Bloody Kansas abortion wars unleash nationwide attack on Planned Parenthood

bloody%20kansas.jpg150 years ago it became known as Bloody Kansas for violence erupting between pro-choice slavery supporters of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and anti-slavery abolitionists.

Now the state known as the abortion capital of the world thanks to infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller is at the center of identical opposing ideologies, erupting in nationwide warfare against the US's largest preborn baby killer, Planned Parenthood.

Columnist Robert Novak reported today....

National anti-abortion leaders Wednesday put finishing touches on a letter to be sent to all members of Congress urging suspension of more than $300 million in federal funding of Planned Parenthood until a massive criminal case brought in Kansas against the abortion rights organization is settled. That launches an attack against the nation's largest purveyor of "reproductive health care" - including abortions.

On Oct. 16, Kansas District Judge James F. Vano in suburban Kansas City reviewed a 107-count grand jury indictment against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Inc. and decided there was probable cause to proceed. Allegations of unlawful late-term abortions and other abortion-connected crimes were brought by Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline, a pro-life hero nationally who is viewed as a fanatic by abortion rights advocates. The prosecution alleges violation of state and federal laws and falsification of documents to justify it.

This opens a new front in the endless abortion wars. The offensive against abortion now takes dead aim at Planned Parenthood and attempts to expand a Kansas criminal prosecution into a nationwide assault....

[A]nti-abortion strategists are aiming at Planned Parenthood and its 860 facilities nationwide. Concerned Women for America and other pro-life organizations signed this week's letter to members of Congress asking for suspension of more than $300 million in federal funding, about one-third of the organization's budget.

While the Democratic-controlled Congress surely will not defund Planned Parenthood, it will be pressed to fulfill its oversight mission with congressional hearings. The socially conservative Family Research Council called Wednesday for a Justice Department investigation. And Republican presidential candidates - who proceed gingerly on abortion -- will be called to combat in this war.

Trigger

Per the Associated Press, October 17:

phill%20-%20abc%20news.jpg

Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline charged the Overland Park, Kan., [Planned Parenthood] clinic with 107 counts, 23 of them felonies. Besides 29 misdemeanor counts of providing unlawful late-term abortions, the clinic is charged with multiple counts of making a false writing, failure to maintain records and failure to determine viability.

Added the Kansas City Star, October 17:

After Kline filed the complaint Wednesday, District Judge James F. Vano found probable cause for the charges, a step that allows the case to proceed. Planned Parenthood is scheduled to appear in court Nov. 16.

The specific charges, according to the Kansas City Star, October 17:

  • 23 felony counts: Submitting false pregnancy termination reports.

  • 26 misdemeanors: Failing to maintain termination reports.

  • 29 misdemeanors: Failing to perform viability tests on fetuses.

  • 29 misdemeanors: Unlawful late-term abortion....

    The 23 felony counts filed Wednesday allege that Planned Parenthood submitted false pregnancy termination reports to a court on Aug. 21 in response to a subpoena. Planned Parenthood said the reports were copies of original reports kept in patient files and sent to the state, the district attorney’s office alleges.

    Twenty-six misdemeanor counts allege that Planned Parenthood failed to maintain termination reports for 26 cases from 2003.

    The clinic also is accused of performing illegal late-term abortions in those same cases and in three others that took place that year, accounting for 29 misdemeanor counts. Those abortions allegedly were done without a finding that they were medically necessary.

    Kline also filed 29 misdemeanor counts accusing Planned Parenthood of failing to perform viability tests on the fetuses.

  • Added ABC News in an otherwise terribly biased story, October 22:

    [W]omen's reproductive rights activists are beginning to wonder whether Kline might deliver a big blow to abortion rights not only in Kansas but across the country.

    Other related outbursts

    ... against LS AG Paul Morrison. The Kansas City Star reported October 22:

    Now that Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline has filed charges against Planned Parenthood, three Johnson County lawmakers want to know why charges weren’t filed earlier. They submitted a letter Monday to Attorney General Paul Morrison asking him to explain why he cleared Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri of any criminal wrongdoing.

    Last week, using the same records available to Morrison, Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline filed charges - 107 counts in all - alleging that Planned Parenthood's Overland Park clinic falsified, forged and failed to maintain records and performed illegal late-term abortions.

    Rep. Ben Hodge, an Overland Park Republican, and Reps. Rob Olson and Mike Kiegerl, both Olathe Republicans, submitted the letter Monday.

    ... against the liberal media. Brent Bozell, president of Media Research Center, wrote yesterday:

    pp2.jpg

    As much as liberals decry major corporations that act as if they're above the law, there's always quiet when the subject is Planned Parenthood, America's No. 1 corporate provider of abortions. During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, reported a tidy profit of $55.8 million — and received a record high in taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

    This is one corporation the media hold in the highest regard.....

    [T]he press studiously avoids scrutiny of its liberal sacred cows — or focuses its guns on that person who would dare to get in their way. They'd lionize a state official attacking crisis-pregnancy centers that try to talk women out of abortions. But investigate the abortion industry, and you're a national disgrace....

    Planned Parenthood is a formidable force in national (and state) politics. One major reason is networks like ABC, news outlets that don't really care whether this corporation plays by the rules, as long as the abortion assembly line keeps running.

    ... against Planned Parenthood of Overland Park (KS) by another route. Reported the Kansas City Star, October 21:

    Organizers of a petition effort seeking a grand jury investigation of Planned Parenthood of Overland Park allege wrongdoing beyond the charges filed last week by District Attorney Phill Kline.

    What's more, they say, the work of a grand jury could have national implications. They contend the Overland Park clinic is breaking the law and what is happening there probably is happening at all Planned Parenthood clinics....

    On Sept. 30, [Troy] Newman announced that Operation Rescue was teaming up with two other groups to start a petition drive to seat a grand jury in Johnson County....

    The petition alleges wrongdoing in other areas. Like Kline, they allege that the clinic is performing illegal abortions and providing false information to government officials. The organizers also allege that the clinic fails to report suspected child abuse, that it participates in the illegal trafficking of fetal tissue, that it fails to comply with parental consent requirements and that it fails to enforce the required 24-hour waiting period.

    Planned Parenthood has not yet recovered from its PR hemorrhage thanks to the ongoing fight against the Aurora Planned Parenthood as well as the revelation this summer that 41-year-old Adam Gault's 15-year-old kidnap victim got an abortion at Planned Parenthood in West Hartford, CT, in May without its apparently notifying authorities of suspected sexual abuse.

    [Photo credits: Bloody Kansas scene, National Constitution Center; Phill Kline, ABC News]


    Comments:

    Good grief, they will label anyone who is against abortion, a PL fanatic. @@

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 8:01 AM


    Explain to me why falisfying records is a felony, while killing 29 viable babies is a misdemeanor...

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 8:12 AM


    Here is a copy of the charges filed:

    http://da.jocogov.org/documents/Planned%20Parenthood%20Complaint.pdf

    Posted by: valerie at October 25, 2007 8:19 AM


    I think something very important to remember about all of this is that this is the very same Planned Parenthood that is fighting being an Ambulatory Surgical Center. They maintain that it would cost them 2 million (or was it 1.5 million, no wait its well over 2 million, no wait it will be 1 million - it depends on what newpaper article you read how much it would cost, even though the newpapers interview the same few people) to make the standards of an ASC. They said this money was ONLY for building updates to meet the standards. Even though the only building standards that are in the Code of Federal Regulations title 42, Public Health, Part 416 Ambulatory Surgical Services only states that the building must meet fire code standards. So, Planned Parenthood doesn't even meet fire code standards? or is it that they don't want to be forced to keep appropriate medical records and have qualified people performing the jobs of their qualifications instead of unqualified people doing something they have no clue about?

    Posted by: valerie at October 25, 2007 8:28 AM


    The TRUTH about PP's operations are coming out of the woodwork.....and they (PP and their allies) don't like it one bit...

    Posted by: RSD at October 25, 2007 8:50 AM



    Pro-choice slavery supporters. How true. People were fully witin their legal rights to make the choice to own a slave, what gave anyone the right to tell them they couldn't? If slavery was against your moral or religous beliefs, no one was forcing you to own a slave were they?
    Imagine the nerve of those abolitionists, feminists, and underground railroad people trying to force their morality on others!

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 9:11 AM


    Imagine the nerve of those abolitionists, feminists, and underground railroad people trying to force their morality on others!

    I love you, Mary!

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 9:15 AM


    To All,

    I will be in Aurora Saturday for the big rally...if any of you are going to be there and would like to connect (I believe Jill will be there too), just email me and we'll pick a rendezvous spot!

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:20 AM


    Wait, I am confused. What does slavery and abortion have to do with eachother?

    MK: I'll be in Sin City USA this weekend (NOLA) haveing a blast!

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 9:21 AM


    Jacquie,

    I posted some more Ron Paul stuff on that post.
    (Keep in mind I'm not supporting him...just not ruling him out)

    I basically knew nothing about him till that post.
    Let me know what you think...I value your opinion.

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:22 AM


    Want to skip the rally and come party with me in New Orleans??

    It'll be fun!!

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 9:23 AM


    Valerie,

    An excellent post. Would any other facility, be it a veterinary clinic, tattoo parlor, or the local restaurant, be able to whine and cry about the costs of meeting state standards? Does the state care if its going to cost or if they consider the standards unreasonable? If you can't meet the standards, you're SOL. Close down until you can.
    As a member of the public, I find it very reassuring that there are standards that must be met and maintained at all times. I personally don't care about the cost or inconvenience to anyone. By the way that applies to me in licensing and recertification costs in order for me to practice.

    About qualified people. They cost money. Tiller has gotten away with uncredentialled people supervising patient care and administering drugs. Isn't there some licensing and regulation board in Kansas? Under any other circumstances this would be unthinkable. Your veterinarian wouldn't get away with this kind of shoddy practice, yet this is an acceptable standard for women?

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 9:24 AM


    Midnite,

    I'm reading a trashy novel about New Orleans as we speak! Have fun, but no thanks. One of the few places in the US I have NO desire to visit...although those cemeteries do fascinate me.
    But I can see awesome cemeteries in South Carolina.

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:25 AM


    Jasper,

    I haven't told you in awhile how impressed I am with your quotes of the day...excellent job!

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:26 AM


    Phill Kline already got himself SERIOUSLY demoted and humiliated.
    He won't quit until he's unemployed and poverty-stricken.

    Obessive-compulsives are SO annoying.

    Posted by: Laura at October 25, 2007 9:26 AM


    Aw, MK you're no fun! The cemeteries in South Carolina do not compare to the ones in New Orleans. I cant believe you've never visited there! It is fascinating with all the history!

    History, casino's, and Bourbon Street, ooooh I am SOOOOO excited!

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 9:28 AM


    Interesting how the ABC story doesn't really discuss the merit or lack of merit of the charges filed.

    The whole thing is a profile of Kline.

    Let's see if they write an article on the actual topic of the charges themselves.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 9:33 AM


    Laura,

    Tell me about this "serious" demotion and how it came about...

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:33 AM


    Aw, MK you're no fun

    AM TOO! Why just yesterday, I cleaned out my closet!

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:34 AM


    "Why just yesterday, I cleaned out my closet!"

    You're too wild for me, MK.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 9:35 AM


    Phill Kline already got himself SERIOUSLY demoted and humiliated.
    He won't quit until he's unemployed and poverty-stricken.

    Obessive-compulsives are SO annoying.

    Posted by: Laura at October 25, 2007 9:26 AM


    Some people just don't follow the crowd.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 9:36 AM


    Yeah, you probably would not have fun in New Orleans, but at least I invited you :-)

    I am still going to come to Chicago at some point. Might wait until it warms up a bit. I am a Southerner by birth after all, and don't I don't do so well in extreme cold temperatures..

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 9:37 AM


    Midnite,

    Slavery and abortion, as well as civil rights and the Vietnam War were, or are now, pressing moral issues. They were emotionally charged and very divisive. While people whine about abortion dividing our nation this is certainly nothing new.
    People on both sides were determined about the rightness of their causes. In the case of slavery, one group of human beings, if you even agreed they were human, were denied rights and viewed as the possessions of another. One could say the same about abortion. Even in the civil rights era, you had the mentality that one group of people, African Americans, weren't quite equal, were subhuman, or at least in no way equal to whites, and thus could also be denied their rights. Even killings were acceptable since these blacks weren't for certain equal to whites and certainly didn't have rights or legal protection.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 9:38 AM


    Jacqueline, 9:15AM

    Thank you!! I'm glad someone does.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 9:41 AM


    I am still going to come to Chicago at some point. Might wait until it warms up a bit. I am a Southerner by birth after all, and don't I don't do so well in extreme cold temperatures

    The door is always open...except of course for when the heat is on...but just knock or ring the bell!

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:49 AM


    Bobby,

    You're too wild for me, MK.

    You should see me clean a toilet! look out!

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:50 AM


    Some people just don't follow the crowd.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 9:36 AM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kansas has serious meth and gang issues (I'm not kidding. It's like Arkansas...)
    Kansas has violent crime.
    Why is this moron, Kline, spending all his time on victimless paprwork misdemeanors?
    He already lost one job in disgrace. It's time he lost another.

    Posted by: Laura at October 25, 2007 9:51 AM


    Laura,

    Tell me about this "serious" demotion and how it came about...

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:33 AM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    He was voted out of office and replaced by a militantly pro-choice Attorney General. People were tired of Kline wasting the Attorney General's Office on trivial crap like clinic paperwork issues.

    Posted by: Laura at October 25, 2007 9:54 AM


    hehehehe

    MK: I am about to die in B'ham right now, it is 49 degrees and I am FREEZING!!

    I know that it is even colder in Chicago (probably right now) during the winter, so I shall wait until it is Spring and not so cold. I like having my "Southern Glow" and I think the cold weather in the north would kill it...

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 9:59 AM


    MK,

    According to the article by Novak cited above by Jill, here is how Kline got himself demoted.

    Kline's vigorous prosecution of alleged abortion offenses made him the principal national target of the abortion industry.

    It pumped an estimated $1.5 million into the 2006 campaign for attorney general of Paul Morrison, the pro-choice Republican Johnson County district attorney who turned Democratic to run against Kline. Tiller contributed $121,000 to his ProKanDo PAC, which spent $322,680 in the campaign against Kline. An affiliated nonprofit group, Kansans for Consumer Privacy Protection, spent more than $400,000 on ''educational mailings'' obviously aimed against Kline.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    $2.5 million for AG in Kansas? Why spend so much money if the charges are baseless? The judge would just throw it out.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 10:00 AM


    midnite,

    do you work at an abortion clinic?

    Posted by: jasper at October 25, 2007 10:02 AM


    How did the public know that Kline was wasting time and resources investigating clinics?

    I am not informed about every action taken by my state's attorney general. How can I get tired of him wasting time and resources if I don't know about it?

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 10:04 AM


    Laura wrote:
    Why is this moron, Kline, spending all his time on victimless paprwork misdemeanors?

    Then Laura wrote:
    trivial crap like clinic paperwork issues

    Once again Laura provides entertaining posts, and insight into proabort thinking. Keep posting Laura, you are too amusing.

    Posted by: Tim at October 25, 2007 10:06 AM


    Laura,

    How do you know that Kline isn't persuing cases against gangs and meth labs/traffickers? Do you get updates from the Johnson County DA's office?

    What makes you think it takes all his time to file one case?

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 10:10 AM


    So the man was a hero, and went down for our cause and this makes you think he was humiliated?

    Okay, I think I've got the scenario now...thanks Laura.

    And thank you, Hippie.

    Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 10:11 AM


    Abortion is victimless? Malachi would disagree with you:

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 10:12 AM


    For the sake of his sorrowful passion have mercy on us and on the whole world.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 10:14 AM


    Amen, Bobby.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 10:16 AM


    PP first says it believes in the good judgement of Kansas citizens and then goes on to say that it is seeking to block enforcement of a law passed by those same Kansas citizens.


    "This matter is in the hands of the court, and Planned Parenthood has immense confidence in the integrity of an independent judiciary in Johnson County and the good judgment of the Kansas citizens."

    "Planned Parenthood Fights New Abortion Regulations
    Seeks Injunctive Relief from Federal Court

    Kansas City, MO Today, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri went to court to protect women's access to abortion care in Missouri. In a brief filed in Federal court, the health care agency asked for an injunction to stop a state law from being enforced against its health centers while the court decides if the law is constitutional."

    http://www.ppkm.org/

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 10:21 AM


    Jasper:

    That is about the most idiotic question you have ever asked me.

    No, I do not. I work at a Limousine Company in B'ham, AL.

    Do you work at an abortion clinic smart ____?

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 10:23 AM


    Okay, I see my mistake. They respect the judgement of Kansas citizens not Missouri citizens. Sorry for the error.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 10:23 AM


    Question to our resident pro-choicers:

    Can you look at Malachi's sweet little face and say,

    "I supported the choice to dismember you."

    How you, now, after seeing Malachi identify themselves as pro[that]choice?

    If yes, how do you rationalize this to yourself?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 10:30 AM


    The tax cuts combined with the war are about $1 trillion. Before that we were 2 trillion in the hole, now we are almost $9 trillion in the hole. So of course the tax cuts are not all of it.

    "Those figures don't jive with reality. The $9 billion sounds like it takes some unfunded liabilities into account, while the $2 billion does not."

    Hard as it may be for any of us to say the word trillions in relation to debt. The numbers I gave are indeed trillions.

    :: copiously smacking self upside the head :: Sorry about that, Hippie - yes, trillions for sure.
    ......

    I don't have figures anymore. I am quoting a group of congressmen calling themselves Blue Dog Democrats. They wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. Those numbers were the numbers from the letter to the editor.
    They are trillions, not billions and they don't include future debt.

    It is indeed a little over $9 trillion now, but it was almost $6 trillion as 2000 ended. The tax cuts were phased-in over a few years, after Bush signed the first bill in 2001. The site I got the figures from only had them back as far as 1993, and as that year began the debt was a little over $4 trillion.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 10:38 AM


    The point the Dem senators were making to the WSJ was that before the Bush tax cuts, congress had whittled it down to $2 trillion. After, the war and tax cuts it shot back up far faster than its previous trajectory.

    I don't vouch for the numbers, but they are the numbers the senators noted in the letter to the editor of the WSJ.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 10:46 AM


    "I supported the choice to dismember you." How you, now, after seeing Malachi identify themselves as pro[that]choice? If yes, how do you rationalize this to yourself?

    Jacqueline, there was no "him" there as far as having any conception about any of this stuff. There was nobody to address as that "you" which was mentioned. There was a human fetus, there, certainly, but your questions imply quite a bit of personification. That you do it doesn't mean that everybody does.

    If anything I'd say that it'd be better to have the abortion sooner, for the woman, and presumably for the people who feel "sorry" for "Malachi."

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 10:50 AM


    There are some 860 PP clinics in the US if I understand correctly.

    One is being investigated.

    No offense, but the contention that PP is so perfect that not even one of 860 could possibly be violation strains credulity.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 10:52 AM


    the Senate's response is to pass a bill saying that the public can't exercise their First Amendment rights to warn women about the dangers of abortion.

    Geez, having to stay 35 whole feet from the property is just totally going to prevent people from expressing themselves, huh? @@

    If people want to yell at women who are soon to give birth, I don't imagine that keeping the yellers at some distance is such a bad thing. Same for abortion protesters.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 10:53 AM


    Jacqueline, 10:38

    I saw an interesting documentary last nite. A North Korean defector told of his experiences as a concentration camp guard in his native country.
    He said the first instruction given him was to view the men, women, and children, often the families of "enemies of the state", who enter the camp as non-human. These are not human beings, period. Maintain that mentality at all times.
    This would make brutality, starvation, torture, neglect, and killing much easier to inflict on these inmates.
    Maybe that's what makes little Malachi's death easier to tolerate as well.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 10:53 AM


    Re: PP-KS and the charges brought up against them...

    Hang 'em high!

    Falsifying records, not reporting statutory rapes, etc. - hang those wretches! For the damage they have caused and the lives they have ruined, they more than deserve it.

    Posted by: jamesr at October 25, 2007 10:58 AM


    MK,

    The human race is noted for its lack of empathy.

    You will always be able to find someone to defend even the most egregious cruelty and brutality.

    I wish it weren't so, but as you see here, that lack of empathy is alive and well.

    A true poverty of spirit to feel so little regard for the helpless.

    It is the worst pandemic.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 11:01 AM


    Hey midnite. I think Jasper might be thinking of you volunteering at a PP? I read that in a post yesterday, correct? So that might be where he got it from.

    Oh, BTW, what's with this whole "I'm not participating in No-shave November" business? I thought for sure you'd be in! :)

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 11:02 AM


    Doug 10:50am

    Excuse me, but I clearly see a "him" lying there dismembered. How do you know he had no sense of what was being done to him? At one time premature babies were operated on without anesthetic because great thinkers thought they had no sensation. We have since learned different.
    The mother should have aborted sooner? Why Doug, what difference does it make? Because the humanity wouldn't be so apparent?
    Malachi's personhood is a matter of opinion? Does that apply to your personhood as well Doug?

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 11:03 AM


    Bobby:

    No I do not volunteer at PP. Never have, and probably never will. Jasper knows that and is trying to be a smart _____

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 11:10 AM


    Oh that wasn't you? I wonder what I was thinking of...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 11:11 AM


    You might be thinking of Amanda. She hasnt been on here in a while though. She used to volunteer at PP in NY.

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 11:14 AM


    The point the Dem senators were making to the WSJ was that before the Bush tax cuts, congress had whittled it down to $2 trillion. After, the war and tax cuts it shot back up far faster than its previous trajectory.

    I don't vouch for the numbers, but they are the numbers the senators noted in the letter to the editor of the WSJ.

    Hippie, I have to laugh - I'm not defending Bush Jr's actions, I just know those numbers aren't right.

    If those Democratic senators really said that, they they are wrong. There was no "whittling down" going on - the debt has not declined in a long, long time, since 1959 (I think). Go Eisenhower.

    Clinton had no surpluses. Calling some expenditures "off-budget" and then declaring "we have a surplus!" is silly. I'm not defending the Slickster, either - he was the one who promised $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in increased taxes. What we got was $12 in increased taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.

    http://fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html This place puts out a yearly report in which the true cost of the government is given. My link to the 2006 report isn't working today, and neither will the .pdf files on that page open, but the information is there. The true cost of gov't has been running $300 billion or $400 billion more a year than the "official" gov't deficits.

    Doug


    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 11:19 AM


    I just can't believe that we do this to our children. A Nation That Kills It's Children Is A Nation Without Hope.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 11:20 AM


    Well, I definitely thought I remembered reading it yesterday, so it probably wasn't Amanda, but I can't find it now. I must be nuts. This must be part of the transition to fatherhood; the losing your mind stage.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 11:21 AM


    I just can't believe that we do this to our children. A Nation That Kills It's Children Is A Nation Without Hope.

    Actually, killing your child is infanticide, it is illegal and it is punishable by a court of law and a jury of your peers. Abortion is the removal of a z/e/f, and it is still legal.

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 11:24 AM


    Midnite,

    # a young person of either sex; "she writes books for children"; "they're just kids"; "`tiddler' is a British term for youngsters"
    # a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age; "they had three children"; "they were able to send their kids to college"

    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    # A child (plural: children), has two distinct meanings: the offspring, of any age, of two people, or an individual who has not yet reached puberty, though there might be a differing legal definition (see below).
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

    Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 11:28 AM


    I clearly see a "him" lying there dismembered.

    Mary, but not anybody that has any conception, etc. There was certainly a fetus, but it's a stretch with the "him" stuff.
    ......

    How do you know he had no sense of what was being done to him?

    Because his cerebral cortex, where such cognition takes place, was not nearly developed enough.
    ......

    At one time premature babies were operated on without anesthetic because great thinkers thought they had no sensation. We have since learned different.

    Agreed that we haven't always known everything, and that we still do not. However, it is at the very least certainly up for argument. If pain is a concern then there is anesthesia. Yet for empathy there needs to be emotion on the part of the subject, and that's even more farfetched than pain at 21 weeks would be.
    ......

    The mother should have aborted sooner? Why Doug, what difference does it make?

    It makes a big difference to many people. Put up a picture of a zygote, and the deal is going to be different.
    ......

    Because the humanity wouldn't be so apparent?

    "Humanity" is a good question. "Human" is a given, and that applies to the zygote and embryo too - it's not at issue. It was a human fetus, for sure. If we are merely saying that human DNA is present, that's one thing. "Humanity" as far as the state of being humane, etc., is quite another.
    ......

    Malachi's personhood is a matter of opinion?

    No, not real personhood with attributed rights. Anybody can say anything, but the real deal is granted at birth. A pretty decent argument can be made for limited attribution after viability, but 21 weeks isn't that.
    ......

    Does that apply to your personhood as well Doug?

    Nope, birth changes that.

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 11:32 AM


    Doug,


    http://fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html This place puts out a yearly report in which the true cost of the government is given. My link to the 2006 report isn't working today, and neither will the .pdf files on that page open, but the information is there. The true cost of gov't has been running $300 billion or $400 billion more a year than the "official" gov't deficits.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 11:19 AM

    Did you look at the Gokhale Smetters report commissioned by the US treasury and yanked at the last minute from the budget appendix specifically to conceal the state of the gov't money management.

    I will post it again.

    http://www.aei.org/docLib/20030723_SmettersFinalCC.pdf

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 12:08 PM


    Jacqueline, there was no "him" there as far as having any conception about any of this stuff.

    He has a little face, Doug! A little FACE. Fingers. Toes. He was a little BOY. He is definitely a him. For you to look at him and say that he doesn't exist is delusional.

    If you can look at a dismembered baby and say, "That's just fine." then you are beyond evil and there is little hope for you.

    Put up a picture of a zygote, and the deal is going to be different.

    Okay:

    That's a human embryo. This is the earliest that babies can be surgically aborted.

    I still see a little face.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 12:39 PM


    Jacqueline:

    That resembles a cat fets at the same time. Are you sure that isnt a little kitty??

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 12:40 PM


    Abortion is the removal of a z/e/f, and it is still legal.

    And you can look at those "removed" z/e/f's I've posted and say, "You were in the wrong place at the wrong time, little dismembered one."

    Actually, killing your child is infanticide, it is illegal and it is punishable by a court of law and a jury of your peers. Abortion is the removal of a z/e/f, and it is still legal.

    So let's say Malachi wasn't aborted. Let's say that he was born premature. And then his parents, rather than seeking medical care for him, instead cut him into the pieces you see here. Should that be punishable by a court of law and a jury of their peers?

    Posted by: Jacque at October 25, 2007 12:42 PM


    **fetus

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 12:48 PM


    So let's say Malachi wasn't aborted. Let's say that he was born premature. And then his parents, rather than seeking medical care for him, instead cut him into the pieces you see here. Should that be punishable by a court of law and a jury of their peers?

    They would be charged with murder & possible child abuse. That is illegal, it is called murder.

    That's just a stupid analogy Jacque

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 12:50 PM


    Denial, equivocation, justification, but not mercy, love, concern, empathy.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 12:52 PM


    That resembles a cat fets at the same time. Are you sure that isnt a little kitty??
    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 12:40 PM

    How rude.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 12:53 PM


    That resembles a cat fets at the same time. Are you sure that isnt a little kitty??

    Would it make you feel better to think so? Do you support chopping up little unborn kitties? I know I don't.

    I just handraised an orphan kitten that's 4 months now. It involved getting up several times a night, mixing and heating a bottle, etc. Then there was litter training and weaning. People asked why I was doing that and the answer was because if animal control gets an animal too young to survive on it's own, they kill it. Albeit it's a lethal injection (far more humane than any way humans are aborted), but I didn't want this little one to die. She's precious. While I'm picture happy, here's one of us the day Janis was born:

    So, the only way it would make a difference whether or not that's a human embryo or a kitten embryo is if you're for killing the unborn of all species. At least you'd be "equal opportunity."

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 12:56 PM


    That's just a stupid analogy Jacque

    No it's not. The only difference in a crime versus a "choice" is the location of the baby. If Malachi were born and then dismembered, it'd be a crime. But since Malachi was dismembered while in his mother, it's "choice."

    And you don't see the inconsistency?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 12:58 PM


    Jacqueline, obviously, when I and the other ladies on this board miscarried, we were actually miscarrying what could have easily grown to be a kitty cat! I can't believe it...all that time, I was only pregnant with a cat fetus. I shouldn't have grieved at all- midnite678 says so!

    Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 1:02 PM


    Midnite,

    I thought you mentioned yesterday that you interned at a clinic? didn't you?

    Posted by: jasper at October 25, 2007 1:05 PM


    Bethany:

    That is not what I meant, and you (of all people) should know that. But in all seriousness, a cat fetus and a baby fetus resemble each other very much so in early pregnancies.

    I am very sorry for any woman who has miscarried, I would never wish that on anyon;, nor would I tell someone how they should or should not grieve.

    And I was not trying to be rude. I was being a smart ____, but not trying to be rude or a bitch. I simply pointed out something that not a lot of people know.
    ---------------------------------

    Jacqueline :

    Time, manor and location are three important factors when determining if a crime has been committed. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your State and Federal Government. It also depends on the reasonable person.

    And FYI, if cats want to start having abortions, I will let them have the choice if they so want it.

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 1:08 PM


    Jasper:

    No, I have never said I interned at a clinic. Where do you get this stuff. Maybe you should pay more attention to the words I type.

    I have never interned at PP, and I probably never will intern at PP. I don't wish to subject myself to PL's yelling names at me or worse stuff. I don't have patience or the anger level to put up with that nonsense.

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 1:10 PM


    They would be charged with murder & possible child abuse. That is illegal, it is called murder.
    That's just a stupid analogy Jacque

    How in the WORLD is that a stupid analogy?? Please explain the difference.
    The only difference is the location of the baby...why is one abuse and the other isn't? You are making no sense!

    Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 1:10 PM


    I had a point in talking about Janis.

    The tiny, weak, sick, vulnerable should be cared for, not killed because it might inconvience the bigger, stronger, healthier that can fend for themselves. That's the mindset of prolifers. The mindset of prochoicers is that the bigger, stronger and healthier are God, and they can destroy the defenseless.

    Hey, Pro-Lifers:

    I was at the 40 Days vigil last week when I saw a praying lady pick up something from the street and place it gently on the grass. Before I left I approached her and said, "What did you save?" It was a caterpillar about to have gotten run over. As one that takes bugs outside rather than stepping on them and rescued turtles from the street, I got some joy out of seeing someone else like me. That afternoon I was filling the food bowl for this stray dog behind my office when my coworker caught me and said, "What's with you and animals? It's because they're defenseless, isn't it?" And that's when I realized that's the thread that ties us pro-lifers together: we step in the gap to help the underdog (no pun intended. :). We don't use the weakness and oppression of other beings as license to exploit them for our own gain.

    I'm so grateful to count myself among your ranks. And from a self-interested standpoint, you are the type of people I'll be glad to know when I become weak or ill. I wish choicers realized that they're not impervious to their own medicine. They may not can be aborted anymore, but they can be neglected and euthanized. When that day comes, they'll be glad that there are people like us.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 1:11 PM


    That is not what I meant, and you (of all people) should know that. But in all seriousness, a cat fetus and a baby fetus resemble each other very much so in early pregnancies.

    And your point is? That an unborn child is no different than a cat fetus?

    I am very sorry for any woman who has miscarried, I would never wish that on anyon;, nor would I tell someone how they should or should not grieve.

    What's so sad about it, if it's just as important as a cat fetus?

    Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 1:13 PM


    "Jacqueline, there was no "him" there as far as having any conception about any of this stuff."

    He has a little face, Doug! A little FACE. Fingers. Toes. He was a little BOY. He is definitely a him. For you to look at him and say that he doesn't exist is delusional.

    Yes, J, a face, fingers, etc., but the delusion here is on your part. I didn't say those weren't present. What I said was that there was no "him" (as in a personality) there that had any conception of anything.

    Agreed that an embryo can be said to have a face as well. But if there's no suffering then there's no suffering, and there is also the emotion of the woman to be considered. The emotion we know is at work is hers, as well as yours, here; it's what you want against what she wants, and if she's the one pregnant then I say we go with what she wants.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 1:13 PM


    I can't believe it...all that time, I was only pregnant with a cat fetus.

    Well, don't you feel like idiot?! /sarcasm

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 1:14 PM


    Well, don't you feel like idiot?! /sarcasm

    Totally! lol

    Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 1:16 PM


    Time, manor and location are three important factors when determining if a crime has been committed.

    I'm asking you if you see a difference between a late-term baby dismembered within his mother and one dismembered outside of his mother- the law aside. Is there a difference? Because one you support and the other you abhor- why is that?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 1:17 PM


    http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html

    Among all vertebrates, embryos can look pretty similar at times.

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 1:18 PM


    Midnite,

    from yesterday in the other thread, you said:

    For all of you out there who think that the bare-bones government funding that Planned Parenthood recieves is funding abortions, or anyone who is just curious about what PP is all about, I hope this might eliminate some of the erroneous assumptions that pro-life propaganda has spread about PP. The following is the list of services the center I intern at provides, in alphabetical order:

    ..or maybe you cut and pasted it from another website?

    Posted by: jasper at October 25, 2007 1:18 PM


    OK, Bethany,

    I am sorry. You should know that I did not mean it the way you took it. Apparently you're having a bad day or something (and I am in a good mood), so I shall leave (so I don't piss you off anymore); b/c apparently nothing I do today is right in your eyes or will make you happy.

    Once again, I am sorry. I did not mean it they way you took my comment
    ------------------------------------------
    And as I said above, location is a huge key in determining if a crime has been committed. When you're in a better mood, I'll come back and explain more, but as of now I am off.

    Toddles!

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 1:19 PM


    I can't believe it...all that time, I was only pregnant with a cat fetus.

    Bethany, are you saying that Halle Berry should not have been given that one role?

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 1:20 PM


    Doug,

    How do you know there are no emotions, and since when do emotions define humanity? I have a moody little dog that gets sad when I leave and happy when I arrive. Is she a human?

    Thinking that Malachi deserved to remain in one piece and live out his natural life is not delusional. Note that it takes you extreme efforts and depersonification to justify Malachi's killing.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 1:21 PM


    Jasper, I cut and pasted from another website, didnt know it had that on there, no I do not intern at PP

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 1:23 PM


    well, thats good.

    Posted by: jasper at October 25, 2007 1:26 PM


    A conversation between Jesus and Mohammad as they read each other's holy books:

    Mohammad: I don't understand the Christian pro-life position, In Exodus 21.22, it says that if a man causes a woman to miscarry, he should be FINED- not executed, which is the biblical punishment for murder.
    Jesus: Yeah, but it's STILL taking a life.
    Mohammad: Not if you use the BIBLICAL defintion of life, which is breath- like when God BREATHED life into Adam in Genesis 2.7. Embryos don't breathe, so life must begin at BIRTH, not conception. After all, Christians are "born again", not "conceived again"
    Jesus: OK, I admit it. The anti-abortion thing has nothing to do with the bible. It's all about keeping women under control
    Mohammad: Now THAT I can understand.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 1:27 PM


    Midnite, it may not be what you intended, but maybe you need to choose your words more carefully and think about the ramifications of posting such absurd and hurtful things. If we're only as human as we "look" then people who slightly resemble baboons shouldn't be entitled to personhood either. It's just ridiculous that people like you make that kind of argument and expect it not to be hurtful or challenged by anyone.

    And yes, I am in a pretty bad mood right now. I wasn't a little while ago though. :-(

    Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 1:29 PM


    Notice that all abortion debates end up with someone trying to defame Jesus? And notice it's never the pro-lifers that do it.

    I reitterate:

    I'm so grateful to count myself among your ranks, pro-lifers.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 1:32 PM


    For all of you out there who think that the bare-bones government funding that Planned Parenthood recieves is funding abortions, or anyone who is just curious about what PP is all about, I hope this might eliminate some of the erroneous assumptions that pro-life propaganda has spread about PP. The following is the list of services the center I intern at provides, in alphabetical order:

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 24, 2007 4:43 PM

    This is why people think/thought you volunteered at a PP. I don't think anyone who thought this was off base. Maybe it's not a PP but they do abortions.

    Posted by: Kristen at October 25, 2007 1:35 PM


    Notice how if all I'm doing is defaming, you should actually be able to make a valid counter-point rather than just crying about the fact that I made fun of Jesus?

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 1:39 PM


    Doug and midnite,

    "Among all vertebrates, embryos can look pretty similar at times."

    Yes true. However, we have science to tell them apart. For example, someone could be diagnosed with cancer and you could look at them and say "you look awfully healthy to me." Yet the fact remains that science tells us that they have cancer and are not totally healthy. Similarly, while many organisms may look the same during the early stages of life, we can scientifically tell them apart. The embryo/fetus of a women has human DNA, which a cat fetus does not. There are so many differences on the level not visible to the naked eye that to claim that they are the same is anti-scientific. I'm not claiming that you said this directly, but your comparing of the two does somewhat imply it.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 1:42 PM


    Bethany, I'm sorry that your mood is down. I have also been subjected to some very heartless and cruel attacks. I won't mention any names. It was so nice to hear that my son was a "product" of a dysfunctional relationship. Also so nice to hear that I brought children into my "dysfunctional life." But, I won't mention any names.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 1:46 PM


    Erin, I think you need to make a valid point to begin with. The evilness of abortion has nothing to do with the bible or Mohammad. It's evil because it's the taking of an innocent human life.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 1:46 PM


    Notice how if all I'm doing is defaming, you should actually be able to make a valid counter-point rather than just crying about the fact that I made fun of Jesus?

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 1:39 PM

    A counter-point to what? I think it was just stupid. Of course stupid is as stupid does.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 25, 2007 1:47 PM


    According to the bible, which is the source of the majority of your morality, it seems obvious that a fetus is not a human life of equal value, because it's termination does not, in the bible, merit the same punishment as murder, and because life begins when breathing does- at birth. If you say, oh, lets stay away from the religious argument, I say, then morality is obviously relative and you guys have no place to go.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 1:50 PM


    One more thing. I don't recall ever claiming to be a saint. I shared my story. I told the truth to show that I wasn't perfect. I never will be, but I did the best I could.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 1:50 PM


    How do you know there are no emotions, and since when do emotions define humanity? I have a moody little dog that gets sad when I leave and happy when I arrive. Is she a human?

    No, Jacqueline - being human is not necessary to have emotions. But if there are no emotions there, then I am saying it's vastly less of a "somebody" than if there are. I realize there is argument about 21 week fetuses - what can be said is that there is no proof of emotions then, while later on in gestation there is. I don't think the brain is sufficiently developed, operational or connected at that point - my opinion.
    ......

    Thinking that Malachi deserved to remain in one piece and live out his natural life is not delusional. Note that it takes you extreme efforts and depersonification to justify Malachi's killing.

    Nope, personhood is not attributed, and thus it's not illegal to have an abortion. There's no "depersonalization" going on; it's just not there yet. There is also no "justification." It's not up to me nor you unless we are the ones pregnant.

    I don't blame you for thinking that the fetus should live. Yet there are miscarriages and abortions all the time, the world over, and, to viability, anyway, I see nothing more compelling than what the pregnant woman wants.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 1:54 PM


    Bethany- I'm sorry we hurt your feelings. But at the same time, you guys don't have a very powerful penchant for putting things as gracefully as possible either. But, of course, it's different when YOU GUYS do it because, ZOMFSM, WE IS PROTEKTING TEH BEBIES...

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 1:54 PM


    *sigh* I guess that some people believe that my children would be better off dead.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 1:55 PM


    Notice how if all I'm doing is defaming, you should actually be able to make a valid counter-point rather than just crying about the fact that I made fun of Jesus?

    Whatever, Erin. You know exactly what you were doing. You pulled that bs out of nowhere. Nowhere were we discussing religion, Christianty, Islam, or any of the above. Choicers just like to pull that out are take cheap shots at us by taking cheaper shots at our Lord and Savior. That's precisely what you did. You know what you did. It's childish and infuriating.

    I could type verse after verse where the Bible defends the sanctity of human life before birth. I could do that. I don't feel like it. So instead I pointed out the fact that choicers like to exhaust us by focusing our attention on defend the Name of our Lord rather than talking about abortion itself.

    So coming back at me with "boohoo, I made fun of Jesus..." when the whole purpose was to distract and offend- I refuse to indulge you.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 1:56 PM


    Similarly, while many organisms may look the same during the early stages of life, we can scientifically tell them apart. The embryo/fetus of a women has human DNA, which a cat fetus does not. There are so many differences on the level not visible to the naked eye that to claim that they are the same is anti-scientific. I'm not claiming that you said this directly, but your comparing of the two does somewhat imply it.

    Bobby, no doubt. Yet people were not saying that they "are the same." If we're putting up pictures for emotional impact, then there are some stages of embryos where other species than human look more like "people."

    I guess what I really want to know is if the cat fetus can see in the dark.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 1:59 PM


    I don't think the brain is sufficiently developed, operational or connected at that point - my opinion.

    Yes. Your opinion. What if you're wrong? Don't you think you shouldn't be gambling with lives that aren't yours based on your opinion?

    Nope, personhood is not attributed, and thus it's not illegal to have an abortion.

    Personhood is not something imbued. It's a state of being a human being. Whether you declare me a non-person or not, my human DNA says that I am a human and have basic human rights" the least of which is to remain INTACT.

    Like Dred Scot was denied the arbitrary bullsh!t classification known as personhood, he was a human being and deserved rights. Because you deny Malachi and all other unborn humans the arbitrary bullsh!t classification known as personhood doesn't change the fact that killing them is wrong.

    When are human beings NOT people? When Doug wants to kill them!

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 2:02 PM


    I know that it's from a political cartoon that I couldn't link to because membership is required.

    I am talking about abortion. I am talking about the most basic facts of the pro-life standpoint. That it is almost entirely religion based, but even that religion based argument can't withstand the contradictions it makes to itself. Anti-choice position is all about keeping women in a powerless role, a helpless victim of their reproductive system, because the government is patriarchal and will never be able to incubate a fetus, and because there are too many women who are willing just to follow along and say, yes, men, you know exactly what it's like. You totally have the right to impregnate us and tell us we have to deal with it for 9 months.

    A woman shouldn't have a child until she actually wants one. If you do, great, good for you. If you don't, I will never in my life tell you too bad, you get one anyway!

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:02 PM


    Doug 1:32am

    Just so you know, the "him" was genetically determined at conception and has nothing to do with personal opinion, mine or anyone's.
    I'm certainly glad we agree that we have not always known everything and do not now. So you cannot say with absolute certainty when a fetus will feel pain and you can't say for certain Malachi had no sense of what was being done to him. A premature baby will not have much in the way of emotion, most can barely cry. Will you have no empathy for that baby?
    Concerning the mother aborting sooner, so you agree then that the less human they look the better.
    Exactly what is the state of being human?
    There's no question of your personhood because you're already born? Don't make me laugh Doug. Open a history book. Humanity, personhood, and rights have been denied time and again throughout history to people of various races,religions, and ethnicities and continue to be to this day. How else could slavery, brutality, and genocide be "justified"? Easy, just strip the victims of personhood. Just count yourself lucky Doug.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 2:03 PM


    I guess that some people believe that my children would be better off dead.

    Heather, I hope that it could never be that way. Nothing against you personally here, but we do sometimes see nasty descriptions of pro-choicers or women who choose to have abortions, and it can work both ways.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 2:04 PM


    Erin,

    This is not from the bible:

    "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal ... with certain inalienable rights, among them life,..."

    That was written a while back, but they weren't idiots back then.
    They knew, and we know that a human is created at conception not birth.

    We created a nation to protect the rights of everyone, not just those with the power to secure their rights.

    We are still working on it.

    It is not conservative politics.

    This is the most liberal idea in human history.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 2:07 PM


    Erin,

    You seem like a very nice person, and you are much more knowledgeable about myth and the history of early "cults" and religions than I am, but you really don't have a solid grasp on Christianity. You can't simply take one passage out of context and absolutise it. Here is a nice article explaining Exodus 21:22.

    Now it seems that you are arguing that if God doesn't exist then there is no morality. If this is the case, then rape is a matter of choice, slavery is a matter of choice, you name it, no one can hold anyone to anything. It's pretty far out there, but in no way does it back us into a corner. In fact, it would back you into a corner by having to admit that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with rape. Are you willing to admit this?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 2:07 PM


    Mary, it's nice to see you!

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:08 PM


    Bethany- I'm sorry we hurt your feelings. But at the same time, you guys don't have a very powerful penchant for putting things as gracefully as possible either. But, of course, it's different when YOU GUYS do it because, ZOMFSM, WE IS PROTEKTING TEH BEBIES...

    Erin, you didn't hurt my feelings. I expect comments like that from you. With Midnite, I was disappointed, because for some reason, I didn't expect it.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 2:10 PM


    Bethany, Heather (& who ever else:

    I did not imply that anyone on this board was pregnant with a cat fetus nor did I imply that anyone miscarried a cat fetus. I merely pointed out a scientific fact.

    I have never told someone that she should not grieve for a child that she miscarried (nor would I tell that to someone who aborted a z/e/f).

    I would not tell a woman that she should not have brought a child into a dysfunctional family or that a child was conceived in dysfunction. Those are horrid things to say to a woman and I would never in my life stoop to that level.
    -------------------------------
    Now on the other hand; I've had many a PL's tell me that I should not be able to have children (b/c I am PC), and if I do ever get pregnant, that God will cause a miscarriage b/c of my sin of being PC.

    Now how in the hell do you think that makes me feel?

    I have the first stages of Cervical Cancer. I am having surgery (again, this will be my fourth) in December. It will make it very hard for me to pregnant and if I do I'll have an 85% chance of miscarrying.

    If this surgery does not work (which I pray that it does), I'll either have to have a hysterectomy, or go through chemo and radiation. Either of those options will kill any chance of my having a biological child of my own.

    Once again, how the hell am I supposed to feel when someone from yalls camp says these things to me?

    I am only 23 years old, and the chance of me having children is getting yanked away from me, without my consent or concern. Who is going to want to marry a woman who can not have children?

    Put yourselves in my shoes for a second...

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 2:11 PM


    Bobby- I'm not saying that without religion there is no morality. I am saying without religion, there is no ABSOLUTE morality. There are going to be things that are ALMOST always bad and ALMOST always good. But absolutes are silly. In my mind, is rape always bad? Yes. In a culture where rape is an intrinsic way of life and where men have grown up learning and being indoctrinated with the fact that it is OK to rape women, and women are taught that they are sexual objects...I don't know. Honestly, if that's the way they function, if that's their preferred method of survival, then fine. Do I agree with it, no. Do I think it's wrong, and that they are bad people for doing it? No.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:11 PM


    I was reading on another site about a young girl who had a PBA. She told her heart sick mother "I could hear him whimpering.".....I was just sick!

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:12 PM


    midnite and Erin, My comment wasn't directed at you 2. I think you both know who I'm talkin about.[but I won't mention any names]

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:14 PM


    I'm waiting for someone to say that I made that up, but I really did read it.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:15 PM


    midnite- that's terrible! I had my own cervical cancer scare just about a month ago. I hope that everything goes all right, I got lucky when a cone biopsy got all of the mess.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:16 PM


    Mary, agreed that male or female is there at conception, but that is not the only consideration when we are talking about "somebody." There's a lot more to it than that. Past viability there is an increasingly good argument for pain perception, but at 21 weeks it's much weaker. Sure, the negative - "pain is not there" - cannot be proven, but it's illogical to lean on that as a reason to take away the freedom that women have in this matter.

    It's certainly possible that a viable, born baby would not yet be able to feel pain. In general, almost all are capable of it, and I do indeed have empathy for them - I think emotion is there, the capability to suffer, etc.

    Concerning the mother aborting sooner, so you agree then that the less human they look the better.

    If it is pictures of a 21 week fetus that gets people worked up, then yes, although you are misstating it. It's not "less human." It's less like a person.
    ......

    Exactly what is the state of being human?

    Having human DNA. Being of human origin. Of or pertaining to humans. Nothing more than that required.
    ......


    There's no question of your personhood because you're already born?

    Nope. That's the way things are. It does not "have" to be that way, i.e. it could be different, but as things are now that's the deal.
    ......

    Don't make me laugh Doug. Open a history book. Humanity, personhood, and rights have been denied time and again throughout history to people of various races,religions, and ethnicities and continue to be to this day.

    "Denied" is not really the right word. Either rights are granted or not. Same with personhood. If personhood had not been attributed to me at birth, I would not claim that it had. No, birth is not the end-all of personhood, but the Birth Standard is incredibly prevalent the world over, past and present; it's human nature to do it that way.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 2:16 PM


    Midnite,

    I really got choked up at your story.

    Please know that we are all pulling for you.

    Hopefully your treatment will be successful and you will have a fresh outlook.

    I hope someday you can look back on these hard times and feel that you are stronger.

    Keep your chin up!

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 2:19 PM


    And off I go!

    Anti-choice position is all about keeping women in a powerless role

    Erin, I have power. I have power out the ass and I don't have to oppress with inch-long child in order to have it. In fact, I have more power than women that do under anesthesia and lie their helpless and unable to move while the babies are ripped from their wombs. Abortion is not empowering- it's the chosen wounding and exploitation of women.

    a helpless victim of their reproductive system

    Such self-loathing. I LOVE my reproductive system. Midnite loves hers, too, else she wouldn't be lamenting the thought of it not working properly.

    Helpless? How do you think women get pregnant? It's not by swallowing a watermelon seed. It's not a bee sting. You are not helpless nor a victim. Own your choices!

    You totally have the right to impregnate us

    No one has the RIGHT to impregnate me. I give men the opportunity if I choose to have sex with them. Once again, own your choices.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 2:20 PM


    midnite, I wish you good health. Erin, you too. I don't wish illness or death on anyone! I pray for the opposite. Erin, do you think you will ever want children some day?

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:20 PM


    heather, I'm sure you did, and perhaps she did hear that, but it's quite likely it was psychosomatic.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:20 PM


    heather- right now? No. Maybe when I get a lot older and settle down(if I ever settle down), I'll change my mind. Right now, no.

    Jacque- any time any part of your body messes up on you, it's terrifying. It could be your liver, your heart, or your cervix. It doesn't matter. It's still your body and it's betraying you.

    Also, yeah, it's tough if you can't have biological kids. That's what adoption is for. Yay adoption!

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:23 PM


    I have power out the ass

    Ha! Jacqueline, regardless of any and all arguments, that was well-said!

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 2:23 PM


    Thank you Heather. And I am not sure who said those things to you, but he/she should feel ashamed of themselves.

    OK, I've got to go to the airport to catch my flight to New Orleans. I hope everyone has a better day, and a great weekend.

    I shall return on Sunday...

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 2:24 PM


    Consent to sex doesn't equal consent to pregnancy. How about a woman who has a condition that prevents her from being able to ever deliver or incubate a fetus, like some higher types of endometriosis? Should she never have sex?

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:25 PM


    midnite,

    "I've had many a PL's tell me that I should not be able to have children (b/c I am PC), and if I do ever get pregnant, that God will cause a miscarriage b/c of my sin of being PC."

    Those people are sick bastards. Authentic Christianity condemns such stupidity. I'm sorry they told you that.

    Erin,

    Thank you for explaining your thinking. I hope I wasn't too nasty above :)

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 2:26 PM


    that God will cause a miscarriage b/c of my sin of being PC.

    This is a lie. God doesn't work that way. I rebuke this lie in Jesus' name!

    I am only 23 years old, and the chance of me having children is getting yanked away from me, without my consent or concern.

    I'm sorry, Midnite. Infertility is painful. I worked in adoption enough to see that pain. I pray that you'll never go through it.

    I would never wish a miscarriage or infertility on anyone. That's evil. I do however see a sense of injustice when a woman who works so hard to save babies can't have any, while a woman that has killed several of hers in the womb can have kids without trouble.

    What I don't understand is, how can you recognize the sorrow of not being able to have children while at the same time supporting the right of people to kill the kids they are lucky enough to be able to conceive?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 2:27 PM


    Erin,

    You wrote,

    "In a culture where rape is an intrinsic way of life and where men have grown up learning and being indoctrinated with the fact that it is OK to rape women, and women are taught that they are sexual objects...I don't know. Honestly, if that's the way they function, if that's their preferred method of survival, then fine. Do I agree with it, no. Do I think it's wrong, and that they are bad people for doing it? No.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:11 PM

    There are plenty of young men here in the US who have such poor role models that they practically see all girls as objects. There are girls who see themselves that way. Would you think it reasonable to present them with an alternative view, or should we just let them do what they want and not try to lift their ideals?

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 2:27 PM


    "I don't think the brain is sufficiently developed, operational or connected at that point - my opinion."

    Yes. Your opinion. What if you're wrong? Don't you think you shouldn't be gambling with lives that aren't yours based on your opinion?

    Jacqueline, not to the extent that we take away the freedom that women have in the matter.
    ......

    "Nope, personhood is not attributed, and thus it's not illegal to have an abortion."

    Personhood is not something imbued. It's a state of being a human being. Whether you declare me a non-person or not, my human DNA says that I am a human and have basic human rights" the least of which is to remain INTACT.

    Wrong. There is physical reality - "human" and "living" and "organism" etc., and then there is status, then there are societal constructs like personhood. Different deals. What I say does not affect your physical reality, no, but it was society that attributed personhood to you.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 2:28 PM


    Jacque- a guy can get away with having no-holds-barred sex. No possibility of consequence, except perhaps an STD. Not a fetus that uses his penis as an incubator for 9 months. I choose to put myself on an equal playing ground. That's power to me.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:28 PM


    any time any part of your body messes up on you, it's terrifying. It could be your liver, your heart, or your cervix. It doesn't matter. It's still your body and it's betraying you.

    But there's a special pain associated with infertility, Erin. Ask your mom.

    Ha! Jacqueline, regardless of any and all arguments, that was well-said!

    Class-y, eh? Thank you!

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 2:29 PM


    Jacque, amen.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:29 PM


    "Notice that all abortion debates end up with someone trying to defame Jesus? And notice it's never the pro-lifers that do it.

    I reitterate:

    I'm so grateful to count myself among your ranks, pro-lifers."

    Me too, especially when I look at that picture of Malachi - I am so happy to have seen the light!

    Posted by: S. at October 25, 2007 2:29 PM


    Consent to sex doesn't equal consent to pregnancy.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:25 PM

    Overeating doesn't equal consent to obesity.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 2:30 PM


    hippie- that's not the kind of culture I was referring to and you know it. That's a radical case, and in our kind of culture, someone cannot help but be exposed to the thousands of antithesis viewpoints. Have any of you guys read Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart? You should.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:30 PM


    Guys cannot get away with sex without consequences. My male friend is dying of AIDS. Proof.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:32 PM


    Midnite,

    I'm so sorry to hear of your situation. I really wish there was something I could say or do. I can only say how sorry I am for you.
    For anyone to say anything of such appalling ignorance to you is indefensible. These are the same ignoramuses who think they read God's diary and know exactly who is going to hell or heaven, who God loves, who He loves more, etc. I was enraged to hear a man who calls himself Christian tell a group of people they were an embarassment to God, they were a rather motly looking bunch, and not welcome to attend a religious gathering. Just what gave him the right to say that?? Now they know who God let's have children or why and can even foresee miscarriage? I respect people's beliefs or lack thereof, but this type of thing is intolerable to me.
    Excuse Midnite, but I'm a little infuriated. PLease continue to take the very good care of yourself you have been and keep us posted on how your are doing. We are all your friends here and we love and care about you.

    Heather,

    Thank you, it is good to see you as well.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 2:32 PM


    That's power to me.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:28 PM


    Yes, legal abortion is all about the powerful exercising power over the powerless.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 2:33 PM


    Yet for empathy there needs to be emotion on the part of the subject, and that's even more farfetched than pain at 21 weeks would be.

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 11:32 AM

    How is pain at 21 weeks farfetched? It's pretty well known that a premature baby has an underdeveloped nervous system and is in a lot of pain.

    My friend had a premie and they weren't allowed to hold or touch her for quite awhile because of the pain. The doctors and nurses told them the best they could do was to talk and sing to her so she would thrive. Today she's a very happy healthy 5 year old.

    Posted by: Kristen at October 25, 2007 2:33 PM


    Jacque- yeah, sure there is. I know how hard it was for my mom. I also know how much now that she doesn't care. She has two children that ARE her own children.

    Also, my mother is a baby-serial-killer. She had about two years of IVF. Oh noes!

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:33 PM


    Jacqueline

    I don't know if you've ever seen my post on this, but here I go again (& then I must leave for the airport):

    I would not have an abortion if I were to get pregnant tomorrow. The only way I would ever have an abortion is if I was raped, or my life was in danger (i.e. I would die as a result).

    Personally, I am PL, but politically I am PC. I don't think that my morals, my opinions or my reasons fit everyone; I don't think I (or anyone) has the right to tell another human being what he/she can or cannot do with their own body. It is not place to tell an adult what is best for them. B/c what may be best for me in a given situation could be detrimental to another person in the same situation.

    I cant remember who said this, but I think it fits perfectly: "If you cant trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?".

    Does that make any sense to you at all??

    Posted by: midnite678 at October 25, 2007 2:34 PM


    heather- that's nauseating. You don't deserve to be considered someone's friend if you think that a terrible disease is being inflicted on them because they deserve it.

    Also, I'm so glad that you think that AIDS is god's punishment for gay people. Way to go.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:37 PM


    "Have any of you guys read Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart?"

    Believe it or not, I actually have in college, although I can't remember a single thing from it...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 2:38 PM


    Yay adoption!

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:23 PM


    Our point exactly, Erin.

    Are you one to talk.

    Posted by: carder at October 25, 2007 2:38 PM


    OOOOHHH Erin, big misunderstanding here. Who do you think went over and nursed the man while he lay on the couch vomiting? ME! I didn't say he deserved it, but he suffered consequences from gay sex.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:40 PM


    Erin,

    I don't mean this rudely, but I don't quite understand what you wrote. I thought you were giving a hypothetical example. I was giving a similar but no so radical example plus suggesting that society supplant the situation with education. My question is should we try to convince others or just ignore differences and not influence others?

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 2:40 PM


    "Jacque- a guy can get away with having no-holds-barred sex. No possibility of consequence, except perhaps an STD."

    Really? Do you think there are really no consequences? I think there are consequences - they are just not as visible. And, maybe just think about it this way. Women get a *positive* consequence of sex... they get to bear and shape the next generation. That is a great power. I sometimes feel sorry for men that they miss out on such beauty and creative power. Anyway, isn't abortion itself a consequence? I mean, it's not a walk in the park, I don't think. What about the women who are scarred physically and mentally by it? No matter how you look at it - God or Nature or whatever has created it such that women (or females of any species, really) ALWAYS bear the greater consequences of sex no matter what they do.

    "Not a fetus that uses his penis as an incubator for 9 months."

    That would be so awesome! I would LOVE to see that!

    "I choose to put myself on an equal playing ground. That's power to me."

    So do I - that's why I educated myself and work to make good money. However, to be equal, I should not have to negate a key part of my creativity and strength as a woman (i.e., the ability to bear children). Having abortion on demand makes it so much easier for society to demand that women become "like men" to become equal. Rather than having to change to accomodate both our equality and our female-ness.

    Posted by: S. at October 25, 2007 2:40 PM


    What's right for one person isn't right for everyone, carder.

    Bobby- you should read it again without the pressure of doing it for a class. It's full of things that we can find reprehensible morally, but when you see how incredible their culture is and how violently downhill everything goes when people start trying to interfere, there's no way you can just say that they're wrong.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:42 PM


    Jacqueline, not to the extent that we take away the freedom that women have in the matter.

    So the right to ill-gotten freedom supersedes the right to life?


    Erin,

    Jacque- a guy can get away with having no-holds-barred sex.

    Only because you let him! And women like you let men do this to you. Guess what, Erin: No guy gets away with having no-holds-barred sex with me! Anyone that gets to have sex with me must first vow his fidelty to me and support for life. Then we slip on wedding rings and sign a legal document declaring our union. There is a price to get between my thighs. Now that's POWER. In that regard, I'm the friggin' Princess of Power (She-Ra!).

    No possibility of consequence

    Erin, my sex partners consequences are having to care for and provide for his own child. You let him out of this consequence when you run to the abortion clinic. Once again, men are only able to have no-holds-barred, consequence-free sex because you let them. You let men treat you like an inflatable doll. If you want real power, demand to be treated like a woman with a functioning body and the ability to bear a child.

    Not a fetus that uses his penis as an incubator for 9 months.

    No degrading to women to say that carrying and nurturing one's own child turns them into an Easy Bake Oven. Men are at a disadvantage for not being able to experience that level of closeness with another human being. This is an asset women have that is unique to us. Why hate it? I embrace it!

    I choose to put myself on an equal playing ground. That's power to me.

    No, Erin, you choose to lower yourself to those men you lament that can have consequence-free, no-holds-barred sex without carrying a child. Sex was never intended to be consequence-free. Self-respecting people accept and embrace the wonderful consequences of having a child. Letting men have sex consequence free (basically, giving them irresponsibility) and then killing your own kids so you can have it consequence-free (being irresponsible yourself) just makes you both equally LOW. You're both powerless.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 2:42 PM


    Erin, I was pointing out that men suffer too.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:43 PM


    Okay, I will definitely add it to the list of books to read (which is quite packed).

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 2:45 PM


    heather- just the way you phrase it says it all, hun. He suffered the consequences of GAY sex. Not just sex, but GAY sex. You know, the biggest population of HIV-positives is African heterosexual WOMEN.

    hippie- I'm suggesting that as long as a certain way of life isn't interfering with our own, we let it prosper and develop on its own.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:45 PM


    "heather- just the way you phrase it says it all, hun. He suffered the consequences of GAY sex. Not just sex, but GAY sex."

    She didn't say "gay sex" she said "sex": "Guys cannot get away with sex without consequences. My male friend is dying of AIDS. Proof."

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 25, 2007 2:47 PM


    Okay, correction then. He is suffering from casual sex. He even admits it.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:47 PM


    Erin,

    Remember western culture from way back and how over time people have agitated for improvement, and how things have improved?

    I think of myself as progressive. Our culture needs to improve and so do others. Sometimes good intentions don't have good outcomes, but we need to seek improvement nonetheless.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 2:49 PM


    Ohohoho, better take it easy, Jacque. You're about a step away from calling me a whore. And that don't fly with me.

    For different people, power means different things. I don't want to get married at all right now. I sure as blazes don't want a kid. I'm not an 'inflatable doll' for enjoying sex. Sex is natural, just like polyamoury relationships are. we can choose to go against it as much or as little as we want. You don't have any right to tell me that my body doesn't equal my choice. I choose to have sex. I can choose whether to incubate a fetus.

    Thank you for that quote midnite, I always forget about it!

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:49 PM


    Midnite,

    I wouldn't personally abuse a child, but far be it for me to oppose that morality on others! See the ridiculousness of that statement? There is a reason why I woulnd't abuse a child: Because it's wrong and children have a right to protection. That same reason mandates my beleif that all children should be free from abuse.

    I cant remember who said this, but I think it fits perfectly: "If you cant trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?".

    Does that make any sense to you at all??

    The choice you're talking about is the choice to kill a child. No one should be trusted with that choice. This bumper sticker essentially says, "If you can't trust me to kill me child, how can you trust me to raise her?"

    Think about it.


    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 2:50 PM


    "but he suffered consequences from gay sex."

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:50 PM


    When I said proof, I meant casual sex. Not that gays deserve that, but he is gay. That is a fact.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 2:50 PM


    Brought from the "Annie Leibovitz" thread from Oct. 22:

    Mary: So be it. Though I'm sure PC feminists and gays would have an issue with this.

    If they feel like the implication is that they are bad or their group is bad, then yeah, it could very well be. Yet if they really are pro-choice then it's hard for me to think they'd be against a woman choosing to have an abortion, regardless of her reasons.
    ......

    I remember years ago PC columnist Ellen Goodman was writing on sex selection abortion. While she acknowledged sex selection abortions in Asia were disposing mostly females, she insisted they were "very rare" here in the United States. Since she obviously needed some updating, I sent her a copy of Dr. Mendelsohn's article. She wrote back that while yes they may occur here, sex selection abortions are the "rarest of the rare" in the US. I wrote back and asked how she knew this for certain, since no woman has to give her reason for an abortion, much less sign any sworn statements. Did she have any studies or statistics to back her claim as to the "rarity" of sex selection abortion? Apparently it was little more than wishful thinking on her part since I never got an answer. I don't recall that she named a source in her original article either. It certainly is easy to understand how a dedicated PC feminist such as Ms. Goodman can find this situation a tad awkward.

    Could be there as well. Do we know how many sex selection abortions are done in the US? I confess I don't - and would think it's indeed a miniscule number, but maybe I'm wrong.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 2:51 PM


    hippie- forcing change on a culture is counterproductive. Imperialism PROVED that. If you force changes on a culture, they start to resent it, that resent forces them to hang on to things that under a lack of pressure, they would have eventually let go of themselves. History will always push civilizations towards change, but only if they are left to individually find that change at the right pace for themselves.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:52 PM


    Ohohoho, better take it easy, Jacque. You're about a step away from calling me a whore. And that don't fly with me.

    I don't use those words, although they don't bother me. It's because I know they don't apply to me. I'm telling you- it's nice.

    Sex is natural

    And sharp instruments up your vagina and in your cervix is natural, too?
    You don't have any right to tell me that my body doesn't equal my choice.

    I never said that. I said your baby's body isn't yours to dismember.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 2:54 PM


    Doug,

    Humanity and personhood have been denied to people time and again, by those more powerful and in a position to do so, as well as in a position to strip others of their rights. Not all agree that personhood is something endowed upon us at birth, well not all of us anyway. You'll notice Doug its always been WE who are persons and THEM that are not.
    So its irrelevent if there is pain and sensation, you'll just completely ignore it for the sake of "rights". What happens if and when science proves the fetus can indeed feel pain and emotion, and much earlier than thought? Remember what I told you about the great thinkers and premature babies?
    I can remember when pregnant women reported their unborn babies sudden startled movement when an alarm clock went off. Of course these women were laughed at by their male doctors. What would women know of these things? Its been shown that these women were right, that the fetus could sensate more than was thought at the time.
    Oh excuse me, it looks less like a person when you abort earlier. That makes all the difference.
    Having human DNA, being of human origin, or pertaining to human. Sounds like you and the unborn have a lot in common.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 2:56 PM


    Erin,

    you wrote:

    " I'm suggesting that as long as a certain way of life isn't interfering with our own, we let it prosper and develop on its own."

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:45 PM

    Abortion is illegal in some countries yet foreigners go into those countries and try to get it legalized. Their way of life isn't interfering with those foreigners. Would you be against foreigners trying to change laws here? or there?

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 2:56 PM


    If it's in mine, it is. And it's a fetus.

    You're good with those subtle insults, by the way, Jacque.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:56 PM


    Kristen: How is pain at 21 weeks farfetched? It's pretty well known that a premature baby has an underdeveloped nervous system and is in a lot of pain.

    Kristen, because the thalamus and the cerebral cortex are not connected much yet, then. Conscious sense perception takes place within the cortex. There is some argument about this - as with some people with severely damaged cortexes who apparently "feel pain." In the vast majority of brains, however, cognition occurs in the cortex.
    ......

    My friend had a premie and they weren't allowed to hold or touch her for quite awhile because of the pain. The doctors and nurses told them the best they could do was to talk and sing to her so she would thrive. Today she's a very happy healthy 5 year old.

    Being premature and being 21 weeks may have a lot of difference between them. I've done the pain argument for fetuses so much....

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 2:59 PM


    Erin,

    you wrote,


    hippie- forcing change on a culture is counterproductive. Imperialism PROVED that. If you force changes on a culture, they start to resent it, that resent forces them to hang on to things that under a lack of pressure, they would have eventually let go of themselves. History will always push civilizations towards change, but only if they are left to individually find that change at the right pace for themselves.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 2:52 PM

    Imperialism was simply exploitation. Of course it was destructive. Countries went in stole everything of value and used people as slaves. Those who tried to establish colonies brought their own people to be the new establishment.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 3:01 PM


    You're completely missing my point hippie. Grrr...this is so frustrating. It can't really apply in the western world. We're too globalized of a civilization. In a lot of ways, you know, it doesn't matter anymore, because the damage is done. A lot of countries, especially in Latin America and Africa, are going to be messed up for a very long time because of imperialist practices. I'm saying that interference on the most basic level- like messing about with tribes that have never seen a white man before, and the like, has permanent negative consequences on developing civilizations.

    Maybe it's just a history buff thing. I'm serious though- Chinua Achebe. Things Fall Apart. One of the TIME top 100 novels. Amazing.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 3:01 PM


    OK, I have to go to work. Later.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 3:03 PM


    Mary, rights may be attributed and other people may still harm a given person, certainly. Personhood is still an idea, still a status which is conferred, or not, and that's why we have the abortion debate in the first place.

    I never said that pain or sensation determined personhood.
    ......

    Oh excuse me, it looks less like a person when you abort earlier. That makes all the difference.

    Your words there, not mine. That it makes somedifference to many people is plain to see. The more developed the unborn are, the more people personify them.
    ......

    Having human DNA, being of human origin, or pertaining to human. Sounds like you and the unborn have a lot in common.

    Of course - nobody told you different.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 3:05 PM


    Being premature and being 21 weeks may have a lot of difference between them. I've done the pain argument for fetuses so much....

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 2:59 PM

    Another friend had a little boy at 22 weeks, same thing, no touching/holding. He has had difficulties but is almost 6 and is making great strides. The doctors were very frank with her and said he wouldn't be "normal" and probably wouldn't survive but she and her husband insisted they do everything to save him.

    My friend with the little girl had her at 28 weeks.

    Posted by: Kristen at October 25, 2007 3:06 PM


    Mary, are you still here?

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 3:07 PM


    You're completely missing my point hippie. Grrr...this is so frustrating.

    Above posted by Erin.

    I think he completely got your point. It's not okay for us to tell other cultures to stop raping but it's okay for us to tell them it's okay to abort. Very clear.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 25, 2007 3:10 PM


    Erin,

    America is a country born out of imperialism. We had problems with slavery and we still have problems with exploiting resources. The problem in Latin America is not soley due to imperialism.

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 3:11 PM


    Doug,

    That article was written in the early 80's, when it was highly unusual for women to know the sex ahead of time, and also unusual for doctors to perform amnio for that information alone. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. I mentioned about one OB/GYN I know who was asked to do an amnio to determine the sex of the fetus. If the fetus was female, the woman planned to "get rid of it". The doctor refused, telling her she would have to find another physician. She did give birth to a girl by the way.
    Dr. Mendelsohn maintained that 4 out of 5 of the fetuses aborted for being the "wrong" sex in the US were female and could give his sources. Unfortunately I didn't keep the article but I recall it was in a prominent nursing journal and the article concerned sexism in the practice of medicine, if you can imagine such a thing.
    As for the number now, I couldn't even fathom a guess. But if it went on back then when it wasn't so easy to get this info, one can only speculate now when it would be considerably easier, being that ultrasound is so routine and just about every pregnant woman I encounter knows the gender of her baby. Since no woman has to give her reason for aborting, who will know?

    Yes, I am certain that truly pro-choice gays and feminists would have no problem with gays and women being relegated to a second choice, second class status.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 3:13 PM


    Mary, I have to get ready for work. Do you remember when we discussed actress Hunter Tylo, and her refusal to have an abortion for a job on Melrose Place? Hunter had already expressed deep regret over a past abortion. She refused to have another. I have just read that the actress is in a psychiatric ward. It appears that her 19 year old son drown in the family pool. I know I'm off topic, but I just wanted to tell you. I was so sad to hear this.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 3:18 PM


    Doug,

    Thanx for the correction. I misread the stat.

    I am taking my son camping. Till next week, take care all of you!

    You wrote:

    270 million was like 1998. Way back in 1973 it was just over 210 million as far as I remember. The US has had roughly a 43% population growth since 1973.

    Heck, I was born in 1959 and the population was less than 180 million.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 9:39 AM

    Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 3:20 PM


    Kristen - wow, 22 weeks is really, really premature. Good luck to the little guy.

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 3:28 PM


    Doug,

    Yes, the more developed they are, the more they are "personified". It is easier when they don't look so much like, you know, people.
    Personhood is a status conferred or not. You're agreeing with me Doug. I'm saying this is a status that can be given or taken away at a whim, and has been throughout history. Whether or not one regarded themselves as persons, or in fact were, a more powerful entity could come along and easily disregard that fact.
    I didn't say you said pain and sensation determine personhood. I asked what happens if and when its determined the fetus is indeed more sensate than we thought, and at an earlier stage of development. I gave examples of our past "knowledge" that proved to be wrong.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 3:32 PM


    Heather,

    Vaguely. What a terrible tragedy. I think I would end up in a hospital too.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 3:34 PM


    I admit that I havne't had time to read all of these posts, so forgive me if I repeat something that has already been posted.

    Erin -

    The analogy of Jesus and Mohammad was so far off mark it wasn't even close to funny.

    First of all - The Qur'an is very specific on the beginnings of life.

    Qur'an Sura 96:1-2

    Read, in the name of your Lord, who created.
    He created man from an Embryo.

    Some translations say that the 2nd verse is

    He created man from congealed blood.

    Most read into this that the Qur'an says that life beings at conception.

    Why, then, would Mohammad be asking Jesus these questions? Whoever wrote that was severely ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an.

    Here are a few more:

    "You shall not kill any (Nafs) person - for GOD has made life
    sacred - except in the course of justice."(17:33)


    "You shall not kill your children due to fear of poverty. We provide for them, as well as for you. Killing them is a gross offense"(17:31)


    "Say, "Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty - we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill any (Nafs) person - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
    [6:151]

    Also, Jesus would not have said anything about keeping women under control considering the amount of critisizm he got for providing woman with power. It was Jesus who changed the ideology that woman should be allowed to worship with men. It was Jesus who showed people the great wonders and powers of women.

    The joke was offensive and ignorant. (not you, the joke) I do have to say that I am surprised you fell for something so degreating to not only 2 religions, but woman as well.


    Midnite -

    You asked what man will adopt a woman who cannot have kids.

    My husband did. I was told it was going to be very difficult for me to have kids because of medical problems. He married me anyway.

    A college friend of mine has osteoparosis and osteoarthritis (may have spelled those wrong) she was diagnosed in her early 20's - something very rare for such a young age. Her body cannot support a pregnancy. She is happily married to a wonderful man.

    You are in my thoughts that everything will go well. I would say prayers, but don't want to offend. I can't remember who believes in God and who doesn't anymore! ;-)

    Posted by: valerie at October 25, 2007 3:44 PM


    **OOPs -

    What man will marry a woman who cannot have kids is what I meant to say....

    Posted by: valerie at October 25, 2007 3:46 PM


    Mary, yes. We did on another thread. Hello valerie. Gotta run all. Have a great evening.

    Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 3:50 PM


    You seem to know quite a bit about Islam, Val. Have you studied it a lot?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 3:54 PM


    Jacqueline, you wrote: " The only difference in a crime versus a "choice" is the location of the baby. "

    Location is important. Suppose for instance I hold a pencil three inches from your eye. That's not a crime. But now suppose I change the location of the pencil by three inches, stabbing you in the eye with it. That IS a crime!

    One is a crime, the other is not, and the only difference is LOCATION.

    Don't underestimate the importance of location.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 25, 2007 4:21 PM


    bad analogy SomG

    Posted by: jasper at October 25, 2007 4:32 PM


    I wouldn't quite say that. A pencil in the eye is not a crime because of its location. It is a crime because it causes harm to another. So it isn't really the location per say that makes the action evil. It is the action in itself. So I don't think your analogy holds.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 4:34 PM


    By my first sentence, I mean "I wouldn't quite say that the only difference is location" just to clarify.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 4:37 PM


    SoMG, are you kidding me?

    It's the stabbing that's the crime! Stabbing me with a pencil in an alley and stabbing me with a pencil in my office- You've stabbed me with a pencil. It's the ACTION that's the crime. Until you stab me with that pencil, there's no crime. It's not the location of the pencil- it's the action.

    So stabbing a baby in the womb versus stabbing a baby out of the womb. STABBING is the same. The only difference is location.

    You say it's okay to stab the baby in utero, and wrong ex-utero. What's the difference?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 4:40 PM


    Jacqueline, did you invite all of your facebook friends to join in NSN?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 4:49 PM


    Jacqueline, did you invite all of your facebook friends to join in NSN?

    Of course! This is a non-partisan cause that everyone can support.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 4:57 PM


    Awesome! I thought that was you, just makin sure.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 25, 2007 4:58 PM


    Mary, agreed that appearance often makes a difference. And yes - personhood is a status, but it is comparitively rarely "taken away at a whim." The Birth Standard is massively prevalent, and holds sway like nothing else.

    I asked what happens if and when its determined the fetus is indeed more sensate than we thought, and at an earlier stage of development. I gave examples of our past "knowledge" that proved to be wrong.

    Well, it would make a difference to some people.

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 5:02 PM


    You say it's okay to stab the baby in utero, and wrong ex-utero. What's the difference?

    Jacqueline, there is of course the matter of lead poisoning if it's the pencil that is used.

    But beyond that, ; )

    it's going to matter if the woman who is pregnant wants to continue the pregnancy or not. If not, then the argument is not that "the baby should be stabbed." If so, then being inside the body of a person makes one heck of a difference. Any number of things, if inside a body, will be viewed quite differently than if not.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 5:07 PM


    Da Bambino: Okay, I will definitely add it to the list of books to read (which is quite packed).

    List packed here too, Bobby, and it almost never gets lessened. I used to read a lot, like a couple books a week, but then I got my first computer. That was 1996....

    Doug (they say book-larnin's good for ye.)

    Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 5:12 PM


    Doug, 5:02PM

    With the long history of genocide, slavery, and brutality in this world, I can't agree personhood has rarely been taken away at a whim. It was usually taken away when one was at the mercy of one more powerful.

    Would it make a difference to you Doug?

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 5:40 PM


    "Only because you let him! And women like you let men do this to you. Guess what, Erin: No guy gets away with having no-holds-barred sex with me! Anyone that gets to have sex with me must first vow his fidelty to me and support for life. Then we slip on wedding rings and sign a legal document declaring our union. There is a price to get between my thighs. Now that's POWER. In that regard, I'm the friggin' Princess of Power (She-Ra!)."

    Lol @ Jacque. Hi five for teh spice. :)

    @Erin: Actually, African American women are not the largest group in the US with HIV. True, they are in one of the populations that have the highest rates of new infections, but overall, their level of infection is significantly lower than the gay population.

    As awful as it sounds, it is true, HIV/AIDS is ENDEMIC to the gay population. And before you go off on me and call me a homophobic bigot (which I can assure you, is so friggin' far from the truth...), I learned this in my Public Health class on HIV/AIDS I am taking at my university. Men who have sex with men (MSM) have the greatest rate of infection as well as the highest number of people with the disease. Of course, this is in the US and it can be attributed to unsafe sex practices (multiple partners and/or lack of condom usage). Unfortunately, the number of HIV cases being newly diagnosed is on the upswing, we are at the beginnings of a resurgent epidemic (for the first time since 1995).

    Now I emphasize for you Erin, that yes, HIV/AIDS is a HUMAN disease, NOT a gay disease BUT you have to recognize that the group most at risk in the US is the gay population and intravenous drug users (or actually, drug users in general).

    Posted by: Rae at October 25, 2007 6:29 PM


    Posted by: jasper at October 25, 2007 7:16 PM


    What are you clapping about Jasper?

    Posted by: Rae at October 25, 2007 7:19 PM


    Rae,

    I think he's clapping about your excellent post, if not he should be.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 7:26 PM


    @Mary: I used to be like Erin...I used to excuse away or ignore the fact that HIV is ridiculously prevalent in the gay population. But my HIV/AIDS class has proven me very, very wrong. The difference is, yes, I do accept the fact that HIV/AIDS is prevalent among homosexuals and the reason that is the case is not because of their sexuality, but due to their their behavior. If in the 1970's-1980's when the epidemic began, gay men were in more monogamous relationships, I doubt HIV/AIDS would have been a problem in their population. But they weren't (far from it).

    I read a book called, "And The Band Played On" by Randy Shilts (who himself was gay and was also infected with HIV but he didn't know it until after he published the book) which chronicles the early HIV/AIDS epidemic, specifically about how the disease was discovered and why nothing was done about it for nearly 3-4 years. He was equally scathing of the gay community itself for their obsession with "people not telling them how to have sex even if it meant saving lives" and the government that didn't give two hoots that people were dying of a terrible, terrible disease. It is an excellent book, but it is most assuredly not for the faint of heart.

    One thing I liked about "And The Band Played On" was the French perspective (as the French were actually the first to isolate and discover HIV, not the Americans...can't imagine why) on the disease: "That it's a human disease, not a gay disease and it should be treated as such." I whole-heartedly agree with that statement. But in the field of public health, you have to focus your efforts on the populations that are getting sick and in the case of the US HIV epidemic, it IS the gay and drug-using populations. I'm by no means passing judgment what-so-ever (and nor should anybody), I'm just stating the facts.

    Posted by: Rae at October 25, 2007 7:42 PM


    Hi folks,

    Doug and I got into this before but maybe this line of reasoning could use some 'polishing'.

    There seems to be stages to human development often not recognized by some in PC-land:
    fertilized egg/conceptus >> attachment >> zygote >> fetus >> birth. There are often problems with this model: first, pregnancy begins at attachment and not when human DNA is formed. second, these words are medical terms BUT DO NOT RELATE TO ANY ONE ANIMAL SPECIES, but to every species. There are words indicating development and are preferred by some because they are not as emotionally laden.

    However, the use of the word 'baby' is IMO as scientific because it is a specific word about the HUMAN species. Time an time again, we talk about 'HUMAN rights'. Doug says these begin at birth (and maybe viability). Shouldn't these be BIRTH rights (like: legal-personhood) and not HUMAN rights? He is more than at ease recognizing both facts that these beings are living and that they are HUMAN, but can be denied this status. Humanity is not awarded ... even if 'legal personhood' is - at BIRTH. A 'right to LIFE' is a HUMAN right and not a legal-person one ... just ask the US-constitution.

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 25, 2007 8:14 PM


    Actually, when you look at the numbers, HIV is even more of a "Christian Disease" than a "gay disease."
    From the Martin Roth Christian Newsletter:

    HIV/AIDS and Christians in Africa

    Africa for more than a century has been the great Christian mission field. If, like me, you belong to a church in the evangelical stream, the chances are you are helping support Christian mission activity somewhere on the continent. You probably get occasional reports from the field, detailing the challenges and successes.

    Are we wasting our money?

    Last weeks United Nations Barcelona Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic is devastating in its portrayal of the crisis that has engulfed sub-Saharan Africa, where a dozen countries have an adult (those aged 15 to 49) infection rate of more than 10%.

    The report doesnt have much to say about the role of religion, which is possibly just as well for those of us who are Christians. For the question needs to be asked: What has Christianity been doing as this crisis developed?

    Using the Operation World Christian handbook, I have taken rates of religious adherence for each African country and placed them next to the adult HIV/AIDS rates from the Barcelona Report. What a depressing exercise.

    Here are the 10 most Christian countries in Africa (according to Operation World) and their adult HIV/AIDS infection rate:

    Christians (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)

    Congo (Dem. Rep.) 95.3 4.9

    Equatorial Guinea 95.1 3.4

    Angola 94.1 5.5

    Congo 91.3 7.2

    Burundi 90.1 8.3

    Uganda 88.7 5.0

    Zambia 85.0 21.5

    Swaziland 82.7 33.4

    Rwanda 80.8 8.9

    Malawi 80.0 15.0

    But where the figures get really depressing (for an evangelical Christian) is when you realise that in general the HIV/AIDS rate is highest in those countries where Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians predominate.

    Here are the 20 most non-Catholic Christian countries in Africa and their adult HIV/AIDS infection rate:

    Non-Catholic Christians (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)

    Swaziland 78.0 33.4

    South Africa 65.2 20.1

    Ethiopia 64.4 6.4

    Namibia 64.0 22.5

    Botswana 63.2 38.8

    Zimbabwe 63.0 33.7

    Malawi 57.1 15.0

    Kenya 56.0 15.0

    Ghana 53.2 3.0

    Central Af. Rep. 51.7 12.9

    Zambia 51.6 21.5

    Congo (Dem. Rep.) 50.8 4.9

    Uganda 46.7 5.0

    Eritrea 43.7 2.8

    Cameroon 42.5 11.8

    Congo 42.0 7.2

    Nigeria 39.2 5.8

    Rwanda 38.2 8.9

    Mozambique 36.8 13.0

    Lesotho 35.8 31.0

    If you are not already sufficiently depressed, look at a table for the 10 most Muslim countries in Africa:

    Muslims (%) HIV/AIDS rate (%)

    Somalia 100.0 1.0

    Morocco 99.9 0.1

    Algeria 96.7 0.1

    Libya 96.5 0.2

    Senegal 92.1 0.5

    Gambia 88.8 1.6

    Mali 87.0 1.7

    Egypt 86.5 0.1

    Sierra Leone 70.0 7.0

    Sudan 65.0 2.6

    Posted by: Laura at October 25, 2007 8:15 PM


    Laura, I'm not sure how accurate or unbiased those stats are.

    Generally, Muslim nations (particularly in the Middle East) have very, very low HIV/AIDS infection rates.

    Posted by: Rae at October 25, 2007 8:18 PM


    No, Jacqueline, the location of the pencil--in your eye or away from it--is what determines whether or not a crime has been committed.

    In the case of the fetus, it's living inside another person's body, so its life depends on her continuing permission. Without continuing permission, the fetus is not MORALLY VIABLE.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 25, 2007 8:29 PM


    Rae- in the US, you're completely`correct. Worldwide, it's African heterosexual women.

    Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 8:33 PM


    Rae,

    I heard of the book "and the band played on". I also remember the rampant promiscuity of gay men in San Francisco, some boasted of 500-1,000 partners a year, and the doctors who were concerned about the introduction of some deadly disease, unaware that there already was one. Other diseases such as STDs, herpes, and hepatitis were already running rampant. When one has several hundred partners, gay or straight, this has to be expected.
    Political correctness also entered the picture. Hospital employees did not have to be informed a person had AIDS. Sex partners did not have to be informed of an infected partner. This did put people in danger, but no one wanted to be accused of homophobia. In no other epidemic have dangerously sick people been so protected.
    I don't know what the government could have done if people weren't willing to take some responsibility for their own actions, but of course it was the government's fault.
    The Catholic Church was also to blame because it opposed condoms. I really don't think people engaging in random sex with numerous partners were exactly listening to the teachings of the church.
    Perish the thought we hold people responsible for their own actions and the consequences of those actions. That was uncompassionate.
    I support compassion and care, but I also feel people have to take responsibility for their actions and own up to the consequences.

    About AIDS in Africa. I have read that treatable diseases other than HIV/AIDS may be infecting Africans and misdiagnosed as AIDS. This is a continent with rampant disease, malnutrition, lack of sanitation, and corrupt governments. Are many of the "AIDS" victims really people with treatable conditions? The symptons are all very similar. I thought this was an interesting article and to think people who may be treatable are assumed to be terminal and left to die.

    Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 9:11 PM


    SoMG:

    Pencils, eyes, stabbings......

    Location, location, location. I think it was Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the candlestick.

    Posted by: anonymous at October 25, 2007 10:02 PM


    Africa for more than a century has been the great Christian mission field. If, like me, you belong to a church in the evangelical stream, the chances are you are helping support Christian mission activity somewhere on the continent. You probably get occasional reports from the field, detailing the challenges and successes.


    Are we wasting our money?


    No, it is not our fault that we have no total cure for AIDS. Our duty is to go in love and mercy. If all we can do is extend our hand to comfort the dying, then that is our task and it is not a waste. It is a reward in itself. If we can offer medical help we should. No act of kindness is a waste.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 25, 2007 10:04 PM


    Mary,

    Nothing personal, but the Catholic Church is not the least bit responsible for the AIDS crisis just for the fact that She discourages condom use. The Catholic Church promotes monogamous lifetime relationships among it's members, not random sex with multiple partners. My prayers go out to all who suffer with AIDS.

    Posted by: anonymous at October 25, 2007 10:20 PM


    "The Catholic Church promotes monogamous lifetime relationships among it's members, not random sex with multiple partners."

    But isn't opposition to gay marriage or at least gay civil unions a way of opposing monogamous lifetime relationships?(And certainly many churches, the Cahtolic among them oppose legal recoginition of gay relationships.) It certainly seems that now that public opinion has come to accept homosexuality more, that many more homosexuals are in committed relationships.
    Hmm....there's an interesting line of argument: Prevent AIDS = allow civil unions.

    Posted by: phylosopher at October 26, 2007 12:31 AM


    Rae, fantastic post! I have heard about that book. I think I'd like to read it.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 1:51 AM


    And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic is a best-selling work of nonfiction written by San Francisco Chronicle journalist Randy Shilts published in 1987. It chronicles the discovery and spread of HIV and AIDS with a special emphasis on government indifference and political infighting to what was initially perceived as a "gay disease," that has impacted the United States and the world for decades after. The book is an extensive work of investigative journalism, written in the form of an extended time line, the events that shaped the epidemic presented as sequential matter-of-fact summaries. Shilts describes the impact and the politics involved in battling the disease on particular individuals in the gay, medical, and political communities. It begins in the late 1970s in Africa, with the then first confirmed case of AIDS, that of Grethe Rask, a Danish doctor, and it ends with the announcement by Rock Hudson in 1985 that he was dying of AIDS, when international attention on AIDS exploded.

    The title of the book is a reference to the story about the dance band in the first-class lounge of the Titanic, which kept playing as the ship was sinking, an allusion to the multiple agencies and communities who neglected to prioritize a swift medical response to the crisis. After publication of the book, Shilts explained his use of the title: "And the Band Played On is simply a snappier way of saying 'business as usual.' Everyone responded with an ordinary pace to an extraordinary situation."[1]

    Judith Eannarino of the Library Journal called it "one of the most important books of the year," upon its release.[2] Randy Shilts described his motivation to undertake the writing of the book in an interview after its release, saying, "Any good reporter could have done this story, but I think the reason I did it, and no one else did, is because I am gay. It was happening to people I cared about and loved."[3]

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 1:57 AM


    Here we go.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 1:58 AM


    Jacque- a guy can get away with having no-holds-barred sex. No possibility of consequence, except perhaps an STD. Not a fetus that uses his penis as an incubator for 9 months. I choose to put myself on an equal playing ground. That's power to me.

    Reminds me of the kick the dog syndrome...your boss yells at you, you yell at your wife, she yells at the kids, the kid kicks the dog.

    Guys have all the fun with no consequences, You want equal footing so you pull rank and kill your child.

    That's not equal footing from the dog's standpoint. Nor from the unborns.

    That's not power. That's corruption of power. That's saying that because I'm bigger and stronger, I will abuse my power and destroy the smaller and weaker.

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 5:51 AM


    Doug,

    "Nope, personhood is not attributed, and thus it's not illegal to have an abortion."

    I thought we dealt with this problem. You really should stick to what you, Doug, believe. It confuses us when in one post you say "It's the law" and in another you say that you don't base your morality on "the law".

    You accuse us of always falling back on "Because God said so", claiming that if you don't believe in God, then our argument doesn't hold any weight.

    Yet, you constantly throw out there, that personhood begins at birth, because the law says so. Well, we don't believe in that law. So you're argument doesn't hold water.

    Because God says so.
    Because the law says so.

    (by the way, my spell check doesn't even recognize the word "personhood"...always tells me I've made an error. Could it be because there is no such thing?)

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 5:56 AM


    Also, let's not forget that some men suffer from the consequences of abortion. I know a few of them. They had no choice, because the woman made the choice. Those poor men. Not every man wants their child aborted.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 7:53 AM


    June 2001


    Men suffer lingering sadness after abortion
    By Richard Maffeo

    I stared at her in disbelief when she broke the news to me. Surely she was joking. I was 17. Judith was 19. Both of us, I rationalized, were much too young to be tied to a baby.

    "What do you mean, you're pregnant?" I asked quietly. Meanwhile, my mind whirled with a thousand prayers and fears. What would I tell my parents? What would we tell hers? Do I want to marry her? This all must be a mistake.

    But there was no mistake. She had just come from the physician's office and, as she awaited my reaction, I knew she expected me to propose marriage.

    Instead, I talked her into having an abortion.

    It was easy to suggest that alternative. I chose to believe the lies that our baby was only a "glob of cells" growing in her womb. I chose to believe them because, in so believing, I was freed of my responsibilities to my girlfriend and to our child. A few months after the abortion, my girlfriend and I went our separate ways.

    Today, my son or daughter would be 32 years old. Perhaps he would be a missionary, or a teacher, or a businessman, or .... Perhaps I would be a grandfather. Perhaps .... But there is no "perhaps." Time doesn't turn backwards.

    Abortion is not simply a rights issue. It has deep and enduring emotional and spiritual implications for those of us who, too late, have awakened to the truth that abortion kills a baby - my baby. And rhetoric doesn't purge the lingering sadness 33 years later.

    However, I have found something which can ease that sorrow.

    In 1972, four years after the abortion, a friend gave me a Bible and told me about the new life I could have in Jesus Christ. As I leafed through its pages, one verse in particular grabbed my attention, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). That I was a sinner came as no surprise to me. Having lived a life of rebellion, drug abuse and sexual immorality, no one needed to tell me my life was a mess. But the Scripture also promised I could be forgiven, not just for my everyday rebellion, but also for my past sins.

    "Come," God urged through the prophet Isaiah, "let us reason together. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isaiah 1:18). The apostle John wrote, "If we confess our sins, God is faithful ... to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).

    As the weeks passed and I continued studying the Scriptures, I began to understand what I needed to do. One evening, dropping to my knees at the foot of my bed, I confessed my sins to God and repented for as many as I could remember. When I stood, I did so as a new person in Christ. Although the sad memories remained, I knew God had forgiven me for everything I had ever done - even for delivering my baby to the abortionist.

    Are you planning to have an abortion? Before you kill your baby, please counsel with someone who cares about you and your unborn child. Save yourself the lingering sadness which can last even thirty years into the future. Nearly every phonebook in the country will list Crisis Pregnancy Centers and other alternatives to abortion services. Many churches will also assist you.

    Have you had an abortion? Has your girlfriend had one at your insistence? The same God who forgave me will also forgive you. Yes, everyone who repents and turns to Him for mercy will find His grace as great and far-reaching as His love.

    Richard Maffeo lives in San Diego, California.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 7:54 AM


    Me too, MK. lol I notice that every time I type it.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 26, 2007 7:57 AM


    I think that Doug's just "flying by the seat of his pants" on this one. Doug, you are always polite, but you just don't get it.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 8:05 AM


    "... I chose to believe the LIES that our baby was only a "glob of cells" growing in her womb. I chose to believe them because, in so believing, I was freed of my responsibilities ..."

    --------------------------
    That's what the "CHOICE" in pro-CHOICE means...freeing yourself, deluding yourself, forcing yourself to believe that you do not have responsibility for your actions...

    In the end, the TRUTH still comes out..YOU are the mother/father of a dead baby...

    Powerful stuff...

    Thanks, Heather, for posting.

    Posted by: RSD at October 26, 2007 8:28 AM


    Anonymous,

    I think you misunderstood. I meant the argument back then was that the Catholic Church was to blame. I personally do not share that view. I think blaming the government and the Catholic Church was a politically correct way of taking responsibility away from the gay community. To hold gays responsible in any way was "homophobic" and "blaming the victim". It was just not politically correct to do so. The Catholic Church made a great target, and gays even entered churches during Mass and spewed condoms all over. Not surprisingly, little if no outrage was expressed over this. That would have been "homophobic".

    Phylosopher,

    Its not quite that simplistic. Whenever people engage in high risk promiscuous sex, gay or straight, they are placing themselves at serious risk. This is a choice they have made and have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences.
    People, gay or straight, who engage in this kind of behavior will do so no matter what. Commitment, be it marriage or otherwise will not stop them. I know committed gay couples who have never married. Nothing stopped people from living together and sharing a commitment if they so chose to.
    Marriage or commitment do not in themselves stop promiscuous behavior.
    There's an old saying that when you marry a man who cheats on his wife you get a husband who cheats on his wife. More than a few "other women", I know one personally, have made this discovery.

    Heather,

    An excellent post.

    Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 8:30 AM


    RSD, you're welcome.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 8:31 AM


    One more point. Isn't it absurd, even laughable to think that people who engage in high risk sexual activity, gay or straight, won't wear condoms because the church tells them not to?
    Really think about that one for a minute.

    Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 8:39 AM


    Mary,

    LOL. Exactly. Obviously if you're going to go around having sex with over 100 people, you're not going to go condomless, because "it's a sin"...

    People on here have laughed when we have brought up demonic influence, claiming it's a cop out to say that the "devil made me do it". But they seem to have no problem saying "the catholic church made me do it"!

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 9:18 AM


    Not every man wants their child aborted.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 7:53 AM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Well then, he should have used HIS uterus.

    Posted by: Laura at October 26, 2007 9:29 AM


    Laura,

    Well then, he should have used HIS uterus.

    Or you shouldn't have lent him yours...

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 9:34 AM


    Heather: I think that Doug's just "flying by the seat of his pants" on this one. Doug, you are always polite, but you just don't get it.

    Good morning, Heather, you wascally wabbit. Now I have to try and figure out what in the heck you're talking about.

    I'm working in Chapel Hill, NC, this week, right on the UNC campus. Today we have a generator that broke down, so I'm just messing around while we wait for another one to be delivered. Doesn't really matter, though - from somewhere I get a wireless connection at the site, no password or anything... sweeeet.

    I must be living right.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 9:53 AM


    Laura, that was stupid.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 9:54 AM


    Doug,

    I must be living right.

    I believe you mean living "left"...


    She is referring to my post...

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 9:56 AM


    "Jacqueline, not to the extent that we take away the freedom that women have in the matter."

    So the right to ill-gotten freedom supersedes the right to life?

    Going by your opinion, here, yes. You may think of it as "ill-gotten," but we all realize that there is disagreement about this stuff. And I know that you wish right-to-life was granted but it's not.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 10:00 AM


    Laura, that was stupid.

    Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 9:54 AM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Gee, Heather, I just woke up - could you be even MORE vague?

    Posted by: Laura at October 26, 2007 10:04 AM


    With the long history of genocide, slavery, and brutality in this world, I can't agree personhood has rarely been taken away at a whim. It was usually taken away when one was at the mercy of one more powerful.

    Would it make a difference to you Doug?

    Mary, it is indeed quite rare for personhood to be taken away, versus where it is granted and recognized. Of course there are many cases of slavery, etc., but it's in the context of billions of people and a practically unlimited number of cases.

    It does make a difference to me. If we didn't tend to have birth as where the line is drawn, you bet it would matter. I realize that it does not "have" to be at birth, but at that point the baby is not inside the body of a person, and I see no better place for it than that. Also - of course some people think a better place would be elsewherer, i.e. conception, etc. I don't think their desire should trump that of the pregnant woman, however.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 10:06 AM


    Doug,

    I think you misunderstood my question. I asked if discovering the fetus was indeed sensate earlier than thought would make a difference to you. You said it would make a difference to some people and I was curious if that applied to you as well.

    I do not argue that personhood can literally be taken from any person, born or unborn, but that people with more power than others can arbitrarily decide certain groups do not qualify as "persons". Their rights and personhood are not equal to mine or simply don't exist at all. Throughout history this has occured time and again to "justify" slavery, inequality, genocide, and about every kind of brutality you can think of.

    Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 10:20 AM


    John: However, the use of the word 'baby' is IMO as scientific because it is a specific word about the HUMAN species. Time an time again, we talk about 'HUMAN rights'. Doug says these begin at birth (and maybe viability). Shouldn't these be BIRTH rights (like: legal-personhood) and not HUMAN rights? He is more than at ease recognizing both facts that these beings are living and that they are HUMAN, but can be denied this status. Humanity is not awarded ... even if 'legal personhood' is - at BIRTH. A 'right to LIFE' is a HUMAN right and not a legal-person one ... just ask the US-constitution.

    John, "baby" is not specific to humans. There are baby elephants, baby rhinoceri, and baby oh baby did you see that booty?

    We do consider ourselves as separate from other species as far as rights, for the most part. Birth does not have to be the dividing line in any external, absolute way, but it's exceedingly prevalent in human nature to draw the line there. Rights don't "have" to be granted at birth or viability, but that's the way things are, for now anyway, and for time immemorial.

    "Humanity" as you use the term is physical state, and you're right - there's no real argument about it. Status can be given, or not, and the "human" doesn't change (of course). Does the Constitution say that rights can't be given to other species? I don't think so, but it's a moot point, isn't it, since the question doesn't come up there or in relation to the Constitution. There are laws protecting the lives of aniimals, based on concern for the species, or on property rights, or on cruelty to animals, etc., but they are not applied on a Constitutional basis nor does anybody really want them to be. Not many pipples, anywho.

    As to humans, in no way does the Constitution give rights to the unborn. There's nothing in it saying that merely being "human" means rights have to be attributed.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 10:22 AM


    There's nothing in it saying that merely being "human" means rights have to be attributed.

    Haven't we been here before? It doesn't say (specifically) that midgets have the right to life , or that penguins don't.

    It implies that all humans have the right to life. Until it definitively says that specific humans don't have the right to life, I think it must be assumed that they do. There are NO OTHER humans that don't have the right to life. Why do you assume that unborn humans don't?

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 10:26 AM


    "Nope, personhood is not attributed, and thus it's not illegal to have an abortion."

    MK: I thought we dealt with this problem. You really should stick to what you, Doug, believe. It confuses us when in one post you say "It's the law" and in another you say that you don't base your morality on "the law".

    Ayatullah Khomeini! MK, it's two different things. I do stick to what I believe. You ask for my opinion, I'll give it. The law is a separate thing. You, me, and the butcher and the baker may want different things than the law, or wish the law was different. What "problem" do you see here?
    ......

    You accuse us of always falling back on "Because God said so", claiming that if you don't believe in God, then our argument doesn't hold any weight.

    Jesus, Mary, and Josephus..... Your argument holds the weight that it does, but it's not provable.
    ......

    Yet, you constantly throw out there, that personhood begins at birth, because the law says so. Well, we don't believe in that law. So you're argument doesn't hold water.

    Wrong. You may disagree with the law, but it's there - that's not in doubt.
    ......

    Because God says so. Because the law says so.

    We've sojourned to Ye Olde Inn of the Apples and Oranges. God isn't provable, the law is.
    ......

    (by the way, my spell check doesn't even recognize the word "personhood"...always tells me I've made an error. Could it be because there is no such thing?)

    "Be you angels?" "Nay, we are but men!"

    Okay, back to our regularly scheduled program. And I mean that in the British sense of pronunciation. "Shed-you-uld." "Shrubbery." I once saw a flying sheep get shot down by a newscaster on Monty Python.

    Personhood is definitely a word - first place I looked was dictionary.com and thar she blows. And we definitely say it's there at birth, for all the disagreements that exist about where it should be.

    Yer ol' bud, Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 10:42 AM


    Also, let's not forget that some men suffer from the consequences of abortion. I know a few of them. They had no choice, because the woman made the choice. Those poor men. Not every man wants their child aborted.

    Heather, no doubt, and that can be such a sad thing for them.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 10:46 AM


    I think that Doug's just "flying by the seat of his pants" on this one. Doug, you are always polite, but you just don't get it.

    Heather, still not sure but I think you are talking about what MK said - the law and morality. And, those are two different things, here - there is the law, no matter how much we like it or hate it, and then there are our opinions and desires.

    It's getting to be colder weather, and that means I'll have to be paying to have the seat of my pants de-iced.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 10:51 AM


    I asked if discovering the fetus was indeed sensate earlier than thought would make a difference to you. You said it would make a difference to some people and I was curious if that applied to you as well.

    Mary, some difference but not enough for me to think that women shouldn't have the freedom to have abortions before viability.

    I don't "like" abortion in a vaccum - if there were no unwanted pregnancies that'd be just great with me. And among abortions I think earlier is better than later.

    "Baby Malachi" - I think it's sad and I'd certainly rather have there been no pregnancy in the first placed or the abortion take place earlier.

    Douug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 10:58 AM


    The problem I see here, is that you say "it could be different but it's not. The law says personhood at birth." Then you say you do not base your moral standards on what the law says.

    I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows what the law says. We are INTERESTED in what you say. We assume that when you say "As to humans, in no way does the Constitution give rights to the unborn. There's nothing in it saying that merely being "human" means rights have to be attributed." OR "No, not real personhood with attributed rights. Anybody can say anything, but the real deal is granted at birth." OR "Birth changes that" that you are expressing YOUR feelings.

    If not, then we don't want to hear them. You say "it's this way" and we say why do you feel that way? and you say "the law says it's this way" and we say so you base your morals on what the law says? and you say "No, I have my own standards and personhood is attributed at birth" and we ask why and you say "you may not like it but for now that's what the law says..." and around we go again.

    Just stick to what DOUG says. You'll make a lot more friends.

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 10:58 AM


    Doug,

    there is the law, no matter how much we like it or hate it, and then there are our opinions and desires.

    No kidding! So stick to your opinions and desires and leave the law out of it...

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 11:00 AM


    Doug,

    God isn't provable, the law is.

    The law is not provable. By your own definition it is based on valuations and desires.

    The fact that there is "written" law is provable.

    Law is found in books.
    We follow God's law.
    I can show you a book.
    You can show us a book.

    You can prove that in your book it says that personhood begins at birth.

    I can show you in my book why abortion is wrong.

    You can't prove yours is right.
    I can't prove mine is right.

    You don't like my author.
    I don't like yours.

    I don't view the "law" as absolute.
    You don't view the "bible" as absolute.

    However, your book changes with the wind, and my book has remained the same for 6000 years.
    Not one word has changed in 2000.

    If you want to continue to use the "law" as justification for murder, then you'll have to allow us to use scripture as valid reasoning for calling it such.

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 11:05 AM


    "There's nothing in it saying that merely being "human" means rights have to be attributed."

    Haven't we been here before?

    Likely so, MK. ; )

    It doesn't say (specifically) that midgets have the right to life , or that penguins don't.

    Midgets aren't in doubt, neither are penguins. John said "just ask the Constitution" and the Constitution's answer is not that the unborn have rights.
    ......

    It implies that all humans have the right to life.

    No, it does not.
    ......

    Until it definitively says that specific humans don't have the right to life, I think it must be assumed that they do. There are NO OTHER humans that don't have the right to life. Why do you assume that unborn humans don't?

    Nope, there is no such necessary assumption. Where the unborn lack rights it is because they aren't granted, and surely there are many reasons, going back through human history. Being inside somebody's body is a huge part of it.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 11:05 AM


    And for the record, my friends call me Tillie (short for Attila the Hun) not Khomeini.

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 11:06 AM


    Our educational system is based on evolution, and it easy to see some posters believe in this 'culture of death. Taken from my blog:

    The news on the pro-life, versus the pro-abortion, uh excuse me, political correct police, I mean pro-choice, which means a woman has the choice to take her unborn baby�s life. Make no mistake about it, the fetus, a live baby prior to birth, is alive, and if left to term, will be born a live baby human being. What I notice from the news is that those officials and loud-mouths who promote pre-born infanticide, pro-choice, which is pro-abortion, are also the same ones who promote the teaching of evolution only in our schools according to the science-standards, as set up by the state board of education. They can not afford to acknowledge a God who holds them accountable.

    Evolution teaches Survival of the Fittest. The woman choosing to abort her child, must believe that her choice, as the fittest, is superior to the choice of the unborn, the unfit. Darwin taught the theory of Natural Selection, which teaches us that, as life �evolves, "natural selection," picks out the fit alone, to survive and to reproduce. Now, let me think about that for a minute. Am I right in thinking that the pregnant woman has more right to decide the life or death of her unborn, than the unborn itself, who is thought of being unfit, and has no choice at all? That is one reason we, as pro-lifers, have taken on the responsibility of �choosing� for the unborn, to have life.

    Interesting also, natural selection is responsible for the growing support of euthanasia, however not called that, but the pc crowd calls it the right of each one of us to choose when to die, as we saw in the Terry Schiavo case. It never was determined for sure whether is was indeed her choice or her estranged husband who was living in adultery with another woman. As we see in some countries in Europe, there is a progression (Natural Selection, anyone?), that we begin with abortion, then progress to voluntary euthanasia, then�as some are now suggesting, mandatory euthanasia for the elderly, who are sick with no chance of recovery. Some are also suggesting this in the United States.

    Those who reject creation as a basis for education, promote all of the above, and in addition, support pornography under the guise of free speech. (Studies have proved a connection between pornography, adultery, and pedophilia). Gay marriage is supported under the mis-application of civil rights amendments. Will we soon see legalized plural marriages, bestiality, man-boy relationships? According to the history of nations that have gone down this path�yes!

    It is not only important�but mandatory�that we return to creation by God as the basis for our education. We need to register. We need to vote. Some need to run for public office. We must be involved!

    Rick, who is proud that he is one of the petition carriers requesting a call for a grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood.

    Posted by: Rick at October 26, 2007 11:09 AM


    MK, the law is certainly provable. Yes, it comes from valuations and desires, but that it's "there" is not in doubt. With respect to supernatural stuff, there is certainly doubt.

    If you want to continue to use the "law" as justification for murder, then you'll have to allow us to use scripture as valid reasoning for calling it such.

    It's not "murder," in the first place.

    Even going on the Bible, it doesn't prohibit abortion. Abortion was known and practiced in biblical times, and for thousands of years before that. Abortion was not considered murder in biblical times, nor "harmful to the community" as with respect to the Commandment. The "Thou shalt not kill" refers to murder and killings that were felt to be harmful to the community. Given all the detailed laws and rules in the Bible, it's farfetched, to say the least, that abortion was prohibited but the writers of the Bible just somehow forgot to mention it.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 11:11 AM


    MK, "Ayatullah Khomeini" goes back to Johnny Carson - one time he said it sounded like an exclamation.

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 11:17 AM


    "there is the law, no matter how much we like it or hate it, and then there are our opinions and desires."

    No kidding! So stick to your opinions and desires and leave the law out of it...

    No problem, but if people ask about the law or argue about it then it's gonna be mentioned.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 11:18 AM


    I think we can go round and round endlessly and pointlessly. Perhaps Doug and others are convinced that a woman is gifted (by ???) in choosing death for their human-fetus. It's as if the status of either being 'wanted' or 'unwanted' was supposed to project into a person's future ... only future rapists/criminals are aborted.

    Does 'not wanted' at pregnancy means she is really saving us from her kids?

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 26, 2007 11:24 AM


    The problem I see here, is that you say "it could be different but it's not. The law says personhood at birth." Then you say you do not base your moral standards on what the law says.

    MK, if personhood is the topic, then the point is that it is granted at a certain point. That's the law, and not necessarily the same as anybody's moral standards, opinions, desires, etc. It is just two different things there. In the abortion debate, we cannot get away from the fact that society treats the born differently than the unborn. This is before we get to how we feel about it all.
    ......

    We assume that when you say "As to humans, in no way does the Constitution give rights to the unborn. There's nothing in it saying that merely being "human" means rights have to be attributed." OR "No, not real personhood with attributed rights. Anybody can say anything, but the real deal is granted at birth." OR "Birth changes that" that you are expressing YOUR feelings.

    Then your assumption is just plain wrong. If the document does say or does not say "X" then it's not a matter of my "feelings" nor yours.
    ......

    If not, then we don't want to hear them. You say "it's this way" and we say why do you feel that way? and you say "the law says it's this way" and we say so you base your morals on what the law says? and you say "No, I have my own standards and personhood is attributed at birth" and we ask why and you say "you may not like it but for now that's what the law says..." and around we go again.

    Nope. John said "ask the Constitution" and the discussion proceeded. That's all. That's not my morality.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 11:25 AM


    Doug, 10:58

    If the ability of the fetus to sense or not would make little difference then why do you even use the argument in the first place?
    Again, what's the difference between early or later abortion? This isn't a "person", it has no rights, it isn't sensate, what's the problem?
    Why do you find Baby Malachi sad? You argued his personhood was in the eye of the beholder. What difference does it make when he was disposed of?

    Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 11:27 AM


    I think we can go round and round endlessly and pointlessly. Perhaps Doug and others are convinced that a woman is gifted (by ???) in choosing death for their human-fetus. It's as if the status of either being 'wanted' or 'unwanted' was supposed to project into a person's future ... only future rapists/criminals are aborted.

    John, either the Constitution says something or not. There are things which may be matters of interpretation, and then there are things that are plainly true or untrue.

    No, it's not "supposed to project into the future." Do you really think women have abortions because they think kids would turn out a certain way?
    ......

    Does 'not wanted' at pregnancy means she is really saving us from her kids?

    Humorously, seeing some of the kids these days, I can see how you ask that.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 11:31 AM


    Mary: If the ability of the fetus to sense or not would make little difference then why do you even use the argument in the first place?

    Because it makes a difference to many people and they argue about it. Pain, perception, etc., are frequent topics of argument on abortion boards. Just the way it is.
    ......

    Again, what's the difference between early or later abortion? This isn't a "person", it has no rights, it isn't sensate, what's the problem?

    You're oversimplifying. My opinion is that if a fetus is sensate, then anesthesia is better than the suffering that could occur. And that early abortion versus later avoids that issue in the first place. As far as "later abortion" when we get to viability then I think that inducing delivery is a good way to go, versus abortion, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise.

    Late enough in gestation, I think that personality is there, for most fetuses. To me, there are the developments taking place that build up to the consciousness that born babies have. I do feel differently about most abortions which are done relatively early on and really late ones past viability.
    ......

    Why do you find Baby Malachi sad? You argued his personhood was in the eye of the beholder. What difference does it make when he was disposed of?

    If you're not talking about legal personhood then yes - anybody can say anything. If anything I'd say arguing about terminology there isn't really productive. The picture is a little "gross" as many surgical things are, IMO, gory, visceral, etc. There is also the same feeling as seeing a dead puppy or kitten - I think most people simply get a feeling of sadness. The picture is looking quite a bit like a "baby," much more than the embryo, though the embryo too is more than a zygote would be, etc.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 11:43 AM


    Doug, 11:43am

    This argument obviously means a lot to you as well since you use it so frequently.
    Oversimplifying? You are the one who argues there is no sensate fetus before what, 21 weeks?
    Ok, so what's the difference if the fetus is aborted at 20 weeks or 2 weeks?
    If the fetus is sensate you would use anesthesia before dismembering it? But your argument is that being non-sensate is what justifies abortion.
    You think personality is in the fetus later on? Based on what? What's if its considerably earlier? It is thought that certain personality traits and disorders are hereditary, so personality may well be determined at conception, not develop later on.
    The picture makes one sad as would a dead puppy or kitten. Doug, when I look at pictures of dead animals I don't think that they just look like animals. I know that is exactly what they are.
    The picture is looking quite a bit like a baby? Maybe it makes you sad Doug because you recognize a baby when you see one.

    Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 12:31 PM


    phylosopher 12:31am,

    You make a good point.
    I should have also inserted the words "sacramental" and "between a man and a woman" when describing Catholic marriage. It's obvious by our physical biology that God intended it that way. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not sway in its teaching of the TRUTH based on public opinion. Monogamy is a good thing in my opinion, but there are ways to reduce the spread of AIDS other than allowing civil unions by gays. The civil union between gay people is inherently wrong, it is a mockery of the Catholic sacrament of marriage which joins a man and a women in a life long union with God.

    Mary 8:30am,

    Thanks for the clarification on your earlier post.

    Posted by: anonymous at October 26, 2007 2:09 PM


    Mary: This argument obviously means a lot to you as well since you use it so frequently.

    Well, it sure comes up frequently, but I don't use it as the end-all of the abortion debate. I don't even see it as outweighing the fact that the unborn are inside the body of a woman. If somebody says that a 21 week fetus can feel pain, that certainly can be argued. For most fetuses at 35 weeks, for example, it's much less of an argument, the same as it is early on in pregnancy.
    ......

    Oversimplifying? You are the one who argues there is no sensate fetus before what, 21 weeks?

    Yes, I do think that, but your question missed a lot:

    This isn't a "person", it has no rights, it isn't sensate, what's the problem?

    The "problem" is that there's a lot more to it than that, as I explained.
    ......

    Ok, so what's the difference if the fetus is aborted at 20 weeks or 2 weeks?

    From the standpoint of sentience and sense perception, I don't think there is any. But if we gauge people's reactions to pictures of the unborn at 2 weeks and 20 weeks, there's often going to be different reactions, me included.
    ......

    If the fetus is sensate you would use anesthesia before dismembering it? But your argument is that being non-sensate is what justifies abortion.

    No, my point there is that the fetus is going to be aborted. No reason for it to suffer. Being non-sensate is part of what I think about, and it does apply for the overwhelming majority of abortions, but I do not "justify" abortion on that.
    ......

    You think personality is in the fetus later on? Based on what? What's if its considerably earlier? It is thought that certain personality traits and disorders are hereditary, so personality may well be determined at conception, not develop later on.

    I am saying that as far as mental awareness, cognition, perception, they develop at a stage in pregnancy. I think it's usually between 24 and 30 weeks. My opinion. If it's considerably earlier than I'm wrong. There can be different meanings for "personality," as well. I realize that much is determined by heredity.
    ......

    The picture makes one sad as would a dead puppy or kitten. Doug, when I look at pictures of dead animals I don't think that they just look like animals. I know that is exactly what they are. The picture is looking quite a bit like a baby? Maybe it makes you sad Doug because you recognize a baby when you see one.

    Yes, no argument there. It looks increasingly like a baby the farther along in gestation we go. I have no problem with saying "baby." I think it's a pointless argument to say "It's a baby" or "It's not a baby." It's in the eye of the beholder.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 3:16 PM


    @Doug,

    As you know, I'm a Canadian. What you may not understand is that 1/3 of my life, we had (like the UK) no constitution at all. So there are parts of the US-constitution that are so fixed in my psyche, that they seem like some of the noblest words ever for ALL. And I say ALL means every one of us including non-sentient (even Canadian) humans.

    The preamble to the US constitution says: these rights are self-evident ... all men(this word for you excludes humans before viability; we tend to be inclusive) are created equal ..... seek LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then it goes on to outline the rights needed to accomplish this goal. (Please note that on purpose they could have but did not follow the Napoleonic Code, where precepts are excluded that are not specifically written about.)

    It seems redundant/silly to state a 'right to life' when the GOAL is LIFE. Maybe you can list for me the rights that are in effect stating ... liberty ... or, the ones for the pursuit-of-happiness.

    Is the problem then that we've all forgotten how to celebrate LIFE and have only the concept of 'party' for CELEBRATION?

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 26, 2007 3:21 PM


    Doug,

    Even going on the Bible, it doesn't prohibit abortion. Abortion was known and practiced in biblical times, and for thousands of years before that

    Just because something was done in biblical times, does not mean it was condoned by the bible.

    MK, the law is certainly provable. Yes, it comes from valuations and desires, but that it's "there" is not in doubt. With respect to supernatural stuff, there is certainly doubt.

    No Doug, you misunderstand. Of course I can prove that the law exists, but I can't prove that the law is correct.

    I can prove that scripture exists, but I can't prove that what it claims is true.

    Laws are subject to change. Therefore, they are not the absolute truth that you are making them out to be. And they are not universal. And quite frankly, they are the same as my laws. They come from my laws...

    Thou shalt not steal.
    Thou shalt not commit murder.
    Thou shalt not sleep with your best friends wife.
    etc...

    "When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws." - Daily News, 7/29/05
    GKChesterton


    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 4:07 PM


    Doug,

    MK, if personhood is the topic, then the point is that it is granted at a certain point. That's the law, and not necessarily the same as anybody's moral standards, opinions, desires, etc. It is just two different things there. In the abortion debate, we cannot get away from the fact that society treats the born differently than the unborn. This is before we get to how we feel about it all.

    I'm going to give this one more shot and I'm going to go very, very slowly.

    We
    are
    not
    interested
    in
    having
    a
    discussion
    with
    society,
    law books,
    or Albert Einstein.
    We
    are
    having
    a
    disussion
    with
    *
    *
    *
    you.

    So we are very, very, very uninterested in what the law says or society says.

    We
    Already
    know
    what
    they
    say.

    We are here on this board to discuss what we each, as individuals, think.

    Until you stop quoting the law (without adding the caveat "and I agree with the law") I cannot continue to debate with you.

    Your
    ****
    wait for it
    ****
    choice.

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 4:15 PM


    You're oversimplifying. My opinion is that if a fetus is sensate, then anesthesia is better than the suffering that could occur. And that early abortion versus later avoids that issue in the first place. As far as "later abortion" when we get to viability then I think that inducing delivery is a good way to go, versus abortion, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise.
    *
    Late enough in gestation, I think that personality is there, for most fetuses. To me, there are the developments taking place that build up to the consciousness that born babies have. I do feel differently about most abortions which are done relatively early on and really late ones past viability.
    ......
    8
    Why do you find Baby Malachi sad? You argued his personhood was in the eye of the beholder. What difference does it make when he was disposed of?
    *
    If you're not talking about legal personhood then yes - anybody can say anything. If anything I'd say arguing about terminology there isn't really productive. The picture is a little "gross" as many surgical things are, IMO, gory, visceral, etc. There is also the same feeling as seeing a dead puppy or kitten - I think most people simply get a feeling of sadness. The picture is looking quite a bit like a "baby," much more than the embryo, though the embryo too is more than a zygote would be, etc.
    Doug

    BRAVO!!!!! Now we are getting somewhere. "In my opinion" and "I think" make all the difference. Keep it there, and I'm back in the discussion...

    But so help me, if you use the phrase "Nope, sorry, personhood is not attributed until birth", I'm out again!

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 4:20 PM


    John McDonell,

    The preamble to the US constitution says: these rights are self-evident ... all men(this word for you excludes humans before viability; we tend to be inclusive) are created equal ..... seek LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then it goes on to outline the rights needed to accomplish this goal. (Please note that on purpose they could have but did not follow the Napoleonic Code, where precepts are excluded that are not specifically written about.)
    *
    It seems redundant/silly to state a 'right to life' when the GOAL is LIFE.

    Hence no need to mention midgets as being human or penguins as not!

    Hooray for John McDonell!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 4:22 PM


    Doug, the Bible most certainly does not condone abortion. I can show you from the Bible, however, I don't know if there's any point because you're going to believe what you want to believe (although I do have to wonder why it's important to you that the Bible condones abortion if you do not even agree with the Bible itself?).

    I agree with MaryKay about you, and that we would love it if you would express your opinions. Don't roll your eyes at me like this @@ when I finish, please lol. The reason I stopped debating with you for the most part (besides the fact that I was stressed so much it was affecting my family life) is because I am tired of hearing what I already know. Society says this, personhood is not attributed, etc. We already know that stuff. There's really no point in continuing to repeat it, because we already know these things, and we have already stated that we disagree with those things. Like MK says, we want to hear YOUR thoughts, YOUR feelings, YOUR opinions. Not "what society says", or "the law says" There's kind of no point in talking to someone who simply tells you things you already know. Know what I mean? You're a very, very nice person, and very likable, but very frustrating to debate with, because you can't seem to get what we're saying on this. Do you see what we're saying?

    Posted by: Bethany at October 26, 2007 4:34 PM


    Bethany, I did say, "even going with the Bible" - something to that effect. I think the Bible has some historical accuracy, regardless of our belief in supernatural stuff or not.

    I promise, no eye-rolling for you. When I do it, I think it's well-warranted. And I've been sweet on you forever anyway. I agree that it can be said that the Bible "does not condone" abortion when looking at certain passages. Yet others can certainly be taken as showing that abortion was okay way back when. Overall, and to keep it very simple, I think it's a good point that if abortion was "prohibited" back then, it's very hard to believe there's nothing about it in Mosaic law.

    I hear what you are saying about giving my opinion. Yet the societal attribution of personhood is just gonna come up a lot when discussing abortion. It is the fact of the birth standard that is the reason for much of the arguing.

    I certainly have no desire to beat things into the ground, to no real purpose. Yet I see many people's reasoning going along without being cognizant of those things that you claim you already know. I'll keep in mind what you and MK have said, and see what I can do about it.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 4:59 PM


    Sounds good to me, Doug! Thanks for understanding!

    Posted by: Bethany at October 26, 2007 5:06 PM



    John, if anything I think that the amount of life itself will weigh on how much "celebrating" of it we do.

    I hope your new keyboard is treating you well. I love Canada and Canadians. Lived there for four years - Nova Scotia - and worked there for nine years, all the Provinces and the NW Territory and the Yukon too. Some of my happiest times.

    Those indeed are some noble words, but they are from the Declaration of Independence. The Preamble to the Constitution is:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. They used to sing it on Sesame Street.

    Am I missing something? The difference between the Preamble and the Declaration of Independence has come up before.

    I realize you wish that the unborn were granted right to life. And okay, you say "the GOAL is LIFE." Well, that's not always so.

    As far as listing the rights that in effect state liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Constitution is mainly about keeping gov't off our backs, not about enumerating rights and privileges. In general and to a point, we want people to be free to follow their desires.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 5:11 PM


    Now we are getting somewhere. "In my opinion" and "I think" make all the difference. Keep it there, and I'm back in the discussion...

    But so help me, if you use the phrase "Nope, sorry, personhood is not attributed until birth", I'm out again!

    Okay, MK, I hear you. Yet if somebody says "The unborn are persons" as a point in debate then it's gonna come up.

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 5:15 PM


    Doug

    So you have no problem saying "baby"? Images of a dismembered unborn baby can be very disturbing, especially later in a pregnancy. You would provide anesthesia for pain relief during dismemberment. We can agree that we may not be as knowledgable of fetal sensate and personality development and when it occurs.

    MK
    I say "bravo" too.

    Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 5:44 PM


    Mary - yes, I have no problem with "baby." There is an enormous amount of argument over the term, but when somebody says "unborn baby" or "there is a baby growing in there," etc., I fully understand that.

    I see nothing to be gained in arguing such usage.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 7:24 PM


    Doug,

    Like I said, Bravo!

    Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 7:52 PM


    Doug,

    Okay, MK, I hear you. Yet if somebody says "The unborn are persons" as a point in debate then it's gonna come up.

    If somebody says the unborn are persons and you say, "I don't believe that they are, and here is why...the law says they are not and I agree with the law"...I will have no problem.

    But if, on the other hand, you simply reply "No. They are not persons until they are born" then I swear I'm gonna climb through my screen and wallop you with an asparagus tip! A big one!

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 8:07 PM


    MK: If somebody says the unborn are persons and you say, "I don't believe that they are, and here is why...the law says they are not and I agree with the law"...I will have no problem.

    But if, on the other hand, you simply reply "No. They are not persons until they are born" then I swear I'm gonna climb through my screen and wallop you with an asparagus tip! A big one!

    Well, I never just state that they're not persons until birth, and act like that is an argument. That'd be the same as the "baby" or "not baby" deal as if it's some logical argument on the morality of abortion. Ain't happenin'.

    There will be a context, as above in this thread, where Mary asked,

    Malachi's personhood is a matter of opinion?

    That leads right into the discussion of personhood and society's position on it.

    But I do love my asparagus.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 8:58 PM


    That leads right into the discussion of personhood and society's position on it.

    But Doug, that is exactly what we are asking you NOT to do...We already know society's position on it. No need for your to reiterate it.

    Just tell us YOUR position. What good does it do to say, "well society says"...This is a discussion between individuals, not societies.

    When I tell you "that the Catholic church says" such and such, I am also saying that I agree with the church 100%.

    If I want to argue with society, I won't do it on Jill's site.

    Why are you having such a hard time getting this?
    You are soooo smart, and yet this point seems to elude you.

    Is it because you don't have any real opinion on the topic? Or because you don't have anything to back up your opinion? Or because you don't know how to argue from "Doug's" stand point? Can you only recite facts and documents? We want to know what Doug thinks.

    I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

    And I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with me.

    Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 9:08 PM


    Why are you having such a hard time getting this?

    I'm not, and as I said, there is a context for it. What would you suggest I say when somebody else's position is that "the unborn are persons and have human rights"?

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 9:29 PM


    We want to know what Doug thinks.

    I appreciate that, MK, yet I have said it. I'm good with restricting abortion at viability. Past that, pregnancies can be ended by inducing delivery, usually.

    When it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation - something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 9:36 PM


    @Doug,

    " the Constitution is mainly about keeping gov't off our backs, not about enumerating rights and privileges. In general and to a point, we want people to be free to follow their desires." have heard this before ... and the same outlook is brought forward when discussing the ten commandments ... you know, God's list of don'ts.

    To fight this I very carefully read the original to find out the 'intention' of the authors. Usually, as in this case, it was hoped that people would become more free ... and it-has very little to do with the government at all ... but modern government use h-bomb blasts to not win wars with enemies, but to keep (fear) their own citizens in-line. Similarly, the 'decalogue' is about God planting 10 trees in the yard and saying: 'if you want to be human, don't climb these trees.' Now, to express our freedom (because God really wants us in hell), we believe we should not just climb them, but live in them too (just to show God who is BOSS).

    My Aunt Bel died a few years ago ... but to me her legacy lives. Hers, God's, the US-constitution's power, is that they have worked and slaved, and thirsted and died so that we could be free (consider American soldiers) ... they BELIEVE IN ME (I don't believe in me that much!) Am I then to say their belief in freedom = killing my offspring? Their belief and mine are one, and such does not allow me to kill others ... imposing death is not freeing!

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 26, 2007 10:21 PM


    But I do love my asparagus.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 8:58 PM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Oh, so THAT explains your urine!

    Posted by: Laura at October 27, 2007 1:03 AM


    What would you suggest I say when somebody else's position is that "the unborn are persons and have human right?

    I would "suggest" you tell us your feelings and thoughts on the matter, not spit out the law.

    "I think that the unborn are not persons and here is why..." would be a good start.

    Or "The law says that personhood begins at birth, and I have to agree..."

    Or "Personhood is a legal term, but for the sake of argument, I would say personhood begins..."

    What I would strongly suggest (lest you get hit with a green vegetable) that you do NOT say, is:

    "No. Personhood doesn't begin until birth."

    The fact that the law defines it as such is precisely the reason we are discussing it. We don't need to hear, yet again, that the law has deemed personhood to begin at birth. We need to hear, or want to hear, why YOU think this is a good thing. or a right thing.

    Posted by: mk at October 27, 2007 4:47 AM


    I think your problem is coming from getting hung up on the "person" thing.

    We never even entertained the thought that the unborn weren't persons. You guys invented that idea. It is your term, and one that we find ridiculous. We cannot even comprehend needing to prove that a human being is a person. We view them as the same thing. Because your side, came up with the idea of separating them, we suddenly find ourselves having to defend this so called "personhood".

    Even you, seem to understand that it is a "legal" term, invented for the soul purpose of rationalizing the "right" to kill the unborn...

    We find the idea ridiculous and are asking you to defend it. Something which you can't seem to do, without falling back on "the law says so"...

    We understand that it is a "legal" term. We want to know why? What do you, Doug, think about this assinine term, a single word, invented for the sole purpose of justifying the slaughter of our children.

    It would be like asking the southerners why black people were only considered three fifths of a person, and their answer being "because the law says so..." Well, no duh! But what is the reasoning behind the law? And your answer would be...
    'Because the law says so. You can't argue with the law"...But why are they three fifths? "Because it's written right there. I can prove they are only three fifths...it says so right in the law books..."

    Posted by: mk at October 27, 2007 4:57 AM


    Oh, so THAT explains your urine!

    :: laughing ::

    No doubt, Laura, no doubt. In 1998 I dug two big trenches, like 60 feet long by 2 wide and 2.5 deep, filled them with stuff that asparagus likes to grow in, and planted the "crowns" (rootstock of young plants. Took a couple years to get established but since then we've had a ton of it in May and June.

    And yeah -- PeeYew!

    Doug "Geez, is that stuff eating into the toilet bowl enamel?"

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 7:32 AM


    John, I love you, Man - you post like nobody else.

    Not arguing the existence of God here, but the Bible was written by people, and it makes sense to me that the commonality found within the human race is expressed in the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Koran, etc., to large extents.

    Good and interesting point about those who came before us believing in us, caring about the future. I hear every bit of that. But do we need an unlimited number of us? Or do we need "more for the sake of more," especially to the extent that we tell a woman she cannot have an abortion? I say no.

    Nobody is telling you to kill your offspring. That's not where Pro-Choice is. If you see the unborn as "others" in that way, and think they should live, then no pro-choicer is expecting you to do differently from what you want there.

    I have to disagree where you say that "imposing death is not freeing." Sometimes it is, sometimes for a given woman in a given situation having an abortion is the best thing, and she would feel decidedly less free without it.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 7:47 AM


    I think your problem is coming from getting hung up on the "person" thing. We never even entertained the thought that the unborn weren't persons. You guys invented that idea. It is your term, and one that we find ridiculous. We cannot even comprehend needing to prove that a human being is a person. We view them as the same thing. Because your side, came up with the idea of separating them, we suddenly find ourselves having to defend this so called "personhood".

    MK, when somebody states that the unborn are persons, as a point in debate, then the obvious thing to say is that most of the reason the abortion argument exists in the first place is because society does not see things that way. I could say, "Okay, you feel that way," and the discussion ends, but what good is that? We already know that different people view things differently here. I see it as massive confusion that the physical state of the unborn is equated with attributed status. They are not the same thing. Even if the right-to-life was unquestioned for the unborn, they would still not be the same thing. You want that status for the unborn to the extent that you would prohibit women from having abortions, frequently. I more want women to be able to go whichever way they want in the matter, to the extent that I would allow some of the unborn to be killed.
    ......

    Even you, seem to understand that it is a "legal" term, invented for the soul purpose of rationalizing the "right" to kill the unborn...

    No, not at all - it's just a fact that society grants status, and here we have a big debate about it. Yes, it's a legal deal, but there's no rationalization going on. "Person" in that sense, or personhood, are just descriptive terms to describe status. It's not saying that abortion is good or bad, it's just saying that the status is there.
    ......

    We find the idea ridiculous and are asking you to defend it. Something which you can't seem to do, without falling back on "the law says so"... We understand that it is a "legal" term. We want to know why? What do you, Doug, think about this assinine term, a single word, invented for the sole purpose of justifying the slaughter of our children.

    Oh come on, I do it all the time. The pregnant woman may need to end a pregnancy more than anybody else needs to tell her not to. It's not an assinine term, and the unborn are not necessarily "children." The "why" of abortion is that some people want to end pregnancies. The "why not" lies in the desires of some other people. The thing that is the most important to me here is the freedom and wishes of the person who is pregnant, I don't see anything else more important than that.
    ......

    It would be like asking the southerners why black people were only considered three fifths of a person, and their answer being "because the law says so..." Well, no duh! But what is the reasoning behind the law? And your answer would be... 'Because the law says so. You can't argue with the law"...But why are they three fifths? "Because it's written right there. I can prove they are only three fifths...it says so right in the law books..."

    As I recall, wasn't the "three-fifths" or other fraction really just an odd accounting deal for the purposes of the census? Slaves were not accorded personhood, regardless of any numerical technicalities. That was the law that really mattered, not how they were counted in the census.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 8:09 AM


    Doug,

    Black people were denied personhood at the whim of the more powerful. This provided a convenient "justification" for slavery.

    Posted by: Mary at October 27, 2007 2:09 PM


    Mary - yep, they weren't accorded personhood.

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 3:06 PM


    Doug,

    Whether one looked at a black person and either denied their personhood or wouldn't accord them personhood is a matter of semantics. The end result was the same, they were not legal persons.

    Posted by: Mary at October 27, 2007 3:12 PM


    Mary - agreed, and thus the "three-fifths" deal wasn't a big one.

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 5:09 PM


    Doug,

    No, not at all - it's just a fact that society grants status, and here we have a big debate about it.

    So help me, I'm losing my mind here...

    NO! We do not have a big debate about it. We agree, wholeheartedly, 100%, undequivocally that society has granted the status of personhood to born people but not to unborn people.

    The "BIG DEBATE" if you will, it that we say that society is WRONG to have done so.

    That is why when you debate whether or not society says so, we get sooooo frustsrated. We know! Enough already.

    We think it is a bogus distinction. Just like we think legalizing abortion is bogus. You wouldn't try to convince us that it IS legal would you? No, because we all know that it is. So why do you keep trying to convince us that personhood has not been attributed to the unborn. No one is arguing that it hasn't. We are arguing that it SHOULDN'T have been.

    We are saying that being the "law" does not make it so. It only makes it the law.

    Being legal does not make abortion right. It does not make it any less murder in any sense other than the legal one.

    Being granted personhood means absolutely nothing to us. We don't care what the law says. They are persons. By OUR definition. Now, if you'd like to debate why you, Doug, don't believe they are persons, then fine. But if you want to debate whether or not the law defines them as persons, you're going to have to debate with someone else.

    We keep trying to tell you that the law, any law is meaningless to us. We do the right things, because they are the right things, regardless of what the law says.

    99% of the time we end up following the law, because we would have anyway. But we follow it because it is God's law, not the US's. We follow a higher law. Man's law is subject to flaws, while God's isn't. I don't trust man's laws. It's that simple.

    Posted by: mk at October 27, 2007 6:21 PM


    Doug,

    agreed, and thus the "three-fifths" deal wasn't a big one.

    Good Lord man! It was a BIG deal to the slaves!

    Posted by: mk at October 27, 2007 6:22 PM


    Doug,

    You are insane!

    As I recall, wasn't the "three-fifths" or other fraction really just an odd accounting deal for the purposes of the census? Slaves were not accorded personhood, regardless of any numerical technicalities. That was the law that really mattered, not how they were counted in the census.

    You're response to "quit quoting the law" is "Um, excuse me, but you got the wrong law?"

    Hopeless, *mutters to herself* completely hopeless.

    Posted by: mk at October 27, 2007 6:25 PM


    maybe for a break of sorts: I'll tell you of a historic injustice Canadian style. For several thousands of years our Inuit (Eskimo populace) used to name each other by a completely different method than anyone else. Our bureaucrats (and anyone else not from this culture) would get thoroughly confused by this. (Someone's name would change depending how old they were + some typical family event ... like someone dies and their spirit would reside in another human .... the other person would then has a whole different personality and a new name.)

    So they assigned numbers to replace names. It seems efficient until you use such a schema. We typically refuse to even name our pets this way, why do it just because we/the-strong can?

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 27, 2007 7:18 PM


    MK: You are insane!

    No I'm not.
    ......

    As I recall, wasn't the "three-fifths" or other fraction really just an odd accounting deal for the purposes of the census? Slaves were not accorded personhood, regardless of any numerical technicalities. That was the law that really mattered, not how they were counted in the census.

    You're response to "quit quoting the law" is "Um, excuse me, but you got the wrong law?" Hopeless, *mutters to herself* completely hopeless.

    Good grief, MK, you brought it up, not me. Mary is right - the slaves were not legal persons. Yet you brought up the fraction and the reasoning behind it. The south wanted greater representation, and that was to be had by counting the slaves in the population, though they couldn't bring themselves to go beyond the 3/5.

    You asked, But what is the reasoning behind the law?

    Well, there it is. And no, the 3/5 was most certainly not a big deal to the slaves. They did not benefit from a state having more represenation. For them, the operative deal was that they weren't granted rights.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 7:45 PM


    We typically refuse to even name our pets this way, why do it just because we/the-strong can?

    John, indeed, but then once in a while.... In the 1980s I worked with a guy who raised a few cows, just for fun and meat. He had two that I remember, "Chuck" and "Sirloin."

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 7:54 PM


    "No, not at all - it's just a fact that society grants status, and here we have a big debate about it."

    So help me, I'm losing my mind here... NO! We do not have a big debate about it. We agree, wholeheartedly, 100%, undequivocally that society has granted the status of personhood to born people but not to unborn people.The "BIG DEBATE" if you will, it that we say that society is WRONG to have done so.

    Oh please, you are not losing your mind. I know you think it's wrong. But I don't say that society's deal is "right" in any external nor absolute way. it just comes up, MK, it comes up when other people proceed as if the unborn "are persons" without qualification.

    If they say it's their opinion, that they think that's how it ought to be, that they feel society is wrong, then there's no need to note society's position. But even though you agree about the status, stuff is still said like "the unborn are persons and have rights from conception."

    Well, that's just not true, as stated. The reply could just be "no," but a much better one is "no, and here's why..."

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 8:02 PM


    That is why when you debate whether or not society says so, we get sooooo frustsrated. We know! Enough already.

    Okay, MK. I am very conscious of how you and Bethany feel about this. I don't "debate" that, though - it's just a given. The reason to bring it up is when somebody proceeds as if it's not so, and that is incorrect.

    I am not tryin' to drive you nuts, and I promise to try and avoid that.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 8:07 PM


    Someone's name would change depending how old they were + some typical family event ... like someone dies and their spirit would reside in another human .... the other person would then have a whole different personality and a new name.

    John - the name change makes sense but was there really a "new" personality? I can see a couple ways it could happen - if there was some actual transference, or if the person felt like "they are now in me" enough for them to be changed.

    Interesting stuff.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 8:32 PM


    @Doug,

    it's very hard to figure out even from concepts like transference. One example - a much-beloved chief dies. A nine year old child begins to display the chief's personality .... the name change happens because the child IS now the chief.

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 27, 2007 9:08 PM


    John, that's pretty wild.

    Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2007 10:16 PM


    So, in America, lying to a court is a felony, but certain late term abortions are a misdemeanor.

    It is also a felony to destroy a turtle egg, but perfectly legal to destroy an unborn baby.

    That's because a turtle egg is respected more in our society and viewed to be a future turtle, but an unborn baby is only viewed as a a "fetus."

    Posted by: P.B. Mistretta III at October 28, 2007 4:39 AM


    Doug,

    The south wanted greater representation, and that was to be had by counting the slaves in the population, though they couldn't bring themselves to go beyond the 3/5.

    Do you honestly not see that you have just corrected me on the law again? I couldn't care less if they were labeled three fifths or labeled moon cheese. The result is the same. They were not given rights. And instead of explaining the moral reasoning behind this, or the moral reasoning behind the personhood theory, you quote yet more laws, and more explanations of the law.

    WHY? WHY? WHY? did they feel morally justified proclaiming that black men and women were not persons? WHY? WHY? WHY? do you feel morally justified calling the unborn non persons. Not what does the law say. Not what benefits does the law provide. What is the moral reasoning behind it? This is what we want to debate.

    And it's NOT just Bethany and me. Haven't you noticed that almost nobody debates with you? Every once in awhile John M or Mary will throw one at you, but for the most part we avoid you. Because you refuse to argue from Dougs viewpoint.
    You only argue from your "box" which is so confining we can't fit in it. I know you have a problem arguing from anything but a "literal" standpoint, but this is not normal. Most of the world argues from their personal viewpoint. We put ourselves on the line. But not you. No, you just quote endless laws and statistics. There is a time and place for that, but you just don't seem to be able to get that we are arguing viewpoints here. Viewpoints. Not law. This isn't a courtroom. It's a blog!

    If you're not insane then you must be an android. I feel like I'm arguing with a robot!

    I love you Doug, but I think I now need therapy!

    Posted by: mk at October 28, 2007 6:55 AM


    MK, I thought your therapy was all the whipping you've done on me with those asparagus stalks. (And thank you, by the way.)

    I am pretty careful about not stating my opinion as if it were fact, and about sticking to things that are true for all of us, rather than just for some of us. I think that is why some people aren't going to argue with me.

    Sure, I like to argue, like a big dog, but just arguing opinion back and forth only goes so far. The bottom line there is just "is so" versus "is not." Not my cup of tea.

    Same for the "it's a baby" versus "it's not a baby." Now what, really, is the point of that? Yes, that's outside my box.

    Anyway, I'll try not to infuriate you so much.

    Slavery was due to people wanting slaves. I imagine some slaveowners could see perfectly well that the slaves had emotion, etc., just like themselves, but they still wanted slaves. Heck, there are people today who are for slavery.
    ......

    I know you have a problem arguing from anything but a "literal" standpoint, but this is not normal.

    You made me laugh there, MK. I think you're seeing me just stick to what's true for all of us, there. Enigma does that too. Hell's Bells - who wants to be "normal"? : )

    I've told you many times that I more want the freedom that women have to remain, than for an unwanted pregnancy to continue. For you it's the reverse. I have no problem at all arguing from my viewpoint.

    I do hear you about this being a blog not a courtroom. Well, I could rant and rave with the best of 'em, but I guess I'm just getting a little too old for that. I've seen message boards where that holds sway.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 28, 2007 7:37 AM


    P.B. Mistretta III: It is also a felony to destroy a turtle egg, but perfectly legal to destroy an unborn baby.

    That's because a turtle egg is respected more in our society and viewed to be a future turtle, but an unborn baby is only viewed as a a "fetus."

    Turtles are protected because they are perceived to be endangered. What with the number of people on earth, it's a different thing. If there were a lot, lot more turtles, it would not be the way it is.

    Even without that, if the turtle egg were inside a woman's body, I don't think it would be a felony to destroy it, if she wanted it destroyed.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 28, 2007 7:42 AM


    Doug, I'm not sure, but I think you keep missing the point. It's the nitpicking, and avoiding the actual topic that gets frustrating...but you seem to think that we are annoyed for something else. I don't know if we could be any more clear, but I'll try again...

    Sometimes, for instance, Marykay will say something, and she may accidentally misspeak about something- something that doesn't really matter in the argument- but you perceive it to matter for some reason. Instead of arguing what you know she meant to ask you, you nitpick about what she misspoke about. For some reason, it seems to be very important to you to make sure that everyone says everything perfectly and makes not even the slightest grammatical or historical mistakes in the debate, even if the mistake doesn't really have an effect on the point the person was trying to make...rather than nitpick the petty mistakes which don't really matter, why not just argue what you know the point was of her argument? I'm trying really hard to explain it where you will understand.
    We don't want to argue semantics and law, we want to debate morality. There is a huge difference...but I think you are misunderstanding. We don't debate you for a history lesson or a lesson of the law. We debate you to discuss your personal reasons behind the sense of morality you have. Not from a legal standpoint, not from society's standpoint, from your own standpoint. Does any of that make sense? I realize you have made some aspects of your position clear- that you think that it's not worth it to make the woman go through a pregnancy to save a unborn child, that you think that it's all about valuation, etc... but we want to dig deeper, and ask you "Why?". And our "why?" isn't directed at society....or anything else. It's directed only at *you* and *your* personal motivators for your decision to feel this way. And the question we want to ask is "WHY"? Why does DOUG feel this way? See what I mean?

    Don't know if this made it any more clear, but it was worth a shot! :)

    Posted by: Bethany at October 29, 2007 9:00 AM


    I am pretty careful about not stating my opinion as if it were fact, and about sticking to things that are true for all of us, rather than just for some of us. I think that is why some people aren't going to argue with me.
    Sure, I like to argue, like a big dog, but just arguing opinion back and forth only goes so far. The bottom line there is just "is so" versus "is not." Not my cup of tea.
    Same for the "it's a baby" versus "it's not a baby." Now what, really, is the point of that? Yes, that's outside my box.

    Doug, what was your reaction to abortion when you first heard about it as a child?

    Posted by: Bethany at October 29, 2007 9:08 AM


    P.S. My first post I was actually saying in a cheerful "voice", and a smile on my face, but it's hard to tell that with the words like "nitpicking" etc. Hope you understand that I'm not in a bad mood or anything, even though it may look like it with the wording I used. lol

    Posted by: Bethany at October 29, 2007 10:32 AM


    Doug, what was your reaction to abortion when you first heard about it as a child?

    Bethany, I don't remember. I didn't think about abortion much until I was 37, got a computer, and started arguing my fool head off online.

    I imagine it would have been "YUCK" just due to the bloody/surgical aspect of it.

    Nobody in my family had any abortions and I can't even remember when I was aware of it. I was 14 in 1973 and surely I saw stuff on the news, but it wasn't related to me in any way and made no lasting impression.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 29, 2007 11:16 AM


    Bethany, some posts begin with what I consider to be an incorrect premise, such as "abortion is always bad," and proceed from there. If everybody was in agreement about that, then it'd be logical to go that way, but of course that's not reality. I don't mean to nitpick, but I do have a hard time letting incorrect things or things which are at the least assumptions go by.

    I do hear what you say, and don't want to do stuff with no good purpose, so I will watch it.
    ......

    We don't debate you for a history lesson or a lesson of the law. We debate you to discuss your personal reasons behind the sense of morality you have. Not from a legal standpoint, not from society's standpoint, from your own standpoint. Does any of that make sense?

    Yes, and you probably feel like, "Why in the heck didn't he get that months ago?" I guess I just approach the argument in a different way, which is mucho frustrating to you. It's over 11 years and literally thousands of hours arguing abortion that I've come to that.

    MK said she felt like she was arguing with a robot. The other extreme is both sides just yelling at each other, "You're wrong!" If there is a "goodness" in the arguing of abortion I think it is where common ground is found, for there will always be people on opposite sides.

    Doug


    Posted by: Doug at October 29, 2007 11:34 AM


    I realize you have made some aspects of your position clear- that you think that it's not worth it to make the woman go through a pregnancy to save a unborn child, that you think that it's all about valuation, etc... but we want to dig deeper, and ask you "Why?". And our "why?" isn't directed at society....or anything else. It's directed only at *you* and *your* personal motivators for your decision to feel this way. And the question we want to ask is "WHY"? Why does DOUG feel this way? See what I mean?

    Bethany, at the bottom of it, I look at suffering. I see the suffering of a woman who wants to end a pregnancy, and who is legally denied from doing so, as much greater than that of the unborn (if there's any in the first place) and as much greater than that of people who are opposed to abortion.

    I know it's argued all the time, but I see less suffering with having the way things are, rather than with having abortion be further restricted or banned. I am for less suffering.

    Posted by: Doug at October 29, 2007 11:39 AM