, economic, religious, and political issues causing it under the rug. Work to prevent them in the first place, but keep the option open to those who truly need it.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 9, 2007 8:29 AM


My cat couldn't survive if I didn't feed him.Should I let him die because I choose not to give him anything to eat one day?

Posted by: Sarri at March 9, 2007 8:30 AM


Hey Lando,I'm all for the prevention part!

Posted by: momof3 at March 9, 2007 8:48 AM


I get the feeling that your idea of effective prevention is a little different than mine, though :)

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 9, 2007 9:09 AM


Glad to hear that EL Salvador has some value for human life. Hey,here in the USA we just throw them in the trash when their no good parents don't want them!

Posted by: momof3 at March 9, 2007 10:25 AM


Diana, 3/8, 11:44p, it is incorrect to assert HIPAA laws forbid reporting minor sexual abuse when a girl wants to abort (www.healthinschools.org/ejournal/2005/june1.htm):

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in publishing regulations for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) after the Bush administration took office four years ago, specifically declined to provide a national rule on parental notification, saying states are free to set their own standards for minor abortions."

In fact, all 50 states have laws in place to comply (and qualify for funding) under CAPTA, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.

All 50 states have passed mandatory reporting laws for child sexual abuse to qualify for funding under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. CAPTA defines this as:

"rape, and in cases of caretaker or inter-familial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children."

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 9, 2007 10:41 AM


Interesting Jill, thanks for the sites. I'll check them out.

Oh, and I'm curious, why did you remove your column about the "Italian Abortion Mafia"?

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 10:49 AM


Alyssa, 3/8, 9:24p: You stated, "Abortions have always been proven statistically safer for women than full-term pregnancy and labor."

Would you please site an unbiased source for this?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 9, 2007 10:54 AM


Diana, I did not remove my column. It has simply slid off the main page under newer posts.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 9, 2007 10:57 AM


Jill, I don't know if Alyssa is around. She might have different sources, But would the guttmacher institute work?

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 11:01 AM


Diana, thank you, no. Guttmacher is certainly not unbiased. I can list five sources from my side stating the opposite you would likewise dismiss.

There is an unbiased statistical analysis from the Finland government, however, showing that of 281 maternal deaths from among 100,000 women, 27 were women who had given birth, 48 were women who had miscarried or had ectopic pregnancies, and 101 were of women who had aborted. (M. Gissler, et.al., "Pregnancy-Associated Deaths in Finland, 1987-1994," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).)

More startlingly, researchers reported the risk of death from suicide within a year after an abortion was 7+ times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth. (Mika Gissler, Elina Hemmiki. Jouko Lonnqvist, "Suicide After Pregnancy in Finland: 1987-94," British Medical Journal, 313:1431-4, 1996.)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 9, 2007 11:46 AM


@Mike:
Are there any circumstances in which you would be against killing the baby in the womb? If so, what are they?
After viability, you've got 5 months in which to make a choice.

and what�s your position on partial birth abortion (killing the baby after it is three quarters born)? At what stage of life would you make killing someone illegal and why?
It's called D&X, "partial birth abortion" is a term fabricated by the pro-life movement in order to stimulate emotional response by including the word "birth". It is viable, and as such it's only legal when the mother's life is at risk. I don't know what pro-life orgs have been telling you, but they make up only 0.17% of abortions performed--that's less than 1 in 500.

Would you be for making Abortuary�s contact the parents of a minor 48 hours before having an abortion?
No, violation of privacy.

Would you be for Illinois having �Choose Life� license plates and sending the proceeds to help adoption agencies? If not, why not?
I'd rather prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Even a healthy, routine pregnancy costs thousands of dollars in medical bills--checkups, ultrasounds, and birth itself. Not everyone can afford that

Are you for chasitity education? Would you object to Jason Evert going into public high schools and giving this talk (listen at http://pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3 )? What did you think of the talk?
Abstinence-only sex ed is like going out without an umbrella to prevent it from raining. It'll rain anyway, and once it does you won't be prepared for it.

Are you against federal funds going to Crisis Pregnancy Centers?
Do you mean the Crisis Pregnancy Centers where they corner a woman in a small, metal room and show her pictures of action figures with jelly smeared next to them (next to a quarter for comparison, of course)? Wait, I bet you mean the Centers where they give a pregnant woman some grocery money and used baby toys, then give her the cold shoulder once it's too late for her to get an abortion? Nonono, you must mean the centers where they have a real (but biased) nurse give an ultrasound and have the woman do such things as write "My baby" on the print-out in order to facilitate emotional attachment to guilt her away from any possible abortions, regardless of whether or not she can afford this pregnancy?

Are you for a woman being able to do anything she wants with her body? If yes, then do you support legalizing protitution and all drugs?
Drugs are a matter of protecting a person from themself, I don't know why cigarettes aren't illegal. I don't think prostitution is a bad thing in and of itself, but I'm more concerned with the circumstances which would result in a young woman convinced that she has nothing to contribute to society except her body. Liberation isn't a bad thing, exploitation is.

Do you belong to any particular religion? If so, which one?
None.

Are you for China�s one child per family policy? Do you think its OK to kill a baby in the womb based on their sex (male or female)?
I don't know what the policy is off the top of my head. I don't think sex alone should make a difference, but china has extremely patrilineal roots and infanticide was a huge problem.

I know this will never happen but let me ask you this scenerio anyhow. If it were proven homosexuality comes from a certain gene (which will never happen) � Would you be for killing the baby in the womb based on the baby having this certain gene? and please elaborate with your answer?
Not really. It's not a life-altering disability that's routinely accompanied by hundreds of thousands in medical bills and constant care, just different. Like being left-handed.

What do you think about the group Silent No More (women who had abortion(s) who want abortion made illegal)? Why do you think these women who once thought like you did want abortion made illegal?
I can't speak for anyone but myself. It's possible that they were pressured into having abortions, I've read that has a much higher tendency for women to regret the procedure. It's possible that someone found out and she's filled with self-loathing and is trying to save face (http://wisc.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2208234813&topic=2933 : pro-lifers get abortions, too). I don't know, maybe the answer is as simple as "there's a couple nutters in every movement".

Do you believe in killing the elderly if their �quality of life� is below your standards?
That makes no sense, of course not.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 11:51 AM


Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?
You're not reading the situation correctly. Nobody wants the government to stay out of abortion, we want the government to allow every woman to make her own choice and, when necessary, help out with whatever that might happen to be.

Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing?
I don't know if you've ever had a child, but it's a lot of work and it's difficult to face if you haven't been planning for it. (If you say "then she shouldn't have been having sex," I'll slap you. Over half of women who have abortions were on birth control in the first place, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.) They're alleviating the financial, emotional, physical, etc. risks from the mother. This is why, I think, that Pro-life and Pro-choice don't play nice. To us, it's about the mother, to you all, it's about the child.

Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time?
You've misread the statement, it's that it takes residence in the mother's body.

Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. But is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?
Not at all, but nobody has rights until they're born. Until then, there's no sentience, no self-awareness... imho, you can't miss what you never had.

We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?
Is this some kind of trick question? It's the z/e/f.

Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?
These laws (that I've read) include "risks" that have not been confirmed by clinical studies. If the law were amended to only include established risks, and lay out how much having a child costs (even to raise it to adoption, the pro-life end-all), then yeah, I'm all for it.

If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics?
I hadn't heard of this, link? If I had to wager a guess, it's probably from lack of funding, PP can't even afford to pay its employees.

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a “legal right” to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already).
The legal standard for abortion is based off probable viability, don't most states cut off after about 22 weeks (5.5 months)? D&X ("partial-birth abortion") is ONLY legal when the woman's health is in extreme and immediate danger, did you know? It's not the standard of abortion procedures, actually makes up less than 1 in 500.

If it is true that “men cannot talk about abortion” because it’s a “women’s issue,” how come pro-abortionists have no problem accepting the ruling Roe v. Wade, which was exclusively made by men?
Someone taking a pro-life stance is, by definition, dictating what someone (a woman) can or cannot do with her own body. Someone taking a pro-choice stance is saying that it's the right of every woman to make a choice that's right for her, which doesn't impede on anyone's rights. The latter is what Roe v. Wade said, no?

How come pro-abortion groups never would stand up and tell President Clinton it was wrong for him to cheat on his wife and mess around with another women (remember Monica Lewinsky)?
Why would they? They're pro-choice, not pro-marriage fidelity, it's apples to oranges.

Why is it Pro-Lifers are the only group interested in saving the life of both the mother and the baby?
Because "saving" the life of both often comes at a substantial cost to one not ready to bear the brunt of the process.

Are you OK with those who want to pray for women and their unborn babies at the Abortuary’s?
If it helps them feel better, whatever.

Are you OK with those showing pictures of what abortion looks like on college campuses? Why or why not?
No. It's misleading, when an abortion is performed, nobody rips apart the body with forceps and holds it up for the mother to see or something, it gets put into an opaque container and respectfully disposed of. I happen to think that shredding bodies and positioning them onto coins so photographs can be taken and plastered in public spaces is extremely disrespectful of human remains.

Why is it 80+% of mothers intending on getting abortions change their mind and carry the baby to term after seeing the baby on ultrasound?
Cite, please? The fact that they're in a clinic for an ultrasound does not necessarily imply that they were dead set on having an abortion. It might be that she was exploited in one of those fabulous "pregnancy crisis centers" by a biased nurse, perhaps she just had a change of heart, I can only speculate.

Do you know the story of Emmett Till and how his story started the civil rights movement?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947446/posts
Nope.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 12:13 PM


@Mike: The "Silent Scream" video is an 11-week abortion that is perceived as a cry of pain, yes? Recent studies suggest that pain is not perceived by the fetus until 24-28 weeks, the brain and nervous system are simply not developed enough.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 12:18 PM


"Glad to hear that EL Salvador has some value for human life. Hey,here in the USA we just throw them in the trash when their no good parents don't want them!"
What, because they couldn't get an abortion?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 12:29 PM


Banning abortion serves only to sweep the social, economic, religious, and political issues causing it under the rug. Work to prevent them in the first place, but keep the option open to those who truly need it.


Let's just change a few words and see what we come up with...

Banning pedophilia serves only to sweep the social, economic, religious and political issues causing it under the rug. Work to prevent them in the first place, but keep the option open to those who really need to have sex with small children.
(When exactly do you need to kill a baby?)

Banning rape serves only to sweep the social, economic, religious and political issues causing it under the rug. Work to prevent them in the first place, but keep the option open to those who really need to rape.

Hmmmm...interesting again...
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 1:14 PM


Pedophilia and rape both victimize living, breathing, thinking, self-aware people. Abortion does not.

Just because I support abortion as a last resort does not mean that I like it. I agree with Clinton, that they should be safe, legal, and rare. I'd much rather have a woman not get pregnant in the first place.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 1:21 PM


Over half of women who have abortions were on birth control in the first place, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.)

Not a very good argument for birth control, is it?

consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

True, but a 10 year old can understand that one can and often does lead to the other.

When we say don't have sex, we mean don't engage in behaviors unless and until you are willing to accept the consequences of said behaviors. Doing what you want, consequences be damned, stops being socially acceptable at about age 5.

So unless you are mentally challenged, I assume you have figured out by now that having sex leads to pregnancy. Knowing that, consenting to sex IS consenting to the possiblility of pregnancy. Knowing that birth control doesn't work yet still counting on it to keep you from getting pregnant sounds like the reasoning of an unstable mind.

One definition of Insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over and expecting different results.

Bishop Fulton Sheen says: People don't want to change. They just want to feel better.

Wish it was that easy. If you don't want to get pregnant, you will have to change your behavior. If you want to feel better, you can continue to have sex, but you'll have to kill your flesh and blood if you find yourself with child.

If that makes you "feel better", you're pretty bad off.

MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 1:24 PM


Pedophilia and rape both victimize living, breathing, thinking, self-aware people. Abortion does not.

Just because I support abortion as a last resort does not mean that I like it. I agree with Clinton, that they should be safe, legal, and rare. I'd much rather have a woman not get pregnant in the first place.
...................................................
How is it that you can in good conscience use the terms, living breathing thinking self-aware people and the name clinton in the same sentence.
Don't they contradict your argument.

Why, if it is NOT a living breathing....human being, should it be rare? If it IS just a blob of non living tissue (that happens to have a heartbeat and 10 toes), then why should we care if it is rare? Kill them all. Off with their heads!!!!

I don't know a single 2 month old that is self-aware. I do however know many adults who's ability to think logically is questionable.

Not naming any names (Zurg)...
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 1:31 PM


"So unless you are mentally challenged, I assume you have figured out by now that having sex leads to pregnancy. Knowing that, consenting to sex IS consenting to the possiblility of pregnancy. Knowing that birth control doesn't work yet still counting on it to keep you from getting pregnant sounds like the reasoning of an unstable mind."

Let me repost what I have posted in another thread:

Imagine that you know a prowler is on the loose, and is dead set on coming into your house. The police have told you they can do nothing. There is a very real possibility that if you don't take precautions, the prowler will come in. Now imagine that you very foolishly leave the window unlocked. Does this mean that you have given the prowler consent to enter your home? No. You may have been darn stupid, but that doesn't amount to consent.

Now imagine that you have actually put bars up on your windows, but one of the bars is defective, allowing the prowler to get in. Have you given him consent to enter? Certainly not. Knowing that bars aren't always 100% effective in keeping people out, but still using them does not seem like bad reasoning to me.

It is the same with sex. The analogy should be clear. One may be aware of the potential consequences of the act, and be foolish about it or be careful. But either way, consent to the act is not consent to the potential consequences.

The immediate response is likely to be "Well, move". This, in our analogy, would be akin to abstinence. But just as you may be invested in a house, in the neighborhood (perhaps their are good schools), so you may be invested in sharing a sexual relationship with someone you love. Perhaps even a spouse. So while moving (abstaining) would solve the problem, it may not be a viable option.

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 1:38 PM


Diana,

Are you actually asking me to compare sexual relations with someone I love to having a prowler break into my home?

The most blaring reason this doesn't work is that both parties (you and the burgular) have not consented. You didn't consent to get robbed. This analogy "might" work with rape, but not with consentual sex.

Besides, God gives us children. You don't ever "consent" to getting pregnant. There is however, only one way that I know of to achieve this miracle. And that is for a male sperm to unite with a female egg. And the most natural way for this meeting to take place is through sexual intercourse. If you didn't know before, you know now and cannot therefore plead ignorance. Sex, leads to pregancy. If you cannot accept this simple scientific fact then I see no point in continuing a discussion.

If you eat 3 chocolate cakes a day and are surprised to find you have gained weight, do you then say, I consented to eating the cake but not to gaining the weight. Your behavior CAUSED the weight gain. You were not victimized. You made a fully informed conscious decision to eat the cake.

In your scenario, you play the part of innocent victim. You did not consent to burgulary, you simply opened your window. In my scenario, you chose to eat the cake. If you are shocked by the weight gain, then I suggest you read a book on nutrition. If by the same token, you have sex and are surprised by a pregnancy, I suggest you read on book on fertility.

Either way, your argument doesn't work...any more than birth control does.

If however, aware of the possibility of gaining weight by eating the chocolate cake, you decide not to eat it...well, now you have your abstinence.

If you eat it and force yourself to throw up, then you are bulimic and have a serious problem on your hands. I'm sure we would both agree that bulimia is not something a mentally healthy person would use to avoid weight gain. By your argument, if you found yourself pregnant you would "throw up" the baby and have an abortion. I don't believe a mentally healthy person would choose infanticide to solve her pregnancy. Apparently, you do.

A mentally heathly person would not eat the cake, nor have sexual relations unless they were willing to accept the consequences of weight gain or pregnancy.

A mentally unhealthy person would blame the cake, and a mentally unhealthy person would blame the baby.

A mentally healthy person would take responsibilty for the weight gain. A mentally healthy person would take responsibilty for the new life.
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 2:41 PM


"The most blaring reason this doesn't work is that both parties (you and the burgular) have not consented. You didn't consent to get robbed. This analogy "might" work with rape, but not with consentual sex."

You seem to have misunderstood the case. The consent lies in not moving (that's why abstinence is akin to moving). And you're right that I've not consented to allowing the prowler in. That's the whole point. Since there is consent present in not moving - in remaining in your house - the cases, then, are not disanalogous in the way that you mention.

"God gives us children. You don't ever "consent" to getting pregnant. There is however, only one way that I know of to achieve this miracle. And that is for a male sperm to unite with a female egg. And the most natural way for this meeting to take place is through sexual intercourse. If you didn't know before, you know now and cannot therefore plead ignorance. Sex, leads to pregancy. If you cannot accept this simple scientific fact then I see no point in continuing a discussion."

I don't believe in God, but I'll admit I'm a bit confused by this. You claim that a woman caused herself to become pregnant by electing to engage in sexual intercourse. So she consented to conception. But then you say that we never consent since God gives us children. So which is it? Did God give the woman the child without her consent? Or did she consent by causing herself to become pregnant? You can't have it both ways.

I find your chocolate cake case interesting. And it may perhaps work for those who engage in unprotected sex. I'm not sure yet. But to see if it works in the case of protected sex, let's add to the case that I eat three chocolate cakes a day (lets say this totals something like 5000 calories), but then I also take herbal supplements to speed up my metabolism and I exercise as much as I can - I do everything I can to burn those 5000 calories off. Yet I still gain weight. Have I consented to the weight gain, then? Seems like if I take all sorts of precautions to avoid something, then I'm not consenting to it.

Oh, and I would really appreciate it if you would keep the rhetorical flourishes and name calling to a minimum. I was hoping to engage in a rational debate on certain aspects of this subject, and I haven't yet on this blog found a person who is willing to do so without restorting to ad hominem attacks and blatant appeals to emotion via semantics.

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 3:24 PM


"a 10 year old can understand that one can and often does lead to the other."
That's the best argument for comprehensive sex education that I've ever seen. Thank you.

"If you don't want to get pregnant, you will have to change your behavior."
Proper use of multiple methods of birth control reduce the chance of conception to unfathomable probabilities. Emphasis on "proper", it doesn't work for diddly if you don't use it right. Hence the need for comprehensive sex ed. And that's ignoring the development of a male bc pill that, in preliminary trials, reduced the sperm count of participants to ZERO in ALL men taking it. Zero sperm = no pregnancy. Ever. Link: http://www.askmen.com/love/dzimmer_60/72_love_answers.html

"Why, if it is NOT a living breathing....human being, should it be rare?"
Because it has potential. Remember, for pro-choicers the motivation is not killing babies, it's for women to have bodily autonomy. This autonomy does indeed come at a great cost, but we feel that it's the lesser of two evils, and a route that is not to be taken lightly. If there was a way to restore a woman's bodily autonomy of a z/e/f without aborting it, I'd be all for it. Do you have any suggestions? In the meantime, this is the only option once an unwanted pregnancy has been established. If unwanted pregnancies can be prevented in the first place, by more effective/more widely available/better use of contraceptives, all the better.

"Your behavior CAUSED the weight gain. You were not victimized. You made a fully informed conscious decision to eat the cake."
That doesn't mean you knew the cake would cause weight gain. Case in point: morbidly obese people suing McDonald's. You'd think it's a no-brainer, no? Apparently not. This is an excellent analogy to what happens when people who have been taught abstinence-only education don't abstain. You're not an AMA-certified nutritionist, I'd bet. But you still eat, don't you? Amazing how you've managed not to have quadruple-bypass surgery! If you say "Not really, it's because I'm not a dumbass," then I respond by saying "Good on you. It's the same way with safe sex."

"You don't ever "consent" to getting pregnant."
Sure, there is. It goes, "Okay, I have a real job, some money set aside, a partner who's not going anywhere, and a void in my life I think a child will fulfill. Partner, let's start engaging in sexual intercourse without birth control."

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 4:06 PM


Again,
I just don't see it...leaving your window open is not the same as consent. In concentual sex BOTH parties must consent. The prowler as well as the person who was burgled. You are saying by leaving the window open you have upped the chances. I say that you would have to invite the prowler in and hand him your valuables.

In the prowler scenario there is a victim. In the sex scenario there is presumably no victim. In abortion the victim is the baby, NOT the woman.

As for your herbal supplement, excercise scenario...If you are still gaining weight then A: your herbal supplements (birth control) aren't doing what they are supposed to do. B. Your are still consuming more calories than you are burning off or C. you have a thyroid problem.

My advice would be stop taking the worthless herbal supplements (birth control), exercise more (this might take your mind off of sex) and see a doctor.

The best course of action however, would probably be to stop being such a glutton and throw the cake away.

You could always accept the weight gain and learn to love yourself in adversity, but since it was irresponsible sex (which I define as any sex between unmarried couples), and find a new hobby.

I am sorry if you thought I was calling you names. I never meant to imply that you were mentally unstable, unhealthy or bulimic.

The real problem comes from not understanding what sex is. As a culture we have become obsesseed with this phenomenon. It's sad really, that we use sex to express everything...Sex is actually a beautiful way of expressing our love for another person. It is meant to mirror the love that God has for us. It is not meant to be taken lightly or abused. It breaks my heart that the greatest gift that God gave us, the ability to share in the creation of life...is wasted and taken for granted. This is a precious thing. Not just a way to feel good.

I know you say that you don't believe in God. But that doesn't change the fact that He exists. Or the fact that He loves you and has greater plans for you than you have for yourself. I think we all need to realize that we don't really control ANYTHING, we only have the illusion that we do.

A wise person, (tho being unwise myself, I couldn't tell you who) once said: Men use love to get sex and women use sex to get love.

This is sadly, true. Bottom line is that we shouldn't "USE" sex for anything. Not in that sense anyway. I believe that I am worth more than simply being an object to be lusted after. Sexual relations is about giving yourself, heart, mind, body and soul to another person. How can we claim to do this and yet hold back on the sacrament of marriage? The person I sleep with had better be willing to give me his entire self and not just his sexual organ. Otherwise, I fear I have lowered my self a rung or two on the ladder of the animal kingdom. You're worth more too, whether you know it or not.

Peace.
No hard feelings?
I do tend to get passionate and sound off.
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 4:16 PM


"If you don't want to get pregnant, you will have to change your behavior."
Proper use of multiple methods of birth control reduce the chance of conception to unfathomable probabilities. Emphasis on "proper", it doesn't work for diddly if you don't use it right

.................................

Well now oddly enough, that is exactly what we are saying about sex. Proper use of sex will also reduce the chance of conception to unfathomable probabilities. Emphasis on "PROPER", sex doesn't work for diddly if you don't "USE" it right.
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 4:18 PM


I like how you repeatedly reduce women to objects. "hand him your valuables" "throw out the cake"

The prowler does not represent your partner, it represents the event of a sperm fertilizing the egg.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 4:34 PM


"Proper use of sex will also reduce the chance of conception to unfathomable probabilities. Emphasis on "PROPER", sex doesn't work for diddly if you don't "USE" it right."
This assumes that the "use" of sex is to get pregnant. I disagree, it has multiple uses.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 4:36 PM


"a 10 year old can understand that one can and often does lead to the other."
That's the best argument for comprehensive sex education that I've ever seen. Thank you.

comprehensive sex education for 10 year olds...assuming you are older than 10 years, you are a perfect example of why comprensive sex ed doesn't work with adults let alone 10 year olds...perhaps we should play sex tapes in utero so we can get a head start...
......................................

Because it has potential...

ahhh...potential. So what exactly are we aborting? potential? potential what? and if we are trying to nip a potential problem in the bud, then why don't we start by not sleeping with someone until we are ready to accept responsiblity for the "Potential" outcome? Sorry, I myself would not feel one iota of remorse over eliminating a potential anything...but you see the potential existed before you had sex, not after. By the time you become pregnant, the potential has already been realized.

...................................................

"Your behavior CAUSED the weight gain. You were not victimized. You made a fully informed conscious decision to eat the cake."
That doesn't mean you knew the cake would cause weight gain. Case in point: morbidly obese people suing McDonald's. You'd think it's a no-brainer, no? Apparently not. This is an excellent analogy to what happens when people who have been taught abstinence-only education don't abstain. You're not an AMA-certified nutritionist, I'd bet. But you still eat, don't you? Amazing how you've managed not to have quadruple-bypass surgery! If you say "Not really, it's because I'm not a dumbass," then I respond by saying "Good on you. It's the same way with safe sex."

The reason the case of the McDonald's overeater drew any attention at all is because the guy who is suing McD's is obviously not the brightest crayon in the box.

When we teach abstinence only, we don't neglect to mention anything at all about sex. We teach abstinence in the context of the overall sexual experience. Do you think we treat it like some big dirty secret, don't tell the kids what there abstaining from, but warn them not to do "it"...of course we talk about sex. We love sex. We love this expression of love. We encourage sex. We just think it should be expressed responsibly and with respect between two married people. The problem is you are talking about lust, and I am talking about love. You are talking about selfish sex and I am talking about unselfish giving of oneself...looking at it through your glasses, of course you want to find ways to satiate your desires without paying any price. Pun intended, you want your cake, and to eat it too. From where you stand contraception, abortion, and promiscuity all make sense. Because you are coming from the assumption that the world revolves around you and satisfying your needs. Unfortunate for you, because you will never experience the transcendent expression of love with another human being that we are trying to describe.
...............................................
"You don't ever "consent" to getting pregnant."
Sure, there is. It goes, "Okay, I have a real job, some money set aside, a partner who's not going anywhere, and a void in my life I think a child will fulfill. Partner, let's start engaging in sexual intercourse without birth control."

When I say consent to a pregnancy, I mean you don't decide to get pregnant and then it happens. You can consent to be open to the gift of pregnancy. But you can't "make" it happen. Only God can do that. You can make it possible by having relations, but if God don't say yes, all the sex in the world ain't gonna produce no offspring!

MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 4:38 PM


I like how you repeatedly reduce women to objects. "hand him your valuables" "throw out the cake"

The prowler does not represent your partner, it represents the event of a sperm fertilizing the egg.
...........................................
I did not say throw out the woman, I said throw out the behavior that objectifies the woman. And notice I referred to them as valuables...as in something to be valued.

You however seem to percieve sperm as a prowler, akin to a criminal. Says alot about your values. According to your interpretation, sperm is something to be avoided. Put bars on the windows. I happen to think sperm are wonderful. When they met my eggs, the act created six beautiful children. Your sperm were thrown out in a little rubber balloon or flushed down the toilet or eradicated with chemicals. But I objectify women? Puhlease!
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 4:43 PM


"Proper use of sex will also reduce the chance of conception to unfathomable probabilities. Emphasis on "PROPER", sex doesn't work for diddly if you don't "USE" it right."
This assumes that the "use" of sex is to get pregnant. I disagree, it has multiple uses.

The fact that you use sex for multiple purposes is obvious. That would be the whole point of this discussion, no? You use sex for purposes it is not meant to be used for, which I call abuse. I use sex for what it was intended. An expression of love between two married people and a way to bring new life into the world. What do you use it for?
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 4:47 PM


"In concentual sex BOTH parties must consent. The prowler as well as the person who was burgled."

I see what you're trying to say. But in this scenario, the prowler is not the other partner involved in sex. The prowler is akin to the baby. (I'm not saying that babies are prowlers, etc. But random innocent people don't usually enter other people's houses unwelcome - so to make the case sound consistent, it's necessary to use something like a prowler)

"In the prowler scenario there is a victim. In the sex scenario there is presumably no victim. In abortion the victim is the baby, NOT the woman."

Despite what I just said, it might be possible to view a woman with an unwanted pregnancy as a victim. I don't want to use such strong language, so please don't take that to mean that I think that babies/fetuses/embryos are evil horrible things. Of course I don't. But just as the prowler is unwelcome in your house, just as you don't want him there taking your stuff, similarly, an unwanted pregnancy means a fetus (or usually embryo) has taken up residence inside a woman's body, and is now taking nutrients directly from her. And here is where the main difference between many pro-choicers and pro-lifers lies: I don't think that another person, even if they are a full grown, thinking, feeling, reasoning individual, has a right to use my body for anything without my consent, and that includes survival. I'm assuming that you would respectfully disagree.

"As for your herbal supplement, excercise scenario...If you are still gaining weight then A: your herbal supplements (birth control) aren't doing what they are supposed to do. B. Your are still consuming more calories than you are burning off or C. you have a thyroid problem.
My advice would be stop taking the worthless herbal supplements (birth control), exercise more (this might take your mind off of sex) and see a doctor.
The best course of action however, would probably be to stop being such a glutton and throw the cake away."

Is your answer to the question, then, that you have consented to the weight gain? Then we have a clash of intuitions. But, while the safest course of action may be to throw the cake away, when we return to the case of a woman having sex, this would seem to imply that any woman, even if she is married and truly loves her husband and wishes to express that love, must remain abstinent if she doesn't want a child. That seems terribly unfair, say, to poor couples who cannot afford a baby, or to a woman who has health problems that make pregnancy a very dangerous situtation, to tell them that they just can't have sex.

"irresponsible sex (which I define as any sex between unmarried couples)"

I have to disagree with this definition. I don't think one needs a marriage license to truly love someone else, and hence to express that love. I understand that, being religious, you probably have other reasons for thinking that sex must be within marriage. But these are reasons that I am not likely to accept on my own terms. Interesting little tidbit, though - during the Renaissance, couples who lived far away from major urban areas would have handfasting marriages - they required no clergy or public officials - which were considered by many to be legit (children born out of these marriages were legitimate.)

"I am sorry if you thought I was calling you names. I never meant to imply that you were mentally unstable, unhealthy or bulimic."

No hard feelings. I understand things can get passionate. It's just very hard to move anywhere on the debate or try to really understand the other side when people (on both sides) are slinging insults using inflammatory rhetoric. Thank you for being civil

"You're worth more too, whether you know it or not."

I do know it. And I wouldn't let anyone tell me different.

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 4:48 PM


"you are a perfect example of why comprensive sex ed doesn't work with adults"
How so? I've had six partners over three years and none of them have gotten pregnant.

"why don't we start by not sleeping with someone until we are ready to accept responsiblity for the "Potential" outcome?"
Life would be fantastic if it were that simple, hun. But it's not, and that's why AOSE doesn't work. It's great on paper but doesn't work out because real people are not saints.

"We just think it should be expressed responsibly and with respect between two married people."
Don't you think that a pair of 18-year-olds entering a doomed marriage so they can have socially acceptable sex is irresponsible and/or perhaps reducing the sanctity of marriage?

"The problem is you are talking about lust, and I am talking about love."
A) It's possible to love outside of marriage and to want to express this love without wanting any kids and B) love and lust are not mutually exclusive. If you have no lust for the one you love, you have my pity.

"You are talking about selfish sex and I am talking about unselfish giving of oneself"
Pride is a deadly sin just as much as lust. I don't know if you knew.

"if God don't say yes"
What happened to free will? That's not free will.

Or, why is god saying yes if the circumstances are not those that he advocates? If you can give an answer that doesn't boil down to "Magic!" (ie, god's plan, god's will, etc) I won't donate $20 to PP in your name.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 4:52 PM


"use sex for purposes it is not meant to be used for"
Okay. Whose definition will be used?

"sperm is something to be avoided."
So long as they result in pregnancy, yes. What's your point?

"I use sex for what it was intended. An expression of love between two married people and a way to bring new life into the world. What do you use it for?"
It's possible to love outside of marriage, and to want to express this love without children.

I have had sex out of expressions of affection and love, out of sheer sex drive, and for a combination of the two.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 4:58 PM


Diana,

If I misunderstood what you were trying to portray in the prowler story, I apologize.

Are you saying that I am an egg, the house is my womb and the prowler is the sperm?

Are you agreeing with Zurg that sperm is something to be avoided at all costs. How can that be? Sperm is part of the act of sex...

And you say you won't move because you have too much invested in this house (relationship)?

Sometimes you gotta ask yourself exactly what are you getting out of a relationship when you are refraining from the purest and most beautiful expression of this relationship...marriage and openess to creation? You mean, that you are trying to avoid the very thing that sex was created for? Then why are you having sex?

I hate comparing something as beautiful and powerful and miraculous as sperm to something as vile and contemptible as a prowler...

sheesh, what page was I on?

Okay,
Truthfully, if you are living in a house that is detrimental to your health and posessions and possibly even your life if this said prowler was to take things further, than no amount of good schools, and coffee shops could possibly make it worth staying. If this prowler is a sign that the neighborhood is turned, then better to get out now before the property values go down. If it is just a single prowler, then maybe you could stay at your moms til he is apprehended. But surely, to risk your life and safety because of good schools is insanity...

Please tell me you wouldn't stay in a relationship where you believe your partner harbors a prowler, and that said prowler could invade your home. Dump the guy, no matter how good he looks on the outside. Because any man worth his weight would not ask for so great a sacrifice as to renounce the very thing that makes you a woman. Your ability to carry a human life. And I hope you would not ask a man to renounce the very thing that makes him a man by demanding he make his sperm useless. These are the very things that define us as sexual beings. To contracept is to deny this truth. To abort...well there aren't even words. We need to celebrate these differences. We need to pay deep and humble respect to the power that these hold.
My goodness, these are what make us human beings! Sperm, Egg, Man, Woman...these are the greatest mysteries in the world! To reduce them to just ways to feel good is soooooo sad...

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 5:06 PM


I have had sex out of expressions of affection and love, out of sheer sex drive, and for a combination of the two.

This cannot be true or you would not say what you say and treat this expression so flippantly. I doubt sir whether you have ever experienced unselfish love in your entire life.
..............................................It's possible to love outside of marriage, and to want to express this love without children.

Again, that would be lust...not love.

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 5:08 PM


MK, you still haven't said why I'm an example that comprehensive sex ed is a bad thing. Save that I disagree with your morals.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 5:10 PM


"This cannot be true or you would not say what you say and treat this expression so flippantly."
I don't put sex, love, and marriage on some massive pedestal. That doesn't make them unimportant.

"Again, that would be lust...not love."
I'm fascinated to know how you got such detailed accounts of what's going on in my head, in my mind, and in my heart. Please do tell me.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 5:16 PM


MK, you still haven't said why I'm an example that comprehensive sex ed is a bad thing. Save that I disagree with your morals.
.................................................
Because, you apparently didn't learn a thing worth learning. Perhaps you just had bad teachers.

As I said before there is an objective truth. But you base all of your arguments on moral relativism.
Your own peculiar subjective truth, subject to change to fit your needs.

You live by your feelings and desires, and do not believe in an absolute truth. This means your ethics system is changeable, and very dangerous.

Ethics are a set of rules set down on paper.
Ethos is a set of rules written on your heart.

A contract is an agreement on the sharing of "things".
A covenant is an agreement on the sharing of persons.

Marriage, and sex are covenants. When you treat them like contracts you reduce them to meaningless
promises that are not expected to be kept. When you share your body with someone you should be entering into a covenant with that person. Perhaps this is all too esoteric and you are simply unable to grasp it. I don't know. I don't know anything about you. But it is possible that this is all over your head. The one on top of your neck, that is.

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 5:19 PM


"Because, you apparently didn't learn a thing worth learning."
Nobody's gotten pregnant, nobody's caught an STI, nobody's been raped because she was "asking for it", etc. I'd say I'm doing pretty well for myself.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 5:24 PM


"Marriage, and sex are covenants. When you treat them like contracts you reduce them to meaningless
promises that are not expected to be kept."
Isn't that what marriage has turned into?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 5:27 PM


"This cannot be true or you would not say what you say and treat this expression so flippantly."
I don't put sex, love, and marriage on some massive pedestal. That doesn't make them unimportant.

"Again, that would be lust...not love."
I'm fascinated to know how you got such detailed accounts of what's going on in my head, in my mind, and in my heart. Please do tell me.

Again, the world revolves around you...whether you put these things on a pedestal or not has no bearing on their importance. They are not important or unimportant because YOU say so. They are important because they are what they are.

I have no what idea what is in your mind or your heart or your head except what you have told me.
You have told me that sex is something that you do because it feels good, that you don't have to accept the consequences of your actions, that murdering innocent human beings to make your life more palatable is acceptable, need I go on...yes our moral code is different..duh!...but fear not, there is still hope for you...want learn really comprehensive sex education? Pick up a book called "Theology of the Body" by Christopher West. Get the beginners edition. (this is not a slight, I promise, it's the edition I have...The actual work was done by Pope John Paul II...but even I, with my great intellectual prowess (cough, cough) could not understand the original. Read it. Let me know what you think...

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 5:33 PM


"Because, you apparently didn't learn a thing worth learning."
Nobody's gotten pregnant, nobody's caught an STI, nobody's been raped because she was "asking for it", etc. I'd say I'm doing pretty well for myself.

These are your standards of success? Really? I don't know why, but that disappoints me. After all that "education", I would have hoped you would shoot higher than simply, well no ones pregnant and I ain't got gonnorhea...

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 5:35 PM


Marriage, and sex are covenants. When you treat them like contracts you reduce them to meaningless
promises that are not expected to be kept."
Isn't that what marriage has turned into?


Now your'e catching on...yes this is exactly what marriage has turned into...a bunch of meaningless promises. Contracts. Not covenants. Do you approve?

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 5:37 PM


I don't particularly care either way. Legal marriages don't mean anything, yet loving and devoted same-sex couples are denied the same tax breaks. I find it ironic, but I don't necessarily think it's something to pass judgment on. Let's leave that to god, eh?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 5:42 PM


"After all that "education", I would have hoped you would shoot higher than simply, well no ones pregnant and I ain't got gonnorhea..."
Baby steps. I'm currently single and working on my education. The loving aspects of childbearing that you've been going on about are on the way, but not right now. If you have a way for me to stop being horny in the meantime, I'm open to suggestions.

"You have told me that sex is something that you do because it feels good, that you don't have to accept the consequences of your actions, that murdering innocent human beings to make your life more palatable is acceptable"
You misunderstood, I think. There are consequences, and so one must address the possibility with precaution. You seem to be missing the point that an abortion is a last resort and I'd much rather have a partner get pregnant in the first place. I don't like abortion any more than you do, it's just the lesser of two evils. I just think it's a necessary evil until there's a way to restore female bodily autonomy without killing the z/e/f and/or 100% birth control for people of all ages.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 5:50 PM


Do you realize that you come up with every way possible to avoid pregancy except the one that would require self control? There is no such thing as acceptable evil. Sometimes evil happens and we must accept it yes, but this does not make it "acceptable".

The first evil, is having sex when you are not prepared. I don't mean prepared to prevent pregnancy. That is selfish and evil. I mean prepared to accept pregancy. This is unselfish and good.

I cannot help you with your "horny" problem unless you are willing to go into a discussion about good and evil, and God (notice mine has a capital "G") and demons. Yes demons. But I don't know if you can go there. It means opening your mind and asking the Holy Spirit to give you the grace to understand what you hear. Otherwise it will just sound like the rantings of a lunatic. But horniness can be helped. You must really want it first.

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 5:56 PM


What about married couples who never intend to have children? Are they supposed to not ever have sex?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 6:07 PM


There are consequences, and so one must address the possibility with precaution.

You see, this is the crux of your faulty thinking. You do not want to change your behavior. You want the consequences to be lessened. Change the world, but don't change me...This attitude will kill your soul. You, yes, You must change. You must see with new eyes. You must accept responsibility. Not use artificial means to avoid consequences, but understand the seriousness of your actions and change your behavior to reflect your mature attitude towards adult things. The problem lies in you. In your heart. In your way of seeing things. Not in pregnancy. In you. When you accept that, you have gone a long way in becoming an "adult".
And when you give up childish things, your rewards reflect it. Instead of toys that get lost or broken, you get riches uncountable. You get rewards that can't be explained. Look up. Reach up. Aim high! Don't settle for cracker jack prizes when gold is yours for the asking.

In theology of the body, Pope John Paul says that part of our problem is that we are always grasping, trying to take instead of recieve. If we would just allow it to be given instead of trying to grab all the time we would be amazed at the gifts He has for us. But we are like greedy little children. More, more, more!!! Sit back, relax, accept. In due time so much will be given to you. But He only gives what is good for you and when you are ready to handle it...

I have to leave soon...going to see Father Corapi.
I'll be back in a day or two. This has been really good. Read Theology of the Body, listen to 820 am especially between 10:00 am and 11:00 am. (If you're in Chicago) There is a whole world out here. Join us. You'll be welcome. We will give a truly "comprehensive" education. But you have to make the first move. and then trust us.
Peace by yours,
MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 6:10 PM


What about married couples who never intend to have children? Are they supposed to not ever have sex?

Last Post:

This goes back to believing that you are in charge. This is only an illusion. If a couple does not intend to have children, then we would strongly encourage that couple to rethink why they are getting married. Perhaps the celibate single life, or the religious life would be a better choice. But not being open to children is to deny the very heart of our humanity...Next time we can discuss NFP and how to use it properly...til then, God Bless

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 6:13 PM


MK,

I understand that arguments from analogy can get messy sometimes. It's important to remember that there will always be differences in analogous cases (otherwise they wouldn't be analogous, they'd be identical), the question is whether or not certain differences are relevant.

The prowler in this story is a zygote/embryo/fetus. You are you and the house is your uterus. One striking difference to note right away is that you have much more right over your uterus than you do your house. The government can take your house (it's sad and I don't agree with it), but they can't take your uterus (yet, thank goodness. Although if things keep up, they'll be after that next)

I'm not saying that a fetus is evil like a prowler. (Nor am I saying anything about sperm). If you like, you can instead think of the prowler as merely a person who is coming into your house.

In the case of an wanted pregnancy, you leave the door unlocked, you welcome the person in and consent to their staying in your house and using the resources that are there. They become a guest.

But in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, they come in without your consent. This is true even if you leave the door unlocked. Your leaving the door unlocked is stupid or perhaps absent-minded, but does not amount to consenting to let the person in. (If you accidentally left your door unlocked, and someone walked into your house and stole something, you'd probably still report it, no? Because your leaving the door unlocked does not amount to consent)

It is even less likely that there is consent in the case where the door is locked and barred (or bars on the windows, whatever), but the locks are defective. You *tried* to keep the person out of your house, but they got in anyway. It this case, it seems even more clear that they don't have your consent to be in your house.

Now, you've made some comments about staying in the neighborhood, etc, since I said that staying in this analogy is akin to consenting to sex. My point there is that just as you might have a good number of wide and varied reasons for staying in a house even though you know that there is a person who might try and come in, you might have a wide variety of reasons for engaging in sexual intercourse. I personally don't think that any of your reasons for staying in the neighborhood, or any of your reasons for consenting to sex, have any bearing on whether or not you have consented to let this person come into your home. You seem to disagree.

I've found no way of convincing others who hold certain beliefs about sexuality and morals that their beliefs are wrong. This is, in my experience, especially true with those who hold these beliefs as a result of religious convictions, presumably because religious convictions are held so devoutly. So I won't try to change your mind here. My position on the moral status of sex does not make me a relativist, however. I think there is a fact of the matter, and I think that I'm right, that it is okay for people who engage in consensual sexual intercourse outside of marriage, with or without the presence of love.

With regard to your worries about my denial of the truth of our existence as sexual beings - I believe that to deny this is to deny that we are the sort of beings that have sex, nothing more. I do not deny that at all. In choosing to take steps to prevent pregnancy, however, I do not believe that I deny the thing that makes me a woman. In fact, I would find it devaluing to think of myself as merely a means to producing children.

I also have to disagree with your statement that our reproductive cells are what make us human. I believe that what makes me human is my DNA. In the more profound sense, what makes me human, what makes me *me* is my mind, not my ova or my uterus. To say this is tantamount to saying that a woman who loses her ability to reproduce is not a woman, not a human.

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 6:36 PM



Say I never want to have children or ever get pregnant, but I'm married. You're telling me that I'm not allowed to prevent such a toll on my body unless I abstain from making love to my husband? Psh. I don't want my fertility...why should he? Saying that he wouldn't love ALL of me is bullcrap. It's a part of me that even I don't want. Period.


Hey, Zurg, I'm with ya, buddy. I'm a college student trying to make a successful career for myself. Children just aren't in the equation, but love is. Love does not equal children. Just because it does for you, MK, in your own paradigm, doesn't mean that it does in mine.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 9, 2007 6:43 PM


many posts ago you said (probably true) that the fetus cannot detect any pain because he/she dopes not have the proper neurological wiring to do so ...
but a fetus has enough wits to take over a woman's body ... he/she is there without her consent ... so how can anything enter and take-over that has no brain at all? If you are thinking a cancerous growth ... think again ... even a cancer has the identical DNA as the host (mother). In the felon who enters any home has the will(choice) not to go there. There are consequences to willful activities.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 9, 2007 7:12 PM


John, what is your point besides "sex is bad"(?)?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 9, 2007 7:45 PM


John,

No one said it took brains to take up residence inside someone's body and begin depleting resources. Tapeworms, for example, which presumably have no brain and no free will, will take up residence inside a host and begin depleting resources.

I'm not saying an embryo is a tapeworm, merely pointing out that, contrary to your claim, it doesn't take a brain or free will to enter a human body and start taking nutrients, etc, out of it.

And suppose someone you didn't stop from standing outside your home picks up a random passerby and throws him into your house through an open window. You knew he liked to throw passersby into houses, but you didn't take any precautions.The passerby crashes into your furniture, destroying a few things as he lands. He didn't consent to entering your home, but just because you were silly enough to let someone who throws people through windows stand outside your house doesn't mean that you consented to the passerby's presence in your house or his inadvertant destruction of your property.

This is especially true if you actually tried to set up your windows so that thrown passersby couldn't crash through. Yes, actions have consequences. But it is not always the case that consent to a certain action is consent to its potential consequences. I'm arguing that sex is analogous in the relevant ways to the two philosophical test cases I've now presented, and hence is one of those actions such that consent to it is not consent to it's potential consequences (namely, a pregnancy).

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 8:15 PM


Hi ZuRG,

who said anything about sex being bad?

The point you, Alyssa, Erika, and others have made over and over is that an (uninvited being without any brain at all) can at the same time be clever enough to 'take over a woman's body' ... even a 'leech' has a rudimentary brain and operates by sense and reflex but a being of just a single cell could hardly be blamed for taking over anything ... even if uninvited. Is it proper then that these beings receive the consequences of taking-over her body?

And maybe try fatherhood from a different perspective ... a baby chose you to be his Daddy ...Does he ever ask you if you qualify? Will you accede to his life?

Posted by: John McDonell at March 9, 2007 8:16 PM


John,

Who said it "took over". I said it took up residence and began depleting nutrients. Cells other than embryos do in fact do this - cancer cells do it. I know you claim that they have the same DNA, but that's not relevant. The point you are trying to argue is that it takes a brain to take up residence in another's body and begin syphoning resources of it. Cancer cells do this. So do bacteria cells. So do viruses (well, they don't really syphon resources, they destroy healthy cells by using them to reduplicate themselves). It doesn't take any sort of brain at all to take up residence in a human body and begin taking resources out of it or causing it damage.

And I've been arguing in several places on this blog (and no one has yet to respond to my arguments) that it doesn't matter if that embryo/fetus is a person with all the rights and privileges thereof, no person has the right to use another's body without that other's consent, even for survival. No person has an obligation to sustain the life of another through the violation of their bodily integrity/autonomy. Hence the fetus has no such right and the woman has no such obligation.

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 8:36 PM


right you are Diana,

but the consequences metered out to the person thrown through the window would be --- eviction (but living). Thee consequences to a fetus is --- eviction (by death - before implantation or after implantation).

As an aside, whose body(DNA) is the placenta? ... just curious ... really don't know!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 9, 2007 8:36 PM


Diana you are a much faster typer then I'll ever be ... so you can post several times before I can respond to the first ...

it is too bad we lost the Michael C. thread. I had taken almost 5 hours to post a very different response, only to find that the thread was now gone! ... my post ... gone too!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 9, 2007 8:56 PM


quick answer to the first is that no brain is required to be a living being ... so death (cessation of being) is not warranted on a fetus because of lack of cognition ... or of full development .... in an old cliche: a fetus is not a potential child but a child with potential.

There is an answer to your second reasoning but the response is a tad longer and I would prefer that it not receive the same treatment as the other post (the last one on Michael C.).

Posted by: John McDonell at March 9, 2007 9:24 PM


just thought a quick response to your second scenario: say you are riding your bike on a very cloudy day ... (you are fertile and have sex). If it rains and you get drenched ... (a dependent being takes up residence in an autonomous person - sounds like the consequence of risky activity [besides the residency of unwanted people happens all the time in history - ask North American native peoples!] , is it the bicycle that made you get wet? Response: destroy bicycle (abortion) ... does such an action make any sense at all?

Posted by: John McDonell at March 9, 2007 10:14 PM


Mary Kay,I loved your posts. I understood them all! Thank you.As for Zurg,Alyssa,and Diana,I was falling asleep. Their posts are a big bore. It's like they all are on the same computer and each taking turns writing the same thing. They just want to try to argue what they already KNOW.-We're right. Any and all that have had anything to do with abortion are guilty. I don't want them in society,but what can you do? Peace and love all.

Posted by: momof3 at March 9, 2007 10:49 PM


Hey, Zurg, I'm with ya, buddy. I'm a college student trying to make a successful career for myself. Children just aren't in the equation, but love is. Love does not equal children. Just because it does for you, MK, in your own paradigm, doesn't mean that it does in mine.
...................................................
We already know that we disagree. That point is not in contention. Your point is that you want to have what you want when you want it and no one has the right to stop you from getting it. You also don't want to have what you don't want and no one should force you to have it.

I get it.

I just think that this is a very low form of thinking, very selfish and very me-centered. If it only involved you I would still try to bring you up to a higher way of thinking through debate, because contrary to what you think, I do care about women.I think a lot of this is over your head because you haven't gotten to a point in your life where you can understand it. You can't explain to a two year old why he can't play with the sharp knife. You can't "Make" him see the logic. So you just take the knife away. He believes he knows what is best for himself, and resents the fact that you think you know better and won't let him do what he wants to do.

The difference here, and the thing that allows me to butt in where I'm not wanted, is that it isn't just you that is in harms way. It is a child. You can speak for yourself and tell me over and over the merits of intercourse out of wedlock, but a baby can't say, please give me a chance to make my mark on the world. So pro-lifers do it for them.

Slave owners could opine all day long on why they had the right to own slaves, but a slave was not allowed to plead his case. So strangers had to take up the cause for him and be his voice. Slave owners, by the way, were just as adamant about the morality of owning human beings as you are about killing them.

Sadly, you are both wrong.

This is an absolute truth. Objective truth. I cannot force you to see it. You are not there yet. But I can fight to make laws that stop you from doing harming other people with your faulty thinking. And in the meantime, I can express myself to you in the hopes that slowly, you will come to see the light.

I know you think this is just my perception, jaded by religious fanaticism, but the two year thought his mother was a raving lunatic when she grabbed the knife out of his hand. I can't grab the knife from you, so I will just have to hope and pray that the damage you cause to yourself is not that great. And pray that one day you will put down the knife on your own accord.

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 11:08 PM


John,

I'm sorry you lost your post. I hate it when things like that happen!

"but the consequences metered out to the person thrown through the window would be --- eviction (but living). Thee consequences to a fetus is --- eviction (by death - before implantation or after implantation)."

True. But those 2 cases were merely meant to show that there are cases of actions that are analogous in the relevant ways to sex where we consent to the action but not to the potential consequences. Thus, I don't see how this difference is relevant to the conclusion that is drawn (i.e., consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy).

"As an aside, whose body(DNA) is the placenta? ... just curious ... really don't know!"

I honestly don't know. I'll have to search around and find out.

"quick answer to the first is that no brain is required to be a living being ... so death (cessation of being) is not warranted on a fetus because of lack of cognition ... or of full development .... in an old cliche: a fetus is not a potential child but a child with potential."

Both of the two cases on this thread, though, were not meant as arguments justifying abortion, but rather were meant to show that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and thus, that a woman can have sex (esp. protected) and yet we cannot automatically say that she consented to allow a fetus to reside in her body.

I agree that the fact that something lacks cognition is not sufficient reason to terminate its life. But I also think that whether something has cognition or not, it has no right to use my body without my consent. And my act of "pulling the plug" (if you remember my post from the Michael C thread) may be indecent, but it is not wrong. It does not violate the rights of the other person. This, of course, is trivially true if the thing in question lacks cognition (and hence, to my mind, is not a person)

"There is an answer to your second reasoning but the response is a tad longer and I would prefer that it not receive the same treatment as the other post (the last one on Michael C.)."

I would be very interested to hear it, though, if you would ever like to. I understand the desire not to have to redo all that you did already.

"just thought a quick response to your second scenario: say you are riding your bike on a very cloudy day ... (you are fertile and have sex). If it rains and you get drenched ... (a dependent being takes up residence in an autonomous person - sounds like the consequence of risky activity [besides the residency of unwanted people happens all the time in history - ask North American native peoples!] , is it the bicycle that made you get wet? Response: destroy bicycle (abortion) ... does such an action make any sense at all?"

Hmmm.. interesting. But I'm a bit confused. If I ride out on a cloudy day without an umbrella (or poncho, whatever) (have unprotected sex) and I get drenched (have another being take up residence) wouldn't that mean that the embryo/fetus in this analogy, then, would be akin to the water that drenched me, and not the bicycle, since getting drenched was getting pregnant (and I started out with the bicycle already)? Sure it seems like I was darned foolish for riding out on a cloudy day without some protection, but drying off doesn't seem unreasonable. Am I missing something?

Oh, and John, thanks so much for being civil, respectful and reasonable. I really appreciate it.

Posted by: Diana at March 9, 2007 11:16 PM


Diane,

I am so sorry that I didn't get your analogy the first (or second?) time.

but...
But in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, they come in without your consent. This is true even if you leave the door unlocked. Your leaving the door unlocked is stupid or perhaps absent-minded, but does not amount to consenting to let the person in. (If you accidentally left your door unlocked, and someone walked into your house and stole something, you'd probably still report it, no? Because your leaving the door unlocked does not amount to consent)


The problem here is that even though all you wanted was a breeze when you left the window open and instead ended up with a prowler, the deed is done.
You don't even know you are burgularized until after the fact. You can call the police. You can replace your stolen goods. But you can't undo the deed. It is done.

While I believe that having sex outside of marriage is wrong because it harms you on a deeper level than physical, I understand that you are a person with a God given right to make your own choices with regards to yourself...

So you may continue to have all of the sex you want and perhaps one day realize that there is a better way to enjoy this beautiful act, but when it comes to hurting another living being, even if this being is using your body...well that is a different story. That being wouldn't even exist if you hadn't committed an act that brought it into existence. And this is the bottom line. None of you want to admit that you are responsible for it existing in the first place. You speak as if the two are not connected. But they are. And the baby is there because of something you chose to do. This is where the choice comes in. But once the baby exists, you forfeit the right to make any more choices concerning it's right to live. You already made your choice. You had sex. And that act brought it into being.

Your last comment to John, I assume, was aimed at me. Again, I apologize for coming on so strong earlier. I just get so frustrated watching baby after baby die, and knowing there is nothing I can do. I hold no bad feelings toward you. I hate the action, not you. I would be committing a grave sin to hate you. You too are a creature loved into existence by God, and as such deserve my respect. I am sorry that I did not give it to you.

MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 9, 2007 11:40 PM


Mary Kate,

You rightly point out that slaves needed to be spoken for because they didn't have a legal voice. Your analogy to a fetus is very weak, though.

Slaves were people. People with a life and the ability to be conscious of that and the ability to have emotions; people whose lives had a meaning to other people. In essence, they were people without legal personhood.

An embryo 'facing' abortion can't speak not because it is silenced by legislation. it can't because it can't. It does not have vocal chords, nor a conscious mind that could make it feel treated unjustly and create the urge to speak out. It does not know what it is because it does not have the ability to know. It does not even feel pain or happiness. Nor does it mean anything to anyone except for the mother who wants to abort it. It cannot live without the woman's organs it is attached to.

Aborting it is not punishing the embryo as torturing punishes a slave. it does not have a conception of punishment, nor can it miss something it never had, nor can it miss anything because it does not have the ability to miss, remember? It seems punishing to you because you already live, and know about the concepts. Anyways, believing in heaven I feel it sure is a better place for a fetus to be than as a person in this world.

So, why do you make it your task to speak for an embryo? It does not appreciate it. There is so much real pain in this world you could devote yourself to.

Posted by: Joe at March 10, 2007 8:04 AM


John, Diana: The "Italian abortion mafia" post is not gone. It just slipped off the bottom of the main page as posts were added above it. It is here: www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/03/new_stanek_wnd_11.html.

You can also retrieve it by going to the right side of the home page and clicking on "Stanek columns" in the archives.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 10, 2007 8:05 AM


no, no MK,

I find your posts absolutely wonderful ... and refreshing! I can however, feel your frustration ... I am a person who has all kinds of ideas and this one just popped into my head about two minutes before it was written.

So my little contribution was to allow the continuation of this conversation. The cloudy day - rain idea was an attempt to give Dianna some breathing space. I sense that she got herself boxed-in by her stark words.

Just hope this helped ....

and Dianna the bike was chosen in the analogy because unlike water, it is more concrete(persistent) than wiping with a towel. A pregnancy is about 2 becoming one (but being identified as 3.) Many people with math limitations think 1/2 male + 1/2 female = marriage; but marriage is more of a multiplication than an addition. So ... 1.0 male X 1.0 female = 1.0 marriage .... X 1 child = 1 family; X 1 more child = 1 larger family, etc .... otherwise 1/2 male X 1/2 female = 1/4 marriage ... X 1/2 child = 1/8 family and subsequent children deplete the family.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 10, 2007 8:08 AM


John, 3/9, 8:36p, asked: "whose body(DNA) is the placenta? ... just curious ... really don't know!"

The placenta is fascinating. It is actually called an organ. It belongs to the mother. It reaches the size of 1 pound. Identical twins share the same placenta. Fraternal twins each have their own placenta.

The exchange of nutrients, gases and wastes between maternal and fetal blood takes place in the placenta. (Recall blood types may be different.)

The placenta also secretes hormones: HCG to first tell the mother she is pregnant; estrogen and progesterone (which the birth control pill mimics) which among other things tells the mother's body throughout the rest of the nine months she is pregnant and shouldn't get pregnant again; lactogen to stimulate breast development and prepare for milk secretion; and two other hormones that stop the uterus from contracting until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 10, 2007 8:31 AM


Let me ask this question to the pro-choice people. If a woman goes in to have a late term abortion,and the child is born alive[it does happen] what should we do with him/her?Should we leave the child to die alone in a bucket?Do you feel that now that this "fetus" is out of the womb[no matter what the condition]is it human? If life doesn't begin @ conception-then when?

Posted by: mom of 3 at March 10, 2007 8:45 AM


"So my little contribution was to allow the continuation of this conversation. The cloudy day - rain idea was an attempt to give Dianna some breathing space. I sense that she got herself boxed-in by her stark words."

I appreciate the thought, John. The statements that may have given you that sense, though, were merely made to prevent people from focusing in on irrelevant aspects of the analogies. It's very easy to say "But babies are innocent and prowlers are evil". But that's not relevant to the analogy. It could very easily be a random person walking in, or it could be a really nice prowler -heck - it could be Santa Claus, but then the analogy reads oddly.

"and Dianna the bike was chosen in the analogy because unlike water, it is more concrete(persistent) than wiping with a towel."

Sure, but I think chosing the bike as akin to the baby makes the case disanalogous to that of a woman conceiving. The bike was present before the act of conception in your analogy. The action taken (riding out on a cloudy day) was not causally linked to the presence of the bike.

Another case might better suit your purposes (although I can't think of one offhand). The bike case seems akin in structure to my earlier cases on this thread. But those cases were not meant to demonstrate that abortion is permissible, but rather were supposed to show that there are cases of actions that are analogous to sex in the relevant way that are such that consent to the action is not consent to the relevant consequences.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 9:09 AM


MK,

That comment was not directed at you at all. You and John have both engaged in a civil and reasonable debate with me, and I very much appreciate it.

"The problem here is that even though all you wanted was a breeze when you left the window open and instead ended up with a prowler, the deed is done.
You don't even know you are burgularized until after the fact. You can call the police. You can replace your stolen goods. But you can't undo the deed. It is done."

Yes, the deed is done. But the whole point of the case is merely to show that consent to one action is not consent to the potential consequences. And it's meant to do that with a case that is analogous in the relevant ways to sex. I've consented to staying in the neighborhood with the full knowledge that if I do, someone will try and get into my house. There are lots of reasons someone might do that. I may have foolishly left my window open, or done my best to keep the prowler out by putting up bars, but in either case I've not consented to his presence in my house.

If you think I have consented to his presence in my house, then you and I have a clash of intuitions. But if you feel that I have not consented to his presence, then, if you still don't like the conclusion of the argument from analogy(i.e. consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy), then you have to show where the case is disanalogous in a way that is relevant to my licit drawing of the conclusion.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 9:20 AM


Thanks for the info, Jill!

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 9:21 AM


Also,pro-choice is pro-woman according to a lot of you. What if a woman has an abortion,regrets it,and suffers severe PAS afterwards. What would you say to her? I'm wondering about those of you that have no regrets about your abortion.I'm sure if you went to visit some convicted murderers on death row,some may say they have no regrets as well.We know that billions of women suffer from PAS. So tell me why do you pro-choice people continue to support something that can cause distress to someone?

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 9:22 AM


If a woman goes in to have a late term abortion,and the child is born alive[it does happen] what should we do with him/her?

Perform life saving measures and then either give to the mother or put up for adoption according to her wishes.

Should we leave the child to die alone in a bucket?

Of course not.

Do you feel that now that this "fetus" is out of the womb[no matter what the condition]is it human?

It's human before it leaves the womb. It's human at the moment of conception. But then so is a corpse. Whether or not it has human DNA is irrelevant to 1) whether it is a person with rights and 2) whether, even if it is a person, it has the right to use the mothers body without her consent

"If life doesn't begin @ conception-then when?"

I'm assuming you mean "life" in the more profound sense of personhood, etc, since human cells are alive, including, of course, embryos. So, when does personhood begin? I don't know. I'm inclined to say that it begins when true brain activity begins (not reflex movement, but actual activity allowing the fetus to control its own movements). But I also think personhood is irrelevant to the abortion issue, since even a person does not have the right to use my body without my consent, even for survival

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 9:33 AM


"Also,pro-choice is pro-woman according to a lot of you. What if a woman has an abortion,regrets it,and suffers severe PAS afterwards. What would you say to her?"

I would tell her how sorry I was that she had a bad experience/regrets her decision, and probably direct her to counseling.

"I'm wondering about those of you that have no regrets about your abortion.I'm sure if you went to visit some convicted murderers on death row,some may say they have no regrets as well."

I'm sorry, but not regreting one's abortion does not make one akin to a murderer on death row. Some people don't agree with you that abortion is murder. Inflammatory rhetoric and name calling does not advance the debate.

"We know that billions of women suffer from PAS."

*Billions* of women? Do you have an unbiased source for that? Last I checked the world only had 6.6 billion people.

"So tell me why do you pro-choice people continue to support something that can cause distress to someone?"

We support a woman's right to make a decision for herself about whether or not she is going to consent to another being's use of her body. We defend her right to bodily integrity/autonomy. Yes, some women regret their abortions. But, as you've noted, some do not. The fact that some women regret their decision is not sufficient reason to eradicate the option. Pregnancy can cause PPD, bad marriages can cause depression. Do you want to make pregnancy and bad marriages illegal?

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 9:42 AM


Diana,

you and I know there are many problems with the use of analogy (besides getting an exact fit) .... too often people get stuck because an analogy tends to shift around a phenomenon to be looked at through a single view only ... I am reminded of the story from India about 10 blind men insisting on their personal understanding (view???) on what an elephant looks like.

anyone, and I mean anyone could easily read our posts and say what the h*ll does clouds, and rain and bikes or, guys getting tossed through windows have anything at all to do with getting knocked-up ... and now elephants.

for another blind-man's-view Jill kindly linked to my perceived-lost (only archived) post.

I think you might like it ... or find it 'different'............

Posted by: John McDonell at March 10, 2007 9:52 AM


"you and I know there are many problems with the use of analogy (besides getting an exact fit) .... too often people get stuck because an analogy tends to shift around a phenomenon to be looked at through a single view only ... I am reminded of the story from India about 10 blind men insisting on their personal understanding (view???) on what an elephant looks like.

anyone, and I mean anyone could easily read our posts and say what the h*ll does clouds, and rain and bikes or, guys getting tossed through windows have anything at all to do with getting knocked-up ... and now elephants"

It is true that analogies can get sticky. But an argument from analogy is a valid form of argument (when the cases are in fact analogous). And I think that they can be helpful in debating an issue that is contentious and for which people have deep, if not dogmatic, attachment to certain premises. Analogies, while sometimes sticky, also help us look at the issue in an indirect way that is distanced from ideas that we might not be willing to give up if they are confronted directly.

People often look at what philosophers do (the cases I've presented are philosophical test cases - two are modified from cases presented by the well respected bio-ethicist Judith Thomson) and scoff: "What does that have to do with anything?" But sometimes we have to look at things in different ways in order to change our minds or merely better understand the issues.

I'll look through the Michael C thread for your post. I look forward to reading it.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 10:02 AM


DoctorDefense,

I have wondered about that myself after spending yesterday reading about the Christian terrorists who have bombed and driven cars into abortion clinics, and shot Doctors, not only do these terrorists do these horrible things, but also they are martyred and praised on various websites as "heroes". I begin to wonder myself if it won't be long when pro-choicers get tired of the violence perpetuated against them and start to shoot back. It won't be pretty if that does happen.

-EAK

Posted by: EAK at March 10, 2007 11:00 AM


What's all this about PAS? I've been looking and all I can find is that it's not acknowledged by the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 10, 2007 11:19 AM


EAK: armyofgod.com, indeed. I hope pro-choicers don't stoop to that level.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 10, 2007 11:20 AM


Hi Dianna,

a bit more on the analogy front: the rain falling can also be understood as the pregnancy test ... the 'bike' pre-existed this. Just as a fetus-embryo pre-existed a pregnancy-test. [Abortions do not occur on women who are not deemed 'pregnant', or are they?] so what is the reaction to a now wet-bike, that was formerly dry.

Perhaps your definition of what constitutes person-hood needs a little work ... most pro-lifers assume person-hood as being a more basic term than legalisms ... ie. in Canada women were not legally persons until the 1920's and black were deemed non-persons by the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court in the USA.

I assume that women and blacks did not become persons with these decisions-reversed, but had been so always. So if DNA doesn't count, nor does being alive count ... not even these two coincidentally! ... there are other 'markers' - how's about at the time a born babe is named .... he/she can be eliminated if they are born with a defect ((already espoused by one Princeton U ethicist - can't recall his name)) ... then how's about the baby's intellectual adept enough to see himself/herself as beings separate from the parents, when first saying the word 'Mommy' ... physical prowess can be another 'marker' like taking-the-first-step. [It really doesn't count those steps in-the-womb on 4D ultrasound imaging.] A person can draw the line anywhere: Bar Mitzvah; first drink ; graduate from Gr 1 ... highschool, college; when married; when giving birth; when first voting ... when driving a car for the first time... on and on.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 10, 2007 11:31 AM


ZuRG,

"EAK: armyofgod.com, indeed. I hope pro-choicers don't stoop to that level."

that's precisely the point, duh. They already have ... by killing babies. First strategy is to get your attention. ... this is very difficult to do for people that love to navel-gaze (sex without consequences) ... one consequence has come in a rather unpleasant big way, eh! The action is for you to 'Wake up!

But I fear that it'll be understood as a challenge-to-fight .... lot's of macho-moxy ... so many more will be killed by doctors calling this new form of murder: euthanasia [It's already here!]

Posted by: John McDonell at March 10, 2007 11:55 AM


Hi John,

"a bit more on the analogy front: the rain falling can also be understood as the pregnancy test ... the 'bike' pre-existed this. Just as a fetus-embryo pre-existed a pregnancy-test. [Abortions do not occur on women who are not deemed 'pregnant', or are they?] so what is the reaction to a now wet-bike, that was formerly dry."

Once again, though, the case seems disanalgous. Yes, the bike pre-existed the raining. But if the bike is to be held akin to the fetus, then it must be the result of an action of mine. Otherwise, we're not looking at something that's akin to pregnancy. We might try saying that I built the bike, but this is a deliberate intentional action, more like trying to get pregnant than doing something that has the mere potential to result in pregnancy and taking precautions to avoid that pregnancy.

"Perhaps your definition of what constitutes person-hood needs a little work ... most pro-lifers assume person-hood as being a more basic term than legalisms ... ie. in Canada women were not legally persons until the 1920's and black were deemed non-persons by the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court in the USA."

But my take on personhood was not based on legalisms. It is more based on the intuition that a brain-dead individual, with no higher brain function, is not a person. When someone is brain dead, there is no one in there. There are limited reflex movements, regulation of bodily function, perhaps, but fish have that. So, conversely, a being without any higher brain function is not a person. Women and African Americans are not brain-dead. It is a sad fact that they were not legally recognized as people for long stretches of time.

At any rate, I'm not 100% about my thoughts on personhood. I recognize that people may make a variety of arguments for when personhood begins. One of my professors believes it begins when an individual can use embedded conditionals in speech. I think my argument has more merit than his, since, as a physicalist, I believe that I am my central nervous system, a belief that seems to be shared by a large number of neuroscientists. But, as I said, unlike some other pro-choicers, I also don't believe that personhood is, in the end, relevant to the debate. I don't think a full grown, thinking, feeling, reasoning individual - who is obviously a person - can use my body for anything without my consent, even if it means their survival.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 12:17 PM


Diana, Most everyone feels that abortion is murder.The post abortive women that I know have no problem saying so.The women that refuse to say that it is a living person are those that don't want to admit that they are guilty of murder.If I go to the store and steal a tube of lipstick,I have made a choice to become a thief.I think that people that tell you it isn't a baby are just paying you lip service.I've seen women do this to post abortive women.They want to spare your feelings.What is the difference between the murder you comitted and the death row inmate?

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 12:46 PM


@John, Mom: If you have a way to restore a woman's bodily autonomy that doesn't involve the indeed unfortunate side effect of aborting the z/e/f, I'm open to suggestions. Pro-lifers say "pro-abort people murder babies", I say "why don't pro-lifers come up with a solution to our problem (restoring bodily autonomy once an unwanted pregnancy has onset) that doesn't require this?" and I never get an answer.

Let me reiterate, I don't like abortion any more than you do, so please stop attacking me (more at Mom than John), we can be civil. But it is the lesser of two evils, and until a better solution presents itself, I believe it is a necessary evil.

@Mom: For all your ranting about PAS, you've evaded/ignored my question about it.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 10, 2007 1:02 PM


The only thing that Roe. did for this country is take the back alley butcher,put him in a white coat,and we gave him his own office to boot.Check out former abortionist Brian L.Finkle.He is locked up in an Arizona prison for multiple rapes,molestations,and stalking charges.He told reporters that he referred to his clinic as "The vaginal vault" All you need to do is run the dirt bag's name on the net.According to some of his fellow inmates this loser still brags about how great his job was because he got to play with women's breasts and *******/slang for vagina. When one woman took the stand against him in court,he whistled the tune from The Wizard of Oz{If I only had a brain]He got away with this for years.Why? Could it be that no other "doctor" could be found to kill the babies?

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 1:07 PM


That's one bad guy, out of thousands. Not representative of the entire movement.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 10, 2007 1:12 PM


And you're still evading my questions about PAS

Posted by: ZuRG at March 10, 2007 1:12 PM


Contestant #2 C'mon down! It's the one the only Dr. Edward Allred.Check him out. Racist as a racist can be. He will do discount/free abortions for Black,Mexican,and Hispanic women and he referres to his patients as "Dogs"Run his name for further details.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 1:14 PM


Zurg,I'm still waiting for that long list of dentists you have for me.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 1:17 PM


Contestant#3 It's Dr.Steven Pack. This sterling character tried to murder his girlfriend after she refused to abort his child. I guess he thought he'd pull a 2 for 1. Hey these guys really aren't helping your case Dr. Defense

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 1:23 PM


Momof3,

"Most everyone feels that abortion is murder"

Do you have unbiased statistics to back up this claim? The fact that you know women who think it is murder is not a sufficient base for generalization to the whole population any more than the fact that I know lots of women who don't think it's murder.

"What is the difference between the murder you comitted and the death row inmate?"

1) The death row inmate committed a premediated murder of someone who was clearly, to everyone, a person with rights. An abortion ends the life of an embryo or fetus, that is not clearly, to everyone, a person with rights.
2) The person who the death row inmate killed was not using the death row inmate's body without his consent. An abortion ends the life of a being that *was* using the woman's body without her consent.
3) Based on (2), the death row inmate had no right to killed the person he did. He violated the other person's rights in doing so. However, the woman who aborts is not violating the rights of the fetus, since the fetus has no right to use the woman's body without her consent. Until you refute that claim, you cannot compare a woman who has had an abortion to a death row inmate.

Incidentally, as I have mentioned on other threads and on this one, ad hominem attacks and inflammatory rhetoric get us nowhere. Instead, I think they serve to damage the cause of the person who uses them, since they seem to indicate a lack of any other means for supporting their views.

"The only thing that Roe. did for this country is take the back alley butcher,put him in a white coat,and we gave him his own office to boot.Check out former abortionist Brian L.Finkle.He is locked up in an Arizona prison for multiple rapes,molestations,and stalking charges."

::sigh::

As I and others on threads all over this blog have said multiple times, unless you can demonstrate that all abortion providers are corrupt, etc, the argument you look like you're trying to put forward is invalid. There are bad apples in every practice. The fact that some people in a practice do atrocious things is not sufficient reason to condemn the entire practice. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

There are evil dentists, there are evil gynecologists, evil lawyers, evil businessmen, evil teachers... there have been people in each and every one of these practices that have done horrible things. Shall we now ban dentistry, gynecology, the practice of law, business practice, and teaching? Of course not. If your argument were valid, we would have to.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 1:26 PM


How could I forget LeRoy Carhart? He left a woman spread eagle on the operating table to go and throw stones at his office window. I think he was in the middle of her procedure at that.I've also heard that he is full of talent. He can hold the telephone to one ear and perform your abortion with the other. Now there's a doc. that shows you how much his patients mean to him. George Tiller. He recently killed a mentally retarded woman.Was she a person or not?Why wasen't there anyone crying out for her?

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 1:32 PM


mom:

here's an evil dentist: http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=5653651

That was the result of a simple google search, and note that it is a run of the mill news site, not some anti-dentistry site.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 1:32 PM


Mom - why do you continue to use this faulty argument after it has been shown to be faulty. Bad reasoning does not help you cause, in fact, it only hurts it.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 1:33 PM


Okay,there's one dentist and I already have 5 abortionists.I'm not done yet.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 1:36 PM


Let me tell you about a few more former abortionists:Dr. Ivan Namihas, This guy impregnated 2 of his abortion patients after their follow up appointments,Laurence Reich asked his abortion patients to masterbate for him so he could let them know if they were doing it correctly,Dr.Miguel Gomez-had sex with an unconscious post abortion patient.He was violating patients from the 1960's up until 1992.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 1:52 PM


Mom, it doesn't matter if you have 5 or 50. The argument you are putting forward is invalid. I've demonstrated it. Zurg has demonstrated it. Many others have demonstrated it. Again, faulty reasoning does not advance your cause, but rather damages it.

And, by the way, rather than merely trusting you on this, I'd really like to see reports of these incidents on non-biased websites. Websites like the one I posted about the dentist will do fine. Websites like Operation Rescue, Abort73, etc, etc will not. Merely saying it happened will not.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 1:54 PM


well Mom, just do a google search, I had about 10 links to news stories posted, but for some reason or another the comment didnt show up, at least not for me.

Posted by: Dan at March 10, 2007 2:19 PM


Here are a few names of abortionists still in practice:Listen to what they have to say-It seems that abortionist Stuart Sitzman is willing to do abortions in his private practice, but says he does NOT want to be called an "Abortion doctor" due to the fact that he's not proud of it. Abortionist Tommy Tucker told TIME magazine that he" wished he never had to perform another one"He went on to say "Abortionists are the lowest echelon of the medical practice."Joining him are Chris Sumopoulos,Ralph Bundy,and Warren Hern.Warren even wrote a book about how women can and do die from abortions today. At least they feel a bit bad.One abortionist states that the majority of women seeking abortions are usually irresponsible and indecisive about where they are going in life.He says that they all live for the moment and they aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 2:20 PM


Pro-choicers-

I fail to see the point in arguing with these people. Most are so blinded by emotion/religon/stupidity that they have basically mentally retarded themselves. They throw out statements trying to demonize all doctors who perform abortions as some legion of evil by citing a few sick individuals, as if other doctors, dentists, plastic surgeons had not been found to have commited acts equally (if not more heinous). If you found a comprehensive list of all dentists who had commited equally heinous acts, and the list was thousands of names long, they would still disagree, convincing themselves that it couldn't be true. Their entire argument for this issue is (when exposed at its base) a religous one. And everyone knows that you cannot reason with one blinded by their faith. It is fruitless. And the most intelligent pro-lifer on here (John) in his last post seemed to almost condone the acts of these Christian terrorists and their psychotic acts. And on top of all this, as if the rest wasn't bad enough, this is all being done on the website of a woman who advocates domestic violence , stating that a real man would beat his partner if they were to choose to get an abortion. Disgusting.

There are rational pro-lifers to debate with on this issue, but they aren't here. I suggest going to find them and leaving this raving nut-jobs to their religous delusions.

-EAK

Posted by: EAK at March 10, 2007 2:24 PM


Well Dan try again.It comes up Ok for me each time.I find that a little hard to believe. The truth is there if you want it.I am still waiting for you to match your list of twisted dentists to mine of corrupt abortionists. I'd rather get the word out to my gender.Zurg,Dr.Defense- you 2 have proven nothing to me.How about a list of OBGYN's? I'll even take that.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 2:32 PM


Oh ya EAK,You are blinded as well.I didn't have to call you names in this blog.Why did you resort to that with me?

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 2:34 PM


Diana,

after answering many of your questions, they seem to say: 'but, but what about this .......... (phew, I'm safe!) ......... this argument form is what MK noted yesterday about teaching a 2 year-old ... for adults its called obfuscation ... in legalize: obstruction ...so. I'm going to bow out and let you nit-pick someone else to death.

I once had a prof who insisted the brain was the mind. Centuries ago, Thomas Aquinas wrote that since thoughts are immaterial, so should their source be (has to be) immaterial. The mind(immaterial) is not the brain(material). Person-hood has a similar relation to a living-human body. I cannot 'prove' any person ever exists or existed because I cannot 'prove' the existence of thought.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 10, 2007 2:34 PM


I think you people are more upset that I put the truth out there, and you still refuse to want to see it. Even the abortion doctors don't give a crap about you.They will give you some lip service so that they can get your money for an abortion, and then they will stab ya in the back while laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 2:40 PM


John,you ain't a kidding.This board is filled with nit-pickers.I'm leaving as well. I could ask God himself to talk to these people,but they only want to go in circles.Provide this unbiased site and that unbiased site.How do you know this is factual-BLAH BLAH BLAH.Dan I didn't mean to be mean to you if I came off that way.For starters run Brian L. Finkle/abortionist.This is the creep in the Arizona state prison pulling 15 yrs. to life.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 2:57 PM


To Zurg,I apologize to you.PAS is post abortion Syndrome. Several sites support this. Project Rachel,Safe Haven Ministries,and Silent no More. These are 3 of many.I must sign off for now.

Posted by: momof3 at March 10, 2007 3:04 PM


HA! 3 pro-life propaganda websites. You know why? Becaise PAS is a creation of the pro-life movement. It is propaganda, and it is funny that the pro-life side is the only side who stoops to spreading propaganda, that in itself is indicitive of the fact that they are wrong on this issue. If they were right propaganda would not be necessary.

Posted by: Alan at March 10, 2007 3:11 PM


John and Mom,

Philosophical investigation may seem like nitpicking, but details are important. Uncovering the form of an argument and, hence, whether or not it is a valid argument, is key to any debate.

John, I'm sorry that you think I'm merely nitpicking. I don't mean to frustrate you, just argue my side, and better understand the arguments of your side. But I don't believe I've engaged in any obfuscation. I've presented analogies; people have challenged them, and I've defended them. You presented analogies; I challenged them, and you defended them. That's not nitpicking. It's debate.

I'm aware of Aquinas' thoughts on the mind/body issue. I disagree because I'm a materialist of sorts. And also because I don't know how the immaterial could interact with the material (cause your body to move) or the material could interact with the immaterial (drugs dealing with psychological disorders). But that's an entirely different issue altogether.

And Mom, if you think worries like "how do you know this is factual, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH" are unfounded, that only makes me less likely to believe that the statistics you cite and the incidents you claim to have occurred are ficticious. Especially since you've yet to provide unbiased sources for any of your claims. Jill has backed up many of her claims with sources, and I respect that. Why? Because gaining knowledge is all about facts and good reasoning. That's not nitpicking; that's rational argument.

Alas, I'm afraid I must, in the end, agree with EAK. Ah, well.

Thanks, John and MK, for interesting discussions.

Posted by: Diana at March 10, 2007 3:36 PM


So what? So what if they have a post abortion depression? Why would that in any way be the basis for making something illegal?

People who drive cars die in car crashs, women who give birth suffer post partum depression. Should driving cars and giving birth be made illegal? Women are informed about the possibility of suffering a severe depression after an abortion. The knowledge is out there. It is up to her to make her decision based on that, wther she wants to take the risk or not. Do women need to be protected by law from their own personal decisions? And when some women feel bad after an abortion, is that because of the hormonal changes, or because of all those anti-choicers around them calling them whores and murderers?

There is nothing wrong with providing information on the depression and with sharing personal experiences gone badly wrong. Using it as an argument for legislation is simply inane.
And don't give me the 'you're not allowed to do drugs' argument. The consumption and trade of drugs is detrimental to both society's social fabric and the economy. It is based on completely other premises than 'we need to protect them from themselves'.

Posted by: Joe at March 10, 2007 5:56 PM


heres a bunch mom:

http://ag.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5A9FDEB0-78B0-404C-8303-BABE68CCD756/0/AttorneyGeneralStumboAnnouncesArrestandIndictmentofJohnsonCountyDentist.htm

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=13736

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/02/11/dentist_77_tied_to_drugs_sex_scheme/

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2005/06/16/dentist_arraigned_on_sex_assault_charges

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2001/mar/mar23c_01.html

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060304/NEWS03/603040434

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2005/06/16/dentist_arraigned_on_sex_assault_charges

http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/287779502017293.php

Posted by: Dan at March 10, 2007 7:42 PM


Here's a question:

Suppose someone decided to use deadly force against right-to-lifers. In other words, suppose someone decided to become THE FIRST PRO-CHOICE TERRORIST.

Whom should he shoot? Which right-to-lifers would be the most appropriate targets for THE FIRST PRO-CHOICE TERRORIST to shoot?

Posted by: Doctor Defense at March 10, 2007 7:56 PM


Hey guys, everyone needs to take a deep breath...

chill, we're just sharing ideas and hoping to shed light on a very volatile subject.

I personally have a hard time with "defining" why arguments are right or wrong because I am unfamiliar with the lingo. I never went to college.

I think alot of the problems here stem from the fact that we are each coming at this from different points of view. (I don't mean pro-life/pro-choice.) I mean I am looking at this whole discussion from a theologigal, spiritual and metaphysical plane. Diana says she is coming from a material plane. John seems to be closer to where I am coming from. Mom is simply arguing the abortion issue straight on. Doctor whoosy whatsy is just trying to push buttons. Zurg just wants permission to have a good time...

We are all beginning from different premises and arguing different things.

Let's pick one for awhile. It could be morals and values, physical vs. metaphysical, religion vs humanism, when life begins...

Then when we can agree on a jumping off place we can apply it to abortion.

But all this anger (and I threw in my share, so I'm not claiming innocence) is counterproductive. Let's agree not call names, or push buttons just for reactions. But let's not quit, because if done right this could be a great tool for dialogue.

Let me know. I'd hate to see the ball dropped just when the game got started.

MK

Posted by: mary kay at March 10, 2007 8:07 PM


On the issue of post abortion depression, woman also suffer from postpartum depression. So can postpartum depression be used as a reason for childbearing to be illegal?

Posted by: Danielle at March 10, 2007 8:29 PM


"I think you people are more upset that I put the truth out there, and you still refuse to want to see it. Even the abortion doctors don't give a crap about you.They will give you some lip service so that they can get your money for an abortion, and then they will stab ya in the back while laughing all the way to the bank."

Wow. You're pretty ridiculous. I'm glad I don't have a nurse like you.

Posted by: Stephanie at March 10, 2007 9:26 PM


@mom: I posted a sample of 3 I gathered from the first page of a google search before I left eight hours ago, when I got back there was a message saying "this message will need to be approved before it gets posted", don't know why it hasn't yet.

"but says he does NOT want to be called an "Abortion doctor" due to the fact that he's not proud of it."
Are those his words, that he's "not proud of it"? Or is it more that abortion is a small portion of the plethora of services that any OB/GYN provides, and misrepresentative to what he does?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 10, 2007 9:28 PM


okay,
how is this for confusing...

Of course, the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that abortion does not hurt women — physically or mentally. In the late 1980s, President Reagan tried a strategy similar to Reardon's and asked his like-minded surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, to conduct a study on the mental pain caused by abortion. To everyone's surprise, Koop determined that there was insufficient evidence of trauma. Psychological problems were "minuscule from a public health perspective," he said. The American Psychological Association followed up by asking a group of six experts to undertake a special review. The panel concluded in 1989 that terminating an unwanted pregnancy posed no hazard to women's mental health. The predominant sensation women felt following an abortion was relief, the group said.

this is from Ms. Magazine...

Then they say:

Abortion does not "hurt" women and there is no such thing as "Post Abortion Syndrome," but it's also true that women who feel relief after having an abortion may also have normal feelings of sadness, grief, or regret

and then: I've heard from women who are having problems dealing with their abortion who are still ardently pro-choice.

and:
Ava Torre-Bueno, a psychotherapist and the author of Peace After Abortion, says most of the women who come to her seeking counseling say, "I'm pro-choice. I'm still pro-choice. So why do I feel so bad?"

and finally:
In response to these forces, some pro-choice activists are trying new approaches. NAF has a hot line, staffed with trained personnel who are willing to help women sort through their issues and give referrals to psychotherapists. Both The Healing Choice and Peace After Abortion provide exercises to help women review why they made the decision to have an abortion and their feelings about it. Many clinics, depending on the community, offer in-house post-abortion counseling.

which is it? If there is no such thing as PAS, then why do they offer counseling to women who are suffering?

They claim that it is our fault these women feel bad. Again, why is no one willing to take responsibility and so set on placing the blame anywhere and everywhere except where it belongs?
I'm left very confused.

By the way, is MS. Magazine unbiased enough for you?

http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=post+abortion+syndrome&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dcc4084e29f35746e%26clickedItemRank%3D7%26userQuery%3Dpost%2Babortion%2Bsyndrome%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.msmagazine.com%252Faug01%252Fpas.html%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPSuggestion%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msmagazine.com%2Faug01%2Fpas.html

Posted by: mary kay at March 10, 2007 10:08 PM


"This board is filled with nit-pickers. [...] Provide this unbiased site and that unbiased site.How do you know this is factual-BLAH BLAH BLAH."
Did you just say it's nitpicky to ask for a bit of evidence when you toss around claims like "We know that billions of women suffer from PAS" as if they were fact? ...Are you serious?

I'm sorry, but billions? I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't call bullshit on something as absurd as that. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt about actually knowing how many a billion is.

"If there is no such thing as PAS, then why do they offer counseling to women who are suffering?"
Because even if it's the lesser of two evils, it's still a very significant event in one's life? People offer counseling to rape victims, hate crime victims, incest survivors, support groups for almost anything you can think of. It's not because abortion is inherently evil, it's because we're only human.

"They claim that it is our fault these women feel bad."
Some friends of mine found a site where pro-lifers take pictures of women entering PP et al and putting them on the internet to proclaim them babykillers. ...I don't know about you, but I don't know any pro-choicers who do that. Nor do I know any pro-choicers who huddle outside PP et al and call women trying to get birth control (so they can prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place) murdering whores. Nor any who go into PP el al and start shooting. Gee, I wonder.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 10, 2007 11:39 PM


Here's a hint if you don't know: A billion is a lot. It's a thousand million, and all the people in the world don't add up to 7 of them. So to say that "billions" of women (implying at least 2,000,000,000 of them) suffer from PAS would require basically every woman in the world to first become pregnant, then have an abortion, then suffer catastrophic aftereffects en masse. Sorry hun, I don't buy it.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 10, 2007 11:54 PM


Did you see that abortionist LeRoy Carhart tried to drive over a side walk counsler?Perhaps he will be the first Pro-Choice terrorist that Dr.Defense speaks of. I was shocked that a fine and kind Dr. that aborts babies could ever do such a thing.

Posted by: momof3 at March 11, 2007 9:46 AM


I was watching a You Tube video as well. The video showed pro-lifers picketing quietly. This nut job pro-choice woman ran past them and knocked the poor pro-choice lady down.She was in a fit of rage[while defending "Choice"] Not all of you are filled with peace and love and non-violence.

Posted by: momof3 at March 11, 2007 9:51 AM


To Stephanie,I'm not sure what you meant to say,but I'm glad I'm not your nurse as well.I don't even have a clue as to what is the matter with you.

Posted by: momof3 at March 11, 2007 9:57 AM


Correction in above post: The pro-choice lady knocked the pro-life lady down.

Posted by: momof3 at March 11, 2007 10:12 AM


MK,

Who denies that the depression afetr abortion does not exist? It quite clearly does exist in some cases. The question is, how does that in any way add an argument to the stance that abortion should be made illegal? it doesn't. All that needs to be done is to make the information on it clearly available to women considering an abortion, so they can truly choose and weigh their options. The fact that pro-choice is trying new measures of clarifying the matter is a good thing, not something that would boost the banning abortion idea.

Posted by: Joe at March 11, 2007 10:18 AM


A few of my girlfriends have had abortions.They told me that nothing was ever explained to them about breast CA or PAS prior to the procedure.My one friend told me that a brief movie was shown prior to her procedure,and then all of the girls were taken to a waiting room where their abortions were performed assembly line style.She said that they were like a bunch of cattle going to slaughter.

Posted by: momof3 at March 11, 2007 12:24 PM


I'm glad to see that Ms. Magazine may be coming around.

Posted by: momof3 at March 11, 2007 12:47 PM


Hi MK,

sorry, sorry to you, mom, ZuRG, Diana, Joe, EAK and all the others that feared I jumped-ship too soon,

Only after Diana's last posting did I begin to understand. It seems many of you guys get hung-up by the word selection and the 'cruelty' expressed by many pro-lifers. So perhaps we should make some very basic understanding .... first of all, pro-choicers should be more than aware that many (if not most) of the words (phrases) selected by pro-lifers are extremely accurate in intent and usually in fact. So, ZuGR, mom saying "billions" is not necessarily mean much more in-intent than 'many'. Her style might be less-than a mechanic-robot's, so loosen-up and listen OK to her profound sorrow and anger, not her factual accuracy!

Far too many are locked into a philosophical nightmare that is based on quasi-materialism (Diana calls it 'physicality'). For EAK and Dianna (others too) the whole concept that there is a reality beyond things is and has-to-be spiritual and therefore fictitious. Diana dismissed Aquinas's thoughts as if there were somehow an option of choosing.

[All life is about choosing/will ... oh yeah, I dare you to try holding your breath beyond 3 minutes. And try to remember that time must be illusory because it is immaterial!]

Just in matters physical ... explain the existence of time, and/or distance, and/or force .... there are plenty more of these. All are immaterial but non-spiritual. In astronomy, a physics calculation holds that what composes our perceived universe is only about 10% of what is actually here. The missing 90% (dark matter) is?????

EAK and ZuRG and Doctor are perplexed at the hostility shown towards many pro-choicers. A wee experiment for you to try .... replace all your references to 'fetus' with 'Jew' [Now remember these are merely words ... and this is just a debate!] So, what kind of characterization are we left with ... alive; human-DNA ... but intuitively a non-person. Gets nutrients (parasitic-style) from motherland ... are you starting to understand the animosity?

Posted by: John McDonell at March 11, 2007 1:21 PM


@John: All I got out of that post was "stop doing all the stuff that makes an argument believable, like correctly using words with precise definitions, backing up your statements, and not resorting to an emotional appeal over scientific facts." If you don't mean "billions", then don't say "billions" because it's not a generic word to say "many", it actually means "billions".

Also, straw man. A jew has been born and has human rights. It is not legal to kill a jew. A fetus does not have human rights, a fetus is not self-aware, nor do most of them cannot feel pain at the time the pregnancy is terminated.

@Mom: Cite, please. I've never seen an unbiased source say there's a link between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer. About your friends who were "not told" about "PAS"... a pregnancy is a big deal, no matter how it ends, and terminating one (even if it is the best outcome, long-term) is not puppies and butterflies. Common sense?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 11, 2007 1:35 PM


These posts need an edit function. "nor are most fetuses capable of conceiving pain at the time of pregnancy termination." Also, a fetus doesn't have human rights.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 11, 2007 1:37 PM


To Dr. Defense,the only thing that should seem clear to you is that these abortionists that you continue to defend are not even on your side.They make you look foolish.You're trying to convince me that they're great and helpful people and most of these abortionists don't even want your input.I've never met a doctor that apologized for performing knee surgery.I'm sure I never will.Most abortionists are ashamed because of what they do,but when men/women can't seem to get their acts together when it comes to sex,unfortunately the sick demand for abortion is still legal and available. Even LeRoy Carhart testified in court that he kills babies.He didn't mince his words.So why does everyone else say embryo,fetus etc. and the abortionist is calling it a baby? Warren Hern says the same thing.So,why don't you give them a call and take it up with them?

Posted by: momof3 at March 11, 2007 1:50 PM


"I've never met a doctor that apologized for performing knee surgery."
Why would s/he? You're going to this doctor and saying "here's a pile of money from my insurance company so you can apply your expertise that few possess to make my life a lot easier in the long run, thank you for the honor and privilege of having this done."

"most of these abortionists don't even want your input."
How do you know this? I'm fascinated at the confidence with which you make such a blanket statement, do you personally know thousands of OB/GYNs?

"Even LeRoy Carhart testified in court that he kills babies.He didn't mince his words.So why does everyone else say embryo,fetus etc."
Because they're the medically correct terms. There's a handful of idiots in every movement, and they don't represent all of us, how many times do I need to say this?

Posted by: ZuRG at March 11, 2007 2:07 PM


John,Thank you. Glad you're baqck.

Posted by: momof3 at March 11, 2007 2:19 PM


You still haven't given me an unbiased source that says PAS is real.

Posted by: ZuRG at March 11, 2007 2:29 PM


Okay. I'll give this one more shot. MK is right that our major problem is that we are attacking the issue from different starting premises. But I fear that arguing about these major premises may not be very productive. Huge bodies of philosophical literature are dedicated to mind/body issues and issues surrounding naturalism vs. supernaturalism.

"Far too many are locked into a philosophical nightmare that is based on quasi-materialism (Diana calls it 'physicality'). For EAK and Dianna (others too) the whole concept that there is a reality beyond things is and has-to-be spiritual and therefore fictitious. Diana dismissed Aquinas's thoughts as if there were somehow an option of choosing.
[All life is about choosing/will ... oh yeah, I dare you to try holding your breath beyond 3 minutes. And try to remember that time must be illusory because it is immaterial!]"

John, I'm not sure I see why materialism about the mind/body problem (the belief that mind material or physical - that it is part of the physical body) or naturalism about ontology (the belief that what is natural, as opposed to supernatural, is all that exists) are philosophical nightmares. Both are, in fact, highly respected positions held by the majority of philosophers today.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was dismissing Aquinas out of hand. I did present the following problem for the view that the mind is immaterial - how can the immaterial interact with the material, and vice versa? We know this happens. We have a (mental) intention to move our bodies, and they move. We take psychoactive drugs and they affect our state of mind. This is called the interaction problem by philosophers, and I take it to be a serious (and yet unanswered challenge) to any dualist (person who believes that the mind is immaterial and the body is material)

As for the argument of Aquinas' that you presented. He claimed that thoughts are immaterial, and so the mind must be immaterial. But this merely begs the question against the materialist, since it assumes, contrary to the materialist, that thoughts are immaterial.

Since I am naturalist about ontology, I don't believe that time is illusory any more than I believe that the other three dimensions are illusory. They are all part of the natural world, studied by both physicists and philosophers. A naturalist does not claim that all things are material, just that they are natural. A better way to think about it is that all that exists is things that can be studied via empirical research. But you are right that this would exclude souls, God, etc. I may have been uncautious about my word choice earlier, so I apologize for the confusion.

As for your claim that the terms used by pro-lifers are true in intent and in fact, well, I must agree in part and disagree in part. I'm sure that pro-lifers do feel that abortion is murder and hence the legal practice is legal infanticide. So their choice of words is true to their intent. But medically speaking, in the first trimester of pregnancy what is present is an embryo, in the second and third trimesters it is a fetus. So, medically, it is inaccurate to refer to what is present in the womb during pregnancy as an infant or a baby. If we disagree about the factual accuracy of the use of medical terminology, then I fear we have a much deeper and probably irresolvable disagreement, since I trust science as an epistemically sound practice.

It is further inaccurate to refer to the pro-choice movement as "pro-abortion", since "pro-abortion" implies that one is for abortion. Other than a very small minority of nutjobs, no one is saying that women ought to have abortions. To say so is actually anti-choice, for it implies that women should have abortions, rather than make a choice about whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.

"mom saying "billions" is not necessarily mean much more in-intent than 'many'. Her style might be less-than a mechanic-robot's, so loosen-up and listen OK to her profound sorrow and anger, not her factual accuracy!"

I have listened to her profound sorrow and anger, all the while doing my best to suppress my own outrage for the sake of rational, civil debate. I have been attacked personally by her and others a number of times. But at the end of the day, I feel we must step past our strong emotions on this issue to get at rational thought and the facts. For we find the truth in reason and factual accuracy, not in sorrow or anger.

Posted by: Diana at March 11, 2007 2:47 PM


Correction - at 8 weeks of pregnancy, what is present is a fetus. My bad.

Posted by: Diana at March 11, 2007 2:52 PM


"Whom should he shoot? Which right-to-lifers would be the most appropriate targets for THE FIRST PRO-CHOICE TERRORIST to shoot?"

I'll make you a deal, Doc:

Get some lions and Yankee Stadium and I'll go in singing.

Posted by: Papa Squash at March 11, 2007 4:31 PM


Due to the extended number of comments for this post, I am closing this thread and launching another. Please go here to continue entering comments on this topic. Thanks.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 11, 2007 5:06 PM


Nor can Mehtap! I want to say that your site better throughout the World Wide Web :)
Thank you. Keep it.

Posted by: uropian at May 11, 2007 3:40 AM


My favorite site :) [b][url=http://how-to-have-sex.info]Free PORN movies and SEX pictures!!! [/url][/b]
I await your links...

[IMG]http://how-to-have-sex.info/1.jpg[/IMG]
[url=http://wethar.info/porn137653/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn725780/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn193154/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn217247/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn4334/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn148764/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn828953/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn155958/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn153929/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn124553/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn327916/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn89442/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn50900/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn296520/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn83493/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn520972/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn747244/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn751940/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn399969/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn187832/map.html]_[/url]
[IMG]http://how-to-have-sex.info/2.jpg[/IMG]
[url=http://wethar.info/porn595801/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn287750/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn758441/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn678882/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn9955/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn798889/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn47848/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn788344/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn368621/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn437888/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn592183/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn132343/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn123531/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn312310/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn363285/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn646959/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn85933/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn709843/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn374387/map.html]_[/url]
[IMG]http://how-to-have-sex.info/3.jpg[/IMG]
[url=http://wethar.info/porn392523/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn256440/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn37044/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn784739/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn665221/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn627257/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn405759/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn600529/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn290912/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn840654/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn196485/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn612282/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn418321/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn125792/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn708850/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn160100/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn372417/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn540743/map.html]_[/url][url=http://wethar.info/porn461324/map.html]_[/url]
Thank you!

Posted by: uropian at May 15, 2007 9:39 AM