Pro-aborts say geography matters: In one's uterine home, one can be aborted.

Pro-aborts say finances matter: If one can't afford a baby, one can abort him/her.

Pro-aborts say health matters: If a preborn baby is sick, s/he can be aborted.

Pro-aborts say mental health matters: It is excusable for an unstable caretaker to abort her preborn.

Pro-aborts say convenience matters: Cumbersome preborns can be aborted.

Is level of development the only difference between preborn and postborn abortion? Consider the correlations in this August 16 Associated Press story:

A man threw his seriously ill wife four stories to her death because he could no longer afford to pay for her medical care, prosecutors said in charging him with second-degree murder.

According to court documents filed Wednesday in Jackson County Circuit Court, Stanley Reimer walked his wife to the balcony of their apartment and kissed her before throwing her over.

The body of Criste Reimer, 47, was found Tuesday night outside the apartment building....

In the probable cause statement filed with the charges, police said Reimer was desperate because he could not pay the bills for his wife's treatment for neurological problems and uterine cancer....

[S]he could barely walk and would not have been able to climb over the railing of the balcony.... in ill health for several years. Her weight had fallen to 75 pounds and she was partly blind....

[Photo of Stanley Reimer courtesy of the AP]

We live in a culture of death.

Perhaps to an abortion supporter, what the man did to his wife was actually an act of kindness?

No, Bethany, not to me. Being thrown off a building I would imagine is a very painful, and also undignified, way to die. What could be seen as an act of kindness is if he had, with her clearly expressed permission of course, given her an overdose of medication to "put her to sleep".

The supposed terminally ill unborn child gets no such choice to sign a permission slip.

Well, all children, whether born or preborn, have their medical decisions made by their parents.

Born children can't be put to sleep by their parents consent, here in America. Unborn can.

The parents of born children can give consent for their child to be taken off life support, or sign a DNR order for their child if that child is terminally ill.

That's not the same as actively euthanizing the child, though.

But it still takes into no account the wishes of the child. I was just pointing out that it is not an anomaly that unborn children are not given a say in their medical treatment (or lack thereof) because all people under the age of 18 are not given a say either.

Nice looking guy, anyway.

The mugshot camera: the world's most unflattering camera!

It's right up there with the "drivers license camera."

My driver's license picture is horrible, I look radioactive, and I'm not looking at the camera, because what I thought was the lens on the stupid contraption was really something else altogether.

Per JK:
"No, Bethany, not to me. Being thrown off a building I would imagine is a very painful, and also undignified, way to die."

JK
How painful and undignified is it to tear apart an unborn child limb from limb, crush the skull and throw the body parts in a bucket to later be tossed down some type of disposal. (I just read yesterday that a former abortionist quit the day he removed a thorax complete with a beating heart and then had to remove the decapitated head of this unborn child. He just couldn't do it any more and walked away.)

If you follow the agrument that the pro-aborts like to use, this woman really became an uninvited parasite into her husband's life, you know requiring him to pay her medical bills, needing him for the basic neccecities such as food, water and clothing. She would basically die without his care and support. In his mind he did the right thing for himself.

I would think pro-aborts would applaud this man for his decision. It was a "choice" he made that he felt would make his life easier and less complicated. Just because muder is illegal shouldn't make it wrong in this case.

Many people including pro-choicers and abortionists agree that abortion is really legalized murder. They know they are taking a life.

In addition, maybe this woman, due to her illness and medications she was taking was not really responsive nor conciously aware that she was being tossed over the balcony. She probably really felt no pain, or if she did it was momentarily. I guess we will never know because just like the unborn babies who's lives were taken we can't really ask her now can we?

What is the difference between this and abortion?

If someone were carrying an ill, neurologically-compromised, partly-blind unborn child, pro-aborts would consider it the parent's duty to abort. They would talk about "quality of life" and the "cost to society" "financial burden on the family" and other humanistic/pagan ideals, and claim that the parents were cruel to allow their child to live.

You're right- all that rationale applies to this poor woman. If pro-aborts don't fall behind this murderer and defend him, there be exposed even more inconsistencies in the pro-abort argument.

All that being said, I am so comforted by the Christian expectation/obligation to care for the sick, the vulnerable, and the weak- and that disabilities, physical or mental, do not rob a person of their inate human dignity. I am pleased that some people believe in caring for the sick, not throwing them 4 stories to their deaths.

Sandy,

Awesome post!

It would never be considered the parents' duty to abort. In the mindset of the mythical pro-aborts, yes, but to the pro-choice crowd, who don't require women to have abortions if they don't want to, it is not seen as the parents' duty to abort a terminally ill fetus (or baby if you prefer).

Sandy, great post....

Well, he was exersising his right to choose. she was totally dependent on him for her to live. So, he chose to abort. Hey, what the heck, he probably wanted to go back to college or maybe just wasn't ready to be a caregiver.....why are we being so judgemental...

Per JK

"It would never be considered the parents' duty to abort. In the mindset of the mythical pro-aborts, yes, but to the pro-choice crowd, who don't require women to have abortions if they don't want to, it is not seen as the parents' duty to abort a terminally ill fetus (or baby if you prefer)."

Are you kidding me?????? Women are pushed into aborting babies with anomalies ALL THE TIME by doctors who don't see a need to continue a pregnancy with a child who would be burdensome to society.

In my city a family recently started a group to support families who make the decision to keep their babies despite the medical professionals insistence that they abort.

They had an unborn child diagnosed with anomalies and were immediately told to abort. They got little or no support to continue the pregnancy from many of the doctors they were relying on for guidance.

I work with a pregnancy loss initiative and we secure speakers for an annual conference. We found out that a group of perinatologists (sp?)in our city NEVER allow women in their practice to take a baby to term or let it die a natural death in the womb if it has been diagnosed with certain anomalies. They will only recommend immediate termination. Little do some of these women know they have other options available to them. They just trust their doctors advice until it's too late.

90% of all DS babies are aborted. Why is this???

Sandy, good job.

Jasper, I actually sorta agree with you. Turn to the weather channel to see if hell has frozen over ;)

jasper, great post!

@JKeller,

the pro-life posts above are very accurate in what they say - [as one 'insider', I know these are true words] As far as an obligation-to-abort, what would you then call the high extinction of people with Downe's syndrome? Why in the passage of every abortion law is there always an exceptions clause for rape or fetal disabilities as the MUST KEEP provisions ... isn't a woman duty/expected-to-want abortion? What will you/society do to people like Jerry's Kids? [In case you are wondering, the vast majority of workers for muscular dystrophy are pro-abortion. I've asked!]

I am confused to how abortion can even be compared to this! One is murder, the other is not, one is legal while to other is illegal, one is malicious the other is not. This is like comparing apples to grapes guys, come on!!

Are you kidding me? Women are pushed into aborting babies with anomalies ALL THE TIME by doctors who don't see a need to continue a pregnancy with a child who would be burdensome to society.

Sandy, that sounds like a bunch of hype to me, and in any case Pro-Choice is not for that.

.........

90% of all DS babies are aborted. Why is this?

Because they are not wanted. I know you don' t think it's fair, but it makes a big difference to a lot of people.

Doug

Jasper: Well, he was exersising his right to choose. she was totally dependent on him for her to live. So, he chose to abort. Hey, what the heck, he probably wanted to go back to college or maybe just wasn't ready to be a caregiver.....why are we being so judgemental...

We're being judgmental because it wasn't his right in this case. Who do you see disagreeing with that?

Doug

Mugshot camera, driver's license camera.... passport camera.

With my passport picture, it's a wonder that any country would let me in.

"We're being judgmental because it wasn't his right in this case. Who do you see disagreeing with that?"

Doug, I'm not refering to us law....but why are forcing this man to take care of this woman? She was depending on him soley to care for her, she was using his time, his money... he had other priorities...you pro-choicers should sympathise with this man, he was being forced against his will! I personally wouldnt do this, but I don't have the right to tell him whgat to do...

Amy Grossberg threw her newborn baby into a dumpster. Melissa Drexler dumped her newborn son into a garbage can. Jessica Coleman stabbed her newborn son in the heart, and then she and her boyfriend tossed the baby into a quarry. This man tossed his wife out the window. Can anyone point out the differences in the stories?

Plus, from her neurological problems, ill heath and taking medications, she probably didn't feel that much pain when she died. So, what gives her the right to use his resources against his will?

jasper, to him she was a parasite.

"put her to sleep".

great, isn't that what we call it when we kill our dying dogs? Is that how we should see eachother? As dogs???

Great point Heather about the Amy Grossbergs of the world that serve hardly any time in jail, why should this man?

Guys,

He could have just left her to her own devices if he really didn't want to continue paying for her. Left her at the hospital. Cut off her resources, so to speak.

It's not the same thing.

Stephanie, and Amy Grossberg, Melissa Drexler, and Jessica Coleman could have taken their babies to a hospital or called social services.

Amy and Melissa each only served about 2 and 1/2 years in prison. Would that be a fair sentence for this guy?

I'm assuming those women gave birth then threw their infants into the trash or killed them. I agree.

Depends. The guy needs to be evaluated by a psychiatrist before I could say anything about his sentence.

If I were a judge, Amy, Melissa, and Jessica would never have seen their freedom again. Amy is currently running her own business. Jessica stated that she felt she deserved to be punished, but then she appeared live on 'Oprah' and begged for her freedom. Which is it, Jess? She got 6 years in the penitentiary. She told reporters that she is looking forward to her release date so she can start a family. I hope she was joking!

"He could have just left her to her own devices if he really didn't want to continue paying for her. Left her at the hospital. Cut off her resources, so to speak."

Then he would have to take the time to drive her to the hopital, maybe he wasnt up to it...the aggrevation with it all. So, he used his right choose.

Certainly the doctor might come to the conclusion that the only way is termination, but he or she is not strapping the woman to the table against her will and aborting then and there. You said it yourself, there are support groups for women who have brought a doomed child to term despite what the doctor thinks, these people do exist. As far as the number of down syndrome people dying out, I'm sure parents willing to dedicate their lives to raising kids with down syndrome are going through with their pregnancies, I still see kids with down syndrome. It is only the people who think they really can't handle it that abort, and they make that decision for themselves.

"It is only the people who think they really can't handle it that abort, and they make that decision for themselves."

well, it's the same with this guy. He couldn't handle it, so he aborted. No one is forcing this guy to abort, it was his choice.

There are better ways than throwing your wife off a damn building

"Then he would have to take the time to drive her to the hopital, maybe he wasnt up to it...the aggrevation with it all. So, he used his right choose."

Jasper, please take a little more time to type properly.

My point was, he had ways of cutting off resources prematurely besides throwing his wife out the window.

Besides, this is an issue of euthanasia, not abortion.

Jasper, you're getting confused. The wife was not physically attached to her husband and taking resources from his physical body.

An abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Don't forget that.

This is an issue of euthanasia, not abortion.

Why such light sentences for infanticide? Wasn't the baby human after birth?

"There are better ways than throwing your wife off a damn building"

JK, this is a personal choice this guy made, he didn't make this decision easy, I bet he gave it alot of thought. Now, maybe this would've have been your choice, but it was the right choice for him at the time.

If we are going to slap Amy Grossberg on the wrist, then we might as well go ahead and be "fair" to any convicted murderer. Let's just give the rapist probation.

People get light sentences all the time by pleading insanity, their lawyers probably went that road with them because it would easily hold up.

Yeah, I never said that Amy Grossberg should have gotten a light sentence.

Jasper, once again this is a issue of euthanasia, not abortion. Get it right.

I'm sure he gave it a lot of thought, jasper, but the fact remains, in this country throwing your wife off a building is considered by the law to be murder, a punishable offense.

"Jasper, you're getting confused. The wife was not physically attached to her husband and taking resources from his physical body."

Yes, it was, he had to wash her, feed her and transport her with his physical body. Not to mention other resouces, his time, his money. Who am I to tell him what to do with his body. Maybe being pro-choice isnt so bad after all...

Jasper, stop trying to make an analogy when there isn't one.

You know perfectly well what the difference is. She was not taking resources from his physical body as a fetus does. She was not taking resources directly from his blood, nor was she living inside of his physical body.

Euthanasia, not abortion.

Amy, and others like her, should receive double life sentences. They should never be able to return to society. Every other convicted killer is sitting in the clink. Amy is parading around town, shopping with friends, sleeping in a soft bed, smelling fresh air, enjoying good food. Mom and dad were enablers. They bought her some very undeserved freedom.

jasper, I agree. He was choosing to rid himself of an unwanted burden. Children have the same needs. This man could have chosen a nursing home. That may have been too difficult a choice for him. He might miss her too much. He could have chosen in home nursing care, and that way he could keep her. Perhaps too expensive. He chose murder.

Not every killer is locked up, OJ walks around free.

*shakes head*

Now BOTH of you are confusing euthanasia with abortion. NOT the same thing.

I'll be back, I'm going to get some lunch.

JK, That is true. Robet Blake too.

Robert Blake.

"She was not taking resources from his physical body as a fetus does."

yes, it's very similiar, he had to use was own bodily energy to care for her. I don't her right to life trumps his right to use his body the way he chooses. It's a perfect analogy. I'm leaning pro-choice now Stephanie, you should be encouraging me....

JKeller, 1:23p, said: "There are better ways than throwing your wife off a damn building."

Stephanie, 1:45p, said: "You know perfectly well what the difference is. She was not taking resources from his physical body as a fetus does. She was not taking resources directly from his blood, nor was she living inside of his physical body."

BTW, Steph, did you know a pregnant mother produces an extra quart of blood?

Back on topic, the analogies are SO CLEAR to me. Picture the apartment as a uterus. EVERY reason he gave to oust her is the same used for abortion. So what if it hurt?

Literally, the only difference between the two scenarios is the victim's level of development.

Look at some of these quotes from pro-choicers in this thread:

"He could have just left her to her own devices if he really didn't want to continue paying for her. Left her at the hospital."

"We're being judgmental because it wasn't his right in this case"

"My point was, he had ways of cutting off resources prematurely besides throwing his wife out the window."

"There are better ways than throwing your wife off a damn building"

...now, these don't sound pro-choice to me. I mean, there stating all of these other humane options this guy besides aborting. But what might be humane for one person, is not humane to next, thats why freedom of choice is so important.

Yes, that's why I prefaced my humane example by stating that he should only if his wife had specifically told him she wanted to.

JK,

It's doesn't matter why she wanted (maybe she didn't have the capacity to know what she wanted?) she was sucking up his bodily resouces, she was unwanted.

every person should be a wanted person! it not the right to life, it's the quality of life. Plus JK, this only happens in rare cases

She wasn't sucking up his bodily resources, unless she was drinking his blood by the quart of something, you are being ridiculous just for the sake of being disagreeable.

JK,

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, after a lot of thought, I'm think about being pro-choice. She was using his bodily resources; his phyical energy, his muscles without his consenting to it.

Jk, he really has a point. She was definitely using up his resources. He couldn't afford to take care of her. Where else could he take her? Who would take over the bills, and who would clean up her messes and all of the other physical work that he had to do to make sure that she was feeling fine during each day? He couldn't afford anymore. He didn't feel that he had enough energy to physically take care of her anymore. In a sense, he truly did "abort' her.
Do you know how much physical energy it takes to take care of a terminally ill person? It's a lot more than most people need to use to let a child develop in their womb, in my opinion. It's physically and emotionally draining.

I wonder if people would be offended if he wore a T-shirt that read: 'My Life' 'My Wife' 'My Choice'

honestly guys, I thought you all would at least care about the poor women.

Alright, I give up, just chuck her over the railing

Does this mean it is okay for men to abort and not women? When a woman has an abortion its because she is irresponsible, when a man does the same it is relieving stress.

Jkeller, I think you could easily see we are making a point, using only the same excuses used to justify abortion...not at all would we ever think that a man should be able to throw his wife over a balcony. Surely you know that by now?

honestly guys, I thought you all would at least care about the poor women.

See, this is the point we're trying to make. When you guys say stuff about how the women are just making a "choice", and how she has no other option, we think, "honestly, I thought you all would at least care about the little baby!"

It's ok JK, they're just being disagreeable just to be disagreeable.

They aren't really the "same" excuses. These are two vastly different scenarios.

"yes, it's very similiar, he had to use was own bodily energy to care for her. I don't her right to life trumps his right to use his body the way he chooses."

Again, Jasper, take your time and try using grammer.

*rolls eyes* Why do I even bother...
Yes, he had to use energy to care for her. It was NOT nutrients that that came from him blood going directly from his bloodstream to hers.

"It's a perfect analogy. I'm leaning pro-choice now Stephanie, you should be encouraging me...."

A perfect analogy? Minus housing someone in your uterus, but I guess that's just a minor issue. Sure Jasper, be pro-choice. I'll make sure to tell everyone that you support giving the women a right to choose, not giving people the right to throw someone off a building.

I'm serious. This is how I feel when I see a woman with a sign or a T-shirt that reads 'My Body' 'My Choice'

"BTW, Steph, did you know a pregnant mother produces an extra quart of blood?"

Yes, I did know that. Why does this matter?

"Back on topic, the analogies are SO CLEAR to me. Picture the apartment as a uterus. EVERY reason he gave to oust her is the same used for abortion. So what if it hurt?

Literally, the only difference between the two scenarios is the victim's level of development."

Oh, minus the whole living-in-someones-body and directly-leeching-nutrients thing?

You guys are missing something.

This was closer to the issue of euthanasia, NOT abortion. I have said it probably four times already. Or did you guys miss it in your eagerness to keep to a faulty analogy?

WHAAAAAATS the diffy? Abortion is murder! This guy murdered his wife. Well, off to work I go!

What the hell kind of logic is that?

Stephanie, never mind.

"WHAAAAAATS the diffy? "

You mean, besides the fact the wife wasn't in a uterus but in an apartment both she and her husband shared?

"We're being judgmental because it wasn't his right in this case. Who do you see disagreeing with that?"

Jasper: Doug, I'm not refering to us law....but why are forcing this man to take care of this woman? She was depending on him soley to care for her, she was using his time, his money... he had other priorities...you pro-choicers should sympathise with this man, he was being forced against his will! I personally wouldnt do this, but I don't have the right to tell him whgat to do...

Good question as to how much was he actually being forced to take care of her. I don't know what the rules are for this type of thing, even with spouses.

I think it's silly to say that pro-choicers should sympathize with the guy. His wife was not inside the body of a person, was sentient, capable of suffering, had desires, memories, had rights already attributed to her, etc, and those make a big difference to a lot of people.

Doug

This whole scenario sounds tailor made for Michael Moore. I would reserve judgment as to why he really killed his wife, or much of anything else until we know "the story behind the story".
Its been my experience time and again that the media distorts,sensationalizes, tries to prove a point, and plays on people's emotions. Many so-called "mercy killings" haven't been.
Just a word of caution.

Who here recommended me Al Franken's book?

I found it at the dollar shop (the only liberal book in the midst of "The Faith of George W. Bush" and "The Bible on CD") and bought it.

I hope to read it after I finish Middlesex. It looks promising!

Yeah, who knows, maybe she asked him to throw her off the balcony because she couldn't carry herself over there. Still, there are less painful ways to commit suicide.

Hey that was me!

Mary: It's been my experience time and again that the media distorts, sensationalizes, tries to prove a point, and plays on people's emotions.

Ha! Mary, we agree 100% on that. Heck, 1000%! ; )

Doug

*Faint*

Jasper My Friend,
You get extra kibble tonight and a big fat bone! Excellent work!

What I'm saying is that he may have killed her for reasons other than medical bills. Maybe she just wasn't dying fast enough to suit him, which I strongly suspect.
To say he did this because of inability to pay medical expenses has strong emotional appeal to some elements in our society. Its also a good sob story for a jury and sympathetic reporters.
I've learned time and again there is always "the story behind the story" and I suspect that is the case here.

All,

As you can see I was being facetious up above. This was an awful story about that poor woman. But, the analogy with abortion fits perfecty, the only difference being the location of the victim.

Actually, it would have been a better analogy if it was the building itself that had chucked her out, not her husband. Since buildings have an entirely different set of rights than say, a pregnant woman, then we wouldn't know whether to judge it right or wrong that the building chucked her out. Maybe the building wanted only healthy residents, maybe this woman was lowering the building's property value, which, in that case, don't be surprised if it soon chucks the husband out too.

No that wouldnt' be a better analogy, because the man owns the building (as the woman 'owns' her body), and the man makes the choice to do something with his building, (as the woman makes the choice to do something with her body). It's a perfect analogy.

I mean, the apartment, not the building. I realize the man doesn't own the entire apartment complex. lol

And Jk, notice...his apartment, which he owns (her body, which she owns), is where his wife resides (is where her baby resides). His act of throwing her out is exactly analogous to a woman expelling an unborn child from her womb before it's time.
You should never throw a woman off a balcony to let her out of the apartment. The way to do that is to carefully wheel her bed into an elevator, and wheel her out the door, without harming her. The way to remove a baby from the womb is to wait the period of time necessary, then let the baby come out naturally. This way no one is harmed.

Some post abortive comedian was using her abortion as part of her stand up act. She said "The tenant was evicted.".....oooooh, not funny!

JK,

I've started to read some of it before I continue Middlesex. It's very good and really entertaining! Thanks for the recommendation!

"Who here recommended me Al Franken's book?"

not me, thats for sure PIP..

I figured, jasper. What, are you afraid of the truth?

Jasper: But, the analogy with abortion fits perfecty, the only difference being the location of the victim.

That the woman was not inside the body of a person is one difference, yes. Others are that the woman was sentient, aware, had feelings, emotions, memories, relationships, had been attributed rights, could suffer, etc.

Doug

PIP,

You're welcome

Bethany,

Was it solely the man that owned the apartment, or did they both own the apartment as many married couples do? If she owns part (or who knows, all) of the apartment, then he really has no right to throw her off the balcony. Not to mention that it's a crime to do so. Now if she lived in, say, his stomach, or his left kidney or something like that, against his will, then he has every right to expel her from his body, as his body belongs solely to him.

Notice I'm trying to use analogies to rival in ridiculousness with jasper's of yesterday. He got good praise for them so I felt like trying it on for size.

"Others are that the woman was sentient, aware, had feelings, emotions, memories, relationships, had been attributed rights, could suffer, etc."

So what Doug? lets say her senses were gone, would it be OK then to kill her?

why does location of the victim matter? really...

"Others are that the woman was sentient, aware, had feelings, emotions, memories, relationships, had been attributed rights, could suffer, etc."

Jasper: So what Doug? lets say her senses were gone, would it be OK then to kill her?

A person losing their senses, alone, could still have emotions, no? Honest question, and that seems a horrible fate to me. On that alone I don't say "okay to kill." I also don't know if that ever happens.

If there really is no hope of consciousness returning, as with Terri Schiavo, then, as in that case, I think if the family wants to let death come, okay. To me, in that situation though there is still a living body there, the person they were is long gone.

........

why does location of the victim matter? really...

With abortion it's because the location is inside the body of the woman. It makes a big difference, and thus there is wide disagreement about abortion while about killing born people without just cause, due process, wartime, self-defense, etc., really isn't a subject of much disagreement.

Even if one does think that rights should be attributed to the unborn, there are also the woman's rights to be thought of, and that is never the same after birth.

Doug

"With abortion it's because the location is inside the body of the woman. It makes a big difference, and thus there is wide disagreement about abortion"

Yes, I understand, but just because there is wide disagreement this does not mean the location makes a difference. (i.e. Slavery; there was wide disagreement, but now today everybody in this country believes it was wrong.)

"To me, in that situation though there is still a living body there, the person they were is long gone."

Doug, I guess that is where we break. From scientific evidence, there is a living body inside of the woman:
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm