ooooooh please, Veronica. What isn't our fault?

If you have to resort to silly stuff like "pro-aborts," then you're hardly interested in debate anyway.

Doug

Eh.

My guess is that PCers just don't care. They're apathetic and most likely think that PLers are making too big of a deal out of the Aurora PP. That's more than likely why they are not making a big deal out of it. I don't think they're "afraid" or "intimidated" by the PLers, they just don't care enough to do anything about it.

Ah, complacency.

Veronica,

My thoughts are this...
I don't think that the pro-aborts are intimidated by the pro-lifers "violent behavior" that I have YET to hear about or see for myself at the prayer vigils at the mill. It is the pro-aborts yelling at us and being confrontational.

I think that the pro-aborts are intimidated by the TRUTH. It is hard to debate against the TRUTH. I sat in front of PP supporters at the last town council mtg and I could tell they were so misinformed. When Margaret Sanger quotes were brought up, they were behind me denying the quotes. They were also agreeing with misinformation that the PP supporters were saying in their talks.

It is sad to see these non-supporters of life that are so misinformed. I think when they realize they don't know what they are talking about, that's when they get up and leave...or maybe they have just donned a pink shirt to jump on the PP badwagon for their 15 minutes of fame in the media spotlight.

Yes, I am cynical, but TRUTH IS TRUTH.

Actually, I think the reason is even simpler. Pro-choicers aren't counter-protesting because right now, abortion is legal. The people who have to actually fight to get their changes through are going to be the ones fighting. Over-turn Roe v Wade, you're going to see the exact opposite.

"I think that the pro-aborts are intimidated by the TRUTH. It is hard to debate against the TRUTH."

Yes Colleen, I agree.

I don't think they are intimidated by us. I think we prolifers are more passionate because we feel we are fighting legalized murder. They feel they are fighting for a woman's "right to choose." I also think prochoicers would rather not face the realities of abortion. That's why they prefer to be called prochoice instead of proaborts. It is hard to reconcile the prochoice position once one is really confronted with reality- it is easier to just avoid it all together. Deep in their hearts the prochoicers, maybe even subconsciously, don't want to be associated with murder. I am speaking as a former prochoicer(or proabort if you will).

One reason they don't come out more often is because, when forced to actually discuss the issue, they can end up looking silly:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=752cb9b41da3fc43fbe7

Bethany, she was really confused, wasn't she?

Bethany, thanks for posting that. I needed a good laugh. Actually, I shouldn't laugh. I am being mean. It's more sad than funny. It looks like she was just reciting her talking points. The more she was challenged, the more confused she got.

That's what happens when you're a blatant liar. I've known a few. They can't ever keep their stories straight. They really think that the whole world is "STUCK ON STUPID."

That is exactly what I thought, Carrie.

Oh and I have to credit MK for finding that video about a month ago! :)

"They really think that the whole world is "STUCK ON STUPID.""

I'm "hooked on phonics" myself. Alex Trebek has made me a phonics junkie. :-p

And also, I've seen some clips of Lifers looking pretty darn silly themselves.

One reason they don't come out more often is because, when forced to actually discuss the issue, they can end up looking silly:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=752cb9b41da3fc43fbe7

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

Wow, Bethany. Thanks for posting this highly intellectual interview {{{heavy sarcasm here}}}. This is the type of responses Ive gotten at times over the years from the pro-abort supporters (as recently as last Tues. Aurora town council mtg).

Stupid is as Stupid does...

I called an organization in my city that was protesting "The woman's right to know bill" That was up for vote in my state.

I asked what they had their undies in such a bundle over. My first question was: "As in any medical procedure, knowledge is power and helps people make the right decisions. Patients have the right to be informed of all that surrounds this decision, fetal development and the risks and possible complications of an abortion. You would certainly support this if you really cared about women's health right?"

All the woman kept repeating like a robot was
"this bill will chip away at our rights"
"but this bill will chip away at our rights"
"you see, this bill will chip away at our rights"
BAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAA

If these same women were going in for a breast augmentation, you better believe they would have a prior consult to the surgery, learn about all of the risks and make an informed decision.

They are so uninformed and misinformed of what they support.

I don't think PLers have anything to do with their "no show" attitudes. I think that there has been so much information made available to women on the development of babies in the womb, they just can't bring themselves to support such outdated thinking.

Pro-aborts are never interested in debate. They are always interested in changing the subject. Why would a pro-abort attend any formal discussion of abortion, when all they know how to do is call us fascists, call us the Taliban, say we're forcing theocracy on them, or else take the conversation way out in left field and start talking about the Bible, clergy, semantics, George W. Bush, and other stuff which has little to do with the issue of the intentional killing of unborn children.

Her first statement is "If you think abortion is such a bad thing, don't have one." Lady, you're talking to a man!

Sandy, there is at least one very good reason to oppose the so-called "Women's Right-to-Know Act". The act would require doctors to tell patients that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, which is not true.

The act is a mandate for doctors to lie to their patients about this.

I just googled "Women's Right to Know", and I find that the act would also require doctors to tell patients that abortion increases the risk of complications in future pregnancies. This is another lie. It doesn't.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2007/Introduced/HB0144.pdf

Then why are there studies that say that abortions CAN increase a woman's risk for breast CA? I know of 2 women who died from breast CA. Both of them had abortions. HHHHMMMMMMM.

John,

Pro-aborts are never interested in debate. They are always interested in changing the subject. Why would a pro-abort attend any formal discussion of abortion, when all they know how to do is call us fascists, call us the Taliban, say we're forcing theocracy on them, or else take the conversation way out in left field and start talking about the Bible, clergy, semantics, George W. Bush, and other stuff which has little to do with the issue of the intentional killing of unborn children.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 29, 2007 12:39 PM

For example, let`s change the subject from
"Are they intimidated?" to "We prefer a different label"

Doug wrote,

"If you have to resort to silly stuff like "pro-aborts," then you're hardly interested in debate anyway.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2007 10:41 AM

"Actually, I think the reason is even simpler. Pro-choicers aren't counter-protesting because right now, abortion is legal. The people who have to actually fight to get their changes through are going to be the ones fighting. Over-turn Roe v Wade, you're going to see the exact opposite."

I agree completely.

Oh and I noticed heather that you asked me how I was in another thread. I am doing okay. It has been a long week but next week at this time i'll be visiting Minnesota and I will have some time off of work. Students were tough, as usual this week. Some days i think its getting better and others I don't.

Sand, Somg,

Having a full term pregnancy reduces cancer risk. The younger you are the more protective the effect.

Having an abortion cancels the benefit.

Some studies show abortion as an independent risk. Others don`t. Some of those that don`t included participants whose abortions were too recent to make an impact because cancers can take years to develop.

All studies are designed by people, and therefore limited and imperfect.

More inquiry with better controls and parameters would aid our understanding.

Heather, the studies to which you refer are so small that their conclusions are susceptible to statistical noise.

(If you don't understand what I mean by "statistical noise", take an intro statistics or intro epidemiology course at your local med school.)

If you bothered to look, you could find small studies that show a small PROTECTIVE effect--that abortion PREVENTS breast cancer. Again, this is statistical noise, meaningless.

The big study--the one with millions of patients, followed for several decades--showed, unequivocally, that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer.

Your personal anecdote, with a population of two, is not very convincing.

No, hippie, the medical community regards this question as settled.

The counter-protestation argument would make sense, except for the fact that we're specifically talking about Aurora. In Aurora, PP has been shut down. The pro-aborts should be on the move, not sitting down. The pro-lifers are winning on the issue of whether or not there can be an abortion mill in Aurora, so the ball is in the pro-abort's court.

Also, Erin and JM, you do realize that overturning Roe v. Wade is not the same thing as outlawing abortion, right? Roe v. Wade prevents the people from making abortion laws through their representatives. If Roe is undone, then the people will once again have a say in how abortion is regulated. Thus, if you truly think that your "pro-choice" arguments trump ours, you should not be afraid. You need only convince the people to support laws in favor of "choice", and then it won't matter if Roe is overturned.

Also, hippie, the protective effect of carrying a pregnency to term is very small.

I love it when a prochoicer thinks they are insulting me by calling me anti-abortion. Am I against aboriton? Yes and I have no problem admitting it. Or how about ant-choice? No problem there. I am against giving women the right to choose abortion. Those labels do not bother me in the least.

SoMG, I am impressed to see that you are capable of speaking on behalf of every physician, nurse, or other medical professional on the entire planet. Can you speak on behalf of other entire groups of professionals as well?

500 years ago, the scientific community regarded the question as settled that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This scientific knowledge was held by no less a genius than Aristotle himself. It is interesting to see how our modern day Galileos are treated.

Somg, you have made these claims before. The studies are still conflicting. 2 women dead in their 40's. Both had abortions in their 20's. I'm still going to have to go on that. JM, hope you are well. I thought you quit. I figured you had already moved back to MN. Glad you will be going home for a visit though! See the family and the B/F.

Somg, I had some questions for you under the Clarence T. post.

Nope, still hanging in there heather, I can't quit on these kids. As bad as they are sometimes I couldnt do it to them. (they already lost one 7th grade teacher) As bad as they are sometimes, it isn't all of them. I need to remember its just a small handful that are really rude.

According to the National institutes of Health

Having zero full term pregnancies before age 30 increases breast cancer risk 200% - 300% over the woman whose first full term pregnacy is before age 20.

Here is the quote and url

"It is well recognized that certain reproductive events, and the age at which they occur, are strong determinants of subsequent breast cancer risk. The most consistent determinant of risk in various populations is the woman's age at first full-term pregnancy. Women with a first full-term pregnancy after age 30, and women who have never borne a child have about a two- to three-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to women having a full-term pregnancy before age 20.

From National institutes of health

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/risks120.html

JM, *chuckles* I can't help it. Sometimes there are a handful of adults on any given job who can make life seem miserable. My hat goes off to you for hanging in there. I told Rae that you quit. Sorry. I figured that you had been packing and were on your way back to MN.

Are you getting used to Arizona?

So basically if a woman has an abortion at age 16 and doesn`t have a baby till she is 30, she increased her breast cancer risk at least 200%-300% over carrying to term.

Since she is already pregnant the lowest cancer risk is with carrying to term.

Heather,
Now that the weather is getting better, I am adjusting nicely. Low 90's today and the rest of the week. Much better than 110-115!

JM, great to hear that. I hope you enjoy your visit home. Have a safe one!

Hippie, a 200% - 300% increase isn't necessarily very big. Remember: if a number changes from very very very very rare to just very very very rare, that change can be reported as a many-fold increase, but it's still very very very rare.

I know of 2 women who died from breast CA. Both of them had abortions. HHHHMMMMMMM.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know two women who died of breast cancer. They were both Christians.
Jesus makes you die.

Having zero full term pregnancies before age 30 increases breast cancer risk 200% - 300% over the woman whose first full term pregnacy is before age 20.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe- But if you have a baby before the age of 20, your life and those children's lives are pretty much ruined:

Babies of teen mothers have 21% higher probability of low birth weight, increasing possibilities for infant death, blindness, deafness, chronic respiratory problems, mental retardation, mental illness, and cerebral palsy. It doubles chances for dyslexia, hyperactivity, and other disabilities.1

Teen mothers are often victims of abuse. As Kathleen Sylvester, vice president for domestic policy of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote: “Some studies show… as many as two-thirds were victims of rape or sexual abuse at an early age – crimes often committed by males living in the same household. ... They are easy prey for older men: young…victims of early sexual abuse often develop emotional patterns that make them vulnerable to the attentions of older men.”2 A 1995 Guttmacher Institute study suggests that almost two-thirds of the fathers of the babies are 20 or older.

Teen mothers start parenthood with few viable economic skills. Forty-one percent of mothers under 18 finish high school, compared to 61% of 20- to 21-year-old first mothers. A scant 1.5% of teen mothers earn a college degree by age 30.1

Making matters worse, in the past 25 years, the median income for college graduates increased 13%, while the median income for high school dropouts decreased 30%.1

Frighteningly, babies of high school dropouts have an eight times higher risk of being killed than those of college graduates.3

Teen mothers are mostly single parents. Eighty percent of fathers do not marry mothers and pay less than $800 annually in child support, important income for poor children.

Children living apart from fathers are five times more likely to be poor than children from two-parent homes. Children of uninvolved fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, abuse alcohol or drugs or go to jail, and four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.1

So, if teen mothers have no functional family of origin, no “village” to rely on, all parenting responsibilities fall on young girls who received little nurturing themselves. It’s no surprise they turn to welfare. One-half of all teen mothers and more than three-quarters of unmarried teen mothers receive welfare within five years of their first child’s birth.1

While on paper, married, two-parent families sound like stabilizing alternatives, chances of marital success are slim. Only 30% of married teen mothers stay married. Teen marriages are twice as likely to fail as marriages in which the woman is at least 25 years old.1 Plus, studies of welfare mothers suggest some teen moms may be better off unmarried for safety reasons. According to Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, “Studies consistently show that at least 50% to 60% of women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner…compared to 22% of the general population… A significant number of women receiving welfare also report a history of physical and sexual abuse in childhood.” In a California study, some recipients report lifetime abuse rates of 80% to 83%.4

While the absence of a caring father has profound consequences for children, the presence of an abusive one may be a matter of life or death. All of these factors take a toll on children. Teen parents are twice as likely as older parents to abuse or neglect their children.5 In reported incidents of abuse and neglect, 100 per 1,000 were families headed by teen mothers. The rate is less than half in families with new mothers in their 20s: 51 incidents per 1,000 families.1 Foster care placement is also significantly higher for children of teen mothers.1

Children of teenagers, then, come to school with baggage and consequently perform poorly. They are 50% more likely to repeat a grade, do worse on standardized tests, and are less likely to complete high school than if their mothers had delayed childbearing. Sons of teen mothers are 13% more likely to end up in prison; daughters, 22% more likely to also become teen mothers.1

But dismal statistics do not account for intangibles: persistent mother love, “villages” of grandmothers, caring teachers and teen moms in school, trying to graduate. If we as educators can help keep the mothers strong, I have better hopes that their children may thrive.

Uhhhhhhh...

How about that Congressional report that found 87% of CPCs gave misleading information?
You know - they LIED:

Policy Updates - July 2006
Federally Funded Crisis Pregnancy Centers Provide False and Misleading Information about Abortion; Money Funneled through Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding Streams

A new study, False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers, was released on July 17, 2006 by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA). The study found that 87% of federally funded “pregnancy resource centers,” more commonly knows as crisis pregnancy centers, provided false and misleading information about the physical and mental health effects of abortion and grossly exaggerated the medical risks of abortion. For the report, female investigators telephoned 25 crisis pregnancy centers. Twenty-three of the centers were successfully contacted. Investigators, who posed as pregnant 17 years old girls trying to decide whether or not to have an abortion, were told that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness. The report found that, under the Bush Administration, crisis pregnancy centers have received over $30 million in federal funding and virtually all of that funding has been funneled through federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding streams.1

“This report shows the clear connection between the anti-choice movement and the abstinence-only-until-marriage industry,” said William Smith, vice president for public policy at SIECUS . “For years, the Bush Administration has claimed that it's simply trying to promote abstinence among teens, when, in fact, it has been using millions of taxpayer dollars to fund groups that hold their right-wing, anti-choice ideology,” Smith said.

Representative Waxman was prompted to examine the scientific accuracy of the information provided by crisis pregnancy centers after a high profile December 2004 report was released by his office analyzing the scientific accuracy of the curricula taught by federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.2 Much like the false and misleading information found in abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula regarding abortion and birth control, crisis pregnancy centers espouse similar rhetoric. In the more recent report, investigators found three major areas of misinformation: “1) the purported relationship between abortion and breast cancer; 2) the purported relationship between abortion and infertility; and 3) the purported relationship between abortion and mental illness.”3

Specifically, the report found that the crisis pregnancy centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer, even though there is a medical consensus that induced abortion does not cause an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this consensus, eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk of breast cancer. One center told a caller that, “all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years.” Another claimed that research shows a “far greater risk” after an abortion, telling the caller that an abortion would “affect the milk developing in her breasts” and that “some women are finding out that they're having breast cancer later on.” Several centers quantified the claimed risk by saying that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion.4

The report also found that the crisis pregnancy centers provided false and misleading information about the effect of abortion on future fertility. Research shows that abortions in the first trimester, using the most common abortion procedure, do not pose an increased risk for future fertility. Several centers described the risk of abortion-induced infertility as common or high. One center told the caller that damage from abortion could lead to “many miscarriages” or to “permanent damage” so “you wouldn't be able to carry,” and that this is “common” and happens “a lot.” Another center said that, “in the future you could have trouble conceiving another baby” because of scar tissue, a rare side effect of abortion that the caller was told happens to “a lot of women.”5

Finally, the report found that crisis pregnancy centers provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion. While anti-choice advocates assert the existence of a condition called “post-abortion syndrome,” characterized as “severe long-term emotional harm caused by abortion,” and claim that this condition occurs frequently, research shows that significant psychological stress after an abortion is no more common than after birth.6 However, thirteen centers told investigators the opposite, stating that the psychological effects of abortion are severe and common and that an abortion would cause a wide range of damaging and long-lasting psychological impacts. One center told a caller that, “the rate of suicide in the year following an abortion goes up by seven times.” Other centers described lengthy lists of emotional harms that could result from an abortion such as “guilt…difficulty with making friends, sexual problems…suicidal ideas, sedatives, alcohol, drug use, eating disorders, fear of failure, loneliness, panic…signs of marital stress” and “a downward spiral where they lose friends and family members.”7 When discussing the difference between psychiatric help sought after an abortion compared to that after birth, one center explained that, “having a baby is a normal process and what it does is fulfills a woman. It is fulfilling one of the roles that she has. Abortion is the exact opposite; she is doing something totally contrary to what her role is.”8 One center compared the experience of having an abortion to the experience of going to war, analogizing the post-traumatic stress experiences after an abortion to that seen in soldiers after Vietnam, saying that it “is something that anyone who's had an abortion is sure to suffer from.”9

“Crisis pregnancy centers are using millions of taxpayer dollars to lie and mislead people who are seeking health and medical services, impeding their efforts to make informed and responsible decisions,” Smith said. “This report underscores the Bush Administration's pattern of utter disregard for public health evidence and the lack of any significant oversight of taxpayer dollars. That is the real ‘crisis,'” Smith continued.

The report concludes that “the vast majority of pregnancy centers contacted in this investigation misrepresented the medical consequences of abortion, often grossly exaggerating the risks.” The report further concludes that while “this tactic may be effective in frightening pregnant teenagers and women and discouraging abortion…it denies…teenagers and women vital health information, prevents them from making an informed decision, and is not an accepted public health practice.”10

“Representative Waxman is to be commended for his commitment to continuing to expose the Bush Administration's routine use of vast sums of taxpayer dollars to advance its own narrow, ideologically driven policies at the expense of the health and well-being of the American people,” Smith said.

To view the full report, please visit: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1080

On July 19, 2006 SIECUS released its most up-to-date resource on funding for crisis pregnancy centers and other entities receiving abstinence-only-until-marriage funding with SIECUS State Profiles: Fiscal year 2005 Edition . To view the publication, including a state-by-state breakdown of funding, please visit: http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/index.html

References

False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers ( United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, 17 July 2006).
Ibid., pg. i.
Ibid., pg. 7.
Ibid., pg. 8.
Ibid., pg. 9.
Ibid., pg. 11.
Ibid., pg. 12.
Ibid., pg. 13.
Ibid.
Ibid., pg. 14.

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

July 2006 Policy Updates

Senators Agree: No Increase for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding
Depressed Teens More Likely to Engage in Risky Sex
Missouri Gives Tax Credits for Crisis Pregnancy Centers
SIECUS Releases New Edition of State Profiles
Study Shows Male Circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa May Help Prevent Spread of HIV
Specter Brings Pork Back to the Table for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in Pennsylvania
Federally Funded Crisis Pregnancy Centers Provide False and Misleading Information about Abortion; Money Funneled through Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding Streams

On a random note...look! A BRAIN EATING AMOEBA!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_re_us/killer_amoeba

@Erin: I saw that this morning in the newspaper and I burst out laughing..."Brain-eating Amoeba". *snort*

They had Naeglaria fowlri on "House, MD" during the second season, it was what made Foreman so sick in those two episodes. :)

Laura, thank you for providing that report from Rep. Waxman, one of the most liberal, most pro-abortion, and most dishonest men in the entire US Congress. Taking anything released by Waxman seriously is the equivalent of going to David Duke to learn about racial tolerance.

I know two women who died of breast cancer. They were both Christians.
Jesus makes you die.

Posted by: Laura at September 29, 2007 2:18 PM**********************we die physically, and some of us believe in an afterlife. Some don't. The choice is yours. I accept the fact that we do have agnostics here. My brother is one.

Hello Rae and Erin.*waves* gotta go to work. See ya later.

And hello John.

Erin, I agree. Part of the reason that abortion rights advocates do not turn out in numbers comparable to the anti-abortion rights advocates is because abortion is still legal. Additionally, I think it is because many who identify as "pro-choice" do not have strong feelings on the issue. That is compounded by the fact that there are some who believe that abortion is immoral but feel that the government has no right to get involved.

I feel part of the reluctance on the part of abortion rights advocates is also due to how they are often treated by the "anti-choice" crowd. A typical response is "you're a murderer" or some critical judgment that never fails to imply that there is some moral defect in the person. There is simply no reason to subject oneself to that kind of treatment. It says far more about the person who is judging than the person being judged.

SoMG,

Hippie, a 200% - 300% increase isn't necessarily very big. Remember: if a number changes from very very very very rare to just very very very rare, that change can be reported as a many-fold increase, but it's still very very very rare.

And yet you and Doug still persist in saying that a woman is 10 times more likely to suffer serious complications from carrying a child to full term, than from having an abortion...

Which is it? Very, very, very, very rare to just very, very, very rare is insignificant or isn't it?

Enigma,

I feel part of the reluctance on the part of abortion rights advocates is also due to how they are often treated by the "anti-choice" crowd. A typical response is "you're a murderer" or some critical judgment that never fails to imply that there is some moral defect in the person. There is simply no reason to subject oneself to that kind of treatment. It says far more about the person who is judging than the person being judged.

As someone that has been standing outside of clinics for years, and has been to three Aurora events, I can tell you that being called a murderer would be a cake walk compared what has been yelled at me...

The things that the pro choice crowd says and does to us is so commonplace that we have actually written a bill of rights for you. Just to make it easier to insult us.

I have had food and drinks thrown at me, been verbally assaulted with words a sailor would blush at, almost been run over by a number of cars, gotten a cop fired for assault, and had a gun pulled on me.

If you absolutely do not believe that abortion is murder, that those taunts would affect you in the least.

I'm pretty sure is someone called me a cyclops, dog hating, bird watcher...I wouldn't bat an eye.

1. ENUNCIATE: If you feel you absolutely must share your opinion, please do so clearly and distinctly; allow every pearl of wisdom to form in your mouth and roll off your tongue before you scream the next. Recall how Professor ‘Enry ‘Iggins taught Eliza Doolittle to speak properly in "My Fair Lady." Practice saying, “the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain” until fully articulate, lest ye sound the fool when we can’t understand you.

2. RESPECT PHYSICS: As any prayer warrior will tell you, P-A’s frequently feel obligated to embarrass themselves by screaming out of their car windows at forty miles-per-hour. Sadly, their hate-filled screed is for naught, as they have failed to take the Doppler Effect into consideration. In case you weren’t paying attention in your high school science class, Austrian physicist Christian (isn’t that a great first name) Doppler first stated f2=f1[v/(v+-v)] in 1842. Simply put, it is the effect produced by a moving source of sound waves in which there is an apparent shift in frequency for stationary observers. Still too hard to understand? Then think of the sound a train’s horn makes as it rockets past your stopped car…the well thought out message which you shout as your car roars past sounds like "whyyydonntttyouuumoottthhherrrfaaattthhhheerrrsssgooohooommme" to us. Remember, just because Satan knows what you are screaming--after all he formed the words on your blasphemous lips--doesn’t mean we have a clue what you are trying to communicate.

3. PAY ATTENTION: In the words of the Doors’ hit song "Roadhouse Blues," P-A’s should “keep your eyes on the road”. Not following this admonition can cause an accident as happened while we picked abortionist Vinod Goyal's neighborhood last year. A male P-A, no doubt showing off for the female in his passenger seat, took his eyes off the road, leaned across her and started to scream something that sounded like "whyyydontyouuuu…." He never finished because he slammed into the rear of the car ahead of him who had stopped to make a left turn. He received a ticket from the Palatine Police and had to pay for the damage to the innocent auto he rear-ended.

4. HANDS AT TEN AND TWO. Again, as Jim Morrison of the Doors urged “...and your hands upon the wheel.”

Far too many P-A’s insist on giving the one-fingered salute with not just one, but both hands. It is hard to control a car with both middle fingers pointed towards Heaven, particularly when your eyes are filled with rage.

5. BUY A THESAURUS. Do you have any idea how many times we hear someone yelling the basic F-You? This book is invaluable for those who are not intelligent enough to string together a sentence without the F-word (which, while I will admit is versatile enough to be used as a verb--transitive and intransitive, active or passive, an adverb, a noun, or an adjective, simply exposes how minimal your grasp of the English language is). Do us all a favor and get creative…expand your vocabulary. Learn some new words…there are literally tens of thousand of words which can be strung together to insult (affront, abuse, offend, slur, slight) those doing God’s work.

6. BUY AN INSULT BOOK. Invest a few bucks in an insult book…there are stores which sell row after row of books which will teach you how to express yourself. You can choose from a book with 5,000 Shakespearean insults (from 38 plays), one titled "Depraved and Insulting English," and last, but certainly not least, the classic Samuel Johnson’s Insults which promises “more than 300 of the curmudgeonly lexicographer’s mightiest barbs.” Sweet.

True case in point: My daughter bought me a great book for Christmas a few years back, "How to Insult, abuse & Insinuate in Classical Latin." One of my favorites is “Si decem habeas lingas, mutum esse assecet…Even if you had ten tongues, you ought to hold them all.” Now that’s an insult, even if you ain’t educated enough to speak the language of Latin America.

7. DON’T EVEN THINK OF THROWING ANYTHING AT US. Most pro-lifers carry cameras with them…get a hair cut and wear clean underwear because we will take your picture. We will report you to the police. We will press charges. You will be arrested. You will be found guilty in court.

8. READ THE BIBLE, DROP TO YOUR KNEES AND BEG JESUS CHRIST'S FORGIVENESS. I don’t care if it takes an exorcism, it will be worth it. Whether you like it or not we are praying for you…we are praying that the evil which is indwelt in your heart will be vanquished. We will never stop praying for your salvation. "Jesus forgives and saves" is not just a saying that we have on our posters…it is the truth…it is His promise…and it is the only hope you have to spend eternity with our Savior.

Dan Gura is a free lance writer and political satirist from Illinois and a contributing editor to RFFM.org.

MK,

"I have had food and drinks thrown at me, been verbally assaulted with words a sailor would blush at, almost been run over by a number of cars, gotten a cop fired for assault, and had a gun pulled on me."

You've had an interesting life to say the least.

"If you absolutely do not believe that abortion is murder, that those taunts would [not] affect you in the least."

In truth, they don't. What I dislike is being judge and having the opposing party judge me as wanting. What makes them feel that they're so above me that they can cast judgments with impunity?

I'm always amused that the quote "Judge not, lest ye be judged," is out of all the quotes in the bible, the one that people choose to ignore.

In truth, they don't. What I dislike is being judge and having the opposing party judge me as wanting. What makes them feel that they're so above me that they can cast judgments with impunity?

The question I'm asking is why? Why does it bother you to be judged and hove an opposing party see you as "wanting"?

It wouldn't bother me in the least. It doesn't bother me in the least. We often laugh (see above post).

"The criticism that hurts the most is that which echos our own self condemnation."

Why does it bother me? Because I dislike self-righteous people. They're arrogant. They think that they know everything and feel entitled to drag anyone kicking and screaming against their will into their vision of salvation.

"The criticism that hurts the most is that which echos our own self condemnation."

Sorry, but nothing I've said here comes even close to what I condemn myself for.

Enigma,

"I have had food and drinks thrown at me, been verbally assaulted with words a sailor would blush at, almost been run over by a number of cars, gotten a cop fired for assault, and had a gun pulled on me."

The reason these things have happened is because I have put myself "out there" for a cause. I am willing to be verbally assaulted on a weekly basis, because I am doing something I believe in.
It's called passion.

Would I rather be somewhere else? Sure. Personally, I'm always up for a Saturday Matinee.

You on the other hand, have excused your side from speaking out, because you don't like "being judged" and made to feel "wanting".

To me, that says "lack of conviction and/or passion"

MK,

See whatever you wish. I will not deny that my passion lies elsewhere.

The argument that PC people are apathetic because they have the law on their side and have no reason to react doesn't wash.
If anyone remembers the civil rights movement you will recall the violent backlash to preserve segregation in the south. Why weren't southern segregationists apathetic? They had the law on their side. They had the police and courts on their side. They had decades of support for segregation on their side. Who cares about a bunch of "uppity" black demonstrators?
They reacted because they firmly believed in the rightness of segregation, the inferiority of black people, they feared the destruction of the status quo, and would stop at nothing to preserve it. Summed up, they reacted because of their conviction to the rightness of what they believed in and would fight for it. That we would disagree with their cause was irrelevant.
So how do you explain PC apathy? Why aren't PC people so ready to take a stand and be heard? Why didn't they overrun the town meetings in Aurora? Why aren't they marching in the streets? Because people might say things that are not very nice to you? Puh-leeze. If you're afraid of that, don't get out of bed in the morning.

Mary,

"So how do you explain PC apathy? Why aren't PC people so ready to take a stand and be heard? Why didn't they overrun the town meetings in Aurora? Why aren't they marching in the streets?"

Actually, I would link this to a general decline of civic involvement. Its a trend that has been growing for decades. People are less likely to be civicly or politically involved. Even if one is involved, generally it is through some sort of tertiary organization or one simply throws money at an issue. There is less active engagement with other people and more connecting through impersonal networks. None of this creates a good atmosphere for engagement. (This is a really broad summery, read Bowling Alone for more details.)

"If you're afraid of that, don't get out of bed in the morning."

I was wondering why I got of bed this morning. The alarm went off way too early and my bed was so nice and comfortable. Wouldn't it be nice to simply roll back over and just let the world go by?

Enigma,

A valid point, but I remain convinced that dedicated people will make themselves heard, whether or not we agree with or like what they are dedicated to. People are certainly making themselves heard on the issue of the Jena 6, and we certainly hear from and see plenty of action from the PETA people. Agree with them or not, they are dedicated to their causes. I remember in the early years of the abortion movement there was no shortage of dedicated souls making themselves heard whether it was verbally, in writing, or in the streets marching.
I can only conclude that the PC side may not have the support its always assumed it had.

Enigma 9/29 4:20pm

In a word, yes!

Laura,

I said a teen would have a lower lifetime cancer risk by carrying her baby to term.

She can give the child for adoption if there is no one around her with enough love or care to help her access childcare or educational opportunities.

One of my friends had a baby when she was 15 that she gave for adoption. Later she married and had three daughters with her husband and eventually reunited with the daughter she gave up years before. Her first daughter had a great life with her adoptive family and a cordial and loving relationship with her birth mother and three half sisters. It is a beautiful story.

Life is what you make it. Love finds a way.

"I have had food and drinks thrown at me, been verbally assaulted with words a sailor would blush at, almost been run over by a number of cars, gotten a cop fired for assault, and had a gun pulled on me."

The reason these things have happened is because I have put myself "out there" for a cause. I am willing to be verbally assaulted on a weekly basis, because I am doing something I believe in.
It's called passion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe called masochism.
Do you enjoy spankings?
Do you REALLY enjoy spankings?

She can give the child for adoption if there is no one around her with enough love or care to help her access childcare or educational opportunities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Teens don't give up their babies.
They don't finish school.
They don't work.
There isn't any one of us who hasn't witnessed this scenario about 10,000 times.

Teens don't give up their babies.
They don't finish school.
They don't work.
There isn't any one of us who hasn't witnessed this scenario about 10,000 times.

Posted by: Laura at September 29, 2007 4:50 PM

``````````````````````````

It may not be what you want but maybe it is what they want.

It is their life.

I would be happier to see my tax dollars go to help them or for their healthcare or whatever than I am to see it spent on wars.

Another of my friends had her baby at 18 spent 6 months on welfare and in a training program and worked at Dairy Queen and single handedly supported herself and her son and her mother for 10 years. She has now remarried and just bought a house. She has always been one of the happiest and kindest people I know. She is optimistic and wonderful. She always tells me, "kids don`t need stuff, they need love."

Laura,

Masochism? Would you call the civil rights demonstrators who endured attacks by fire hoses and police dogs, as well as physical and verbal abuse, mashochists? Would you ask them how they like being spanked? Or would you consider them people of courage, passion, and conviction?

Hippie,

"Life is what you make it."

I completely agree. Actually, I think that might be one of my mottos. I'd have to check though. I tend to forget my mottos.

"Love finds a way."

This one I don't buy. Love is not all that. Love cannot do everything. It has limits.

I know. She is optimistic and wonderful. She always tells me, "kids don`t need stuff, they need love."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah!
Just save that love in a big 'ol jar, 'cause I hear that Ivy League universities are accepting it as tuition!

Erin: Actually, I think the reason is even simpler. Pro-choicers aren't counter-protesting because right now, abortion is legal. The people who have to actually fight to get their changes through are going to be the ones fighting. Over-turn Roe v Wade, you're going to see the exact opposite.

Right on, Erin.

Doug

John L: Pro-aborts are never interested in debate. They are always interested in changing the subject. Why would a pro-abort attend any formal discussion of abortion, when all they know how to do is call us fascists, call us the Taliban, say we're forcing theocracy on them, or else take the conversation way out in left field and start talking about the Bible, clergy, semantics, George W. Bush, and other stuff which has little to do with the issue of the intentional killing of unborn children.

Heh heh. Yeah, right.

There is an element of wanting power that might be called "facism," but I don't see it as a big deal.

Some pro-lifers, you included, John, have an element of religious extremism in them, like the Taliban, now that you mention it. Is that really at issue, though? I don't think so.

This really boils down to more wanting the life of the unborn or more wanting women to keep the freedom they have. That's the debate in a nutshell.

Doug

For example, let`s change the subject from "Are they intimidated?" to "We prefer a different label"

Hippie, if it's different labels you want, then instead of "pro-lifers" we could say "women-slavers." The point is that the silly name-calling stuff is not real debate.

Doug

Masochism? Would you call the civil rights demonstrators who endured attacks by fire hoses and police dogs, as well as physical and verbal abuse, mashochists?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, they were working to liberate themselves, and you are working to oppress others.

Oppressors aren't entitled to martyr status.

MK: And yet you and Doug still persist in saying that a woman is 10 times more likely to suffer serious complications from carrying a child to full term, than from having an abortion...

Which is it? Very, very, very, very rare to just very, very, very rare is insignificant or isn't it?

Well, MK, when somebody says "abortion is dangerous," I guess it's up to them to say just how dangerous it is. Same for "you can't tell me abortions is safe." What is "not safe"? The fact of abortion being much safer remains.

Doug

Laura,

That's all in the point of view. Segregationists would have looked on civil rights activists as stepping on their rights! They had the law on their side and were fully within their legal rights keeping blacks "in their places". "Who did these uppity coloreds think they were"? "Those Northern white do-gooders can also stay home and out of our business". "Why, our colored folk were perfectly happy until these troublemakers came along". All statements frequently heard in that era.
Like I said Laura, its all in the point of view.

(I originally posted this in a different thread, but since that thread is now in archives, here it is again.(

JTM,

"Wrong. The new life created at the moment of fertilization has distinctly, identifiably human DNA from that point on."

Human DNA does not a human life create. It is possible for one to have human DNA and yet not have human life.

"Legitimate surgery does not deliberately slaughter an innocent human life."

Well, considering that abortion doesn't destroy human life, neither does abortion.

"It isn’t a reproductive reset button, but a violent invasion of and assault on a woman’s reproductive system."

Assault is a crime. Assault is illegal. One also cannot consent to assault. Since there is consent involved, by definition abortion cannot be assault.

All surgeries carry risk. Abortion is safer than childbirth.

"Equating killing with healing is the same as equating those targeted to be killed with diseases."

Since I never equated healing with killing, I fail to see your point.

"For the sake of all who are, and all that is, truly human, clean up your language."

I haven't used any offensive language. There is nothing to clean up.

"Abortion is to surgery what 9-11 was to aviation."

Hardly.

"Abortion is to surgery what 9-11 was to aviation."

Wow, excellent analogy. Perfect.

Teens don't give up their babies.
They don't finish school.
They don't work.
There isn't any one of us who hasn't witnessed this scenario about 10,000 times.

Posted by: Laura at September 29, 2007 4:50 PM

Who had the post "Stupid is as stupid does..?" well they were right! Laura is the perfect example. My sister, at 17 had a baby and gave it up for adoption. She is now married and has a beautiful 4 month old daughter. Not only finished high school but a bachelor degree and master's. Works at a local hospital in the PR department. She has a WONDERFUL life, and no regrets.

Hippie is right, life is what you make of it. Laura apparently doesn't make much out of hers.

Kristen,

"Hippie is right, life is what you make of it. Laura apparently doesn't make much out of hers."

Simply because she has a different definition of what constitutes a wonderful life does not mean that she is wrong or that her life is not wonderful.

I think it's the sneaky and underhanded stunt PP pulled. People don't want to be associated with supporting lies and decietfulness, even if they would otherwise think that the PP was a good thing.

I found some interesting things on the website Hippie posted.

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/risks120.html

"From 1973 to 1991, invasive breast cancer incidence in the United States increased 25.8 percent in whites and 30.3 percent in blacks, or roughly 2 percent per year (Ries et al., 1994). " ... here they make explanations that it could be increase use, and better Mammeograms... "However, the increased rates cannot be completely explained by increased use of mammography, suggesting that changes in other breast cancer risk factors may also be occurring."

"However, only between 5 and 10 percent of all breast cancers seem to be attributable to an inherited genetic mutation. A second breast cancer gene (BRCA-2) has been located but not yet identified. Studies of migrants who immigrate from low-incidence areas to high-incidence areas have found that the rates of breast cancer increase to that of the new country, reflecting changes in lifestyle and environmental factors, showing that international differences in rates are not due to genetic factors."

"The greater number of women who are delaying childbirth or remaining childless may explain some of the recent increased incidence of breast cancer. "

"Several recent studies suggest that subsequent births are associated with a further reduction in the risk of breast cancer, even after considering correlated effects of the age at first pregnancy."

"Because of the relationship between endogenous hormones and breast cancer risk, much concern has been raised about the use of exogenous hormones. Most studies suggest no effect from oral contraceptive use on breast cancer incidence. However, some recent studies suggest a possible increase in breast cancer at an early age (before age 45) among long-term oral contraceptive users, and those who started taking oral contraceptives at a young age."

"In addition, only a small proportion of the cases are accounted for by known risk factors (Kelsey and Gammon, 1990), indicating the need for further research."

There is nothing concrete in there. Nothing other than speculation. But it is interesting that the 2% a year increase of breast cancer started the same year as Roe v Wade. (Around 1969 is when some states began to relax their abortions law, which is what sparked the 2 cases that were decided in 1973 - Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton)

Also, the need for more study is something that I see on all studies about breast cancer. Even the ones that say abortion has nothing to do with it. I think it is safe to say that with increased technology there is increased knowledge in this. I think it would be unwise to say abortion does or does not cause a higher risk of breast cancer until more studies can be done. It seems when it comes to cancer, the studies change every day as to what causes or doesn't cause it. To me, this means they really have no idea.

(if anyone responds to this and wants me to respond back - please email me. I may not have time to get back on and read all the posts on here and could miss it.)

I saw this and thought you might be interested, it talks about peaceful protesters being brutalized by police in Europe. I'm sure many of you have heard about protesters especially lifers being harassed and even tortured by police. It's a scary time when protesting and the right to organize is being suppressed by those who want to exploit and maintain power over the rest of us. We must join together and resist these haters of freedom!

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07091202.html

I happened to be in Aurora for most of the day today and drove all over the East side. I saw a "Planned Parenthood BAD for Aurora" sign in every other yard. Oddly enough I didn't see ONE PP sign. Apparently PP isn't pro-choice when it comes to what the people of Aurora want, just what THEY want.

Simply because she has a different definition of what constitutes a wonderful life does not mean that she is wrong or that her life is not wonderful.

Posted by: Enigma at September 29, 2007 8:16 PM

Enigma -

Laura is the one that said 1. Teens don't give up their children 2. Teens don't finish school, etc... and I have clear evidence to the contrary. Like I said in previous posts, Laura makes a lot of grandiose statements that are EASILY shot down. She really doesn't prepare well for arguments and until she either 1. Prepares better or 2. Gets a little wiser she really should stop talking.

@Doug,

you keep aligning freedom with choice. So lets think about what makes humans free. Choice is one. Exiting prison another. Flight yet another ... wings of eagles, gliders, kites, ... fast cars and spreading arms ... etc. Now what elements are there is each because it would be a real stretch aligning the freedom of flight as a freedom-of-choice?

I think the freedom of escaping from prison is closer in alignment to 'procuring an abortion' than freedom-of-choice. These are not the same ... even if you wish they were.

"Judge not lest ye be judged" means that we're supposed to admit our own failings before we point to someone else's. OK, then, I can be obnoxious and unfeeling and angry with my brother. Now that I've admitted my failings, stop killing babies.

I'd like to answer the question of this post: (Do you agree with Veronica it is our fault pro-aborts are less likely to actively engage in the abortion debate?)

Our fault?! It's so easy for the PP supporters to blame us. They just can't come to terms with the fact that the people of Aurora don't want an abortion mill in town.

And deep down most of these PP supporters know that abortion is wrong. The safest place for a baby should be in his or her mother's womb. A mother's instinct is to protect her baby... not to let someone rip it out of her womb, piece by living piece. All women know that. They can't dispute that without looking heartless.

My observation about the pro-PP people leaving early from the city council meeting is that they are mostly young teeny-boppers who jumped on the bandwagon to get free t-shirts and have something fun to do. They are being told what to say if they get a chance to talk. Once they found out they weren't going to be talking they left to go outside where it was more fun because they found the meeting to be boring & they wanted to be with their friends. This is all the more reason that the parental consent law should be passed - these are just young girls who want to have fun and aren't mature enough to make such decisions for themselves.

Bethany, thanks for posting that video.

I have said that in order to argue your point, you must use Logic - the rules of arguments.

This should be taught to everyone in school. I had a course in Logic as part of a philosophy minor recently. It was very helpful and practical.

You have to use the rules, use correct and true premises, in order to arrive at a TRUE conclusion.

That is the main reason why virtually all pro-aborts can't argue against us and then get angry at us and yell and scream or walk away.

Diane,

It's funny... now that you mention that the PP rally-goers were mostly teeny boppers, it made me think of the slide show that PP posted of the rally. It made me giggle to see teens upon teens holding up the "This Family Supports Planned Parenthood" signs. I kept thinking to myself, "What family?! Where are your parents and siblings?!" I guess PP was expecting more families to show up. (But, of course, our families will always outnumber their families!)

This is all the more reason that the parental consent law should be passed - these are just young girls who want to have fun and aren't mature enough to make such decisions for themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great.
So if I'm a parent and decide that my daughter is too immature to have a child, I can do what I deem to be best and force her to have an abortion?
Certainly if you can decide that your daughter MUST carry a pregnancy, I should be able to decide when my daughter MUST have an abortion?

John: you keep aligning freedom with choice. So lets think about what makes humans free. Choice is one. Exiting prison another. Flight yet another ... wings of eagles, gliders, kites, ... fast cars and spreading arms ... etc. Now what elements are there is each because it would be a real stretch aligning the freedom of flight as a freedom-of-choice?

I think the freedom of escaping from prison is closer in alignment to 'procuring an abortion' than freedom-of-choice. These are not the same ... even if you wish they were.

It's all the same thing. It's not being under external control; it's being at liberty to determine one's own action without being restrained.

The actions could be movement (not being in prison), flying a glider or a kite, having an abortion, driving a fast car, etc.

Doug

Paul: You have to use the rules, use correct and true premises, in order to arrive at a TRUE conclusion.

Agreed, Paul, and that's why arguments based on unprovable faith aren't all that much. If everybody agreed with your beliefs, it'd be one thing, but of course it's not that way.

Doug

John L: "Judge not lest ye be judged" means that we're supposed to admit our own failings before we point to someone else's. OK, then, I can be obnoxious and unfeeling and angry with my brother. Now that I've admitted my failings, stop killing babies.

Ha! Hey, not bad, John.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2007 11:17 PM


Agreed, Paul, and that's why arguments based on unprovable faith aren't all that much. If everybody agreed with your beliefs, it'd be one thing, but of course it's not that way.

Did I mention anything about faith?????

I'm talking about plain facts, scientific facts.

(Science is your religion after all.)

So if we agree to stick with scientific facts, then we can at least argue those facts.

Sigh.

I met this great guy, successful, really nice, and he looked VERY similar to Stephen Colbert. Very attractive.

I slyly ask him where his girlfriend is. He said he doesn't have one. Great!!

Then he drops the bomb. "...however, god willing, I hope to become a priest.' I was like NO WAY and he really went into it, he's really seriously wanting this.

Life is so not fair.

I'm so bummed about this. He is such a smart guy. He graduated last year but majored in classical humanities, greek and latin. He is a bank manager. Very levelheaded, honest, and good sense of humor.

Exactly the kind of guy who is super attractive to me. As said previously, the nerd/handsome mix just drives me crazy!

Everyone, see what the Catholic church has done to my love life!

Laura, your biggest problem is that you put too much emphesis on your education and degree. What's the problem? You seem to be one of the most miserable and hate filled people on the blog. I know people both rich and poor. Life is what you make it. A degree doesn't buy your happiness. My reaction to someone who brags about their level of education...........so what?

Jill, Bethany, et.al.,


Sorry my comment above was posted so many times. I don't know what the problem was. When I clicked "Post" it was just sitting there not going through. So I pressed "esc" and tried again. It did not seem to go through. Finally it went through at 4:11 am and Voila - many duplicates!? Hope someone can delete the extras.

I am not sure why Pro-Aborts don't like to engage in debate.

All I know when I used to go to Pro-Abort websites they had to debate using vulgar language instead of debating in charity.

Many times when debating on Pro-Abort websites, they would delete my posts especially if I added links with my posts. Sometimes I was banned from their websites just because I was swaying others to the Pro-Life position.

I got sick of getting my posts deleted on the Pro-Abort websites. I feel I am just wasting my time. So now I just hang around the Pro-Life sites and wait for the Pro-Aborts to visit and engage in a charitable debate.

Heather, you wrote: "2 women dead in their 40's. Both had abortions in their 20's. I'm still going to have to go on that. "

You don't have the slightest idea how stupid you are, do you?

Mk, serious complications during childbirth are not rare!

"Judge not lest ye be judged" means that we're supposed to admit our own failings before we point to someone else's."

Where in that line does it say anything about recognizing your own failings before pointing to someone else's. Unless I'm missing something, all that it says is not to judge people.

"OK, then, I can be obnoxious and unfeeling and angry with my brother. Now that I've admitted my failings, stop killing babies."

Abortion doesn't kill babies. And supporting abortion is not a failing.

Last night LAURA posted this above:
So if I'm a parent and decide that my daughter is too immature to have a child, I can do what I deem to be best and force her to have an abortion?
Certainly if you can decide that your daughter MUST carry a pregnancy, I should be able to decide when my daughter MUST have an abortion?
--------

Laura,

If abortion was illegal, then we wouldn't need parental consent laws. That would be ideal.

But as it stands now, abortion is legal and we need parental consent laws.

Let me break it down: It's OK to prevent your daughter from killing another person, but it's not OK to force her to kill another person (i.e. your grandbaby). Plus, I'm sure you'd agree that if you forced your daughter to have an abortion, she'd hate you.

Your argument just doesn't hold up.

Mike,

I've had the same experiences. One website assumed I was an Evangelical or Fundamentalist, they couldn't quite make up their minds. I am in fact neither. The profanity and namecalling was infantile and I also had my posts deleted. I had to continually ask for an intelligent argument, never did get one.
Aren't these the people who preach tolerance?

Enigma,

Abortion doesn't kill babies.

Then what does it kill?

Enigma,

You might think that abortion doesn`t kill babies, but not all agree.

I am not taking this out of context. Out of the blue Somg said,

"Abortion is the justifiable homicide of a non-innocent person."

Posted by: SoMG at September 29, 2007 10:27 AM

You read that right, "homicide" "person

Doug,

Yesterday I went to the store and bought eggs, butter, sugar, flour, salt, baking powder, baking soda, cinnamon, raisins, oatmeal, and walnuts and vanilla.

I laid them all out on my counter.

Then I carefully measured each one and put them into a large bowl.

I mixed them per instructions and then spoon-dropped them onto a cookie sheet.

I looked at them.

My kids walked into the kitchen and said "Ooooooh cookies"...

I said "No, according to Doug, these are not cookies. They are just a bunch of ingredients on a cookie sheet."

The kids said "no, they're cookies. They just haven't been cooked yet!"

**********************************************

Okay, the above didn't actually happen, but I'm sure you see where this is going.

The raw cookie dough, while not edible yet, was indeed cookies. All that was needed was a certain amount of time in the womb. Ooops, I mean oven.

Every single thing that makes them cookies was present. Nothing would be added except time and heat. The cookies existed. Now you could invent a name for the "raw" cookies and call them, oh let's say, cookuses. You know, like fetuses. But changing the name, does not change the fact, that they are still cookies.

When I take them out of the oven, I can pull a raisin off. Is this a raisin or a cookie? Similar to your argument that a toenail is human. Raisins are not cookies. They can be part of a cookie, but without all of the other ingredients, they are still just raisins. In this case, they were raisins in/from cookies, but they were not cookies.

Now let's say, that I put that raw dough into an oven that has been turned onto 350 and 4 minutes later an awesome aroma fills my kitchen. Suspicious, I open the oven door and sure enough, I find cookies baking. Shocked, I grab a pot holder, take them out and throw them away!

The kids are looking on in horror! "Why did you throw those away mom? We wanted one!"

Well, I tell them, while I consented to buying the ingredients, and I consented to measuring and mixing, and I consented to putting them in the oven, I NEVER consented to making cookies.

Then WHY did you buy the ingredients, mix them and put them in the oven?

Well, I like mixing, and shopping and hot ovens, but I didn't really want cookies.

Of course it is my "right" to throw those cookies away, but I could not "rightly" say that A. I had no idea they would become cookies. B. They weren't really cookies. C. The fact that I didn't want them, changed what they were. D. It didn't affect anyone but me.

And just for fun, let me add, than I saw absolutely no compelling reason for more cookies in the world. There were cookies everywhere, so there is no good argument for making more.

And, besides, if I had finished baking the cookies, I would have had to take them off the cookie sheets, place them in an airtight container, and kept a constant eye on them, because the children would be trying to sneak them, and quite frankly, I had better things to do with my time...(You know, like going to the store and buying Peanut Butter, eggs, milk, flour, sugar etc.) so that I could mix, measure and make another batch of cookies that I could then throw away.

My right? Sure. Insane? My valuation is that, yep, it's completely nuts!

As for the abortion debate with pro aborts, there are some who argue for choice. However many on this site go on and on about how bad pregnancy and birth and teen parenthood are. How a baby can ruin your life, etc. They ignore the adoption alternative.

Could it be that society's negative attitude is part of the reason for that teens have trouble parenting? Teens are denied basic rights even though by scientific analysis they are on average as competent as any other group of adults. They are constantly bashed and treated like losers and subject to more restrictions than convicted felons.

I have sat with successful older people some of them college professors who never married and had great careers and they say how they would trade it all just to have children of their own. These people bought the material view of success. Of course they aren´t the only example many childless folks are happy but I think our society overemphasizes material success, and overlooks the human aspect especially when it comes to teens.

If we are willing to support young people with dollars and acclaimation so they can go to college, why are we less willing to support them as they start their family. Is it because we judge their choice? If they go to college we assure them it is worth all the debt, theirs and ours. We tell them how good and smart they are. If they choose to start a family we tell them it is not worth it, and how stupid they are, some are even thown out. This is not an environment of freedom of thought or of choice not to mention love.

People who say abortion is about choice need to see the pressure and lack of freedom that underlies this very coerced choice.

MK you hit the nail on the head! That's exactly how the pro-aborts think, so sad.

(To Laura)Your argument just doesn't hold up.

Posted by: JulieC at September 30, 2007 7:09 AM

Julie - I haven't come across one of Laura's arguments that has held up.

Julie - I haven't come across one of Laura's arguments that has held up.

Posted by: Kristen at September 30, 2007 8:50 AM*********************** And you NEVER will.

Enigma: "Abortion doesn't kill babies."

...the world is not round.

@Doug,

"It's all the same thing. It's not being under external control; it's being at liberty to determine one's own action without being restrained."

Wish it were this simple, but you have enumerated that freedom is 'freedom from constraint'. In a sense, it is something akin to filling a void or gap. This statement may appear confusing. Perhaps, if I said 'peace' is 'the lack of war' or, 'love' is 'the lack of hate'. You would wish a more positive definition of both 'love' and 'peace', because these definitions are empty.

Similarly 'freedom' is so important that it merits a positive definition and not just 'a lack of contstraint' because part of constraint can easily mean lack-of-control. Think about it: one can drive a car BECAUSE OF (steering wheel)CONTROL. Does such necessity impede 'freedom'? Similarly, obeying good laws ... brings freedom. [Abortion is bad/poor law.] A whim-based stance (what unwanted/wanted is) is anti-freedom. It would be similar to driving a car without a steering wheel.

MK,

"Then what does it kill?"

It destroys potential human life.

"The raw cookie dough, while not edible yet, was indeed cookies."

Actually, that's not true. Simply because something will/can develop into something else does not mean that it is that something else. The cookie dough was simply dough.

"All that was needed was a certain amount of time in the womb. Ooops, I mean oven."

Absolutely irrelevant. The realization that additional time will allow something to develop into something else does not mean that the something is currently what it has the potential to be.

"Every single thing that makes them cookies was present. Nothing would be added except time and heat. The cookies existed."

Technically, they did not. Cookies only exist after cookie dough has been made and baked. Until then, they are not cookies. People may use colloquialisms and call rough cookie dough "cookies" but that does not make dough cookies.

"But changing the name, does not change the fact, that they are still cookies."

I'm not changing the name. I'm recognizing reality and that potential does not make actualization.

"Well, I tell them, while I consented to buying the ingredients, and I consented to measuring and mixing, and I consented to putting them in the oven, I NEVER consented to making cookies."

Your analogy fails to correlate to sex. You are confusing a direct and always present consequence with one that seldom occurs and is avoidable (most sex does not result in pregnancy). Since these two are fundamentally different in this respect, they cannot be correlated.

"Agreed, Paul, and that's why arguments based on unprovable faith aren't all that much. If everybody agreed with your beliefs, it'd be one thing, but of course it's not that way."

Paul: Did I mention anything about faith?????

No, and I was wrong in assuming that you did, if you meant nothing of the sort. You did say that most pro-choice people can't argue against you, get angry, and yell or scream or walk away, though, and that sure sounds to me like it starts with you screaming, basically, "My way is right!"

If you're just talking about scientific facts, then no problem.
......

I'm talking about plain facts, scientific facts.

(Science is your religion after all.)

No, there isn't the unprovable "faith" involved with science. If something isn't known, that can be stated, and there's no necessary insertion of imaginary stuff into that gap.
......

So if we agree to stick with scientific facts, then we can at least argue those facts.

Awesome, and it's refreshing to hear you say that.

So, the facts - human, alive, an organism, will most likely continue to develop if left alone - I can agree on all those.

Doug

Plus, I'm sure you'd agree that if you forced your daughter to have an abortion, she'd hate you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you forced your daughter to have a child, she'd hate you every bit as much...

Okay, the above didn't actually happen, but I'm sure you see where this is going. The raw cookie dough, while not edible yet, was indeed cookies. All that was needed was a certain amount of time in the womb. Ooops, I mean oven. Every single thing that makes them cookies was present. Nothing would be added except time and heat. The cookies existed. Now you could invent a name for the "raw" cookies and call them, oh let's say, cookuses. You know, like fetuses. But changing the name, does not change the fact, that they are still cookies. When I take them out of the oven, I can pull a raisin off. Is this a raisin or a cookie? Similar to your argument that a toenail is human. Raisins are not cookies. They can be part of a cookie, but without all of the other ingredients, they are still just raisins. In this case, they were raisins in/from cookies, but they were not cookies. Now let's say, that I put that raw dough into an oven that has been turned onto 350 and 4 minutes later an awesome aroma fills my kitchen. Suspicious, I open the oven door and sure enough, I find cookies baking. Shocked, I grab a pot holder, take them out and throw them away! The kids are looking on in horror! "Why did you throw those away mom? We wanted one!"

MK, have to laugh - the exact same "cookies" deal came up a couple weeks ago on another message board. I said that yes they were cookies even though unbaked. They had the constituents, they had the form, and that's good enough for me. Heck, for that matter not all cookies even have to be baked. There are "No-Bake Cookie" recipes all over the internet. Even a bowl full of dough could be a "cookie" if it was going to be dumped out all at once and baked, IMO.
......

Well, I tell them, while I consented to buying the ingredients, and I consented to measuring and mixing, and I consented to putting them in the oven, I NEVER consented to making cookies.

Per the above, I think you most certainly did consent to making cookies, since you did all that. One would not necessarily consent to baking them at a certain time, of course. In your case, I don't think there is doubt.
......

Then WHY did you buy the ingredients, mix them and put them in the oven? Well, I like mixing, and shopping and hot ovens, but I didn't really want cookies. Of course it is my "right" to throw those cookies away, but I could not "rightly" say that A. I had no idea they would become cookies. B. They weren't really cookies. C. The fact that I didn't want them, changed what they were. D. It didn't affect anyone but me. And just for fun, let me add, than I saw absolutely no compelling reason for more cookies in the world. There were cookies everywhere, so there is no good argument for making more. And, besides, if I had finished baking the cookies, I would have had to take them off the cookie sheets, place them in an airtight container, and kept a constant eye on them, because the children would be trying to sneak them, and quite frankly, I had better things to do with my time...(You know, like going to the store and buying Peanut Butter, eggs, milk, flour, sugar etc.) so that I could mix, measure and make another batch of cookies that I could then throw away.

If you didn't want to bake 'em, you wouldn't bake 'em.
......

My right? Sure. Insane? My valuation is that, yep, it's completely nuts!

So what is your point? The physical reality of the unborn - living, human organism, will usually continue to develop if left alone, etc., is not really at issue, same as for those shapes of dough and other ingredients being "cookies" even prior to baking.

Doug

Laura, your biggest problem is that you put too much emphesis on your education and degree. What's the problem?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funny.
The only two things I mentioned about my degree was that;
A) I didn't get it until I was in my 30's.
B) I broke my pelvis and needed financial help to finish it.

Generally - if I'm braggin' - it doesn't sound quite that sad...

"Plus, I'm sure you'd agree that if you forced your daughter to have an abortion, she'd hate you."

Force your children to do anything against their will and you're sure to piss them off. Whether or not it is good for them/get over it is the issue.

Ex. I became injured my junior year of spring track but my coach was such a jerk and thought I was just being lazy. My Dad forced me to run in the conference championships by telling me he knew what was best. Skip to the end - I experienced horrible physical pain and was completely humiliated in front of 200 plus people. Still haven't completely forgive him for it.

Funny.
The only two things I mentioned about my degree was that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two things I mentioned was that was that?

Third notable thing about my degree; I earned one even though I'm apparently a functional illiterate!

"2 women dead in their 40's. Both had abortions in their 20's. I'm still going to have to go on that. "

You know what I loath.... on most sites that list women who have died after an abortion don't list the date or cause of death. I mean is a woman leaves a hospital after giving birth and get hit by a car and killed, do we count that as being killed because of childbirth? I mean is she didn't have the baby she wouldn't have been at the hospital thus wouldn't have been hit by a car.

If any of you know any of the sites with all the information I'll be willing to read it.

Not now I'm going but like later tonight and I'll go and give my opinion.

"It's all the same thing. It's not being under external control; it's being at liberty to determine one's own action without being restrained."

John: Wish it were this simple, but you have enumerated that freedom is 'freedom from constraint'. In a sense, it is something akin to filling a void or gap. This statement may appear confusing. Perhaps, if I said 'peace' is 'the lack of war' or, 'love' is 'the lack of hate'. You would wish a more positive definition of both 'love' and 'peace', because these definitions are empty.

It's not confusing, John. Yes, you can say "void" or "gap." Either freedom is there or not. Either the constraints are there or not. And you're right that lack of hate doesn't necessarily mean love, etc. Yet you can say that either peace is there or not, and that love is there or not, and the same for war, hate, and the Peppermint Twist.
......

Similarly 'freedom' is so important that it merits a positive definition and not just 'a lack of contstraint' because part of constraint can easily mean lack-of-control. Think about it: one can drive a car BECAUSE OF (steering wheel)CONTROL. Does such necessity impede 'freedom'? Similarly, obeying good laws ... brings freedom. [Abortion is bad/poor law.] A whim-based stance (what unwanted/wanted is) is anti-freedom. It would be similar to driving a car without a steering wheel.

I disagree - one can drive a car without steering control, unless "drive" implies it. One can still cause it to move, start it, stop it, etc. Now if one wants to steer the doggone thing, then a steering wheel or other device would be well advisable.

You may want to steer other people, but do you have a good enough reason for it? "Abortion is bad" is your opinion. It's crazy to say that a woman subject to a law banning abortion is "more free" in this matter than one who can legally make her own choice.

You have your whims, but in no way do they necessarily outweigh those of the pregnant woman.

Doug

I became injured my junior year of spring track but my coach was such a jerk and thought I was just being lazy.

Jess, what'd you run?

880 (would now be the 800 meters), 440, Mile, and mile relay here.

Doug

"This is all the more reason that the parental consent law should be passed - these are just young girls who want to have fun and aren't mature enough to make such decisions for themselves."

My problem is what if her parents would disown her or harm her if they found out she was pregnant? Sometimes the parents don't know best, it's sad but true.

Doug it was the two mile. I finished limping and crying two laps behind the last runner. Now I'm doing track in college I want to get in the 10k when they run it and maybe the steeple chase but I'll probably be back to the two mile regularly.

My favorite race though is the half marathon, I'm trying to train for a full marathon, I'm hoping to run one this spring.

@Heather,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-4MZA8xf4Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edavidmacd%2Ecom%2F

Jasper,

"...and the world is not round."

This is an indisputable fact.

It is not face that an abortion kills a baby. That is your opinion. I would additionally argue that this in an opinion based on a flawed understanding of pregnancy and of babies.

MK,

"Well, I tell them, while I consented to buying the ingredients, and I consented to measuring and mixing, and I consented to putting them in the oven, I NEVER consented to making cookies."

A more apt analogy to abortion would be as follows. Buying the ingredients somehow obligates you to make the cookies even if all you really wanted to do was buy the ingredients. Flawed logic, no?

"Of course it is my "right" to throw those cookies away, but I could not "rightly" say that A. I had no idea they would become cookies. B. They weren't really cookies. C. The fact that I didn't want them, changed what they were. D. It didn't affect anyone but me."

A. People are aware that sex can result in pregnancy. Awareness of that fact does not mean that one has consented to pregnancy by consenting to sex.

B. They aren't really cookies until after the dough has been made and they have been baked. Before then, they are potential cookies. In layman's terms, cookie dough.

C. Actually, no it didn't. If you threw the cookies away, they would still be cookies. If you made the dough and didn't want the dough, it would still be dough.

D. There are very few decisions in the world that have no effect on anyone else. Simply arguing that one's decision has the potential to impact another (or, in the case of abortion, a potential other) does not mean that one should not be able to make the decision.

Jasper,

Oops. I misspoke on the last post addressed to you. I meant to say that it is an indisputable fact that the world is round.

While my world is round, the Earth is an oblique spheroid.

Enigma,

you wrote

" People are aware that sex can result in pregnancy. Awareness of that fact does not mean that one has consented to pregnancy by consenting to sex."

I find this fallacious reasoning.

Consent is irrelevant to natural order. They know the consequence of their action.

If you overeat, you can get fat.
Is that consent to get fat? Does natural order care about consent? This is simple consequence.

If you drink and drive, you can get a DUI.
What if you don´t consent?

If you don´t go to work you can get fired.
What if you don´t consent?

If you have sex, you can get pregnant.

With or without consent, consequences happen.
This is natural order. No consent is necessary.

Your opinion doesn´t change natural laws.
You can´t repeal the natural laws.

This is plain science.

Doug, (This is from VAL)

One reason why maternal mortality from childbirth is higher than abortion is because of known medical conditions with the mother. If there is a medical condition with a mother who wants an abortion, she usually can't get one because of her health risk. The majority of the deaths are not due to the childbirth or childbirth complications anymore; they are because of other health issues that the mother had before pregnancy.

ALSO: According to Reproductive Heath Response in Conflict Consortium: The World Health Organziation included death from abortion complications in maternal death for childbirth.

Enigma,
Your analogy fails to correlate to sex. You are confusing a direct and always present consequence with one that seldom occurs and is avoidable (most sex does not result in pregnancy). Since these two are fundamentally different in this respect, they cannot be correlated.

Of course I knew you would say this, so, I'll just mention that my oven is really funky. I can never tell when it is going to turn on. I know that sometimes it will turn on, but I never know which time. So when I put those cookies in the oven, I knew that there was a chance they might bake.

And while it is your opinion that they are not yet cookies, it is not mine. Never once have I had someone walk in the kitchen when I'm making cookies only to have them say "Oh look, mom is making cookie dough" Even the two year olds understood that these were cookies. It amazes me that you don't.

You could even eat them raw. And some people like their cookies underdone, some like them well-done.

At what point in the cooking process do they magically become cookies and stop being cookie dough?

Doug,

Cookies aren't sentient. Either before or after mixing them.

Sentience does not alter the reality that once the ingredients were mixed in the correct fashion, cookies were created.

Once a child is conceived, it is conceived. Whether it is sentience or not.

I like my cookies crisp and over cooked. But they are no less cookies because they are cooked less.

Cookies, from beginning to end.

Regarding the comments that pro-choicers don't protest loudly because they don't like being "judged" by pro-lifers.

You are correct that it is not appropriate for a person to judge the state of another person's soul - you cannot know their intent and extenuating circumstances, for example.

However, it is completely appropriate to judge actions as right or wrong. The basic argument is that pro-choicers don't think there is such a thing as absolute right or wrong (the moral relativism argument). Pro-lifers understand there is a right or wrong and that abortion is always the wrong choice. So when you step outside to promote something that is wrong, expect to be called out on it. Helping others get an abortion is a wrong action.

We condemn the action, never the person.

Pro-choicers don't seem to have a problem condemning our actions, so we get to do the same. They also don't have a problem condemning rapists, smokers, the US military, etc.

Hippie,

"Consent is irrelevant to natural order."

Agreed. Consequences can happen whether we want them to or not.

The issue at hand is whether or not one has consented to the consequences. Well, that's the issue when one argues about consent to sex and abortion.

The simple fact that sex can lead to pregnancy does not mean that a woman who has had sex has consented to pregnancy.

Yes, consequences do happen whether or not one consents to them. But that does not mean that one should be forced to deal with them in any way other than how the one effected chooses to deal with them.

Enigma,

A more apt analogy to abortion would be as follows. Buying the ingredients somehow obligates you to make the cookies even if all you really wanted to do was buy the ingredients. Flawed logic, no?

This isn't even close to a better analogy. Pregnancy only occurs if the sperm meets the egg. (The ingredients are mixed together) Before that it's masturbabtion and ovulation. Or a twinkle in my father's eye. (Unmixed ingredients)

You have eggs, he has sperm. (Went to the store and got the ingredients) But that is not sex, nor is it conception. The minute you mix the ingredients (sperm and egg) you are consenting to making cookies.

You may not be consenting to eat them, but you have already made them. When you throw them away you are not throwing the ingredients away (condom, menstruation) you are throwing away a new thing. Something different than each individual ingredient. You are throwing away "cookies". What a waste. Especially since there are probably a dozen people that would have been happy to take them off your hands. Even the broken ones. (adoption)

Cooking them at a later date would be like in vitro. Which is also consensual. And also cookies (conception).

MK,

"Of course I knew you would say this, so, I'll just mention that my oven is really funky. I can never tell when it is going to turn on. I know that sometimes it will turn on, but I never know which time. So when I put those cookies in the oven, I knew that there was a chance they might bake."

I already wrote my response to this, but I'll recap.

A proper analogy to abortion in the form that you are attempting to use is as follows. One buys ingredients that could be used to make cookies and then is forced to make cookies against her will simply because she purchased ingredients that could be used to make cookies.

"And while it is your opinion that they are not yet cookies, it is not mine."

I'm sorry, it's not an opinion. That's like arguing that an acorn is a fully grown oak tree simply because it has the potential to grow into one.

"Never once have I had someone walk in the kitchen when I'm making cookies only to have them say "Oh look, mom is making cookie dough" Even the two year olds understood that these were cookies."

Reread my comments on colloquialisms. In casual conversation, people use improper terminology all the time. It's simpler. It's faster. It's easier. But that does not make it correct.

"It amazes me that you don't."

And it amazes me that you think insulting me is the best way to get your point across.

"At what point in the cooking process do they magically become cookies and stop being cookie dough?"

Once they've been baked.

Enigma,

you wrote:

Yes, consequences do happen whether or not one consents to them. But that does not mean that one should be forced to deal with them in any way other than how the one effected chooses to deal with them.

Posted by: Enigma at September 30, 2007 1:59 PM

When I overeat, gain weight and get diabetes, I am forced to deal with it by taking shots or dying even though that is not how I choose to deal with the consequences. Nature overrules my desire. Nature doesn´t care what I want.

MK,

"This isn't even close to a better analogy. Pregnancy only occurs if the sperm meets the egg."

Yes, but one does not have all of the proper ingredients to make a fetus until one has sex. Therefore, my analogy still works.

"The minute you mix the ingredients (sperm and egg) you are consenting to making cookies."

And what if one never consented to mixing the sperm and egg? What if the condom broke? Using the logic you just applied here, that would mean that one never consented to pregnancy in the first place.

"You are throwing away "cookies"."

Mixed ingredients are not cookies.

Enigma,

If I drink, drive and lose my license but do not consent not to drive, because I don´t want to be forced to deal with it in any way other than how I choose to deal with it.

Society makes rules that force people to take responsibility for their own actions even though that is not "how the one effected chooses to deal with them."

Hippie,

No, nature doesn't care what you want. But that doesn't mean that you should be subject to the whims of nature when you can work to alter them.

Take your diabetes example. Instead of saying, "well, I have diabetes and I have to deal with the consequences without seeking treatment", you can decide to treat the diabetes and say "well, yes, I have diabetes but I'm going to treat it." Within limits, you can even decide how you want to treat it.

There is no reason that pregnancy should be any different. There are different options available for how one can proceed. The only one who should have any say in how she decides to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is the woman involved.

Enigma,

Yes, but one does not have all of the proper ingredients to make a fetus until one has sex. Therefore, my analogy still works.

Of course you do, unless you are infertile for some reason. The eggs are there in you. The sperm is there in him. All that's LEFT is to have sex, or mix the ingredients.

Buying the ingredients does not mean you will EVER make the cookies. You might make scrambled eggs or brownies. But once you mix the right combo, you end up with cookies and only cookies. Or a baby and only a baby.

As Doug pointed out, there are cookies that don't even need to be cooked. And as I pointed out, different people like their cookies cooked differently. So at what point in the baking time does this "cookie dough" magically become a cookie?

How long must they be baked?

Hippie,

Your drunk driving analogy fails to address the issue at hand. Laws exist to protect the interests of a society. They do not exist to force people to take responsibility for their actions.

Regardless, your example fails for a much more fundamental reason. The government has right to take your license away because you broke the law. What right does the government have to take a woman's body away from her? What law did she break?

Enigma,
And I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm sorry if you thought I was. I am actually amazed that you don't think raw cookies aren't cookies.

Enigma,

The reason that pregnancy is different from diabetes is that a separate individual is involved.

It is not simply the pregnancy that is unwanted, it is the other individual (baby, fetus, you choose) that is unwanted.

The other one who should have a say is the unborn individual.

The unborn, like other powerless persons cannot speak or defend him/herself, so in a civilized society, the community defends those who are powerless, it does not leave it to the discretion of one who may wish to destroy the individual.

Doug it was the two mile. I finished limping and crying two laps behind the last runner. Now I'm doing track in college I want to get in the 10k when they run it and maybe the steeple chase but I'll probably be back to the two mile regularly.

My favorite race though is the half marathon, I'm trying to train for a full marathon, I'm hoping to run one this spring.

Jess, that's great. I ran the two mile a few times my sophomore year. Even had the school record, but it was broken later by much better long-distance guys. I was best in the half mile. Ohio had three levels for the post-season state tournament. I won the Sectionals, was 2nd at the District meet, then just had a crappy race at the State finals, ened up 11th out of 16.

In 2004 I ran one leg of a four-person relay in the Air Force Marathon. I started off and had the shortest leg, but it was the most uphill. The other three guys were two of my brothers and one brother's co-worker (he and my bro were both majors in the A.F. then).

I held the team back due to my slow pace, but we still were in 55th or so place out of 200+ teams. I saw that this year there was a 75 year old guy who ran the full marathon, which was his 80th marathon commpletion...yee haa.

Doug

Enigma,
And I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm sorry if you thought I was. I am actually amazed that you don't think raw cookies aren't cookies.

Posted by: mk at September 30, 2007 2:32 PM

MK - if you had done the same thing - mixed the ingredients, etc... and Enigma walked in instead of your kids, I'm sure he'd say "Oh, you're making cookies!" It's just for the sake of sticking to his argument that he can't agree with you in this forum.

Doug, (This is from VAL) one reason why maternal mortality from childbirth is higher than abortion is because of known medical conditions with the mother. If there is a medical condition with a mother who wants an abortion, she usually can't get one because of her health risk. The majority of the deaths are not due to the childbirth or childbirth complications anymore; they are because of other health issues that the mother had before pregnancy.

I don't know to what extent that is true. If there is a medical condition, why can't the woman get an abortion? I would not think that giving birth with the condition would somehow be better for the woman.
......

ALSO: According to Reproductive Heath Response in Conflict Consortium: The World Health Organziation included death from abortion complications in maternal death for childbirth.

I have never even seen the WHO's figures. The CDC and AGI don't include deaths from miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy in the mortality from birth calculations, so the decision to continue a pregnancy leads to an even higher number of deaths than what they state.

Doug

Enigma,

You wrote:

Your drunk driving analogy fails to address the issue at hand. Laws exist to protect the interests of a society. They do not exist to force people to take responsibility for their actions.

Regardless, your example fails for a much more fundamental reason. The government has right to take your license away because you broke the law. What right does the government have to take a woman's body away from her? What law did she break?

Posted by: Enigma at September 30, 2007 2:32 PM

let me clarify:

Yes laws exist to protect society. From drunk drivers and thieves, murderers etc. Every living human is a member of society and deserves protection.

Laws do force people to take responsiblity. Child support is one such law but so is the entire civil law system. When someone causes you loss, you can go to the civil courts for remuneration even if it isn´t a financial loss.

As for drunk driving, the gov´t doesn´t just take away your license because you broke the law, rather because you are a danger to others. You can break many traffic laws and not lose your license.

It is about protecting society.

The gov´t is not interested in limiting a woman´s right to have sex or get pregnant ( which is the natural consequence ).

Her rights end where the next person´s begins and the government is under no obligation to protect her from the natural consequences of her own action.

Society however does have an obligation to protection the defenseless from her disregard for its right to live.

Cookies aren't sentient. Either before or after mixing them.

MK, we agree, yet again!
......

Sentience does not alter the reality that once the ingredients were mixed in the correct fashion, cookies were created.

Like you said, sentience does not apply to cookies.
......

Once a child is conceived, it is conceived. Whether it is sentience or not.

"Child" is subjective but yes, there is a zygote there.
......

I like my cookies crisp and over cooked. But they are no less cookies because they are cooked less.

Oh-oh, here we disagree. I think over-baking is the most common and one of the worst baking sins.
....

Cookies, from beginning to end.

No, no, no - there has to be at least a certain shape.

Doug

Kristen,

"It's just for the sake of sticking to his argument that he can't agree with you in this forum."

That isn't true. When either I or someone else are making cookies, I too say "oh boy, cookies!" But I am using a colloquialism. They're not actually cookies. They're potential cookies.

Is an acorn a fully grown oak tree?

Doug,

No, no, no - there has to be at least a certain shape.

Come again?

An acorn is a seed. Until the right conditions exist it will not be anything but a seed. However once the seed germinates, (equivalent of sperm and egg uniting) then it is indeed an oak tree. It's certainly not a maple tree. Albeit, it is called a sapling at this stage. But it is still an oak tree at a very young stage. An acorn is a potential oak tree, as is an ovum...but a germinated (conception) acorn is indeed a tree.

"No, no, no - there has to be at least a certain shape."

Come again?

MK, before the ingredients are mixed, I think it's silly to say that "cookies" are there.

If by "from beginning to end," you only mean the baking phase, then I agree with you, however.

I've noticed that most kids don't like nuts in cookies. Maybe I've got a bunch of wimps in the family. They don't like crunchy peanut butter, either - sheesh!

By far, though, I get the most compliments for less-baked cookies than for well-baked ones.

I agree with you that the amount of baking does not matter. And of course with a cake, for example, then it certainly does matter. It's all in how we think of it, and I'm not saying cookies even have to be baked at all.

Doug

sap·ling (splng)
n.
1. A young tree.
2. A youth.

Fetus

The unborn child from the start of the ninth week after conception to the time of birth.

Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth --

Notice the use of the word child and the the phrase "A developing human"...
*
Nowhere, in any dictionary, does it say "potential human"...

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

Doug,

From beginning to end meant from the moment the cookies were mixed (conception) til the end of the baking process (if there is one)...

Obviously, simply buying the ingredients does not constitute cookies.

From beginning to end meant from the moment the cookies were mixed (conception) til the end of the baking process (if there is one)...

Obviously, simply buying the ingredients does not constitute cookies.

Okay, MK, so again, what's your point about abortion, here?

Doug

Question for any takers.

Say Jack meets Jill, they hook up and Jill gets pregnant. He offers to pay for an abortion, but Jill says no thanks, she likes kids and since he owns his own business the child support will be fine.

Jack's income is great and he ends up paying $1000 a month. He is not thrilled.

Jill drops down to part time and so only makes $1500. She moves in with her folks who think she is the greatest and the baby even better. She is happy

Is this fair to Jack?

I won´t argue with anyone´s response. Just wonder how you feel since Jack has to face consequences do happen whether or not he consents to them. And it means that he is forced to deal with them in a way other than how the he chooses to deal with them.

MK,

"Of course you do, unless you are infertile for some reason. The eggs are there in you. The sperm is there in him. All that's LEFT is to have sex, or mix the ingredients."

That's like saying that I can make cookies because Sally down the street has all of the ingredients that I don't have.

In order to make a fetus, the sperm and the egg both have to be inside the woman. Until this occurs, she doesn't have all of the ingredients necessary to produce a z/e/f. Thus my analogy is an apt one.

"But once you mix the right combo, you end up with cookies and only cookies."

The right combination still doesn't mean that it's a baby. It's a potential baby. A baby is what its called once its been "cooked."

"So at what point in the baking time does this "cookie dough" magically become a cookie?"

Once the dough is no longer dough you have cookies. Until then, you only have potential cookies.

Enigma,

In order to make a fetus, the sperm and the egg both have to be inside the woman. Until this occurs, she doesn't have all of the ingredients necessary to produce a z/e/f. Thus my analogy is an apt one.

The sperm is an ingredient. If there is no man in bed with you, then you don't have the ingredients and are obviously not able to make the cookies. We already established that you bought all of the ingredients (one of them being sperm) and all you need to do is bring them together. I'm sorry, but I just don't think your analogy works.

Once the dough is no longer dough you have cookies. Until then, you only have potential cookies.

The question I asked is at what moment does the dough stop being dough and become a cookie and your response is "when it is no longer dough"...

Are you being serious or facetious. I can't tell, because you haven't answered the question.

Enigma,

I don't know what that means. You have all the ingredients. Why would you need sally?

MK- if I may expounds on your cookie metaphor?

When you put together all the ingredients, generally you add certain ingredients that the heat causes chemical reactions and the like. For example, you really shouldn't eat raw cookie dough because it generally has raw eggs in it- which are not good to eat. When you put the dough in the oven, it browns, hardens, takes a rounder shape, and kills any nasty bugbears that might be in the egg. In terms of the vanilla extract, if you're using an imitation, at least, it evaporates the alcohol.

Lots of changes go on before it's cookies, and not just cookie dough. Some people like cookie dough better. Some people like to just eat the cookies. Some like to do both.

A fetus is a fetus. Lots of changes happen before it is a baby. Some people want the cookies. Some just want to eat the dough.

Hippie, great question. Personally, I feel that continuing the pregnancy because Jack will have to pay is not the greatest reason in the world. However, it's not his decision, so yes it's fair to Jack. It's not that society says Jill is to be favored over him, it is that society says the born child needs to be supported, and the parents are the ones to do it. If Jack was the custodial parent, Jill would be expected to pay.

Doug

Dang, Erin, you're right about raw eggs in cookie dough. I never think of that....

And I never even got a buzz off the vanilla extract.

Doug

Doug- you know the woman who has the highest ever clocked BAC while driving had drank 4 bottles of vanilla extract, straight? Isn't that insane?

I should have known you guys would pull the "semantics" card...

Cookie, cookie dough...ridiculous.

turkey stuffing. Let's try turkey stuffing.
Same principle, but we don't have to worry about semantics.

Ingredients separte...no turkey stuffing.
Ingredients mixed...turkey stuffing.
Cooked? Turkey stuffing, only it's hot and Erin's eggs are no longer deadly.

Happy now?

MK- my logic stands. Things change when you add heat. Things change when you add gestation. A fetus is not a baby.

Erin, your logic doesn't stand just because you say so.
Just because "things change" when you heat up turkey stuffing doesn't change the fact that it is still turkey stuffing.
Just because "things change" when you leave an unborn child to live to full term, doesn't change the fact that before and after, it is still a complete human being.

The "changes" are simply development stages, and nothing more.

Hippie,

"The reason that pregnancy is different from diabetes is that a separate individual is involved."

Granted, a pregnancy is fundamentally different from a pregnancy because there is a potential human life involved.

"The other one who should have a say is the unborn individual."

And even if the potential individual had a say, it should never be able to overide the woman's wishes. Human beings do not have the right to impose upon one another. Human beings do not have the right to use another's body even if their surival is dependant upon using another's body.

"The unborn, like other powerless persons cannot speak or defend him/herself"

It's not a matter of denying fetuses their right to life. It's a matter of not giving a fetus special rights that humans do not possess.

Marykay, now I am craving turkey stuffing big time! I wish I had some right now.

Hippie,

"Yes laws exist to protect society. From drunk drivers and thieves, murderers etc."

"Laws do force people to take responsiblity. Child support is one such law but so is the entire civil law system. When someone causes you loss, you can go to the civil courts for remuneration even if it isn´t a financial loss."

Laws exist so that society can function harmoniously. Their purpose is not to force individual responsibility, however.

Child support exists so that the parents, and not the rest of society, pay for their children.

Civil courts ensure that someone cannot damage either your person or your property with impunity.

"Her rights end where the next person´s begins and the government is under no obligation to protect her from the natural consequences of her own action."

The fetus's rights end where hers begin. Ecspecially since no human being has the right to impose upon other's person without that other's explicit consent.

"Society however does have an obligation to protection the defenseless from her disregard for its right to live."

It has a right to live. It just doesn't have the right to force another to incubate it until it can live on its own.

MK,

"The question I asked is at what moment does the dough stop being dough and become a cookie and your response is "when it is no longer dough"..."

I didn't answer because I can't give you a set number. Different kinds of cookies take different amounts of time to become cookies.

My previous answer was amazingly circular logic, was it not? Sorry, I was rushed and didn't think that out.

Enigma,

you wrote,

It has a right to live. It just doesn't have the right to force another to incubate it until it can live on its own.

Posted by: Enigma at September 30, 2007 6:14 PM

A baby doesn´t force one to incubate it, rather it is invited.
The incubation arrangement was begun with the full knowledge and cooperation of the one who began it. The one who began it had 100% control of the situation and elected to participate in the activity. This is simple caprice.

The right to live is basic and fundamental vs. the right to caprice which is not.

The mothers right to live could be argued as a greater right but her right to caprice is not a greater right.

@Enigma,

"It has a right to live. It just doesn't have the right to force another to incubate it until it can live on its own."

Over and over, I hear that being pregnant is an unusual time in a woman's life. So I think there is a similar match in the military. Within a military framework your engagement of any 'right' is mitigated by you being in the military (pregnant). You can go AWOL (your choice), but the consequences can mean anything from execution to dishonorable discharge. Abortion is like going AWOL in pregnancy.

If such is the case, the government (by the people and FOR the people) has every right to impose itself on a pregnant woman, just as it forces compliance (through stiff sanctions) its will on military personnel. The government is merely insisting that a person live-up to their obligations. In pregnancy women incurred obligation to her offspring (whether wanted or not) as a natural consequence of her own activity.

The reason a right to abortion is bad law is that an escape-from-obligation (legalized AWOL) is formulated.

“Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.” (Isaiah 59:7)

Erin,

Just as they change when you add time...but their essence remains the same.

H2O is water whether it is steam, liquid or ice.

A fetus is a full fledged human being whether it is 6 weeks in utero the same as a human being 15 years after birth.

The essence, what it is, does not change.

Enigma,

I didn't answer because I can't give you a set number. Different kinds of cookies take different amounts of time to become cookies.

Chocolate chip. 10 minutes. where in that ten minutes does it cease to be dough and become a cookie? And 10 minutes is not an answer because Doug wants his at 8 minutes and I want mine at 11.

Oh, but that gets into an entirely different realm of philosophy, mk, and has nothing to do with provable scientific fact.

Just as they change when you add time...but their essence remains the same.

Exactly, Marykay...and likewise, you and I are changing every day...but I don't think I was any less a full fledged human when I was a child than I am now. I don't think as a newborn that I was less human because I hadn't "changed" more. Because we are CONSTANTLY changing as human beings. That's a part of life! There is no set point where one changes from a potential human to an actual human. They're human from the beginning, "changes" happen from the moment of conception until the moment of death.

If we went by these pro-choice definitions of life, no one would be qualified to have "actual human life". Not a single person.

Hippie,

"A baby doesn´t force one to incubate it, rather it is invited."

A fetus is only 'invited' to reside in a woman's womb if the womb has engaged in sex with the intent of becoming pregnant.

The only one that a woman has invited inside her body when she engages in sex is the man that she is involved with.

"The incubation arrangement was begun with the full knowledge and cooperation of the one who began it."

Completely untrue. One can become pregnant without knowing that one is pregnant. Realizing that sex can result in pregnancy does not mean that the woman has consented to pregnancy or that she has agreed to cooperate and let the fetus 'borrow' her womb.

"The one who began it had 100% control of the situation and elected to participate in the activity."

She had control in whether or not she had sex. That does not mean that she willing agreed to become pregnant.

"The right to live is basic and fundamental vs. the right to caprice which is not."

No, it's the right to life versus the right of one to control one's own body. The right to life looses in this case because the right to life gives no one else any obligation to sustain such life without consent.

Enigma,

If you put all the ingredients in a bowl, mix them and then stuff them into a turkey, place them in a hot oven and wait, are you not consenting to making turkey stuffing.

It's ludicrous to say that you bought the ingredients, (brought a man to your bed), mixed the ingredients (had sex), stuffed the turkey and put it in the oven (you become pregnant) and then claim that you agreed to buy the ingredients and mix them but never agreed to make stuffing...it's nuts. And it's denial, and it's not the Truth.

John,

"Over and over, I hear that being pregnant is an unusual time in a woman's life. So I think there is a similar match in the military."

There is a fundamental difference. Except for the draft, we have a volunteer army. That means that people decided that they wanted to join the army. If a woman becomes pregnant unintentionally, she didn't decide or agree with anything.

"Within a military framework your engagement of any 'right' is mitigated by you being in the military (pregnant)."

One was choice. One was not.

"Abortion is like going AWOL in pregnancy."

Absolutely not. Going AWOL indicates that one has an obligation not to go AWOL. Since obligation can only be assumed through consent, the woman has no obligation to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

"If such is the case, the government (by the people and FOR the people) has every right to impose itself on a pregnant woman, just as it forces compliance (through stiff sanctions) its will on military personnel."

Nope, sorry. I can't see the government making it's employees do what it wants when they agreed to such an arrangement as comparable with a government forcing a woman who is not a governmental employee and never agreed to such an arrangement to do whatever it wishes.

"The government is merely insisting that a person live-up to their obligations."

And since a woman who has not consented to pregnancy has no obligation to continue that pregnancy, I fail to see your point.

Erin,

Oh, but that gets into an entirely different realm of philosophy, mk, and has nothing to do with provable scientific fact.

What does? Pinpointing the exact moment that the cookie dough becomes cookies?

That is exactly the point Erin. That is not another realm, it is THE realm.

It is a baby from the moment of conception, just as the cookies are cookies from the moment that you mix the ingredients together and put them in the oven...There is no magical moment. That's the point.

"Abortion is like going AWOL in pregnancy."

Thank you very much, John McD.

Enigma,

Absolutely not. Going AWOL indicates that one has an obligation not to go AWOL. Since obligation can only be assumed through consent, the woman has no obligation to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

He can be drafted. And then he didn't choose the military. And he can still go AWOL. And he will be punished if he does.

Similarly, the government cannot force a woman to remain pregnant, but they can make it illegal to end the pregnancy. Women have and would continue to illegally end the pregnancy just as a draftee could move to Canada.

Making abortion illegal will not force a woman to remain pregnant. It will just remove a legal means of ending the pregnancy. She still has a choice. Continue it, or end it illegally. Perhaps she won't like either choice, but it is a CHOICE nonetheless.

MK,

"Chocolate chip. 10 minutes. where in that ten minutes does it cease to be dough and become a cookie? And 10 minutes is not an answer because Doug wants his at 8 minutes and I want mine at 11."

Funny. I've made chocolate chip cookies in six minutes. I think. Oh well, maybe I'm remembering wrong.

With cookies there is no magic number. It depends on the type of cookie, the amount of dough, and the preferences of the chef.

But that's the great thing about pregnancy. There is a magic moment when the "cookie" bursts into being. It's called birth.

Enigma,

That would be akin to saying the magic moment when the cookies become cookies is when you take them out of the oven.

And I have given you a 10 minute recommended cooking time. So when does this "moment" occur.

I realize that I want my more well done than Doug.
Does that mean they are cookies when Doug says so?
Or when the 10 minutes are up and Doug is still eating cookie dough?

MK,

"It's ludicrous to say that you bought the ingredients, (brought a man to your bed), mixed the ingredients (had sex), stuffed the turkey and put it in the oven (you become pregnant) and then claim that you agreed to buy the ingredients and mix them but never agreed to make stuffing...it's nuts."

There's a big flaw in your argument. "Mixing the ingredients" doesn't always produce a z/f/e. Actually most of the time sex doesn't result in anything. Woman are only fertile for about four days out of a twenty-eight day cycle. So why the heck has she consented to "making cookies" when the majority of the time there's no way that she could?

"And it's denial, and it's not the Truth."

I'm not in denial. Not about this. Truth is subjective so any arguments about absolute truth hold no weight with me.
Posted by: mk at September 30, 2007 8:50 PM

Now I simply must run.

Enigma,

And the at magic moment when a baby becomes a baby by taking a breath? Doesn't work. That baby could have taken a breath 6 weeks before it did. Does that mean six weeks before it took it's breath it wasn't a baby, even though it could have taken a breath and survived? That's illogical.

You are right tho. There is a magic moment when it comes to babies. And it's called conception.

Enigma,

Now I simply must run.

Run scared? or actually have to do something else?

Enigma,

Truth is subjective

Realllly?....interesting way to live your life.

I realize that I want my more well done than Doug.
Does that mean they are cookies when Doug says so?
Or when the 10 minutes are up and Doug is still eating cookie dough?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, Bad Food Analogy Time!

You get your kids a bucket of chicken at KFC.
When you get home, you realize that the bucket is full of raw, fertilized chicken eggs.
When you tell your kids that it's just the same thing, how many are gonna buy it?

Laura,

While the raw egg thing is just silly, I gotta admit that after all this cooking and baking I've been doing, just grabbin' a bucket of chicken sounds really nice! Are you a dark meat or a white meat kind of gal?

Are you a dark meat or a white meat kind of gal?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dark chicken thigh/leg meat from the local carnicerina. It's .77 cents a pound - cheaper if you pay in pesos.

(I always have a bad feeling it's made from last nights' losers.)

I used to buy a lot of Foster Farms chicken breasts, but if you've even gone a lot of low-carb/glycemic index diets, you know that after a while they all begin to taste like wet sawdust...

Are you a dark meat or a white meat kind of gal?

Posted by: mk at September 30, 2007 9:17 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic.

My entire family is made up of blue-eyed blondes and redheads, and as a result, all of the man-meat is Hispanic and Italian.
(Opposites DO attract!)

Enigma: "But that's the great thing about pregnancy. There is a magic moment when the "cookie" bursts into being. It's called birth."

That's amazing Enigma, how all that happens at once, one minute there's nothing there, then poof, you have a baby! I don't why all these people have ultra-sounds, etc. before birth, I mean, what the heck could they be looking at, what a waste of time.

Laura,
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. And lol about the low carb chicken breast thing. Yuck!

Also lol about the "dark" meat men! Too funny.

Erin proclaims: Things change when you add heat.

You're doggone right. Let's say you have a glass of milk. Okay, just a glass of milk.

Then, you add an equal amount of habañero peppers to it.

Oh geez - you made a big mess. You were supposed to put it all in a bigger glass.

Anyway, now go ahead and drink that sucker.

Not the same, is it?

Doug

Doug, that would be adding something to the milk, and it wouldn't be milk anymore. That is analagous to conception (adding sperm to the egg and it becomes something quite different), not the growth and development of an unborn child. Nothing is added to the unborn child after conception.

Unless you were perhaps trying to make a different point? That was a perfect pro-life analogy...

My entire family is made up of blue-eyed blondes and redheads, and as a result, all of the man-meat is Hispanic and Italian.
(Opposites DO attract!)

LOL

Nothing is added to the unborn child after conception.

Bethany, I really wasn't trying to do anything, except just be my usual zany, madcap self.

Some people add the term "child" to the unborn, but of course it isn't necessarily so.

Doug

you know the woman who has the highest ever clocked BAC while driving had drank 4 bottles of vanilla extract, straight? Isn't that insane?

Erin, those bottles are four ounces each, right? But YUCK - "straight" [shudder]

16 x 35% alcohol only equals 5.6 ounces of alcohol, so she must have been into the run cake beforehand or something.

Chocolate chip. 10 minutes. where in that ten minutes does it cease to be dough and become a cookie? And 10 minutes is not an answer because Doug wants his at 8 minutes and I want mine at 11.

MK, it's not a cake until it's baked.

Bethany, I really wasn't trying to do anything, except just be my usual zany, madcap self.

I had a feeling that's what you were doing...you just gave me such a great opportunity, I couldn't let it go. lol

Abortion is like going AWOL in pregnancy.

John, I have to laugh - you know I disagree, and I don't think there is any "obligation" to continue a pregnancy - but I like a lot of the things you say.

Doug

Doug,

You're a flake today! lol

We aren't talking about cakes or jalepeno peppers!

Cookies and turkey stuffing, man.

Cookies and turkey stuffing.

Focus.

All this talk of cookies has made me hungry.

'tis a shame I have to dash to class. :(

Hey Doug,

I'd hoped that the AWOL concept would resonate much more so with American culture than it would with mine. Enigma's point about volunteering vs draft does not make much difference once in the military. The obligation not-to-go-AWOL persists every time no matter the status of enlisting. The downfall may be different in a theater-of-war than if no war was active. However, the disposition against AWOL, makes it akin to treason or desertion.

In a sense murder is a form of treason against another human being.

It seems that there is a marked tendency to shun obligation as if this curtailed freedom. If this is the case, then the more obliged = the less free. Then how is it that the framers of the US-constitution placed such a high value on freedom? Were they without obligation/responsibility?

Could it be wrong to perceive that assuming obligation/responsibility actually enhances freedom - not just of the one who partakes but so also those who assist this effort? Abortion is a copping-out (a shirking) of obligation AND OF FREEDOM. Abortion does not build anything!

MK,

"Run scared? or actually have to do something else?"

I had something else to do. I don't run scared from debates.

"Realllly?....interesting way to live your life."

The problem with assuming that there is an objective truth is simple. How do you decide which interpretation of the truth is the objective one?

"You're right about pregnancy tho, there is a magic moment. It's called conception."

Let's go back to the cookie analysis. Using your logic, cookies come into being as soon as you mix all of the ingredients. Potential equals actualization. So why isn't a child an adult? A child has all of the "ingredients" necessary to be an adult? So why isn't it one?

Jasper,

"That's amazing Enigma, how all that happens at once, one minute there's nothing there, then poof, you have a baby!"

Saying that a fetus is not a baby is not the same as arguing that there is nothing before a baby bursts into being. That's like saying that, when a student writes a term paper, she isn't working on anything until suddenly the finished paper just appears before her.

John,

"I'd hoped that the AWOL concept would resonate much more so with American culture than it would with mine. Enigma's point about volunteering vs draft does not make much difference once in the military. The obligation not-to-go-AWOL persists every time no matter the status of enlisting."

True. My point is that those who have not been drafted have consented to that obligation.

"In a sense murder is a form of treason against another human being."

Absolutely false. To be guilty of treason, one has to betray something. In order to betray something, one has to have obligations to maintain/protect that something in the first place. If no obligation exists, no treason has been committed.

"It seems that there is a marked tendency to shun obligation as if this curtailed freedom. If this is the case, then the more obliged = the less free. Then how is it that the framers of the US-constitution placed such a high value on freedom? Were they without obligation/responsibility?"

There is nothing wrong with obligation and responsibility as long as one has consented to them. If such consent does not exist, then they are indeed only a hindrance. If they are embraced, it is possible that they can enhance one's freedom.

"Could it be wrong to perceive that assuming obligation/responsibility actually enhances freedom - not just of the one who partakes but so also those who assist this effort?"

Nope. See above answer. Consent in paramount.

"Abortion is a copping-out (a shirking) of obligation AND OF FREEDOM."

Abortion is not a shirking of obligation because a woman has no obligation to the fetus. It is not a shirking of freedom because there is not freedom unless there is consent.

"Abortion does not build anything!"

This statement is meaningless. Responsibility and obligation do not mean that something has to build something. Building something is also not a requirement of a worthwhile activity. There are plenty of things in society that people do that don't build anything. Does that mean that I should be outlawed from reading a book because I'm not producing anything when I read?

@Enigma,

you sure do have a myopic concept of what it means to build ... how about building self esteem; or, building-a-nation; or building friendship ... etc, etc?

As an American did you consent to your freedoms; or, do naturallized citizens come to the US BECAUSE OF ITS FREEDOMS. I do not recall any right-to-consent in the US-constitution. Consent embraces sentience ... so people who are not intellectually gifted enough to speak do not have freedoms as rights ... how about people with Alzheimer disease; or, people with strokes; or, a brain-damaged person ... have their rights fled because consent is questionable? A person gets a driver's license @16 yrs because he is considered mature-in-consent then. [And the age-of-consent is ????] What about before this age ....

There are so many flaws in a decision-by-consent basis ... it ain't even funny? One sign of maturity for humans is acceptance of obligation. For a few, that will mean forfeiting his/her own life (as in the military). It really would be a stretch to say that these people consented to their death.

The little aside that I put in about helpers ... you have your freedoms to mouth-off-stupidly BECAUSE some soldier died for you to have that right. And he did not die for the American government; nor for an American code ... but for YOU ... to embrace LIFE and not slither away from it!!!!!!! End of rant!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO JOHN!!!!! Bravo!