wow. didn't expect that.

The only one's who lost here are the women that will be scarred for life, and the babies that will lack one. I can only hope that God is using the opening of the Aurora mill to bring upon something bigger to close them all! I know what I wanted, but God's plan is always better! In HIM, I put my trust!!!!

Now the question is will citizens sue the City or PP? I think that's likely the next step.

Jill did anyone respond to your request for people or businesses that are within 250 feet of the building?

I'd never buy a house there considering my personal views but even if I was neutral or Pro I wouldn't want to live there. I grew up in Aurora, not far from the site. It's back a bit from the street and has some screening from the homes but you can see it. The Oakhurst subdivisions around there are nice and this has got to be a problem for some of the owners.

I'm considering buying a house in Aurora, it will be way easier for me to go picket and pray.

I stand corrected! LOL

When is the mayor up for re-election? (Not that he'll get my vote or anything)

Finally. That decision was long overdue.

I am so sad right now I could cry. I think I will.

Carrie,
I'm crying with you!

Finally! Now the women of Aurora can get the health care they need.

Kristen, yes.

Rosie, Weisner was just reelected in April 2005 in what was considered the "hottest contested race" of the Chicago suburbs according to Andy Shaw at ABC 7 [HT: MK]. I'm guessing his term is 4 years?

C'mon, girls, buck up. It ain't over. The Lord knows.

Unbelievable!!!!! Who is this mayor in cahoots (sp?. How much money is he pocketing on the side??? Sounds like dirty politics to me. How insane! I don't know much about a mayors authority, but it clearly seems to me he is not representing the citizens of Aurora at all. I'm glad to know some of the city council members are tring to appeal to get a discussion on their upcoming agenda. Is impeachment a possibility.

I think he's up for re-election in 2 years. I don't think he will even run again with all the money issues going on with him and now this. He's got to know he'll never win re-election and will probably prefer to say he's not running then getting beat in a landslide. (I'm probably giving his common sense too much credit.)

I forget the name of the blog. Something like openblogonline...it has all the details. The comments are biased one way or the other but the reporting is pretty straight. A lot of the city employees read it (my mom works at the city.) She can't stand the mayor (a common feeling.)There are a lot of things I'd like to say about what is going on at City Hall but I don't want her job to be in jeopardy.

John,

"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?"

Not every activity succeeds in building anything. And, if you want to get technical, abortion serves a legitimate purpose. It is a woman exercising her natural right to control her body.

"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."

Technically, I did consent to my freedoms as did every citizen. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of tacit consent.

Do you recall the bill of rights? Reread the ninth and tenth amendments. I think it might clear a few things up for you.

"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?"

Generally, some sort of guardian steps in and looks out for them. Their rights have not been negated simply because they themselves cannot consent. I would like to add that guardians, in this case, have consented to their responsibilities.

"There are so many flaws in a decision-by-consent basis ... it ain't even funny?"

I never argued for a decision-consent link. I argued that obligation could only be assumed through consent. There's a big difference.

"One sign of maturity for humans is acceptance of obligation."

I never disputed this. That does not mean that they should be forced to accept obligation against their will.

"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."

I never made anything close to this argument.

"you have your freedoms to mouth-off-stupidly BECAUSE some soldier died for you to have that right."

For starters, I don't mouth-off-stupidly. Just because you don't agree with my opinions doesn't mean that they're wrong, stupid, or badly expressed. Generally I try to be respectful in my comments, which is more than I can say for you.

"And he did not die for the American government; nor for an American code ... but for YOU"

No, he died for the whole country. There's a difference.

" ... to embrace LIFE and not slither away from it!!!!!!! End of rant!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

And how do you know that I don't embrace life? You don't know a single thing about me. There's no possible way that you could judge my life and come up with anything even resembling a legitimate conclusion.

Oops...I forgot to sign that. My bad.

OK,
Sorry for the above typos. Too many to list. I should learn not to talk on the phone while trying to make a point. Sorry:(

I think I'll get mad nstead of sad. I'm going to be even more determined in my efforts as a prolifer!!!!!!!

If they do open tomorrow, it will be much less likely that they would ever be ordered to close. The status quo and all that.

Following up on Sandy's post, I wonder what the good people or Aurora would do it it was put to a vote? (not that I would advocate making a permitting decision something people could vote on.)

Believe me; Tom's been around for a VERY long time. He was Mayor Pierce's right hand man but Weisner bad mouthed him every chance he got. He had the office in his mind long ago and did everything he could to obtain it.

He's as dirty as they come. He's in "cahoots" with every bad politician and business around. For him it's never been about representing the people of Aurora, just his own interests.

See why they made it hard to prove libel cases against public figures? How'd you like to defend this in court?

"He's as dirty as they come. He's in "cahoots" with every bad politician and business around. For him it's never been about representing the people of Aurora, just his own interests."

Agreed Hal. Maybe the one difference between what I said about Weisner and what Steve Trombley said about the PL's is that I worked with Weisner in the past, my mom works with him now, and I have details of things he has done. Steve has none of that background or evidence.

Well, unless you count the 20 year old picture of the bombed abortion clinic...

Which neither the Pro-Life Action League, the Scheidlers nor anyone associated with them had anything to do with.

Liz,

Yes, a relief indeed! Up until now no woman in Aurora had brains enough to know her health needs or to seek out health care, much less figure out for herself where to go get it. Now, what about the men of Aurora? Are they as dimwitted as the women? Will a "health clinic" be built to accomodate them as well? I mean fair is fair. Either men are viewed as more intelligent and resourceful when it comes to their own health needs, or no one gives a damn about their health needs. Which is it Liz?

You guys are bummin' me out.

You need chocolate.

...And I don't mean the chocolate-flavored swill you get when depression or stress makes me mow through a box of those hideous "Littl Debbie" ding-dong things. You need the mighty theobromines found in Dove singles and anything Ghirardelli. Perhaps mocha or hot chocolate made with real cocoa.
Yup, theobromines, caffeine and sugar.
Get on it. It's cheaper than crack, and you have WAY fewer aneurysms and heart arrythmias!

Liz, You wrote "Finally! Now the women of Aurora can get the health care they need."

Actually are you sure you don't mean, "Now the underage girls in Iowa can get abortions without notifying their parents" and "Now Aurora pedophiles will have a place to get rid of evidence if they happen to get one of their victims pregnant"? I ask because your statement made no sense whatsoever.

Joe

Not too long ago, there was an interview dated from circa 1998 with a former abortion clinic chain owner who gave it all up because he found a conciousness about what he was really doing.

He stated in the interview that every city and town should pass an ordinance to ban abortion clinics from being built in their cities. It is a sure fire way of keeping them out. This does sound like a monumental undertaking, but one very worthwhile as we now see what PP has done to Aurora, Denver and every other city on their hit list.

"Now Aurora pedophiles will have a place to get rid of evidence if they happen to get one of their victims pregnant"?
Joe

Posted by: Joe K. at October 1, 2007 5:49 PM

That point interested me Joe so I looked up the sex offender list for Kane, DuPage, Will and Kendall Counties. The counties PP said they were serving. Kane - 370 sex offenders, DuPage - 298, Will - 370, and Kendall - 56. Maybe PP looked at that site too, when they were trying to determine the best place to build.

just in case anyone cares, I just wrote some new comments in "Denver Planned Parenthood security guard pulls double duty at pro-life protest"

I am sorry this has come to pass. I will pray for the clinic to stay closed. I am sooooo impressed with you americanos! You fight to the death for something you believe in. Not so here in Canada. We died a long time ago! Please pray for my country too.

@Enigma,

I'm gonna try this your style ..........
"Not every activity succeeds in building anything. And, if you want to get technical, abortion serves a legitimate purpose. It is a woman exercising her natural right to control her body."
Many politicians here say they want changes ... to which I wonder if they mean constructive or destructive. Your right about every activity does not build, but I never talked about every activity but supporting those that are constructive ... abortion serves a legal purpose ... how legitimate that purpose is is questionable. Before you get in a tithey about legal vs legitimate ... both pertain to law, but legitimate is a moral stance of law.

I could spend hours recanting the 'woman's decision' from it being much less than free ... often coerced. From being a decision left to a minor (with no parental input, for under-aged girls) ... to wanting a full-term baby dead, rather than have him/her adopted.

"Generally, some sort of guardian steps in and looks out for them. Their rights have not been negated simply because they themselves cannot consent"
Perhaps because you haven't been here that long ... I am Canadian and I am severally disabled, so I am one of 'them' ... so your concept of guardianship seems to let-you-off-the-hook, it still doesn't answer whether or not non-sentient human beings have rights and that these are acknowledged by you whether a guardian is in place or not.

"I never argued for a decision-consent link. I argued that obligation could only be assumed through consent. There's a big difference."

In a previous post I had talked of the military as being a 'special' aspect of life. And I made a allegory between the military and pregnancy. Like rights are mitigated by being in the military ... rights are presumed to be mitigated and one of these is consent ... to early rising, to push-up, eating rations ... on and on. And once you are in (whether willingly or not) ... consent just does not matter.

In pregnancy rights are mitigated by the circumstance of pregnancy itself and has little or nothing to do with consent. [She can change-her-mind.] To put it your way, the mother is guardian of her offspring. Choosing abortion is a betrayal of the 'guardianship role'. Her role is an obligation of pregnancy.

Through a technical proficiency abortions CAN now be done with medical expertise, but that does not answer whether abortions SHOULD be done.

On the 6PM News on Channel 7 they just reported Planned Parenthood Aurora will be opening Tuesday morning.

I am planning on being there Tuesday morning to protest the opening. I would encourage others to be there also!

Mike

Good for you Mike.

Mike,

Eric Scheidler is calling for everyone to go to the Prayer Vigil on the sidewalk in Aurora tonight at 8:30 pm to pray.

The vigil scheduled for Tuesday morning at City Hall has been cancelled. But there are always people at the Prayer Vigil at PP, 24/7.

If you are in Chicago, join the prayer vigil at the PP on LaSalle and Division this evening - at anytime.

http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/

Check out this site if you can. Joan Appleton’s story is very good, especially the section titled “Birth Control Pills and Abortion.”

O LORD, thou God of vengeance, thou God of vengeance, shine forth!

Rise up, O judge of the earth; render to the proud their deserts!

O LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked exult?

They pour out their arrogant words, they boast, all the evildoers.

They crush thy people, O LORD, and afflict thy heritage.

They slay the widow and the sojourner, and murder the fatherless; and they say,

"The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive."

Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?

He who planted the ear, does he not hear?

He who formed the eye, does he not see?

He who chastens the nations, does he not chastise?

He who teaches men knowledge, the LORD, knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.

Blessed is the man whom thou dost chasten, O LORD, and whom thou dost teach out of thy law

to give him respite from days of trouble, until a pit is dug for the wicked.

For the LORD will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage;

For justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it.

Who rises up for me against the wicked? Who stands up for me against evil-doers?

If the LORD had not been my help, my soul would soon have dwelt in the land of silence.

When I thought, "My foot slips," thy steadfast love, O LORD, held me up.

When the cares of my heart are many, thy consolations cheer my soul.

Can wicked rulers be allied with thee, who frame mischief by statute?

They band together against the life of the righteous, and condemn the innocent to death.

But the LORD has become my stronghold, and my God the rock of my refuge.

He will bring back on them their iniquity and wipe them out for their wickedness; the LORD our God will wipe them out.

Psalm 94 (93) (RSV)

Laura,
You guys are bummin' me out.
*
You need chocolate.
*
...And I don't mean the chocolate-flavored swill you get when depression or stress makes me mow through a box of those hideous "Littl Debbie" ding-dong things. You need the mighty theobromines found in Dove singles and anything Ghirardelli. Perhaps mocha or hot chocolate made with real cocoa.
Yup, theobromines, caffeine and sugar.
Get on it. It's cheaper than crack, and you have WAY fewer aneurysms and heart arrythmias!

Be careful, we might actually start thinking you care about us. I'm awfully impressed. This would be a perfect opportunity for you to gloat, and instead you turn around and act compassionate...I'm so confused. And I think I might just go get me some of that chocolate...

Thanks Laura, your suggestions are sounding pretty good right now! Probably better than my usual Pringles bender that I go on when I am upset.

John,

"Many politicians here say they want changes ... to which I wonder if they mean constructive or destructive. Your right about every activity does not build, but I never talked about every activity but supporting those that are constructive ..."

And what makes you think that your defintion of a constructive activity is everyone's definition of a constructive activity?

"Before you get in a tithey about legal vs legitimate ... both pertain to law, but legitimate is a moral stance of law."

Which means that we disagree about the legitimacy of abortion because we disagree about morality.

"I could spend hours recanting the 'woman's decision' from it being much less than free ... often coerced."

I'm simply puzzled by your logic here. You seem to be arguing that since some women may be coerced into having an abotion, all abortions result from coercion and none of them could result from a woman's uncoerced choice.

"Perhaps because you haven't been here that long ... I am Canadian and I am severally disabled, so I am one of 'them' ... so your concept of guardianship seems to let-you-off-the-hook, it still doesn't answer whether or not non-sentient human beings have rights and that these are acknowledged by you whether a guardian is in place or not."

Brain dead individuals do not have rights.

Non-sentient humans still have rights. But these rights do not include being able to impose upon another's body without that other's consent.

"In a previous post I had talked of the military as being a 'special' aspect of life."

That one has either actively or tacitly consented to.

"And I made a allegory between the military and pregnancy. Like rights are mitigated by being in the military ... rights are presumed to be mitigated and one of these is consent"

False. Obligation can only be assumed through consent. If a woman never consented, she has no obligation.

"And once you are in (whether willingly or not) ... consent just does not matter."

In the military. Not in pregnancy.

"In pregnancy rights are mitigated by the circumstance of pregnancy itself and has little or nothing to do with consent."

False. If she never consented to those circumstances, she has every right to alter them.

"To put it your way, the mother is guardian of her offspring."

There is a difference between social and physical dependance. One can be legislated. The other cannot.

"Choosing abortion is a betrayal of the 'guardianship role'. Her role is an obligation of pregnancy."

She has only assumed a guardianship role if she has consented to having a child. Otherwise, she has not consented and thus has no obligation.

Better than chocolate is G K Chesterton:

"It is terrible to contemplete how few politicians are hanged." - The Cleveland Press, 3/1/21

# "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." - ILN, 10/23/09

# "It's not that we don't have enough scoundrels to curse; it's that we don't have enough good men to curse them." - ILN, 3/14/08

# "All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." - The Thing. CW. III 191

# "Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities." - What's Wrong With the World

And finally:

"In the struggle for existence, it is only on those who hang on for ten minutes after all is hopeless, that hope begins to dawn." - The Speaker 2-2-01

"To put it your way, the mother is guardian of her offspring."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unless she loses custody to Kevin Federline.

Hey all,

It is so sad when you have to face the corruption in your midst.
But hey, what could be more corrupt than abortion?
I didn't know that issuing occupancy permits was the mayor's job. I thought there was some dept. that does that, but if no one else would...

Even in the US there is plenty of contempt for democracy.

It really tears at your heart when you feel compassion for those that much of society rejects and deems worthless.

It is kind of like the day after the Dred Scott case, sometime back in the 1850s. Just as the abolitionists were disappointed, we are as well because we still wait for justice. Even so we are still actively pursuing that justice. The abolitionists lost one that day but they didn't quit. You are never beat until you quit.

We continue because we know those waiting for justice have no one else to defend them.

I forget who said this, maybe a sports star but I like it.

Never, never, never quit.

Thanks, hippie.

Laura,

Unless she loses custody to Kevin Federline.

I heard that. I wonder if it isn't a case of trading a crazy person for a nutcase...those poor kids!

Enigma,

Is that consent argument back?

Neither nature nor law cares about consent in a great many cases.

If a woman has a baby and puts it in the trash, she is guilty of a crime even if she says she didn´t consent to the sex, pregnancy or birth.

I heard that. I wonder if it isn't a case of trading a crazy person for a nutcase...those poor kids!

Posted by: mk at October 1, 2007 8:40 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you have any idea how hard it is for an affluent white women to lose custody of her children in this country?
Giving the judge who issued you a second chance a very public, in-your-face "FU" is never a good idea...

You need the mighty theobromines found in Dove singles and anything Ghirardelli. Perhaps mocha or hot chocolate made with real cocoa. Yup, theobromines, caffeine and sugar.

Ha! Rock on, Laura! "Mighty theobromines" = awesome.

Doug

Laura,

I just saw a people mag. article on michael jackson and his kids...wearing the veils over their heads.

Who are these creatures and what have the aliens done with their bodies?

Ha! Rock on, Laura! "Mighty theobromines" = awesome.

Doug
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you.
I've always been a "better living through chemistry" kind of girl...

I forget who said this, maybe a sports star but I like it.

Never, never, never quit.

Hippie, was that Hall-of-Famer Ernie Nevers? Stanford, then the Duluth Eskimos and later the Chicago Cardinals in pro football. Scored a record 40 points in one game against the Bears. Inducted 1963.

Okay, just kidding - it was actually the eminently quotable Winston Churchill. Some other good ones:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

"When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened."

And a funny one, though it's not original (it appeared in the Chicago Tribune in 1900 as a joke line):

Lady Astor: "If I were married to you, I'd put poison in your coffee."

Winston Churchill: "If I were married to you, I'd drink it."

MK, Michael Jackson represents one of the strangest cases on record, a black man that changed into a white woman.

Hey,

I got to thinking and googled that quote.

"Never, never, never quit"

It was Winston Churchill.

Hippie,

"Is that consent argument back?"

It never left.

"Neither nature nor law cares about consent in a great many cases."

True. But that doesn't mean that when we can have a say we should be forced to let nature have its way.

"If a woman has a baby and puts it in the trash, she is guilty of a crime even if she says she didn´t consent to the sex, pregnancy or birth."

A competely different scenario. After a baby is born, it is a seperate individual that deserves to have full human rights. She does not have the right to kill it because it is not harming or imposing on her physically. It can live without her.

This scenario is in no way analagous to abortion.

Doug,

You quoted,

Lady Astor: "If I were married to you, I'd put poison in your coffee."

Winston Churchill: "If I were married to you, I'd drink it."

Posted by: Doug at October 1, 2007 9:03 PM

That is my all time favorite Churchill quote, but I heard it with tea.

@Enigma,

many people here claim to be PC vs pro-abortion. And you have said "If she never consented to those circumstances, she has every right to alter them." I'm wondering if you think it is OK to have 'designer babies'? Could a woman sue her IVF-doctor, if her baby was not to her specs?

Enigma,

You wrote,

"This scenario is in no way analagous to abortion."

Posted by: Enigma at October 1, 2007 9:06 PM

Of course it is analogous. I am making the point that consent is not necessary for obligation. With or without consent, she is obligated to reasonably protect the child until she can surrender her safely.

If you see your best friend murder your worst enemy and you are called as a witness you must report it even though you didn't consent to see it and you are glad he is dead. Stuff happens and sometimes you are obligated against your will.

It is called civilization, not survival of the fittest.

Signing off,

later everybody.

John,

"many people here claim to be PC vs pro-abortion."

I don't claim to be either. I'm pro-abortion rights.

Being pro-abortion rights does not make one "pro-choice" anymore than being against abortion rights makes one "pro-life."

"I'm wondering if you think it is OK to have 'designer babies'?"

Ethically, I shy away from that.

"Could a woman sue her IVF-doctor, if her baby was not to her specs?"

Considering the amount of forms she'd have to sign stating that the resulting child might not fit the specifications perfectly, I'd say she wouldn't have much of a case.

Doug,

I think poor Michael Jackson is a man who can't decide what color or gender he is.

All the food talk got to me.

I had to run out and buy dark chocolate and stuffed green olives.

The blog is openlineblog.

I'm trying to track down campaign money, but I'm limited to the internet.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Barack Obama was the only nationally recognized politician to get involved, signing PP's press release...AND he's the one who helped Weisner get elected. Obama also freqently appears at PP sponsored events. I don't know what their exact connection is.

So far all I've found is some minor PP donations to Obama. I'm still a little unsure what exactly I'm looking for.

I know Obama and Weisner are in cahoots re: Dan Shomon and his $84,000 lobbying position which has caused scandal in the mayors office.

Hippie,

"With or without consent, she is obligated to reasonably protect the child until she can surrender her safely."

Not necessarily. One could make the argument that by having the baby in the first place (instead of aborting), the woman has tacitly consented to ensure the safety of that child until such a time when she is no longer responsible for it.

"If you see your best friend murder your worst enemy and you are called as a witness you must report it even though you didn't consent to see it and you are glad he is dead. Stuff happens and sometimes you are obligated against your will."

You don't have to give consent to things to see them. Seeing things is not like pregnancy.

In any case, one could additionally argue that one has consented to testify against one's friend. If one lives and functions within the system, one has tacitly consented to the rules of the system.

"It is called civilization, not survival of the fittest."

And what makes you think that they're so different?

@Enigma,

just curious about what abortion rights mean for you. Does viability count? Does rights for a baby exist post viability or post-birth? Can a woman (bent on killing her 3rd trimester child instead of adopting the child) be forced to have a C-section delivery? Why or why not?

Enigma,

If one lives and functions within the system, one has tacitly consented to the rules of the system.

Then why is it that when we say we want to make abortion illegal, you call foul and say that we have no right to force you to gestate?

Wouldn't you still have a choice, just as the "witness" to murder "consents" to testify. If he is not being forced to comply with the law, why would you consider a pregnant woman to be forced to comply with the law? Wouldn't she too, just be "consenting" to follow it?

Enigma,

And what makes you think that they're so different?

To live by a moral standard is to be human. To embrace the things that separate you from beasts.
To have a conscience. To know right from wrong.

To live by survival of the fittest is to sink to the lowest, most animalistic philosophy possible. It turns me into nothing more than a donkey or a squid.

Personally, I like to reach higher than that. But if you are satisfied with "survival of the fittest", then have at it. I choose to soar.

John,

"Does viability count?"

I believe that a fetus should have no rights prior to viability. After viability, it gets a little trickier. Ideally, I believe that a woman who wants to abort her post-viability fetus should be able to remove the fetus from her womb. I would prefer if this were done in a way that would preserve the life of the fetus but I do not believe that the woman should be forced to act in such a manner.

Enigma,

I do not believe that the woman should be forced to act in such a manner.

Again, I ask you, why would she be being forced. Wouldn't she simply be consenting to live within the laws of the society that she has chosen to live in?

I'll get the rest later. Stuff to do, places to go, people to see.

Enjoy your day.

Enigma,
The whole viability debate is a false argument. The viability of a fetus simply reflects the state of OUR technology, not the status of the child's humanity.

Otherwise, you would be saying that this year, a 22 week gestational aged baby has a right to life - to not be aborted; 15 years ago, that same aged baby would not have a right to life because our technology could not help such a premature infant.

As our laws stand now, a woman can choose to abort, but cannot choose to be induced early (she must have a medical reason determined by an obstetrician).

MK,

"Then why is it that when we say we want to make abortion illegal, you call foul and say that we have no right to force you to gestate?"

Because tacit consent can only be assumed for the existing rules of the system. New rules or changes to the rules that govern the system have to be actively consented to.

"To live by a moral standard is to be human."

I'd be careful with this if I were you. So is someone who lacks sentience inhuman because he/she cannot live by a moral standard?

"To know right from wrong."

Knowing right from wrong is not a uniquely human trait.

"To live by survival of the fittest is to sink to the lowest, most animalistic philosophy possible."

You completely misunderstood my meaning. I was referring to the capitalist system in which we live. The wealth (aka "the fittest") are allowed to thrive while the poor are allowed to die.

@Enigma,

There is something that has puzzled me foe a number of years - please elucidate your thoughts on this. It seems that a pregnant woman, if convicted of a crime, can be 'forced' to have an abortion. Because she is a felon her rights are suspended (especially any consent or viewing her child as either wanted or unwanted). She has no say in the matter. Does the child (even post-viable) yield any right-to-life because of his/her mother's transgressions?

And children very young (victim of statutory rape) can get an abortion without the parents even knowing. Is the teacher not complicit in the crime by abetting the perpetrator?

Milehimama,

"The whole viability debate is a false argument."

That's a matter of opinion.

T"he viability of a fetus simply reflects the state of OUR technology, not the status of the child's humanity."

It's not a child, it's a human fetus. It also cannot possess human life without a brain.

"As our laws stand now, a woman can choose to abort, but cannot choose to be induced early (she must have a medical reason determined by an obstetrician)."

My comments were not based on what exists but on what I would argue in support of.

"It's not a child, it's a human fetus. It also cannot possess human life without a brain."

who the hell do think you are to make a statement like this?

Unborn human phenotypes generally do have brains.

Enigma, is your only answer to my point re: viability, then and now, to quibble over the definition of fetus?

I'm disappointed.

John,

"It seems that a pregnant woman, if convicted of a crime, can be 'forced' to have an abortion. Because she is a felon her rights are suspended (especially any consent or viewing her child as either wanted or unwanted). She has no say in the matter. Does the child (even post-viable) yield any right-to-life because of his/her mother's transgressions?"

In my opinion, no. But his/her mother's decision to have sex in no way obligates her to continue the pregnancy. She has committed no crime. Thus the government cannot seize control of her body.

"And children very young (victim of statutory rape) can get an abortion without the parents even knowing."

I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand, children generally need parental consent for any medical procedure. On the other hand, some kids get kicked out of their parents home when their parents find out that they're pregnant. Some parents could even deny consent and force the child to unwilling carry the pregnancy. That, in my opinion, is an injustice.

"Is the teacher not complicit in the crime by abetting the perpetrator?"

Abortion is hardly aiding and abetting. I would prefer it if all instances of rape were reported. But not all issues are so cut and dry. What if the victim refuses help if the police are notified? Which is more important: punishing the perpetrator or helping the victim?

Jasper,

"who the hell do think you are to make a statement like this?"

And who the hell do you think you are to tell a woman that you know better than she does what is best for her? Where do you get off dictating what women can and cannot do with their bodies?

Milehimama,

What do you want to say? Are you expecting me to roll over and cry uncle?

PS. Whether or not one classifies the f/z/e as a fetus or as an unborn child actually has no effect on my position.

@Milehimama,

"Unborn human phenotypes generally do have brains."
apparently not all born human phenotypes do ... or, at least do not use-their-brains.

Just wondering if you had a response to this:

Otherwise, you would be saying that this year, a 22 week gestational aged baby has a right to life - to not be aborted; 15 years ago, that same aged baby would not have a right to life because our technology could not help such a premature infant.

I'm curious if this is the position you hold. If it is not, then please clarify.

What is a f/z/e?

Milehimama,

f/z/e stands for fetus/zygote/embryo. They use these terms instead of unborn baby, it's an old trick by the pro-death side. The Nazis used a similiar tactic. It makes it easier to justify the killing in their diabolical, sick minds.

Oh, I see.

I guess Enigma is just timeline challenged.

Milehimama,

"Otherwise, you would be saying that this year, a 22 week gestational aged baby has a right to life - to not be aborted; 15 years ago, that same aged baby would not have a right to life because our technology could not help such a premature infant."

A fetus never has the right not to be aborted. A woman has the final say in whether or not she wants to allow a fetus access to her body. I believe that, after viability, a fetus's rights deserve some consideration but that the woman should always have the final say.

"I guess Enigma is just timeline challenged."

Not really. I am fully aware that I put them down in the wrong developmental order. I was in a rush at the time and didn't think that it was worth being late.

Jasper,

"They use these terms instead of unborn baby, it's an old trick by the pro-death side."

Since unborn baby is an oxymoron and there is no pre-death side, I fail to see the point of this statement.

"The Nazis used a similiar tactic. It makes it easier to justify the killing in their diabolical, sick minds."

News flash: the Holocaust was genocide. Abortion is not. Even if one wants to argue that abortion is murder, the "unborn" (to use your terminology) do not constitute a racial, ethnic, or religious group that other people are trying to wipe off the face of the earth.

Call it an unborn child if you prefer. It's incorrect, but go right ahead. My position is completely unaffected.

"A fetus never has the right not to be aborted. A woman has the final say in whether or not she wants to allow a fetus access to her body. I believe that, after viability, a fetus's rights deserve some consideration but that the woman should always have the final say."

I'll clear up enigma's answer; she believes the woman should be able to abort all 9 months of pregnancy.

sick

It's not a child, it's a human fetus. It also cannot possess human life without a brain."

who the hell do think you are to make a statement like this?

Posted by: jasper at October 2, 2007 11:00 AM
.........................
Who the hell do you think that you are? Little mister standing with his mouth hanging open and nothing to say.

Sally,

You're a runner, correct. You ran a marathon correct? With me, being a somewhat overweight, I bet I could kick your butt in the 100 yard dash.

Yeah,
That'll teach her jasper.

::shaking head::

Yeah,
That'll teach her jasper.

::shaking head::

Posted by: Milehimama at October 2, 2007 11:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nah. I like this...
I say we race Sally and Jasper to determine if a fetus is a human being.
Either that, or each side breaks out it's finest fighting emus. (I'll have you know that I'm the Michael Vick of emu fighting...)

Do they throw eggs? Because I would watch a fighting egg throwing emu.

It sounds like a bad video game, actually.

"Yeah,
That'll teach her jasper.

::shaking head::"

I know, pretty silly comment on my part......