Pro-aborts on this site are apparently having a hard time believing the abortion industry aborts babies alive and lets them die.

My post yesterday, Remembering Rowan, was greeted with skepticism, even though there were pictures, the mother's testimony, a 911 call, and links to news articles. Finally, producing the autopsy report satisfied the most ardent cynic.

I'm telling you, this barbarism of barbarisms is going on all over. And this is what you pro-aborts support. You either accept everything about abortion or none of it. If you resist one component of abortion, you have no logical rationale to accept the rest. Compromise, which many pro-aborts are recently calling for (and which only those losing a battle request), is not possible. Get it through your heads pro-lifers will never, ever compromise.

Back to my point. I coincidentally received an email yesterday, from a pro-lifer in Poland. She apologized for her English, but her message came through clearly:

When I was 20, as a student in Warsaw School for Midwives have practice in one of Warsaw Obstetricians Clinic. In this clinic - babies (about 20-24 hbd) were being aborted and often alive put on shelf to die. We as students had to weigh them, baptized and put on shelf to die. When the child died, we had to put them in often too small jar.

It was ten years ago, but I still remember all details. I don't work as a midwife. I have another work.

The most interesting part of your post was this:

"You either accept everything about abortion or none of it. If you resist one component of abortion, you have no logical rationale to accept the rest."

Oh, really? The flipside to this is extremely obvious. As is this entire argument altogether.

A lot of pro-lifers agree that it's "okay" for a woman to have an abortion if it would save her life, if she was raped, if she was a victim of incest, etc. Are they suddenly not pro life anymore because they have these concessions? You might want to warn those in your own camp of "accepting everything about being pro life", because the majority of them don't have access to the unending and infallible truth you hold about the litmus test for being either pro-life or pro-choice.
Oh, but you might say they aren't truly pro-life and are mislabeling themselves. Well, give me that same courtesy to say those who support live abortions are mislabeling themselves pro-choice.

Let's take your argument in another context. Say I really support a piece of legislation going through congress that sets up harsher penalties for sex crimes. I do, however, disagree with the death penalty as punishment because of its vengeful nature. Am I suddenly a "fake" voice in the name of stopping sex crimes because I don't support one way to stop it?
Here's a better example:
A referendum was recently issued at my University that allowed students to vote to increase course fees by 3$ per credit hour to pay for the maintenance costs for a new pool/workout facility. I think it's a great idea but the construction would ultimately remove some small businesses in the area, destroy some natural wildlife, and would shift focus from funding our dilapidated chemistry building. Am I suddenly anti-pool-building everywhere because I oppose this one for specific reasons? Of course not.

The same goes with abortion. I can support a woman's right to choose an abortion when it is legal and still keep abortion past viability illegal. I don't see a contradiction here.

But then again, my values don't follow this absolutist paradigm that yours do, Jill.
Oh, and if I am wrong about a personal belief, Jill, feel free to enlighten me. You seem to own the corner on logic these days. Wouldn't want to violate "the Jill standard".

Wouldn't want to violate "the Jill standard".

If only that were true!

Am I suddenly anti-pool-building everywhere because I oppose this one for specific reasons? Of course not.

Well, if the choices are pro-pool or anti-pool and you had to mark an x in a box that definitively cast your vote, I'm afraid you would indeed come down on the side of anti-pool.

If the choices are Pro-abortion and anti-abortion my x would go to anti-abortion, and yours would go to pro-abortion.

two choices. make an x.

While I understand that you have examined the situation from every angle and weighed the pros and cons, seen valid points on both sides, the bottom line is that you would place your "X" in the box that kept abortion legal.

Therefore, your vote is "Pro-abortion".

mk

Funny. Actually *I'm* anti-abortion. I wish they didn't have to exist and I wish that all children could be wanted and loved. But it's not like that. Thus I am for the *choice* of a woman having an abortion if she so desires.

Anti-abortion. Pro-choice. They can exist together.

I hope to God I am never in a situation where I will need an abortion. If I am, though, I will be indescribably grateful to have that *choice* before me.

The compromise (which doesn't indicate we are losing, in fact we are the ones that won remember?) is for several reasons a very logical choice, but there are many ways to compromise so that in itself can be argued.

For example, here is my proposed compromise:

Pro-choicers are pro-choicers, I believe, because abortion is a valid option because of several factors in relation to the woman. If we set up programs and build technology in this area, we can create a situation where abortion is not a logical or valid choice. Then we can draft legislation that would ban abortion.

For example,
Many reasons women choose abortion:
Economic reasons-adoption, no questions asked. Those who decide to keep their baby must have programs that will support her providing for her child, the health care of the child in question, and create work situations, such as paid pregnancy leave, that will encourage her to want to keep the child.

Medical reasons, or not wanting to be pregnant (for a variety of reasons): Perhaps we can develop technology that will remove the fetus, zygote, etc. from the mother and implant it into someone who wants a child, wants to be pregnant. However if there is more supply than demand we will have to figure out how to deal with it. Other creative ideas welcome in this area.

Rape or incest: we can use the above method if the victims do not desire to stay pregnant, and offer free counseling sessions for the victims.

Birth defects: those with minor disabilities will have abortion remain illegal, and most people will agree on that. Those with very severe medical problems usually either die in the womb or die shortly after birth. In the first scenario, a C-section or stillbirth can be performed. The latter case can either be born or C-sectioned out of the mother, provided comfort care, and with permission be able to donate available organs to those in need.

Failed birth control: Tell patient about all of the options available. Recommend using 2 types, and offer free or discounted birth control and remind the patient about proper use for the next time.

If there are other situations we can offer services, programs, and technology that will solve the problem without aborting the child. THEN we can draft legislation. Everyone will be happy I believe. If every reason for wanting an abortion has a satisfactory alternative there is no reason to keep abortion legal.

Jill,

I'm confused on two counts. First, you claim that live birth abortions *are* happening, yet you present us with a letter from a woman who describes an incident 10 years ago in a country that, since 1993, has had one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe (only to preserve the life of the mother or if the pregnancy resulted from an illegal act - I believe). The grammatical rules with respect to tense would seem to require, on the basis of the evidence you've provided, that these events "happened". "Are happening" would require more recent data.

If these so called "live birth abortions" are happening, however, it is tragic. But I'm confused once again. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Once the baby was delivered, however, the "abortion" would be complete - the pregnancy would be terminated. Leaving the baby to die is not part of the abortion, and hence, despite your claims, is not something that pro-choicers have to support.

I'm also taken aback by your claim that pro-choicers have to have it "all or nothing". This makes very little sense to me. I might think the government should have the right to tax and yet, at the same time, hate taxes, wish that I didn't have to pay them, and also think that there is a point at which the government's right to tax ends (say, at the point where they are taking a certain percentage of my income). What's wrong with that? If I think the government has a right to tax, then, if your claim is correct, I have to support their taking all my money - and not only that but I also have to really like paying my taxes. But that can't be right, can it?

Correction: the analogue of an individual right for the government is a power. The government has the power to tax. I always screw that up!

I wish that all children could be loved and wanted

I couldn't agree more. I wish all spouses could by loved and wanted by the people they married. I wish all old people could be loved and wanted by their families. In fact, wouldn't it be the perfect world if we were all loved and wanted all the time by everyone? I don't think any of us have any delusions about this being the perfect world.
Let's face it, there are plenty of people in our lives we have no desire or love for, and plenty of people have felt and do feel the same way about all of us. Does that diminish the value of our lives? If we could be eliminated because someone doesn't want or love us, I think few of us would be left on this planet.

"Well, if the choices are pro-pool or anti-pool and you had to mark an x in a box that definitively cast your vote, I'm afraid you would indeed come down on the side of anti-pool.

If the choices are Pro-abortion and anti-abortion my x would go to anti-abortion, and yours would go to pro-abortion.

two choices. make an x."

You make life seem as if it is so black and white. When it rarely is.

Danielle,

More often than not it really is Black and White.

It's where black meets white (the gray area) that we get muddled. Abortion is wrong. That's it. It is simple. So simple, that many people can't see it. It is only when you "complicate" it with but, or's, and's and excepts that the black becomes gray.

As to the life of the mother, we have explained that if the intent is to save the mother and not to kill the child then it is no longer considered an abortion as such. You take the child at the last possible minute and do what you can to save both. If the baby dies in an effort to save the mother, that is an unfortunate consequence. But the intent was NEVER to kill a child.

If abortions were only performed for the sake of the mothers life, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because instead of 40,000,000 (that's million!) lives we would only be talking about a very small fraction of that.

Black and White. If we tried to push most moral dilemmas to these polars, we'd have a much clearer vision to follow.

mk

When I think about abortions being done for any woman,for any reason,at any time, I cannot help but think of that murdering scum bag out in Wichita KS. Abortionist George Tiller is one of the worst. These murderers kill for one reason.MONEY!George Tiller, aka Tiller the Killer, lives a lavish lifestyle.The more babies he kills,the more he can buy. A 14 year old named Kelly was a patient of his.She had a late term abortion.She told Bill O'Rielly that she was forced to give birth to her dead baby over a toilet.George Tiller injects these children into their little hearts with a drug called Digoxin.One time he drove his needle through a little girls head.She was born severely brain damaged, and a loving couple adopted her.She lived 3 years despite what that creeping crud did to her.This is going on every day.Women come to him from all over the US just to have this filthy pig kill their children.This guy sounds more like a serial killer to me.His patients say he is nasty to them.I guess the stress of killing babies is getting to him.

How could anyone, ever justify an abortion? Abortion is the murder of a human being.

From conception, a human being is a human being; no different than a five year old, a one year old, a 57 year old.

Any and all arguments for pro-death, the murder of an innocent child in the womb fall when you substitue 5 year old for fetus in their statements. Got a "Find and Replace" feature on your word processor? Try it, then let me know what you think. Sinking sand, all.

Justification by semantics is simply twisted thinking masked as women's rights, evidenced by a lust for power and a rejection of God Himself and His will for our lives, male or female.

Strangely enough, HisMan, God also gave us free will, thus the power of choice.

If we're going to drag out the old religious argument, I think we ALL need to keep in mind that we don't know what God wants for certain. We can study the Bible and thus make educated guesses, but no one, pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, can know for absolute 100% sure what God's will is. Not in this life. That's what I love about the concept of God. He is very mysterious.

"All great religions, in order to escape absurdity, have to admit a dilution of agnosticism. It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely. "For who hath known the mind of the Lord?" asked Paul of the Romans. "How unsearchable are His judgments, and His was past finding out." "It is the glory of God," said Solomon, "to conceal a thing." "Clouds and darkness," said David, "are around Him." "No man," said the Preacher, "can find out the work of God." ... The difference between religions is a difference in their relative content of agnosticism. The most satisfying and ecstatic faith is almost purely agnostic. It trusts absolutely without professing to know at all," - H. L. Mencken.

Leah:

You said: "I think we ALL need to keep in mind that we don't know what God wants for certain. We can study the Bible and thus make educated guesses, but no one, pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, can know for absolute 100% sure what God's will is."

Old religious arguments? No, the Word of God is eternal and new every morning.

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever

I have to counter what you say because very simply, it is absolutely 100% wrong. When you say things like that you condemn yourself and take other who believe what you say with you.

Matthew 12:37
For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

The Bible says this and would do well do heed the warning:
Hosea 4:6
my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children

Proverbs 1:22
22 "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?
23 If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you.
24 But since you rejected me when I called
and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,
25 since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke,
26 I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you-
27 when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
28 "Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they will look for me but will not find me.
29 Since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the LORD,
30 since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
31 they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes

1 Kings 1:1-2
1 When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son.
2 "I am about to go the way of all the earth," he said. "So be strong, show yourself a man, 3 and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go,

Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God

Matthew 12:7
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent

(Sounds like an ignorant abortioninst pro-deather to me)

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship

Hal:

You construct a forgery, the doctrines of demons and men.

We can know God's will for us in the here and now, and that'a all we need to know.

However, to know Him completeley, it is not possible in our finite minds in this life. Paul speaks to this eloquently when he says:
1 Corinthians 13:12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known

And to quote myself, a devout follower of Christ:
"Yes, Abortion is satan's feeble attempt at killing God himself, for Abortion is a metaphor for satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him......for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception."

"From conception, a human being is a human being; no different than a five year old, a one year old, a 57 year old."

Show me a fetus who can hold a pen and draw. Show me a fetus who know ho to drive a car. Show me a fetus eating a hotdog. Show me a fetus using a toilet.

I could make the list endless, but where's point? You don't want to understand other people's arguments anyway.

"Old religious arguments? No, the Word of God is eternal and new every morning."

Oh, give me a break. Are you really going to nitpick my wording like that? It only makes your arguments look silly.

What are you trying to say, anyhow? That God did not give us free will? Or that you DO know the Will of God with 100% certainty?

Well, if it's the former, I can tell you that you're wrong because that is basic religious knowledge.

Thus, this leads me to believe you were talking about the latter. That is a pretty heady claim, that you know for certainty the Will of God. It, in fact, sounds like a rather dangerous claim. It almost sounds blasphemous to me ... but you're the expert, aren't you?

I suggest you read the quote left by Hal above your post.

Ingrid:

(editing license taken so as to make the thought complete)

You said: "Show me a fetus who can hold a pen and draw. Show me a fetus who knows how to drive a car. Show me a fetus eating a hotdog. Show me a fetus using a toilet."

Let's use the "Find and Replace" feature of my word processor and substitute invalid for fetus in your quote. Here goes: "Show me an invalid who can hold a pen and draw. Show me an invlaid who knows how to drive a car. Show me an invalid eating a hotdog. Show me an invalid using a toilet."

Are invalids not human or, are pro-lifers concerns that pro-deathers want to kill them justified as well?

Simply amazing!

Hal and Leah:

Yes we have a free will. To say that implies that there is a choice. To say there is a choice measns that there are choices offered. To say there are choices offered means there is knowledge of the choices being offered by the One who offers them.

You apparently didn't read God's words in my post and it is not surprising. You didn't listen befere the post and you still don't listen, understand, and turn from your wicked ways.

And blasphemy? Blasphemy is speaking evil of that which is holy. When you deny God's words put right in front of your face, no, that's blasphemy.

I guess I should put it in words you understand:

I am a tool of the devil, the guy with horns and carrying a pitchfork. I am wicked and evil. I am pro-death, for my master, Lucifer, so commands me.

Seriously, though, abortion is a complicated issue. People have strong emotional feelings. I don't have a problem with the fact that some people want to stop all abortions, and that they believe "abortion is murder." The resort to a religious rationale for that belief, however, is troubling. It does not allow for rational discussion.

"... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I was shocked a few months back when Jill wrote "if there is no God then abortion is not wrong." That can't be true, even if you believe in God. If abortion is murder, it is wrong whether there is a God or not, just as traditional murder is wrong whether there is a God or not.

Ingrid -

"Show me a fetus who can hold a pen and draw. Show me a fetus who know ho to drive a car. Show me a fetus eating a hotdog. Show me a fetus using a toilet."

My one year old cannot do any of these things. Whats your point?

I was shocked a few months back when Jill wrote "if there is no God then abortion is not wrong." That can't be true, even if you believe in God. If abortion is murder, it is wrong whether there is a God or not, just as traditional murder is wrong whether there is a God or not.

Without God, right and wrong are arbitrary concepts.

Without God, justification can be found for almost any wrong doing by anyone who seeks to justify it, because there is no absolute standard on which to rely.

Without God, there is moral relativity. What's wrong for one person can be right for another.

Show me a fetus that can hold a pen and draw, drive a car, eat a hot dog, and use a toilet.

Please show me a 6 month old child who can perform any of these tasks. I suppose we should call the humanity of 6 month old humans into question.
In fact, take mature adults from other cultures who have no concept of what pens are or how to use them, who would have no idea how to operate a car or what a car even is, and most certainly have never seen or would know how to use a flush toilet. I suppose their humanity is questionable as well.

Ingrid,

Show me a fetus who can hold a pen and draw. Show me a fetus who know ho to drive a car. Show me a fetus eating a hotdog. Show me a fetus using a toilet.

Are you fluent in Swahili? Can you fly a helicopter? Have you cured cancer?

If being able to do everything is your criteria for being a human being with the right to live, then I guess we all fail...

Every one can do different things at different times.

A two year old can't ride a tricycle but a 4 year old can. A 4 year old can't ride a two wheeler, but a 6 year old can.

A 20 something year old doesn't have the maturity it takes to make really important decisions about when life begins.

But a 48 year old who has given birth six times and once was a 20 something year, probably can.

Different ages. Different stages.

It's pretty elementary.

And I gotta say, that argument was pretty lame.
mk

Leah,

What are you trying to say, anyhow? That God did not give us free will? Or that you DO know the Will of God with 100% certainty?

Well, if it's the former, I can tell you that you're wrong because that is basic religious knowledge.

And where did you come by this knowledge of God and free will? It seems to me that you are accusing HisMan of doing the very thing that you are doing.

You know that God gave us free will because????

I'm assuming that HisMan got his info on God's law the same way.

mk

Hal,

I am a tool of the devil, the guy with horns and carrying a pitchfork. I am wicked and evil. I am pro-death, for my master, Lucifer, so commands me.

That might be the first honest and truthful thing you said here...

mk

Ingrid,

You said: "Show me a fetus who can hold a pen and draw. Show me a fetus who knows how to drive a car. Show me a fetus eating a hotdog. Show me a fetus using a toilet."

I can show you a picture of a fetus holding a doctors finger...would that work?

mk

Don't theologians disagree on the free will question?

I.e. Augustine vs. Calvin?

Show me a fetus in diapers. Show me a fetus sucking his mother's breast. Show me a fetus eating chocolate.

As I said, I could make an endless list.

PIP,

Calvin was a Christian. Augustine was a Catholic.

I'm pretty sure they agree on free will.
I'm also pretty sure they agree that scripture is the word of God.

This would mean that I am pretty sure they agree with HisMan.

Does this mean you won't accept the Word of God but you'll accept the word of men who interpret the Word of God?

mk

Ingrid,

Do you even read our responses. We refuted everything you threw at us, and you rebuttal.

To give us word for word the same argument?

Phooey!
mk

"I can show you a picture of a fetus holding a doctors finger...would that work?"

Sorry. I've seen that one way too often.

"If being able to do everything is your criteria for being a human being with the right to live, then I guess we all fail..."

It's not. But being a human being is more than being a bunch of cells. I was just giving examples - maybe not the best ones, but let those without sin throw the first stone. Or what is the English / American version of the saying?

"Calvin was a Christian. Augustine was a Catholic."

I mean that they disagree on the free will question.

Calvin said that God determined who will go to heaven and who to hell, and there was essentially nothing we could do about it (predestination). We have free will in the sense that we can choose to do what we want, but this will is limited in that God has already picked your future for you.

Augustine said evil exists because of the free will that God granted us. We have the ability to choose good over evil, we have the ability to choose God and be saved.

Sorry, MK. I was outside, adoring our neighbor's one year-old. Such a cute little boy =)

Ingrid,

Can he hold a pen and draw? Can he drive a car? Can he use the toilet?

Should we snuff him out. Is he human? Is he "A" human? Is he a person?

My granddaughter is one next Tuesday. It's a great age, I agree.

mk

PIP,

AHHHHH, I see. Not very well versed in Protestantism.

But I will say, that Calvin seems to have gotten it wrong.

And you got it right...

See that Leah???

It's not basic religious knowledge...

Thanks PIP...tho I'm not sure if this is what you meant to happen...you sort of one my argument for me. A little like running to the wrong goal in soccer, scoring a point for the other side.

But thanks.
mk

You'd be surprised at how much he actually can. I'm a bit worried, though. He's got to get trough surgery tomorrow... I can't even remember what for, but I really hope everything goes well.

"Thanks PIP...tho I'm not sure if this is what you meant to happen...you sort of one my argument for me. A little like running to the wrong goal in soccer, scoring a point for the other side."
I wasn't taking sides :P
I am inclined to agree with Augustine on the issue.
Just offering some help. We just finished studying Calvin so I thought I'd put my two cents in.

Pip -

Calvin vs Augustine!

Chicken vs Egg!

You can just do that anywhere can't you?

hahahahah

I need a straight jacket to keep up with this post.

Haha I know. I just point out these things to confuse you all :)

Then we can all argue in circles...

Ingrid-

Your arguments rest on the concept that we earn our humanity through function. I could not disagree more.

Because so many of you seem not value to "God arguments", I'm going to make this as secular as possible.

The idea that our humanity is a product of function is shot down when we look at the very nature of a human being.

We, as individual humans, are quite similar to all other higher species. If one looks at a feral child, then it is easy to see that without socialization humans do not function as "people". Even so, one would not dehumanize the child based on his inability to flush a toliet. He is a member of our species, and as such granted all rights given to humans regardless of age or mental health.

Thus, we can not earn our humanity based on our actual functionality. Humans at different levels of socialiation will function accordingly. As was pointed out earlier, a tribal African will not have the same functional abilities as someone raised in contemporary Ireland.

Our humanity must be based on something that is intrinsic to our being. The only thing that seperates us as a species from chimps is our ability to work as a collective whole for the betterment of our environment. Humans as a group can affect their environement in ways phenomenally greater than any other animal.

If our humanity comes only from our ability to function as a group, every member of our group must posses humanity. All humans posses this inate capacity regardless of their ability to act upon it.

It does not matter if Human A is a fetus who is incapable of performing X function, he contains the capacity inate to all humans. With capacity comes a humanity that is not contingent upon any personal achievement.

Invalids need help from caregivers.Mothers are caregivers for their unborn.

Lauren,

Thunderous applause!
mk

Yes Lauren-thunderous!

Mk- Thanks! Of course we all know where that capacity comes from ;)

Lauren,

So where've you been and what took you so long...you do realize that this place is addictive?

You better not go anywhere. We'll expect you to check in at 7:00am, 11:00am, 3:00pm and 6:00pm everyday.

Got that?

Those orders come from the same place that you got your arguments! :)

Mom,

What's with you and that baby???
Jeepers, last thing we heard it was coming so fast you had to leave your post, and here it is two weeks later and...tick, tick, tick!

Does any of you speak German? It's so damn hard to express what you mean in a foreign language and over the Internet...

Again, maybe I used bad examples. What I meant is the ability to do certain things - every born human has the ability to do this or that, same as a handicapped. At least in theory, they're able to do certain things.
A fetus or an embryo, however, is not capable of doing anything for himself but depends on the mother for literally everything. Keyword here is "the mother" as a single person. Toddlers may depend on others, but never on one person only. There are others who can change diapers, but nobody but the mother can feed the fetus.

Was that a better explanation? I'm really trying, but I guess my English skills have suffered during the last couple of weeks ^^

Haha, MK I was trying to stay away from commenting because I get sucked in oh so fast! The catalyst was seeing how active this comment section is and realizing that I just couldn't hold back.

Ingrid, show me an adult who can double in size in one day. Show me an adult who can divide in two. Show me an adult whose heartbeat is 140 and normal. Show me an adult who can breathe without air and with collapsed lungs. Show me an adult whose skull bones can fold over one another.

Shall I now discuss what a two-year-old can do that you can't?

It's not all about you, Ingrid. Being human doesn't depend on whether someone is like you.

MK,any day now.I'd love to talk to you a bit more via e-mail.I'm not sure how we would exchange,but if Jill could get it to you,she has my permission to do so.{I'm like really new to the computer.]

Mom, your wish is my command. I've sent MK your email address.

Leah, 9:45a, said: "Actually *I'm* anti-abortion. I wish they didn't have to exist and I wish that all children could be wanted and loved."

Leah, so am I reading correctly that your solution to the potential for unwanted children is to kill them?

Thanks Jill.Great post!

While I do agree that to be a person is innate, I do not think that this innate property can be justified for a fetus which can not live outside of the mother.

Keep in mind, that this means that a fetus in the third trimester, to me, is innately a person, but not until that point.

This is not based on what a fetus can do, but how developed they are. I believe that if a fetus is not able to live without total physical dependence on a single person (aka the mother) then that fetus is not yet a person. This does not mean that an infant, who is dependent on people to live is not a person because they can physically live outside of the mothers body and other people can take the responsibility to take care of an infant.

Ingrid, don't worry your English is fine. I think we might have switched topics a bit though. My point was that what we can or can't do does not change who we *are*. I think you understand what I meant, because it seems like we've switched to talking about fetal reliance.

If I'm wrong correct me. I know debating across language barriers isn't easy!

Anyways, if we ARE talking about fetal reliance instead of fetal function, I'll give you my boat analogy.

Basically, like you said, the fetus IS reliant on one person (the mother) for a finite amount of time.

I'm assuming your argument to be: "Because there is no alternative solution available, and the care rests solely on the mother, the mother has the right to withdraw care at any time." Am I right?

I'll let you respond to that before I go on to my argument, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. :)

Diana, 10:04a, said: "you claim that live birth abortions *are* happening, yet you present us with a letter from a woman who describes an incident 10 years ago in a country that, since 1993, has had one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe"

Diana, that was astute, seriously. I didn't post all of her letter. A paragraph before the ones I posted said:

"Our law does not protect children who are ill, whose conception was a result of a crime, and children whose growth in the womb creates a risk for their mother's health."

#1 and #3 would provide reasons for late-term abortions.

That is my basic argument.

btw, thanx for checking with me first. I appreciate that.

Jodes- You are doing precisely what you profess not to do! Inate properties do not develop!

From what I understand, you are saying that if X human does not meet X functional standard, X human is not a "person". Your functional requirement is "living independent of another (or perhaps the hypothetical ability to do so?)"

Is this your view?

Wait, I'm confused. Does Jodes = Ingrid?

No, thats not my view, but I can see I may have explained it wrong.

I do believe that there is an innate property that make us all people. I think that this is the reason people cannot agree to what makes a person a person.

However, I do not think that a fetus should have the same rights, by law, as the mother, as the mother must take all the responsibility for caring for the fetus. There is no other way for this fetus to survive, and therefore if the mother doesn't want to have the responsibility, then it should be her choice to withdraw the care.

"Show me an adult who can divide in two."

I don't want to be too picky here, but cells in the adult body divide all the time.

If you are talking about the blastula, that's because it was only one cell to begin with! Of course it is going to undergo cytokenisis. Just like most cells in the human body, every day.

Wow!

What can I say, Jill never fails to amaze with her antics.

As far as compromise goes, pro-choice people have been pointing out that we have a common interest in reducing unwanted pregnancies, and thus, the need for abortions. I agree with Jill however, and their is no compromise, particularly with the genuine losers (pro-life) in this case, because they don't really care about babies so much as making a pariah of people for having had sex.

Now on to less serious fair....

This live birth stuff must really erk the pro-bloody-fetus-porn industry (Jill's trade), because it's such a waste to leave them laying on shelves to die when you could be throwing the bloody lil' bodies at cars and patients leaving clinics. I feel their pain!

I just can't imagine holding a live baby,knowing he or she is unwanted by his/her mother,and being told by someone to shelve that baby to die.It's something I couldn't even imagine in my worst nightmare.Doesn't that mother even ask questions as to where that baby's body is going to be put? How about the doctor? The person that is paid to save lives.Is it just rubbish to him?There is a hospital down the street from me.One day I saw anti-abortion protesters outside.2 years later, I met 2 girls that had late term abortions there. WOW, I was shocked!

Sorry, me and Ingrid are not the same person, I just got over zealous in answering...and thought the question was directed at me....sorry for any confusion

Cameron,

YOMANK!!!

Danielle,

He still loves you...
mk

The pre-babies in jars reminds me of a technique I use in Sunday school with my students. I show them pictures of such fetuses in jars and explain to them what happened. Many of the children start crying, and it is then that we all hold hands and console each other by asking baby Jesus' forgiveness for the cruel and murderous whores who've commited such bloody crimes against the lord.

Amen!

No matter who cares for the infant he/she is totally dependent on someone for survival, every bit as dependent as the unborn child. If our humanity is based on ability to live independently, then there are some adults I know who don't qualify as human.

Ingrid,

I envy your bilingualism and your command of English is excellent. I must take issue with your statement about being human as being more than just a bunch of cells. In fact, we are all a collection of cells and remain such from conception to death, growing, maturing, learning, and all too often looking back and wondering why we did certain stupid things. We've been totally dependent, independent, had others depend on us, and may finish out our lives depending on others to care for us. Any time in the course of our lives we can go from independence to total dependence because of accident or illness. No matter what, our humanity remains unchanged.

Haha that's ok, Jodes. Thanks for clearing it up. Also, thanks for clearing up your view on personhood as well. I think my response will go for both of you.

It seems to me that we've gotten to a place where we're saying that "Yes, ZEF are people, but because they are completely reliant on the mother, she should be able to remove it"

Due to comments alluding to viability, I'm assuming that this ZEF removing ability is only an option because there is no option that would both allow the child to live and the mother to be free.

The problem with this argument is that the lack of a "good" solution does not make the "bad" solution better.

Think about it like this:

A man and his son on a trans-Atlantic sailing trip. Somehow in the course of the trip the two become entangled in such a way that the only options are to remain together until landfall, or to cut the arm off the son. This action will almost certainly end in his death.

The accident occurred very early in the trip, and the two will be together for months. They are able to function, though at a lower level, and will in all likelihood survive the trip.

Does the absence of a third option (cut the rope and injure no one) make cutting off the son's arm any better?

If the man DID cut off the arm of his son in order to make the trip easier, would his lack of a third option hold up in court?

Obviously it would not.

Likewise, the lack of a third option in pregnancy does not make abortion more moral. Yes the fetus is reliant on the mother, but it is temporal. There is a definite end to the pregnancy, just as there was a definite end to the boat trip. Thus, any option that requires direct violence on the other can not be appropriate.

I think that an infant is not as dependent as a fetus by the simple fact that an infant can survive outside of the womb. Not to mention that an infant can be dependent on a number of people, and not just one person.

HisBlood,

The pre-babies in jars reminds me of a technique I use in Sunday school with my students. I show them pictures of such fetuses in jars and explain to them what happened. Many of the children start crying, and it is then that we all hold hands and console each other by asking baby Jesus' forgiveness for the cruel and murderous whores who've commited such bloody crimes against the lord.

Amen!

Get over yourself !
mk

Ingrid,

I don't speak very good German yet. Actually only a few words and sentences taught to me by the boyfriend and two of our friends from Germany. But I'm taking German next semester, then the semester after that, then studying abroad in Darmstadt. I'm really excited! Hopefully when my German improves we can have some German converstations!

I'm always impressed by people who speak more than one languages. And I know that I would be completely lost if this conversation was in German!

I understand that abortion is not moral....for you.

But, obviously, many people agree that is certain situations it is the best solution. And, for lack of a perfect situation where everyone will live, keep all their rights, etc. the best solution may not be ideal or moral for everyone.

That's why I am not pro-death, pro-abortion or anything like that.

I am pro-choice because what may seem to be the simplest answer to you may not be the right answer for someone else.

To add to what Mary said:Don't forget about Dementia and Alzheimers.When an elderly person is stricken,they generally get to a point where they need round the clock care.

PIP, 2:47p, said: "'Show me an adult who can divide in two.' I don't want to be too picky here, but cells in the adult body divide all the time."

PIP, I was speaking of twins.

And speaking of twins, Cameron, stop reinforcing your arguments with your alter egos HisBlood and Chuck. Have the guts to be yourself - all the time. And develop arguments you don't need to sustain shadily.

Jodes, would you make the same arguement for any other killing?

Honestly ask yourself. If the situation were any different, would you still feel the way you do?

Does sole responsibility really entitle one to destroy life?

'I was speaking of twins."

Ah, okay. Thanks for specifying.

If the situation were any different, I would hope that there was another option.

If there was NO third option, if there was no other way out of a situation...I think I would feel the same. It's hard for me to say based on the fact that I don't know many situations where killing is the ONLY way to stop something, and I wouldn't feel the way I do.

I thought that Sunday school story was fishy.

boy, this thread is all over the place !!!!!!!

it may help to inject a little humility .... let's project ourselves as Ingrid's year-old friend. It is not so much that we cannot be age-one again, its that we see our own intellect, or our own will (sarcasm) as being the absolute pinnacle of our existence. There is no room in Hal's interpretation of Christianity to see that HisMan is correct.

We all have an incredible amount to grow, many younger folk here perceive that scientific reasoning is dispassionate towards the death of humans. It therefore is the best arbiter for emotional discussion .... to me another quasi-dispassionate observer of human life are cats ... "Here kitty, kitty!" Now when will you ask your cat to decide your human/emotional reality? [PinP ... go through your post (above re. compromise) and substitute 'my' for the word 'the'. (We do have a very logical intellectual ability to make life objective. But should we?)]

We pro-lifers are far-from-perfect ... even though we often do not show it ... and pro-choicers are also far-from-perfect also. But instead of growing we are very keen to point out each others' failures. You people are very smart and articulate ... a few perhaps with IQ's in the 160 range. Is this enough .... would you rather it be 200? ... or 300? or 600? Why not? Do you even try?

The same sense of enhancement belongs (I believe) to emotional existence. [Vivienne's use of Mahatma Gandhi is a great starter!] We all recognize that directed concerted exercise can build a weakling into a formidable mass of muscle. Isn't the same growth available to our intellect and emotional lives?

ya veri fishi=very fishy

Oh... but I like doing HisBlood. I think I'll continue being a poser just to see how many "hell yas" i get from newbies here. It's a fine little litmus test don't you think!! After all, what are scared of.

I'll stop with the posers as soon as you stop censoring.

Right off the bat, I'm going to say I'm pro-choice and pro-abortion.

That being said, I have questions...reading one of the posts up there, I agree with one thing: if the pregnancy is aborted, the baby comes out, that's the end of the abortion. The killing of the live baby has nothing to do with that fact: that's the cruelty of the clinic in Poland. Most abortions occurs within the first trimester and at that point, it is in no way, shape, or form a fully formed human being. Also, I looked at the pictures of the dead baby Rowan...does thgat look like it can survive outside the whomb? The baby wasn;t ready to survive, therefore it wasn't a fully formed human. Sure, it did look like a baby: a very tiny baby. But, the ME said air didn;t enter lungs...becuase they weren't ready for breahting yet? Weren't ready to be alive yet?

Plus, pro-choice is not necussarily pro-abortion, as people have stated.

"Get it through your heads pro-lifers will never, ever compromise."
And that's the problem: you won't be rational or civil. You won't listen and that's why there is such animosity. And you say only losers compromise...only the people losing stoop to name-calling. Murderers? Baby killers? Those aren't pro-choice battlecries.

Jodes- Perhaps think of conjoined twins. In this situation there is a stronger and a weaker twin. If left together they will both survive. The medical community will most likely be able to separate them in the near future in such a way that both will survive.

Today though, if the weaker is separated she will die. Should the stronger have the option to remove the weaker?

HIS BLOOD Ya,but you are pro-choice and you called the post-abortive women WHORES.I've never heard a pro-lifer say that yet.

Has anyone ever seen the twins with one body and two heads? I saw them on a documentary on the Health channel awhile back. The human body is amazing. They were getting their drivers lisence, even though the one girl controlled the left side and the other the right.

Obivously you couldn't seperate the two of them though.

Karl,why should we compromise? Compromise with what?

"I've never heard a pro-lifer say that yet."

Really? I heard it every day... Mulitiple times.

Yeah the whole "whores" part was a dead give away. Question though, why do you linke to the AoG church?

Whores?On this board? Where?

Conjoined twins is difficult. It really depends. Will the weaker one take resources from the stronger one and potentially put him in danger of dying? If that's the case, then, yes, separate them.

John-

Replacing "the" with "my" will lose objectivity but will not prove my compromise isn't feasible with both sides. And I think it is entirely possible if everyone commits to it.

If you still disagree, maybe you can elaborate some more?

Danielle: I watched that documentary too! Did you ever see the one about really screwy pregnancies...like the woman who was "pregnant" for 60 years (she had a miscarriage but never expelled the fetus so the dead fetus calcified in her uterus)or something and the woman who had triplets, though one was growing on the outside of her uterus because it was originally a tubal pregnancy that popped (but didn't cause the woman to hemorrhage to death) and it moved from the fallopian tube to the outside of the uterus?

Bizarre stuff there.

Danielle,Are those the two older girls?One sits on the rolling chair and the other does the walking? Lori and Dori-I think.

Proi-lifers tend to try and restrict the choice of women to have or not have an abortion (obviously). The compromise?

If you don't belive in abortion, don't get one. It seems simple to me. Live and let live or stay in your own bussiness.

momof3,

No, not on this board. But by other pro-lifers else where. Nice to know who's on your side, huh?

"like the woman who was "pregnant" for 60 years (she had a miscarriage but never expelled the fetus so the dead fetus calcified in her uterus)"

I saw that on a Law and Order (or CSI don't remember which one) episode.

Momof3: No, that's a different set of conjoined twins.The ones she's talking about are these girls who have one set of legs and an expanded torso (width wise) with two heads and one arm on each side of their body. Hold on, I'll find a link.

momof3,

No, they're young girls. Sixteen (at least when it was filmed).

They walk like a "normal" person would, but the one girl controls everything on the left side of the body (arm and leg) and the other one controls the left.

"Karl,why should we compromise? Compromise with what?"
Did you read my compromise? Was it not satisfactory?

No,those are the 2 that are attached @ the head.Just remembered.I just saw 2 girls that share a body on the Tyra show,but these girls were only about 8.

"HIS BLOOD Ya,but you are pro-choice and you called the post-abortive women WHORES.I've never heard a pro-lifer say that yet."

Well Gestator of 3,

That's what we call selective hearing. You're not listening for the unwholesome aspects within your own camp, but they're there. I'll be sure to let you know the next time I do hear it. In all fareness thogh, it's ussually infered by comments such as "using abortion as contraceptive," rather than overt. But occasionally the mysogeny comes out of its dark lil' corner of their mind and they'll let loose with the vulgar rhetoric.

Nutrients will be shared, yes. Like pregnancy, the stronger twin will also benefit from the presence of the twin in certain ways.

The potential danger of death is quite low as long as they are closely monitored.

Essentially the risks are about the same as a pregnancy, except the twins are both recognized as persons.

They're named Abigail and Brittany Hensel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_and_Brittany_Hensel

This is an English only site. Comprende?

This is basically what their body is like on the inside:

http://www.noseas.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/abigail_brittney_hensel_twins.jpg

And this is them at 16:

http://www.noseas.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/siamesas.jpg

"This is an English only site. Comprende?"

Showing your racist side again are we, Jill? How nice of you to make Ingrid feel welcomed.

Well, in that case it would have to be up to the people involved wouldn't it?

That's why it's hard to say with conjoined twins, because it is their bodies, not ours, and for another else to make the decision would be wrong. The reason abortion is different than conjoined twins is that it is the person involved that makes the decision, not a third party.

If the stronger twin decided that she no longer wished to be conjoined and forcibly separated her twin, would she not be indicted in her sister's death?

Perhaps she found a seedy clinic that would perform the surgery. Would we not consider this murder? Does sharing a body really give someone a license to kill?

Karl, 3:36p, said: "And that's the problem: you won't be rational or civil."

Excuse me? You support killing preborn babies and call yourself the rational and civil one? ROFL.

Pregnancy is not sharing a body, where as conjoined is sharing.

Therefore, for twins to be separated, they would have to agree on it.

There is a difference in a fetus using a body to grow in and use the resources and conjoined twins sharing the same body.

Sorry about the triple post! I got an error and it posted 3 times!

Well, I'm off to a peace vigil. Later.

Conjoined twins aren't sharing a body so much as sharing organs. It is more a merger of two bodies than anything. The same could be said during pregnancy. The mother and child share organs (uterus, placenta) but they both have organs that only indirectly affect one another.

The same is true for conjoined twins, especially those in an unequal relationship. The weaker is being supported, but most certainly brings its own processes to the table.

Even if this were not the case, I fail to see how sharing a body/supporting a body differ any in terms of ability remove the other person.

Well, to share something, 2 (or more) people use, enjoy, take care of something equally. So, for conjoined twins, you cannot say, "I've decided that this is mine and you can't use it anymore" because it (the organs or body) belongs to both of them.

In pregnancy, there is no sharing. The fetus is using the mothers body. A fetus, essentially, takes over the uterus for 9 months. So, if the mother decides that she doesn't want the fetus to use her body, she can say so. The uterus of the mother does NOT belong to both mother and child.

I just read the autopsy report which is somehow suppose to be evidence that the aborted fetus was aborted/born alive, per the hysterics of the mother..

Last page "Forensically, there was no evidence that the fetus was born alive."

Lauren,that's a great question.Most conjoined twins say that they wouldn't want surgery if it meant the possible death of their sibling.Karl Don't like abortion? Don't have one.Cute.I saw that on a cheesy CHOICE T-shirt.Personally,I like the one that asks; WHO LIKES ABORTION? WOMEN?No check, BABIES?No check ,IRRESPONSIBLE MEN?-Big black check mark by that one!! There are many real men that despise and disagree with abortion,however there are the others that think abortion is great! No child support for them,but it sure was fun baby!

The uterus has NO purpose other than to nurture life. If the child has no claim to it, it wouldn't exist.

Cameron (aka HisBlood/Chuck, 4:15p, said: "I just read the autopsy report which is somehow suppose to be evidence that the aborted fetus was aborted/born alive, per the hysterics of the mother... 'Last page "Forensically, there was no evidence that the fetus was born alive.'"

Cameron the medical examiner later said she could not determine whether the baby was born with a beating heart and movement: www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05050302.html.

Rowan's mother said he moved and turned his head toward her voice. He did enough for her to have 911 called. Why did mill workers turn medics away at the door? Why not invite them in?

Furthermore, any doctor or nurse who works in labor and delivery will tell you very premature babies born without lungs even developed can live for minutes or longer.

Whether or not the uterus is designed to hold a fetus, the fact remains that the uterus is the mothers organ and not the fetus. The fetus has no claim to it because if the fetus wasn't conceived, the uterus would still exist.

That's horrid Jill.How can a doctor poke a tiny little baby in his fragile chest with a sharp needle and kill him? I've read stories about women who say that they felt their babies thrashing around inside them before they died. What a memory!

But Jodes,9 times out of 10 the woman and her consensual sex partner PUT it there!

Also,nobody is saying that all women have to be or should be mothers.I worked with a woman that told me she and her husband did not ever want kids.She had a tubal ligation.

I wouldn't say that someone who uses any type of contraceptive willingly "put it there."
If fact, just the opposite, I would say they are trying to prevent it.

So, perhaps the number of women "putting it there" isn't 9 out of 10. I would think its closer to 1 of 10....because even using contraceptives incorrectly is an attempt to stop it from happening in the first place.

If there are 4000 abortions a day,are these all the result of failed BC? I'm sorry.I don't buy that.Did you know that many women use abortion as their BC?

A woman I know had 7 of them.Guess what? No condoms,no nothing.

I do know there are women who use abortion as BC, but i really don't think these women are 9/10 of the people getting abortions...but this is not the majority.

Of every person I know who has had an abortion, it was because their contraceptive failed. In some cases, more than 1 contraceptive was used and both failed.

As i said, even using BC incorrectly, or a technique that doesn't work (aka, pulling out), there is an ATTEMPT to not get pregnant.

I think that before you can even think about making abortions illegal, you really must remove the problem of unwanted pregnancies and EDUCATE people on contraceptives and safe sex practices.

sorry, i said "but this is not the majority"

I meant "this is not the majority"

Jill, says...
“Pro-aborts on this site are apparently having a hard time believing the abortion industry aborts babies alive and lets them die...... Finally, producing the autopsy report satisfied the most ardent cynic.”
Clear meaning: autopsy suggests baby aborted alive.
Analysis after reading autopsy report: Jill’s a lying sack of ......
"Cameron the medical examiner later said she could not determine whether the baby was born with a beating heart and movement:"

Analysis: Jill’s pretending she said something else.

Just like back on the Edwards comment, you infer things and create hyperboles, and then when people like Diane call you on it, you reframe and make it look like you said something else or create a straw man argument.

There are reasonable conclusions, but you’re like Pro-life’s worst friend. Keep up the shenanigans and let your true colors shine. HisBlood is proud

;-D

True Jodes,more education without a doubt!

I'm glad we can agree on something :D

Cameron/HisBlood/Chuck, 5:10p: The mother was an eye witness. Don't you believe she saw what she saw? No, at 4:15p you accused her of simply being hysterical. Is that how you're going to frame this now? Dismiss the mother as a hysterical woman?

Is this the same sort of aborting mother you have also said was so intelligent, savvy, and independent she didn't need to see an ultrasound of her preborn baby before aborting or receive informed consent?

Which is it, Cameron/HisBlood/Chuck? Are you really going to stoop to labeling this mother as hysterical for seeing her baby move and respond to her voice - for 11 minutes?

No, Danielle. Only English allowed.

Censorship. Huh.

Jill,

Still trying to change the argument?

Just give it up. Say “my bad, the autopsy is not evidence that the baby was born alive, per my suggestion.”

Anything but the truth aye?

"This is an English only site. Comprende?"
Jill...that is the most bigoted thing I have ever heard. Seriously uneducated and bigoted...If you want people to respect you I wouldn't suggest saying racist things like that...come on it is 2007 not 1880...

Mars,bigoted? I know you did not just go there.

Mom...oh yes, I went there. It is true.

Jill...that is the most bigoted thing I have ever heard. Seriously uneducated and bigoted...If you want people to respect you I wouldn't suggest saying racist things like that...come on it is 2007 not 1880...

Puhleease. You're worried about a woman asking others to speak English on her site (how in the world is that racist? (Isn't that her CHOICE?) Because she said, "Comprehende"? (Danielle, FYI,Comprende is not a German word :P hehe), however, you all have no problem with a woman choosing to kill her unborn baby. Yes, you all make a lot of sense! lol

I don't know why, but I'm finding you all very funny today. :D

Maybe it's just that it's so hysterical that you can find a little word so offensive, yet find murder so acceptable!

Uhhh... I never said that comprehende is a German word. I know enough about language to know that.

"No, Danielle. Only English allowed."

What a bigoted statement. I guess that only Americans who speak English are good enough for you.

Mars,worry less about Jill's choice of wording and more about baby killing!Comprehende?

Mom... lol... :)

Mars: You, too, are a poser, Ashley, ashm. Get some guts. Capiche?

I do worry about baby killing. Horrible people...also animal killers. They are at the top of my list of people who should probably kill themselves before I find them.
Bigots and racists are a bigger problem in this country than abortion though...really.
Besides Ingrid probably just wanted to write something in german so someone could translate it possibly better than he could. Jill was pretty much being a witch.

Jill, excuse me? how am I a poser? and why have I no guts? I dont delete your posts if I dont agree with them...and I only post as Mars. what do my other names have to do with anything? I finally figured out how to use this and now I post only under one name.

Mars from Outer Space/Ashley/ashe, 6:10p, said: "racists are a bigger problem in this country than abortion though...really."

You know, Mars Bar/Ashley/ashe, out of the mouths of babe killers... watch for my next post.

Jill...clever...except in about 4th grade kids stopped making fun of my last name...and trust me they used mars bar and mars from outerspace. I expect silly name calling from 4th graders...in fact the third grade class i teach doesn't make fun of my last name...I would expect an adult such as yourself to act like one too.

O goody! What are you going to lie about now Jill????

Let me guess... stem cells are turning their pre-heads towards presumed mothers upon disection??

Cameron...no right now she is too busy being juvenille and making fun of my last name...

Plus she is off looking for times a pro choicer has been racist or bigoted...i agree we can all be racists...I just think that we should worry more about those things than abortion...

Sorry, phone rang so I had to run off. I'm having people over in a few minutes, but I'll be back tomorrow.

God Bless.

Mars,

I just think that we should worry more about those things than abortion...

Gee, then maybe you should have gone to a "racism" website instead of a "Pro-life" one.

Did you say you actually teach children?
mk

Cameron,

I am about this far from taking a vote and having you banned from this site.

You are rude, ignorant and arrogant.

Now for you faults...

But the worst is that you're not even funny or clever. Just a jerk.

Don't you have homework or something?
mk

MK

What in particular did you find "rude"

pointing out Jill's lies and hyperboles??

I think you'll have me banned because you can't handle the reality checks.

You know,
I have been posting on this site for a month now.

I am appalled by the incredible immaturity of some of you.

We walk on eggshells around you guys.
We take your sarcasm, you accusations, your nastiness, and we reciprocate with mostly sincere responses.

While sarcasm is perfectly acceptable to a degree, I find the way you treat Jill and HisMan to be reprehensible. It speaks more about the type of people you are than the type of people you accuse Jill and HisMan of being.

What is wrong with you people?
You come onto a PRO-LIFE website.
You use vulgar language, Blaspheme our God, make fun of our religion, call us names, attack Jills posts (not because you have anything to say, but precisely because you don't) and are generally ungracious.

I'm not talking about all of you. Many (some) of you actually appear to be here to debate, share ideas and learn, but some (many) of you are here because you are just plain nasty.

Don't you hear yourselves?

I am so disgusted with it...am I the only one?

Bethany, Mom, Valerie, Jill, HisMan, John, Lauren...we have spent hours listening to your side and trying to shed some light on the situation. We have answered every question you've ever asked, and we have been sincere.

I'm not saying we're perfect, I'm not even saying we're always right, I'm just saying that on the whole we respect you and listen to you.

But I cannot say that we are treated the same.

If you're minds are made up, and you are unwilling to hear anything anyone has to say unless they are one of your cronies egging you on, then why don't you go somewhere else? What exactly are you getting out of this? Why are you here?

I just don't get it.

I have rarely lost my temper here, but tonight is the last straw.

You all need to stop treating us like we're your whipping boys and start bringing something to the table besides negativity...

There. I feel better now.

mk

No Cameron, I think I'll have you banned simply because I can...
mk

MK

I asked you a question coward.

Cameron,

You're mommy's calling you. Time for your bath.

mk

Coward? This is pretty mean here.

I figured as much!

Can't even elaborate on the "rude" statement. Probably forgot you said it though. Or you don't have pre-made form response ... such "baby killer" "pre-baby" ..

Sorry if I transcended the ussually back-slapping fest y'all have here.

Hi Kate ... PinP 12/07 03:44 PM,

years ago a priest named Henry Nowan wrote 'The Wounded Healer' to help us understand the power of our weakness. I do not do this very often, but it usually takes me several hours of attempting to hit the right keys to post anything. I have a genetic infirmity called Friedreich's ataxia that mimes closely the worst aspects of multiple sclerosis.

There is a reason for the exercise (and I'm sure pleased you did it.) This was a small intro into your subjective universe. The more science training you get; the more you begin to question the validity of your own experience. [just one of many examples: in this objective reality there exists the concept: '0' ... math, physics, chemistry ... psychology, economics, sociology, etc. However, '0' does not exist in actuality. There is always a fresh newness ... a uniqueness.]

Everyone on the board so far has talked in the vein of the superior position of strength = mother's power superseding a fetus who as a dependent siphons off her nutrients. Let's turn this around somewhat: a girl becomes a mother because of her child's presence. She always will be a mother. If she has an abortion she will be the mother of a dead baby. How is it that she will not do anything in her power ... to see that her baby thrives? A baby is not 'the fetus' but 'her baby'. Isn't being with-child an incredible privilege? Hardship does not negate this privilege, but makes it even more precious.

I have tried to walk you out of this fetus must-die syndrome to a much different way of perceiving the very same phenomenon. Your compromise involves our (pro-lifers') acceptance of the dominant rights of the woman ... we do not even live there!

Jesus had this rather abrupt way of speaking: 'Do you love me?' he says to Peter (and to everyone ... Cameron too!) Now follow this up with another quote from Jesus: 'whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me!' Does your compromise suit 'the least of these' or just the power-players?

"How is it that she will not do anything in her power ... to see that her baby thrives? A baby is not 'the fetus' but 'her baby'. Isn't being with-child an incredible privilege? Hardship does not negate this privilege, but makes it even more precious."
I agree completely.

"Does your compromise suit 'the least of these' or just the power-players?"
I think it does both. The power-players being the legislators, right? When there is literally no suitable reason for a mother to get an abortion logistically there is no reason it should be legal. Politicians will not have to fear bringing up such legislation.
Pro-life side, unborn children and mothers everywhere can rejoice in healthy practices and exercises in love.
The pro-choice side will have the satisfaction of seeing that the mother can still have choices, none that involve voluntary death of the (my) baby.

I think everybody wins.

the power players are Mom and Dad ... politicians do not even count ...

this whole idea of another abode for a developing babe is shear fantasy ... an intellectual 'what if'. Like folks are gonna research this while working to depopulate the earth? .... have I ever got this bridge for your $$$$.

This summer hold-on-tight to your folks, or grandparents ... they are soon to be expendable - useless-eaters. http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

"this whole idea of another abode for a developing babe is shear fantasy ... an intellectual 'what if'. Like folks are gonna research this while working to depopulate the earth? .... have I ever got this bridge for your $$$$."

If enough people are interested, I mean, this is one of the only reasons that abortion is legal. If it's all about research and money if enough people put their efforts into a single research facility I'm sure they will do it, right?

Ingrid,

Your language isn't the problem, it's your heart.

And we hear it loud and clear. No translation needed.

You don't need to learn better English or we German. No, you need a heart transplant of the supernatural kind.

Well, it seems like I'm the reason for those posts about racism and let met tell you, I've heard worse than "English only". I can't believe I'm saying this ;) but Jill's right. This is an English site and sticking to English is easier then all of you learning German. Which doesn't mean I'm keeping you from doing so XD

Racism is something else, like the jerk who told a girl from my class (dark skin) "Something like you would've been sent to KZ in the old times!"

"No, you need a heart transplant of the supernatural kind."

Says the man who beats his children to make them better people?!

wrong !!!!!!!!!!

a babies presence (wanted or not) was not of-his/her-making! They are being considered 'the fault' or 'the problem'. What you seek is a way to back-out of an intense situation .... 'let's invent a back-door!' And I'm saying that there is a reason (species-survival?) for such intensity. We must go by nature or we get into designer kids who are of less valued than a change of hair colour. Much more expensive, but especially if they ever get ill .... will they quickly become 'the neonate'(a medical term) and lose-fast the 'my baby' status.

not good !!!!!

Ingrid, 4:03a, said: "I can't believe I'm saying this ;) but Jill's right. This is an English site and sticking to English is easier then all of you learning German."

*Jill falls on floor*

PIP, about the mechanical uterus you keep proposing. I haven't commented on it b/c it's frankly preposterous to me. But you keep at it.

So I just want to mention as food for thought that there's more to incubating a baby than providing him/her nutrition, hydration, and oxygenation.

It is remarkably true that after conception, the new being is complete and nothing will be added from this time until the human dies except nutrition, hyration, and oxygen.

But for one thing the pregnancy process provides hormonal protections from diseases the mother cannot get any other way.

And I know the mother provides immunities to her baby through her blood the baby cannot get any other way that will protect the baby particularly in the weeks and months after s/he is first born.

I know there are countless other reasons pregnancy provides physical and psychological benefits to both mother and child, and likely this is the other reason I haven't responded to your point. It would require me to research all that and I don't have the time right now.

Just something to consider.

Ingrid,

it's very hard to talk to you about these things because like Emmanuel Kant your autonomy/free-will is such a large part of your identity. HisMan and there may be others are saying, 'Ingrid don't play on the roadway's white line, you'll get killed!' Your response is: 'he can't tell me - he's ____'. (you fill in the blank) .... words and phrases like: "he beats his kids" or 'he's too old' or 'he's too ...'. There is never a response like: 'maybe he's right, I'm going to listen !' There is far too much arrogance on this board and you presume this to be a good trait. when a person is so full-of-themselves, there is no room for anyone else ... especially a dependent baby!

"There is far too much arrogance on this board and you presume this to be a good trait."

Poiting out that there are other aspects to an abortion than just "OMGyou're killing a baby!" makes us arrogant?

And I do listen. But letting someone who freely admits to beating his children tell me I'm heartless - you can't expect me to accept that. I have people I love very much. I know my parents love me very much and although they don't agree with all of my ideas, they never felt the need to hit me.

Nope Ingrid,

you're doing great ... just needed to affirm that I was talking to a very real person and not someone with such a strong self-identity-image that I'm left talking to an image rather than a real person. This is kinda like a sophisticated phone-answering program for telephone marketers. People can talk and talk for 20 minutes before realizing that it's a computer that is answering.

A computer can get very intricate, but it cannot ever be my friend! If you observe a child's colouring book, you'll see all sorts of images. What I, MK , HisMan (and others here) do is try to help you fill-in the colours. Like beginners to colouring books staying within lines or altering with different colours never dawns on newbies. There is much in this universe to experience and grow (for all of us) ... some very wonderful stuff and some really harsh, painful lessons .... but all this is only available to live beings.

"While sarcasm is perfectly acceptable to a degree, I find the way you treat Jill and HisMan to be reprehensible. It speaks more about the type of people you are than the type of people you accuse Jill and HisMan of being.

What is wrong with you people?
You come onto a PRO-LIFE website.
You use vulgar language, Blaspheme our God, make fun of our religion, call us names, attack Jills posts (not because you have anything to say, but precisely because you don't) and are generally ungracious."

I can only speak for myself. I follow these "debates," I see the pro-life arguements fall back time and time again to a 13th Century view of God. I don't start out to blaspheme your God, but it's such a silly view of the world, it is impossible to take seriously. I don't have a problem with Jill, she seems committed, intelligent, and thoughtful. She even has a sense of humor. Some on this site, however, (HisMan) make me shudder in horrow about the fate of our nation. I had heard of such people, but to actually watch the debates unfold and get a glimpse of his "thought process" is chilling. Yet, like watching a trainwreck, it's hard to turn away.

Yes, this is a pro-life website, and if you want to talk only amongst yourselves, that will make it more pleasant. It's not that we have nothing to say, it's just that we have little in common. You believe abortion is murder, we don't. What else is there to say?

Hey Jodes. Sorry this is so after the fact.

As far as the uterus existing regardless of the fetus: Of course you're right. However, without the fetus the uterus serves no function. The uterus is only a functional organ during pregnancy. Because of this, you can not claim that the fetus is incrouching on the woman's organ. If anything the fetus' presence is fulfilling the purpose of the organ.

Regardless, the organ is indeed shared just as kidneys or a spleen might be shared with conjoined twins. This shared organ does nothing to allow one party to kill the other.

Jill and John,

Do you think it will be possible to implant the fetii (sp?) into other peoples' wombs? This is what I meant at the beginning. Like in fertility clinics when they have embryos and use them to get people pregnant. Why not use that as a form of adoption?

Sorry, this is what I meant by research. I didn't really mean it the other way around.

PIP- http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu%2Fpetcolumns%2Fshowarticle.cfm%3Fid%3D422

Now this is talking about horses, but from what I understand from their language, they actually flush a "Fertilized Egg" from one horse and implant in in another.

Lauren,

Interesting concept, but the link doesn't work :/

Try this:

http://www.gaiaonline.com/gaia/redirect.php?r=http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu%2Fpetcolumns%2Fshowarticle.cfm%3Fid%3D422

Hi Doug 04/13/07 12:04,

you didn't say how long you've been following these 'debates'. I would assume not too long ...maybe 1-2 weeks. The quote you posted was from MK who is without-a-doubt one of the most fabulous people you will ever meet anywhere. She was exhausted from a whole new crop of people-here who are de