Planned Parenthood Aurora just lost its request in a Chicago federal court to open. More to follow.

UPDATE, 12:39p: Per Aurora resident and attorney Vince Tessitore, who was present at the hearing: "Planned Parenthood lost. The judge will grant them leave to amend their complaint and try again. They can come back with an amended complaint, which I expect they will do. But for now they're not allowed to open. It's up to the City to let them open."...

UPDATE, 12:44p: The closing moments of the court hearing from the perspective of Planned Parent Aurora's live blogger in the court room:

12:05PM: The judge is discussing the argument.

12:06PM: Now the judge is discussing precedent.

12:13PM: The judge's tone is negative toward us in this discussion.

12:18PM: The judge is saying that there is a dearth of evidence showing discrimination and that there was not enough time for a reasonable investigation.

12:20PM: In its present form, the judge is denying the motion. He is leaving the option open to refile.

12:22PM: The judge said that by no means is the case over. He said that the delay itself is not of constitutional magnitude, but that could change.

12:24PM: Court is adjourned. The judge has denied the motion on the ground that we haven't provided enough evidence. We can reapply later when we have more evidence. But for now, the clinic has to remain closed.

UPDATE, 1:13p: Eric Scheidler just called with a statement:

This decision is a great victory for life and a great victory for choice, the freedom of choice for the people of Aurora to have a say in the destiny of their town.

Planned Parenthood is trying to make this all about abortion but not all about abortion. If they don't get what they want, then it's all about abortion rights. But when they are trying to sneak into town, then it's not about abortion, it's about "health care."

It is significant they chose the name Gemini [for their front company], which means, "twins, two-faced." Everything they've done has been two-faced - with the people, the federal courts, the mayor, the City Council, and, of course, with the the women and girls upon which they prey.

UPDATE, 1:21p: Vince Tessitore just called with more insights into Judge Norgle's decision:

I thought the Aurora attorney did a great job. Lance Malina is his name. The case will probably be continued if and when PP files an amended complaint.

[Thomas More Society attorney]Tom Brejcha today is filing an amicus brief on behalf of myself as an indivudal plaintiff and Fox Valley Families Against PP. It largely includes a 7-page declaration by me that goes into more detail as to why the city is investigating this matter, in other words the fraud committed against PP.

Specific reasons Judge Norgle denied their motion: PP was suing on equal protection grounds. There are basically two prongs to proving an equal protection case: #1, PP had to prove they were treated differently than other medical clinics in Aurora, and #2 if they did prove that then they had to show Aurora's dissimilar treatment of them was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. That's the standard.

PP didn't even get to the second prong. The judge said they failed to meet their burden of proof on the first prong.

The judge said this wasn't a constitutional issue yet but could become onee. That means PP hasn't proven at all to this point that they're being denied equal protection because they provide abortion services. If they did establish evidence of that, then it could become a constitutional question. The bottom line is they can't establiish a pattern on that because the City of Aurora is looking into this matter because of fraud, not because of abortion services.

UPDATE, 1:36p: From the Associated Press:

A federal judge in Chicago today refused to order Aurora officials to allow a Planned Parenthood clinic in their suburb to open.

U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle says Planned Parenthood needs to provide more proof that it is being discriminated against by local officials. He says the organization's attorneys could do that in future filings.

The clinic's opening has been delayed by a dispute over whether Planned Parenthood broke any laws when it applied for building permits using the name of 1 of its subsidiaries, Gemini Office Development.

The city of Aurora commissioned an outside review, but two attorneys were let go over potential conflicts of interest. The city is now awaiting an investigation and advice from the Kane County state's attorney.

Praise God!!!

Wooooohooooo!

In yo' face, infanticidal maniacs!!!

Praise the Lord!!!!

God bless the Judge, attorneys & city!

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!

Yay!!!! Party!!

Please people-

This won't prevent one abortion. It will only insure that those women receive later and later-term abortions.

In the meantime, more young women without access to birth control will have to have abortions when the place finally does open. (...And it will.)

Laura, there are four other mills in the county and seven total in the vicinity. But this decision certainly will curtail the anticipated rise in abortions this mill would bring.

It won't prevent one abortion?............IT MIGHT!

Laura,

Maybe not....the girl that has an abortion scheduled CAN change her mind!!!

Dearth = SHORTAGE!!!!

Hey, does this mean that the city will make them vacate the property due to the judges ruling now?

Well, some said that the "loony RTLfers" wouldn't be taken seriously. I'm guessing they were wrong!

This won't prevent one abortion. It will only insure that those women receive later and later-term abortions.

It won't? Then what a 7.5 million dollar waste of money on Planned Parenthood's part! Apparently they thought there was a major market for abortions in Aurora, else they wouldn't have snuck in.

By the way, Laura- women rush into abortions. Mandatory waiting perids significantly reduce abortions. These women that have time to think might very well choose life.

Now the city has to decide what to do. I doubt they want to permanently close a brand new medical facility. They'll have Planned Parenthood jump through a few hoops and open in a month or two. In the meantime, women will have abortions at less modern health centers. Yes, praise god.

Where should I send my $10?

Maybe they could turn it into a daycare. That would be ironic!

That is great news!!!!!

In the meantime, women will have abortions at less modern health centers.

I didn't realize that it required modern technology to kill inches-long babies? I mean, how hard are they to catch, really?

Better yet, let's make it a Church!

In yo' face, infanticidal maniacs!!!

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 20, 2007 12:37 PM
---------------------------------
Jacqueline:

You know abortions and infanticide are NOT the same thing.

Why not?

" I didn't realize that it required modern technology to kill inches-long babies? I mean, how hard are they to catch, really?"

Well, I note frequent criticisms about the conditions of "abortion mills." I thought a nice modern one might meet your standards.

Hal,
I have a few ideas for your $10. Let's see if your valuation will permit you to:

-Buy a pack of diapers and donate it to your local CPC
-apply it towards legal fees the city of Aurora might incur having to defend themselves against the benevolent PP.
-donate it to any of the pro-life orgs. listed on Jill's website.

Anyone else?

How about a new police station for Aurora??? That would be a great location! (& it already has bulletproof glass!!!)

I wonder how Steve Trombley is going to twist this one to be a "victory" for PP??? You know it's coming!!!

Carder, my initial offer requested no Pro-life organizations, as I would really have a hard time with that morally. (I know....but imagine if you lost a bet and I asked you to send the money to planned parenthood)

I like the diaper idea, and don't think I'd lose sleep over that. (as long as I don't get on their mailing list)

We have a very good Catholic Community Charities organization locally. Any objection to that?

I like the ideas you guys have about what we can convert that awesome $7 million facility into.

If anybody is familiar with Dr. Thomas Hilgers, founder of Pope Paul VI institute and the developer of NaPro Technology, he once stated on an interview w/ Raymond Arroyo that his dream would be to have clinics like his all over the country, clinics that will provide REAL healthcare for women and couples in the gyn realm. He bluntly stated that PP has had its way for too long and that it was time to counter their fallacy with sound, healthy Truth. At the time I thought how wonderfully ambitious this doctor was, but on a human level it was a major feat.

So how 'bout we donate that facility to his research group so that he can provide on a grander scale what he's been doing for years?

Just a thought...

No problem Hal.

My comments were more like jabbing you in the ribs, proverbially. It's your money; do as you wish.

When did it get to $10, BTW? I thought it was only $1.

You know abortions and infanticide are NOT the same thing.

Besides the location of the baby being killed, name the distinction.

I thought a nice modern one might meet your standards.

Pro-lifers opposition to abortion mills isn't their technology. They could be the warmest, sweetest-smelling, state-of-the-art places there are, it doesn't change the fact that they kill babies in there.

"When did it get to $10, BTW? I thought it was only $1."

I'd feel silly send a check for $1.

Yeah!

We know from the Zorn piece that Illinois is knee-deep in teen prgnancies, Welfare babies and STDs.

Good time to close down a reproductive health facility...

I'd feel silly send a check for $1.

Hal, the way things are going, one of these days the postage is gonna be more than that.

"Hal, the way things are going, one of these days the postage is gonna be more than that."

hehe, too true. I remember when it was a quarter. I thought that was fair.

Jacque:

An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage or be artificially induced by chemical, surgical or other means. And the most important fact of this: Abortions are legal.

Infanticide is the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of a infant. Often it is the mother who commits the act, but criminology recognises various forms of non-maternal child murder. And the most important fact of this: Infanticide is illegal.

Yeah!

We know from the Zorn piece that Illinois is knee-deep in teen prgnancies, Welfare babies and STDs.

Good time to close down a reproductive health facility...

We agree. We must do something that is actually effective in combatting these issues.

Like a 7.5 million dollar pregnancy center. Imagine that!

Hal, how about The Arc(thearc.org)? They provide services for children with developmental disabilities. That would be appropriate considering the current climate for unborn children with disabilities.

A reproductive health care facility?,,,,,what a crock! I just love the wording that abortion clinics use. It's for reproductive slobs! Health care means this: STD screening, pap tests, breast and pelvic exams, HIV testing. Where does abortion fall into a reproductive, health care need?

In abortion and infanticide, a baby is equally dead. Furthermore, as Jill pointed out in her testimony about live-birth abortions, abortions don't always kill the baby before birth, do they?

Wife beating was once legal. Child abuse was once legal. Slavery was once legal. Abortion is now legal. Something being legal doesn't make it right.

If infanticide (by your definition) became legal right now, would that make it right?

Ah, I never said that b/c it was legal automatically meant that it was right, now did I? But I am simply pointing out the facts to you: Abortions are legal and Infanticide is illegal. Infanticide is the illegal murder of a child. Abortions are terminating a z/e/f and not an illegal murder by society's or the law's definition.

How about:

Contact the Down Syndrome Foundation

Larry P. Larson at:
PH 763-545-4000
e-mail: larry@downsyndromefoundation.org

Even though the Down Syndrome Foundation is not a United Way funded agency, you can designate the Down Syndrome Foundation to be a recipient of your gift made through payroll deduction or as an outright donation. Simply write Down Syndrome Foundation and our address (10750 Old County Rd 15 Plymouth, MN 55441) on your pledge form and United Way will see that your contribution is sent to us. Please let us know you have donated so we can watch for your gift. Thank you for your support!

Like a 7.5 million dollar pregnancy center. Imagine that!

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 20, 2007 1:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How does that help women who don't want to be pregnant?

And to answer your last question: No, if a law was passed today that made infanticide legal, it would still not be right. Murder (in any shape or form) has roots in the English Common Law system. They were things that were wrong in and of themselves without there being a legal law to say so.

It is now known as Malum in Se.

Malum in se is a Latin phrase meaning wrong in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct thought to be inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited. For example, murder of human beings is universally agreed to be wrong by other human beings, regardless of whether a law exists or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se.

Do you see the difference?

Ok Carrie, $50 to the Arc. Unless someone objects, I'll do it today.

anyone want to wager that the Aurora Clinic will be open in 30 days?

MK, that is a great suggestion.

If women don't want to be pregnant, maybe they will think twice before having reckless intercourse!

Hal, thank you so much. I know many children who get services through the Arc, including my son.

If women don't want to be pregnant, maybe they will think twice before having reckless intercourse!

Posted by: heather at September 20, 2007 2:00 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, Captain Role Model, why didn't YOU think twice?

We are making it sound as if women are victims. They HAVE A CHOICE NOW!! I could chose to drive drunk today, and I might get a DUI. I could chose to stay sober, and I won't get a DUI if I go for a drive. I could chose to be abstinent and not become pregnant, or I could have sex and risk becoming pregnant.

Laura, I kept my son. I didn't run to the abortion clinic.

Laura, for someone who's never had an abortion, you sure have a lot of opinions on how post abortive women should feel.

How does that help women who don't want to be pregnant?

If 9 months or less, they won't be pregnant! And their babies won't be dead. It's a win-win.

Laura, there's a lot of of people that don't want to face the consequences of their choices (think about rapists in jail). But we don't let the rapists out of their prison sentence to hurt society. Likewise, the only way for a woman to become unpregnant that doesn't hurt anyone is a live birth or (regretfully) a miscarriage. You can't let people out of the consequences of their choices at the expense of others. Like I said before, if you could become unpregnant without killing your child, I'd have no obligations. But you can't.

So women that choose to have sex, get pregnant and don't want to be- too damn bad. I'll help anyway I can, but killing your child is not an option.

Abortion is abused! Why isn't it at all uncommon to meet women who have had more than one abortion? I thought the PC mantra was safe, legal, and rare. 1.3 million abortions a year? That isn't rare!

Laura, for someone who's never had an abortion, you sure have a lot of opinions on how post abortive women should feel.

Posted by: heather at September 20, 2007 2:08 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have no idea how post-abortive women SHOULD feel.

I do know that a tiny fraction suffer fron PTSD, just like my niece did after her monster car accident.

Well, if a car accident can traumatize a person, an abortion surly can.

Hal,
There are times when I struggle to respect you.
This is NOT one of them. I think what you are doing is truly noble.

I'll make that wager with you. I'll probably lose, but I think what you just did is so awesome, that even if planned parenthood opens and I lose, I still win. It will be an honor to donate along with you.

But I'm afraid I can only do $20.00. Divorce is messy and unless I want to incur one, I probably shouldn't be makin' bets with the childrens tuition...lol...

Laura,
Do you think the unborn are human?

Laura,
Do you think the unborn are human?

Posted by: mk at September 20, 2007 2:32 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think fetuses consist of human tissue.

Ok MK. Thank you. You're on! 30 days from today. $20.

You don't have to donate to pro-choice group, I don't have to donate to pro-life. But other than that, the winner can pick the cause.

CLOSE ENOUGH!

fetuses consist of human tissue..........

thanks Laura...

I'll bet $1000 that the clinic stays closed.

The fat I had sucked from my thighs consisted of human tissue,

Heather, that's out of my league.

But, are you saying you think it stays closed forever, or in the next thirty days? I can't imagine any result that would keep it closed forever. They can always start the permitting process over. The city cannot keep them out just because they are providing abortions (that's the constitutional issue the judge said wasn't ripe yet, but would be if they did that) The most this will result in is delay. IMO

Forever!

Thigh fat doesn't have a beating heart.

To celebrate this victory over Planned Barrenhood I propose the opening of a new crisis pregnancy center in the Chicago area!

Well, if a car accident can traumatize a person, an abortion surely can.

What about seeing a Baby Ruth candy bar that somebody threw in a swimming pool?

Like a 7.5 million dollar pregnancy center. Imagine that!

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 20, 2007 1:47 PM
------------------------------------------------

Yes, the countries largest CPC, maybe with an adoption agency inside as well. Wouldn't that be nice?

I remember when it was a quarter. I thought that was fair.

Bobby, I've got an old letter and envelope I sent to my grandparents in 1963, at the age of four. There had just been a whopping 25% increase in first-class postage, from 4 cents to 5.

You also had separate, and more expensive, "air mail" stamps back then.

My mom remembers the "penny postcard" being just that. (Pre-1952)

What about seeing a Baby Ruth candy bar that somebody threw in a swimming pool?

Posted by: Doug at September 20, 2007 3:10 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Baby Ruth bars must be outlawed!
They cause Pool Tainted Sweet Disorder.

I just love how Jacque ignored my answer and post I directed at her.

MK, Heather: How are y'all doing this lovely day?

I just love how Jacque ignored my answer and post I directed at her.

I didn't ignore it. Obviously I missed it. But, hey, whatever makes you happy.

P.S. It didn't have my words italized or my name indicating it was for me. I simply glanced over it.

Whatever.

Killing born babies is almost legal too Midnite, they usually get off with little or no jail time.

I just love how Midnite got snarky with me for not addressing her and flippantly dismisses me when I do!

Yes, Jasper. If the person is mentally ill. If the person does not have a caupable mental state, he/she can not be prosecuted. You can not hold a mentally insane person responsible for their actions and the Supreme Court has stated that they can not form criminal intent.

Jacque:

No that was not being snarky, that was me being me. Sorry if you dont know me...

hello midnite and jasper and all. Ah, gotta go to work. I'll catch y'all later. Here are 2 girls who committed infanticide, and today they walk free. Melissa Drexler and Amy Grossberg. This should outrage us all. We all must follow the rules that society put out there. These 2 girls killed their sons, and they only did about 2 years in prison. They make me sick!

Delaware v. Grossberg and Peterson
Grossberg To Serve Two-and-Half Years; Peterson Receives Two-Year Sentence
July 9 (Court TV) -- Different sentences were issued to the former high school sweethearts who pled guilty to the manslaughter in the death of their infant child.
Attorneys for Brian Peterson and Amy Grossberg on Cochran & Company

Part 1

Part 2

Download Realplayer
Amy Grossberg learned that she would spend two-and-half years in prison while her former lover Brian Peterson will serve a two-year sentence for the 1996 death of their child. Both Grossberg, 19, and Peterson, 20, received an eight-year sentences. But Grossberg had all but the two-and-a-half years suspended while Peterson had six years suspended. Because Grossberg has already served 64 days in prison, she will actually serve only two years and four months in prison.

Gasping and sobbing in court, Grossberg, 19, said that she was "extremely sorry" for what she did to her baby. After she learned her sentence, Grossberg hugged her relatives in attendance individually as she was taken away by court personnel.

Peterson, 20, also told the court that he was sorry for what he had done to his son and that there was nothing he could do to make up for his actions

Amy Grossberg: Admitted unintentionally killing her newborn.

Grossberg, and Peterson pled separately to manslaughter. Grossberg agreed to a plea after Peterson told prosecutors that he would testify against her at trial. Both Grossberg and Peterson could have faced up to 10 years in prison. Grossberg and Peterson asked Superior Court Judge Henry duPont Ridgely for leniency and to consider their clients' lack of previous criminal record and young age when deciding their sentences.

But in his decision, Judge Ridgely found that Grossberg was more irresponsible than Peterson in the handling of her pregnancy. After the hearing, prosecutors explained the differences in the sentences by saying that Grossberg was selfish for not seeking prenatal care as Peterson had allegedly suggested. They insisted that Grossberg repeatedly rejected Peterson's urgings to go to a hospital on the night of the incident because she wanted to hide the pregnancy from her mother.

An attractive couple from the affluent suburb in Wyckoff, N.J., Grossberg and Peterson were trying to hide Grossberg's pregnancy when they went to the Comfort Inn in November 1996. There, Grossberg gave birth and in a panic, the baby was disposed of in the motel dumpster. The infant's body was discovered the next day; Grossberg's hidden pregnancy -- and her link with Peterson to the dead disposed infant -- was uncovered soon after Grossberg experienced post-delivery hemorrhaging.
Brian Peterson: His impending testimony at Grossberg's trial led to her plea bargain.

At first, it seemed Grossberg and Peterson would remain united when they were first indicted for their baby's death in December 1996. They first claimed the baby was stillborn. But when an autopsy showed that the baby was born alive and that he suffered various fatal head fractures, their legal paths diverged. They began blaming each other for their child's death. Peterson insisted that Grossberg urged him to dispose of the baby; Grossberg claimed that Peterson acted alone in throwing the child in the dumpster.

In March 1998, Peterson pled guilty to manslaughter in exchange for his testimony against Grossberg at her trial. In the plea agreement, Peterson admitted disposing of the baby, saying that he and Grossberg panicked when she gave birth and experienced complications. Peterson claimed that he thought the infant was born dead and insisted that his girlfriend begged him to "Get rid of it!" Peterson's lawyers said that he regretted not seeking medical help for the baby and not getting medical confirmation that he was stillborn.

When Grossberg learned in detail what Peterson would say against her at trial, she agreed to a plea bargain on April 22. She acknowledged unintentionally causing the death of the infant and said that she and Peterson never planned to kill the baby.

Initially, prosecutors considered charging Grossberg and Peterson with first-degree murder and seeking the death penalty. But after Peterson's plea bargain, prosecutors then decided to seek lesser charges of second-degree murder and murder by abuse or neglect against Grossberg.

-- Bryan Robinson

Text of Brian Peterson's Plea Agreement| Text of Amy Grossberg's Plea Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
? Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia ?Jump to: navigation, search
Melissa Drexler (born 1978, a.k.a. "The Prom Mom", as labeled by the American media), is infamous for delivering a baby in a restroom stall at her high school prom and putting the body in the trash before returning to the dance. She pleaded guilty to aggravated manslaughter, and was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment. After serving nearly 37 months, she was released on parole.

Drexler attended Lacey Township High School, New Jersey.[1] Over the course of nearly nine months she kept her pregnancy secret from the baby's father, her parents, and her new boyfriend, John T. Lewis, Jr. Five foot seven inches tall, and weighing 60 kg (130 pounds), she apparently showed no signs of her pregnancy.

On June 6, 1997, the day of her senior prom, the eighteen-year-old's water broke in the morning, and she later suffered contractions on her way to the banquet hall. Upon arrival, she retreated to the restroom, where the baby was born in about 15?30 minutes. According to her allocution, Drexler then retrieved the baby from the toilet bowl, cut the umbilical cord on the bathroom fixtures, wrapped the baby in several garbage sacks, and deposited the bundle in a trash can. She then went to the dance floor and, according to witnesses, "appeared to be just as she always was" and "exhibited indications of somebody enjoying the prom." Some reports at the time stated that she requested the song "The Unforgiven" by Metallica, but later reports denied this. However, others alleged that she ate a salad and danced afterwards.

The baby was discovered by a janitor who responded to reports of blood in the restroom, and who became suspicious of the weight of the trash bag. Emergency workers attempted to resuscitate the baby for two hours. Drexler later named the baby Christopher.

Originally charged with murder, Drexler pleaded guilty to aggravated manslaughter on October 29, 1998, and Judge John A. Ricciardi sentenced her to 15 years in prison, the maximum penalty. On November 26, 2001, she was released on parole after serving a little over three years.

[edit] References

actually, 37 months for Drexler. Wouldn't have been better for these two girls to have had abortions in the first trimester?

The water was cold, the mystery deep. It was the summer of 1999 when scuba diver Carl Claren decided to go for a swim in a suburban Cleveland quarry near the new house he was building. As he dove along the shallow edge of the quarry, he noticed something unusual.

Content
More on the Safe Haven Advocacy Group"There was a duffel bag, and I figured there was something in there, brought it up in the yard, unzipped it and the leg and the foot fell out," Claren told "20/20."

Inside the canvas duffel, he found rocks -- and a dead baby boy with a stab wound and a head injury, his umbilical cord tied off with a barrette.

A Town in Shock, a Girl in Denial
The body of the nearly full-term baby shook the small Ohio community of Columbia Station so deeply they gave it a real funeral, a grave and a headstone bearing the name: Baby Boy Hope. Community members vowed not to rest until they knew who among them could do such a thing.

Lorraine County Sheriff's Detective Karl Yost became consumed by the mystery, developing a picture of the killer in his mind.

"I think we all wanted to think there was some kind of monster behind this, because who else would do this besides a monster?" Yost said.

But while he looked for the monster, just a few miles away was someone totally different, a 10th-grade girl, Jessica Coleman.

Jessica was a pretty, popular student-athlete with good grades -- and a terrible secret. When Jessica was a freshman, she and her boyfriend, Tom Truelson, fell in love and became sexually active.

The following fall, just as Tom was preparing for college and the two teenage lovers were worried about parting, she started to feel her body changing. She missed periods. But being just 15 and athletic, irregular cycles were not that unusual. By the fifth month, she began to worry.

Content
To Conceal or Reveal? Take Our Secrets QuizShe and Tom bought a pregnancy test and the results were positive. She was pregnant with his child. Jessica panicked. "I wanted it to be wrong. I thought, how can I tell my family and what are people going to think of me?" she said.

They made a decision to simply ignore the results. Perhaps, they thought, if they didn't acknowledge the situation, "it might just go away," she said.

Of course, it didn't. Still, she did her best to make sure her pregnancy went unnoticed by her family and friends. "My body actually did not change at all. I didn't gain any weight, because I had an eating disorder at the time. I wouldn't eat. I was afraid to eat, I was afraid to show, I was afraid that people would find out," she said.

'I Made a Terrible Mistake'
1234Next
| Read All 40 Comments and Post Your Own

here are a few stories about infanticide. These women are either out of prison, or they will be out. Fair? You decide..gotta run!

fair? who knows? Justice is a funny concept. I like what Clarence Darrow once said, paraphrase: we can never know exactly what justice is, but we can all understand mercy and compassion.

what good would ocme of longer sentences for these young women? would other women be deterred? I doubt it. Women who do this aren't deterred by much, even the availability of legal abortion. THey don't seem to be thinking clealy. Would they be less likely to kill again? I doubt it. What would the benefit of a 30 year prison sentence be?

Nice coverage by Jill and the folks over at http://www.openlineblog.com.

It's a huge victory even if there are more battles ahead.

I wish someone would just ask the city, "what do you want Planned Parenthood to do at this point?"

Then they can do it and it's over.

Jill, do you really believe that opening this clinic will increase the total number of abortions?

Absent the clinic, women who want abortions will just get them elsewhere.

Imagine a woman saying to herself: Well, if I have to drive a few miles for my abortion, I'll grow the pregnancy instead!

The idea is preposterous.

Hal said: "I wish someone would just ask the city, "what do you want Planned Parenthood to do at this point?"

Then they can do it and it's over."

Yes, I agree; PP can go to Hell. And then it will be over.

John L: good one.

but we need to ask the City of Aurora, they hold the power of the permit.

"grow the pregnancy"

thats a good one SoMG

Doug,

Laura thinks a fetus contains human tissue.

Laura,
Do you think the unborn are human?

Posted by: mk at September 20, 2007 2:32 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think fetuses consist of human tissue.
Posted by: Laura at September 20, 2007 2:42 PM

In your opinion Doug, that means, I'm pretty sure, that she does think they are human just like the fat from her thighs. In my opinion it means that it contains human tissue, but is not "human"...

If you want clarification, ask her.

You know abortions and infanticide are NOT the same thing.

Besides the location of the baby being killed, name the distinction.

I thought a nice modern one might meet your standards.

Pro-lifers opposition to abortion mills isn't their technology. They could be the warmest, sweetest-smelling, state-of-the-art places there are, it doesn't change the fact that they kill babies in there.

Posted by: Jacque at September 20, 2007 1:26 PM
................................
For someone that hasn't even ever had sex, you sure pretend to know all about gestation. I take it that you aren't majoring in biology.

I'd feel silly send a check for $1.

Hal, the way things are going, one of these days the postage is gonna be more than that.

Posted by: Doug at September 20, 2007 1:42 PM
...................................
I remember my mother taping a penny onto envelopes to cover the latest postage increase. I just had a vision of taping a dollar bill to envelopes. Would the postal worker know what it was?

Sally, the location is a critical difference.

For instance, if I hold a pencil three inches from your eye, that's not a crime. But if I change the location of the pencil by pushing it those three inches and stabbing you in the eye with it, that IS a crime. The only difference between the two is the LOCATION of the pencil, but one is a crime and the other is not.

Don't belittle the importance of location.

On what grounds does a fetus claim the right to inflict labor and delivery upon its mother?

Of course, fetuses don't claim anything for themselves. On what grounds do you right-to-lifers claim the right to force labor and delivery upon pregnant women?

SoMG,

Don't belittle the importance of location.

“From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere.”

Dr. Seuss

SoMG, on what grounds does a born baby claim the right to not be drowned in a river? Of course, babies don't claim anything for themselves. Therefore it should be legal to drown babies.

Is a pro-abort capable of making an argument without resorting to insane relativism or at the very least an attempt to evade the subject by driving us off on irrelevant tangents and pseudo-philosophical nonsense?

John,

In a word? No.

"On what grounds do you right-to-lifers claim the right to force labor and delivery upon pregnant women?"

Simple SoMG, the unborn baby needs the Mother to survive, to not force delivery would be of course legalized killing of human beings, which is against the law.

Just a reminder everyone — Don’t let up and relax now.

Stay GROUNDED IN PRAYER. Prayer is our strongest weapon.

It’s nice to have the court victory today but we must continue to PRAY.

Mike

I dont understand why everyone is talking about what t turn the building into. PP will, in all likelihood, open, just later than had been expected/hoped.

Not to mention, PP could refile if they get more evidence.

Honestly I dont think there was any wrongdoing done here, they simply wanted to avoid the public eye because that brings attacks onto those that work on/in the facility by the crazy brand of RTLs

I think fetuses consist of human tissue.
Posted by: Laura at September 20, 2007 2:42 PM

MK: In your opinion Doug, that means, I'm pretty sure, that she does think they are human just like the fat from her thighs. In my opinion it means that it contains human tissue, but is not "human"...

If you want clarification, ask her.

It's clear - you and Laura are not in agreement as to just what the unborn are, as far as form and status, but "human" is not in doubt. It never was.

Doug

Laura: Baby Ruth bars must be outlawed!
They cause Pool Tainted Sweet Disorder.

Ha! Sweeet....

Ummmmmm no, Jasper, it's not against the law. Forcing medical/surgical trauma on another person IS against the law, even if you need to do so in order to survive.

Dan,

If PP was so concerned about their safety, how did PP plan to "avoid the public eye" once they opened? One could understand why a store selling fur products might have to fear a "crazy brand" of animal rights activists. This isn't so far fetched since activists have attacked such facilities and harassed their customers and staff. Would that justify the owners of these stores using underhanded tactics to get their stores built?

Anyway, MK, my favorite Dr Suess is I HAD TROUBLE IN GETTING TO SOLLA SOLLEW, the one that ends: "...but I've bought a big bat. I'm all ready, you see. Now my troubles are going to have troubles with ME!"

That and his WWII editorial cartoons. You know the predecessor of Horton the Elephant was the elephant signifying the GOP.

sure it would, fur stores do open as quietly as they can as far as I am aware, they dont advertise it until they are already in and settled from my experience, they are targeted later, but at least they are set up to do what they do. Not to mention, if its all legal it is perfectly fine in the eyes of the law, whether PETA likes it or not.

They wouldn't once it opened, and the staff there would be harassed, however there is no need to have to have contractors deal with that just because they agreed to help build/remodel/whatever the facility, and PP understands that anyone who helps them will draw fire from the pro-life side. So they did it in a manner that would at least somewhat protect the contractors who took the job and, in my estimation, so that equipment for the clinic would arrive on time and could be set up for opening

Laura, I kept my son. I didn't run to the abortion clinic.

Posted by: heather at September 20, 2007 2:05 PM
...............................
Honey you didn't 'keep your son'. You didn't abort and gestated succesfully and now have a son. Why is the gestation process so difficult for you folks to understand? Because you are all emotionally 12 and believe in Tinker Bell? What?

SOMG,

Not so. Emergency rooms will treat trauma patients without their consent. They usually can't get it! Also, when an attempted suicide entered our ER, we treated them whether they wanted it or not, even forcibly strapping them down to pump their stomachs. Legally they had no rights. We also sent them to the county mental health facility, they were required to go, period.
Under some life threatening circumstances we have every legal right to force medical/surgical trauma(ever had your stomach pumped?) on someone to insure their survival.

Dan,

I'm not talking about opening quietly, I'm talking about building legally. Would you argue that the fur store should have the right to falsify any kind of legal documents in order to establish their store? I mean, they don't want their builders or contractors drawing fire from PETA.

Sally, the location is a critical difference.

For instance, if I hold a pencil three inches from your eye, that's not a crime. But if I change the location of the pencil by pushing it those three inches and stabbing you in the eye with it, that IS a crime. The only difference between the two is the LOCATION of the pencil, but one is a crime and the other is not.

Don't belittle the importance of location.

Posted by: SoMG at September 20, 2007 8:03 PM

Hmmm. Abusive ass. You hold a pencil to my eye and threaten to do damage to me and I will pull out my leatherman and snip off your balls. Will I be held responsible for my reaction to your threat? Location? Are you nuts?

Sally,

You seem to have trouble understanding that women don't always "keep" their newborn children, some place them for adoption. Heather kept her son rather than place him for adoption.
Another example would be surrogate mothers who gestate a baby for a woman who is unable to with the intention of turning the baby over to other parents.

Dang SoMG,

Anyway, MK, my favorite Dr Suess is I HAD TROUBLE IN GETTING TO SOLLA SOLLEW, the one that ends: "...but I've bought a big bat. I'm all ready, you see. Now my troubles are going to have troubles with ME!"

I was saving that one for the right time...way to go and steal the best Seuss quote...just for that you must suffer 2 quotes from Silverstein....

“This bridge will only take you halfway there, to those mysterious lands you long to see. Through gypsy camps and swirling Arab fair, and moonlit woods where unicorns run free. So come and walk awhile with me and share the twisting trails and wonderous worlds Ive known. But this bridge will only take you halfway there. The last few steps you have to take alone.”

“God says to me with kind of a smile,
"Hey how would you like to be God awhile
And steer the world?"
"Okay," says I, "I'll give it a try.
Where do I set?
How much do I get?
What time is lunch?
When can I quit?"
"Gimme back that wheel," says God,
"I don't think you're quite ready yet."”

Shel Silverstein

How about a new police station for Aurora??? That would be a great location! (& it already has bulletproof glass!!!)

I wonder how Steve Trombley is going to twist this one to be a "victory" for PP??? You know it's coming!!!

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

How about a unwed mother's shelter or a battered women's shelter...another good use for that bullet proof glass!

I think I know why all the PP employees wear those "Pepto Bismol" colored pink shirts. It is to symbolize the many cases of Pepto Bismol that Steve Trombley has guzzled as each day goes by and the mill isn't opening! $$$$$$$$$-----GONE! ;)

Silverstein was after my time. I am a member of the Underdog generation.

Colleen,

Good post. My husband is a contractor and you wouldn't believe the permits that are required and legal hoops he has to routinely jump through, whether he's building a shed in someone's backyard or putting a major addition onto a home.
The permits we needed just to put an addition on OUR own home were numerous. The city inspector couldn't come out to our home in time so I had to videotape some workers and what they were doing then show it to him when he finally arrived.
I asked my husband what would happen if he in any way falsified information in order to acquire a building permit. He said he would be ordered to tear a building down or to immediately halt the construction of a home addition.
Steve Trombley should be thanking his lucky stars he only has to worry about a delayed opening!

I have just a few moments to comment imbetween wedding preperations, but I wanted to look from a position no one else has pointed out. Let's look beyond the need of abortion to why do the women feel they need to have an abortion. The majority of abortions are due to social-economic reasons. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute:

Why do women have abortions?

Most U.S. women cite more than one factor contributing to their decision to have an abortion: Almost three-quarters say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about three-quarters say they cannot afford to have a child; and almost half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Finer LB et al., Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118.
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html

Speak to or read the stories of a large number of women who've experienced an unplanned pregnancy and chosen abortion and you will find the majority of women don't choose abortion to exercise a political right, but rather feel they have no choice in their situation but to end their pregnancy, where's the "choice" in this? Te problem often doesn't lie in the child itself, but rather pre-existing conditions surrounding the pregnancy which make it undesirable. Why not work at offering better support means for women who've experienced an unplanned pregnancy (parenting support groups, safe places and victim advocacy for women at risk of abuse; classes: career training, financial planning, parenting;, options for pregnant/parenting students in high schools and at colleges such as night classses and on-site low-cost daycare, etc) as well as better birth control education and we may see the "need" for abortion decline.

Hal asked: wouldn't an abortion have been better for these girls? Hal, they all gave themselves an abortion. It's more acceptable in our "culture of death." Evidently abortion hasn't stopped infanticide! Why do these problems still exist? Why the slap on the wrist sentences? My opinion? It's because children aren't viewed as human beings. Abortion has made it as such.

Dan, 9:00p, said: "they simply wanted to avoid the public eye because that brings attacks onto those that work on/in the facility by the crazy brand of RTLs..."

That would be me!

*bow*

SoMG,

Silverstein was after my time. I am a member of the Underdog generation.

I know. I also know that you don't care for him. That's why I used him. It was punishment for beating me to the Seuss quote.

And just because he was after your time, doesn't mean he hasn't got something to say to you...

When criminals in this world appear,
And break the laws that they should fear,
And frighten all who see or hear,
The cry goes up both far and near for
Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!
Speed of lightning! Roar of thunder!
Fighting all who rob or plunder!
Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!

That's why I used him. It was punishment for beating me to the Seuss quote.

:: laughing ::

Good stuff, MK!

For someone that hasn't even ever had sex, you sure pretend to know all about gestation. I take it that you aren't majoring in biology.

First of all, what have I said about gestation at all. Secondly, if I am wrong, point it out. Good luck with that.

I see your point, though, since having sex and intelligence are highly correlated. Only brilliant people can have sex. And the more people you sleep with, the more likely you are to be an expert in anatomy and physiology. Does that make you Dr. Sally?

I knew by telling everyone my choice to be abstinent that I would get some vapid personal attacks like this. What you don't seem to realize is that I'm not condascended or offended. I'm proud of my choices that have contributed to making me the person I am today. I only lament that it gives you pro-aborts something to take off-topic.

I wonder if Sally and the other pro-aborts realize that their argument that an unborn child magically comes into being at some arbitrary point is very similar to the arguments once used by slave traders to deny the humanity of those from whom they stole freedom, and by fascists to destroy countless "worthless" lives. Birds of a feather, I suppose.

Jasper,

"Simple SoMG, the unborn baby needs the Mother to survive, to not force delivery would be of course legalized killing of human beings, which is against the law."

The right to life does not give one the right to impose upon another.

Sally to SoMG:
"Are you nuts?"

Yes.

John L: I wonder if Sally and the other pro-aborts realize that their argument that an unborn child magically comes into being at some arbitrary point is very similar to the arguments once used by slave traders to deny the humanity of those from whom they stole freedom, and by fascists to destroy countless "worthless" lives. Birds of a feather, I suppose.

That's just a silly straw man argument. The unborn don't "magically come into being."

It is not their existence that is the issue. It is the attribution of rights, and the valuation and status that is much of the debate.

If we want to make analogies with slaves, it is pro-lifers who want the will of pregnant women subverted to theirs, as the slaveowners wanted the will of the slaves subverted.

Doug

Jacqueline,

Given this mentality white people could not have opposed segregation, those never in the military could not oppose our country's military actions, and those of us who have never had to flee to a domestic violence shelter would have no business condemning domestic violence.
Its like those who holler that men have no business speaking out against abortion. However, its fine for men to support abortion. Your abstinence would be no issue if you supported abortion.

Hal, do I believe that this clinic will stay closed forever? Yes! I give it to God, and many people worked through him with protesting.

Jasper: to not force delivery would be of course legalized killing of human beings, which is against the law.

That's not true as stated. Your usage of "human beings" is so broad that in no way is the killing necessarily against the law. The correct answer is that maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.

Doug

Enigma -

"The right to life does not give one the right to impose upon another. "

You're correct. What right does the mother have to impose death on her baby?

Rachel-

You will want to read up on and probably support the Elizabeth Cady Statton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act of 2007

Feminist for Life has information on it. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice have joined together to try to get this act passed.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/index.htm

Valerie,

"You're correct. What right does the mother have to impose death on her baby?"

It's not a baby. It's a fetus. There is a difference.

The mother's right lies in her ability to control whether or not another is able to have access to her body. She can deny that access even if such access is necessary to sustain life.

You will want to read up on and probably support the Elizabeth Cady Statton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act of 2007

Valerie, the thing that bugs me about that kind of thing is that it's preferential treatment.

Similar to getting to write off mortgage interest paid on one's tax return or getting more and more money in deductions for having dependents.

Doug

Enigma,

It's not a baby. It's a fetus. There is a difference.

Not according to the dictionary there isn't...

Unless of course we're back to making up our own definitions? If so....

Guess I'm back to being an atheist prochoicer guys...

Noun 1. fetusfetus - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal

baby - an unborn child; a human fetus; "I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside"

MK,

"Not according to the dictionary there isn't..."

Oh really?

Main Entry: 1ba·by
Pronunciation: 'bA-bE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural babies
Etymology: Middle English, from babe
1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group
2 a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest
3 slang a : GIRL, WOMAN -- often used in address b : BOY, MAN -- often used in address
4 : PERSON, THING
- ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun
- ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/baby

ba·by (bā'bē) pronunciation
n., pl. -bies.

1.
1. A very young child; an infant.
2. An unborn child; a fetus.

Different dictionary, different definition. I suppose now you're going to me that I use the wrong dictionary? Will you just give it a rest already?

http://www.yourdictionary.com

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/baby

http://www.answers.com/topic/manchester-mark-i?cat=health

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0005200.html

MK,

"Guess I'm back to being an atheist prochoicer guys..."

Now I'm really not amused.

Last night was more than enough. I've argued with fourteen year olds who are more respectful and make their points better than you did.

No, I'm just going to tell you that the definiton for baby is fetus in many dictionaries...and the one you gave one let you access all of the defintions without paying...

Perhaps, you can show me something that lays out the difference between a baby and fetus. Something, somewhere that it written down, that this is the definitive difference between the two. You sound so sure that there is a difference, I'm assuming that you have some proof.

As Doug as so oft pointed out, lack of a defintion in a particular dictionary does not prove that the definition is incorrect...especially when I can provide numerous dictionaries that include it.

Wouldn't even care, except you seem to think that it is okay to kill fetuses but not babies and I think that is illogical, since they are the same thing.

Since it's far too early for me to get annoyed and I've had an incredibly difficult week, I'm done for the day.

I'm sorry to hear that your week has been bad? Anything any of us can do?

You guys gotta start tellin' us up front that you're not having a good time...I know that if I knew that, I would never give you such a hard time. I've only been teasing you. Honestly!

I'm sorry if I added to your stress. I was only having a little fun. Forgiven?

Enigma -

Sorry for your bad day, I'm having one myself, but I do need to correct you.

"1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group"

An extrememly young child

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(-&)ld
Function: noun

1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant

The unborn is not only a baby, but a child.

Using your dictionary, of course.

MK: Perhaps, you can show me something that lays out the difference between a baby and fetus.

"Fetus" is medically correct. "Baby" or not is a subjective deal. A given person might apply it to the unborn, and another might not.

There is a zone, right after birth to an age, where there's little if any disagreement about it applying. But before birth and at certain ages there's lots of disagreements about it.

Well Doug,

Disagreements there may be, but I'm sticking with the dictionary definitions. And I hardly think that making statements like "A baby is not a fetus" is not the same as saying "I disagree, I subjectively don't see it that way"...

Again, we have shown definitive proof that in the English Language, the two words have the same meaning. People may have changed the way they use them, to suit their agenda (What? Changing definitons! Unheard of!) but it does not change the fact that they mean the same thing.

Secondly, we have show proof that in the English Language these words share a meaning, but other than you "opinion" you have show me nothing. Certainly not enough to sway my opinion that abortion should be kept legal since no babies were killed.

"Dan, 9:00p, said: "they simply wanted to avoid the public eye because that brings attacks onto those that work on/in the facility by the crazy brand of RTLs..."

That would be me!

*bow*"

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "attack". Yes, they certainly are attcked verbally, and picketed at their businesses and homes, though one would hope that they would go to court to try and end it when the contractor is simply doing their job.

However, I meant attack as in a physical attack or threat, not a "you're murderers" etc.

And as crazy as you are ( ;) ) I dont put you in with that bunch, simply because I think that would have been a high profile arrest if it had happened ;)

OK, Doug, then by your argument, every parent is a slave who isn't allowed to drown his or her born children.

You pro-aborts are absolutely shameless in your attempts to justify homicide, you know that?

John, it is NOT homicide. First off, abortion is legal so it fails the first part of the defiition, that the killing must be illegal. 2nd, there is no evidence that women hold feelings of malice toward the unborn.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm

check that out, it was well thought out, and the only portion I disagree with, and that I know you all will certainly disagree with is a generalization near the end of the article, as well as a small piece of info within it.

Im sure youll see both side by side, and will use both against me, but hey, a few lines off from my thoughts isnt too bad

John, it is NOT homicide. First off, abortion is legal so it fails the first part of the defiition, that the killing must be illegal. 2nd, there is no evidence that women hold feelings of malice toward the unborn.

Actually, even SOMG admits it's homicide. He calls it "justifiable homicide".

Homicide:

# the killing of one human being by the act of another. It is a necessary ingredient of the crimes of murder and manslaughter, but there are ather cases in which homicide may be committed without criminal intent and without criminal consequences, as in self-defense.
www.tncrimlaw.com/what_is/glossary.html

Dan, so it wasn't homicide when slave owners killed their slaves, since by law the slaves weren't considered human, and the slave owners didn't really have any malice toward the slaves - how could they, they didn't even think they were human beings. Those people who talk about all of the slaves who were murdered by American slave owners - that's all wrong, because those slaves weren't human. Right?

Analogously, if the Supreme Court were to rule that pseudo-intellectual liberal pro-aborts are not human, your argument would thus be that it's OK to kill pro-aborts since according to the law doing so is not homicide. Besides, it's not malicious - it's more of a mercy killing, right? A euthanasia to ease the pain of the stupid.

By all means, please continue to make your ridiculous arguments, pro-aborts. The more you talk, the more insane you look.

Disagreements there may be, but I'm sticking with the dictionary definitions. And I hardly think that making statements like "A baby is not a fetus" is not the same as saying "I disagree, I subjectively don't see it that way"...

MK, "baby" can refer to the unborn, but it does not have to. Yes, it's in the dictionary, but the application is still up to the user. Can the word mean the unborn? Yes, certainly. That does not mean that the unborn have to be "babies."
......

Again, we have shown definitive proof that in the English Language, the two words have the same meaning. People may have changed the way they use them, to suit their agenda (What? Changing definitons! Unheard of!) but it does not change the fact that they mean the same thing.

No, they canmean the same thing, but in no way do they always. Same as people might argue over "baby" for a 14 month old toddler. The 14 month old toddler - which could be argued too - will be a "baby" for some people and not for others. It's certainly not a fetus since that's medical classification, not so subjective as "baby." "Fetus" and "baby" sometimes mean the same thing, in some usages, but in no way is that true across the board.
......

Secondly, we have show proof that in the English Language these words share a meaning, but other than you "opinion" you have show me nothing. Certainly not enough to sway my opinion that abortion should be kept legal since no babies were killed.

Arguing over "baby" or not means nothing in this argument, in my opinion. It's not incorrect to say "baby" for the unborn, and of course "unborn baby" is well-understood, no matter who says it. There are millions and millions and millions of people who don't think of the unborn as babies, though.

Saying "abortion is okay because it's not a baby" is not any meaningful argument, IMO. Same as saying "abortion is wrong because it's a baby" is not any meaningful argument.

Doug

John L: OK, Doug, then by your argument, every parent is a slave who isn't allowed to drown his or her born children. You pro-aborts are absolutely shameless in your attempts to justify homicide, you know that?

No, for the slaves, like the born children, are not inside the body of a person. Moreover, it's nothing like the abortion argument. If you find somebody who is actually in favor of it being legal to kill born children, then you know almost nobody will agree with them, and it's not even a real issue.

Doug

No, they canmean the same thing, but in no way do they always. Same as people might argue over "baby" for a 14 month old toddler. The 14 month old toddler - which could be argued too - will be a "baby" for some people and not for others. It's certainly not a fetus since that's medical classification, not so subjective as "baby." "Fetus" and "baby" sometimes mean the same thing, in some usages, but in no way is that true across the board.

Perfect analogy, Doug. ;-) Since a Toddler and a Baby are exactly the same thing- a human being- the label that one gives it really does not matter as long as one recognizes that both are human beings.

Perfect analogy, Doug. ;-) Since a Toddler and a Baby are exactly the same thing- a human being- the label that one gives it really does not matter as long as one recognizes that both are human beings.

Well, Bethany, we're going in the right direction....I think.

A toddler and a baby can be the same thing in a given person's opinion, but obviously not everybody calls a toddler a baby.

A fetus is called a baby by some people, too, but that doesn't mean that the fetus and the toddler are the same, though some people would apply "baby" to them. "Baby" is just a subjective deal.

"Human beings"? Yes, I agree with you, but that is not the abortion argument.

Doug

Yes, that's our main difference. I (and other pro-lifers) believe that human beings have the right to life bestowed on them by nature of simply being human.

You disagree, obviously. This is pretty much the whole argument.

MK,

"As Doug as so oft pointed out, lack of a defintion in a particular dictionary does not prove that the definition is incorrect"

True. The inclusion of a particular element in a definition also does not prove that that element is truly part of the definition. Dictionaries often follow patterns of common usage. If a word is used in an incorrect context, it is possible that it will be included in that incorrect context in the dictionary.

I rely on scientific terminology. In medical terms, a fetus is not a baby. The term fetus denotes a specific stage of development that takes place while in the womb.

"Wouldn't even care, except you seem to think that it is okay to kill fetuses but not babies and I think that is illogical, since they are the same thing."

Actually, that isn't true. My argument remains unchanged whether or not one uses the term fetus or baby.

"I'm sorry if I added to your stress. I was only having a little fun. Forgiven?"

Of course you are. Sometimes I can be a little more sensitive than I probably should be.
__________________________________________________

Bethany,

"Actually, even SOMG admits it's homicide. He calls it "justifiable homicide"."

Simply because that is how he views it does not mean that everyone views it that way, even among people who share his views on the legality of abortion.

"Yes, that's our main difference. I (and other pro-lifers) believe that human beings have the right to life bestowed on them by nature of simply being human. "

I would agree with you that human beings have the right to life simply because they are human beings. That position in no way contradicts the belief that a woman should be able to have an abortion. The right to life does not equal a right to impose upon another.

Enigma, think about those words.......Justifiable Homicide. Why should an unborn baby be slaughtered? What's so justifiable about that? What makes it so justifiable? Thae fact that the mother doesn't want to be bothered?

Simply because that is how he views it does not mean that everyone views it that way, even among people who share his views on the legality of abortion.

Why not? What do you disagree with? You've said yourself that it's not an issue of whether the child inside is human or not- you say you agree that it's human being, but that you believe no human being has the right to live inside the womb of another human without that person's consent.

Doesn't this mean that you acknowledge that abortion is the taking the life of a human being?

Homicide is by definition the taking of the life of a human being by another human being. It requires no legal status, simply that the victim is a "human".

The only Justifiable Homicide would be if a rapist broke into your home, or if it came down to self defense. Otherwise that doesn't float with me. What did an unborn baby ever do to deserve slaughter?

Right, Heather, totally agree.

Heather,

"Enigma, think about those words.......Justifiable Homicide."

I don't agree that abortion is justifiable homicide. I do not believe that the fetus is human life until after it has reached the point of viability.

A second point. If one believes that abortion is justifiable homicide, it can be supported on the grounds of self-defense. A woman is defending her right to control her body.

Bethany,

"Why not? What do you disagree with?"

See above post.

"Doesn't this mean that you acknowledge that abortion is the taking the life of a human being?"

I never said that I agree a fetus is a human being. What I said was the I believe that a fetus is only a human being once it has reached the point of viability and it has a fully functioning brain.

"Homicide is by definition the taking of the life of a human being by another human being. It requires no legal status, simply that the victim is a "human"."

And if one disputes that a fetus is a human being, then one doesn't believe that abortion is homicide.

Bethany, hi! I've got to give you my new E-mail. Hope you are okay! Enigma, you had the control over your body BEFORE choosing to have sex! B-E-F-O-R-E!

Enigma, you just pointed out that SOMG called abortion justifiable homicide. If nobody is killing anyone, it isn't homicide. Sorry, the unborn child IS human, so that just won't wash with me.

Enigma, think about this. A woman has control over who she chooses to have sex with. Most women know that pregnancy can result from sex. What would you say if you contracted HIV from reckless sex? You have just lost control over your body, because you failed to exercise self control.

Heather,

"Enigma, you had the control over your body BEFORE choosing to have sex! B-E-F-O-R-E!"

And a woman's control over her body is not negated by her choice to engage in sexual acts.

"Sorry, the unborn child IS human, so that just won't wash with me."

Since the fetus isn't a child and doesn't yet have human life, your argument won't wash with me.

"A woman has control over who she chooses to have sex with. Most women know that pregnancy can result from sex."

The simple fact that pregnancy can result from sex does not mean that one has consented to pregnancy when one consents to sex.

"What would you say if you contracted HIV from reckless sex?"

I would say that I took a foolish risk and now need to have it treated responsibly.

"You have just lost control over your body, because you failed to exercise self control."

Actually, you haven't. Its a simple fact of life that people cannot control everything all the time. Simple because I cannot control whether or not I get the flu does not mean that I have lost control of my own body.

This type of analogy fails to address abortion. In that case, a woman can loose control of her body because the fetus within her has seized control (especially if abortion is outlawed). The woman has every right to take control back.

A fetus has seized control? Who consented to sex? Who put the fetus there? The man, and the woman who slept with him. Enigma, I know a woman who had 7 abortions. I am meeting more and more women who have had more than 1. I CAN control myself sexually. Apparently, these women can't. Could it be because abortions are so easily available? Abortion has turned women into reproductive slobs. They can sleep around, and the abortionist has to clean up their mess.

If a fetus isn't human, then what is it? Any doctor will tell you that it's a baby. I'm really growing tired of pro choicers changing it up to suit themselves. Fetus is Latin for "little one."........little one what? A pomegranate?

Enigma, none of us have control over getting the flu. We do have control over who we sleep with. That's not a real good comparison.

Heather,

"I am meeting more and more women who have had more than 1. I CAN control myself sexually. Apparently, these women can't. Could it be because abortions are so easily available? Abortion has turned women into reproductive slobs. They can sleep around, and the abortionist has to clean up their mess."

So you advocate outlawing abortion because you believe that woman should be more careful about who they sleep with? I'm sorry, I share you views on that sleeping around is not a good thing, but that gives you no right to try to force your views on others who do not share them.

"A fetus has seized control? Who consented to sex? Who put the fetus there? "

That, admittedly, I could have stated a little bit more clearly. If a woman becomes pregnant when she does not wish to be and the government prevents her from obtaining an abortion, than the government has seized control of the woman's body for the benefit of another. That is what I meant to say.

Consenting to sex is not consent to pregnancy. I will say it until I see something that proves otherwise.

If a fetus isn't human, then what is it? Any doctor will tell you that it's a baby."

Medically speaking, the correct term is fetus while still in the womb.

"I'm really growing tired of pro choicers changing it up to suit themselves."

And I'm really growing tired of anti-abortion advocates changing it up to suit themselves.

"Enigma, none of us have control over getting the flu. We do have control over who we sleep with. That's not a real good comparison."

Point. My analogy was not thought out well enough. Time for round two.

We do not always control what happens to us. It's a fact of life. Simply not being able to control everything does not mean that we have no control over our bodies. We only have no control when we cannot control what our own reactions to circumstances are. When I get the flu, I still have control over my life because I can decide how I want to treat my particular ailment. Control has not been negated by a single circumstance. Similarly, when a woman has sex, she has not waived her rights to control her body. If she gets pregnant, she should be able to decide what her response to that consequence should be.

Enigma, My gay friend is dying of AIDS. Every time a woman has unprotected sex, she has also put herself at risk for an STD. When she gets pregnant, she wants the government to "KEEP YOUR LAWS OUT OF MY UTERUS" *laughing* So, you have just made it quite clear that you are blatantly thumbing your nose at the government. How many of these PC protesters have come down with AIDS? NOW who is going to take care of you? Answer: THE GOVERNMENT!! The very people you asked to allow you to make your own choices. The government is paying for my friend's astronomical medical expenses now!

My point? If you hate the government that much, then go and tell your PC pals NOT to ask for a hand out when they become ill over their stupid sexual choices.

That's some interpretive reading. Let's see what I actually said about government.

"If a woman becomes pregnant when she does not wish to be and the government prevents her from obtaining an abortion, than the government has seized control of the woman's body for the benefit of another."

How the heck is that saying that I hate government? How am I blatantly thumbing my nose at the government?

All I argued was the government should be limited in what it can and cannot do. If you believe that arguing for a limited government means that one hates the government then I fear what would happen if you or anyone of your ilk ever came to power.

Governments are necessary things. That does not mean that the government belongs everywhere. Governmental authority has its time and its place. There has some matters in which the government should have no right to interfere. Saying that does not make me anti-government. That makes me anti-government-controlling-every-aspect-of-our-lives.

Bethany,

"Why not? What do you disagree with?"
See above post.
"Doesn't this mean that you acknowledge that abortion is the taking the life of a human being?"
I never said that I agree a fetus is a human being. What I said was the I believe that a fetus is only a human being once it has reached the point of viability and it has a fully functioning brain.
"Homicide is by definition the taking of the life of a human being by another human being. It requires no legal status, simply that the victim is a "human"."
And if one disputes that a fetus is a human being, then one doesn't believe that abortion is homicide.

Sorry, Enigma, I've heard so many different viewpoints on this, it sometimes is hard to remember who's who on the subject.

However, if it is your view that the fetus does not have human life, you are a little behind the times, aren't you?

A large number pro-choice supporters even disagree with you now, because they have realized it is scientifically in error to say they have no human life. Therefore, instead of deciding to stick to their original errant idea that the fetus is not a human being, or even possessing human life, they argue simply that the fetus is a human being, some even go to the extent of saying the that fetus is a person, but that no person has the right to use the organs of another person's without that person's permission.

If their life isn't human, what is it? It's not feline or canine. It's obviously got to be human, because it is a complete human organism existing within the womb of another complete human organism.

Posted by: Enimga at September 23, 2007 9:09 PM

Tell you what, when the cry goes out for Dyslexics to Untie, the masses respond!

Enigma, of all of the PC protesters, you can't tell m that a lot of them haven't come down with HIV or breast CA d/t abortions. Who pays for their treatment? 9 times out of 10, the government.