PP's big abortion picture

I received the letter below a week ago from head of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists with the following preface:

PLEASE READ THIS LETTER CAREFULLY. It concerns the world-level meeting in London to discuss improving women's healthcare on a worldwide basis, and especially in the undeveloped countries....

The agenda for this meeting was not set up by flesh and blood, but by the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and by spiritual forces of evil in high places, to quote a well known writer. This is what we face on a world scale.

Well, I did read the letter carefully. Our side wrote it in response to the recently held Women Deliver Global Conference, held under the guise of reducing infant and maternal mortality, as you would think by this graphic from its site as all others on this post:

WD%202-2.jpg

I didn't post the letter because frankly I thought your eyes might glaze over. But it shocked me, helping me see the pervasiveness of the abortion industry in the world, and that abortion in America is but one part, indeed a small part.

The letter's gravity has stuck with me. The health and safety of women, pregnant mothers, and children worldwide, particularly in poor countries, is being ignored to promote abortion.

Furthermore, the funding to abort poor women has obviously to come from elsewhere - us. This is the reason pro-aborts have targeted the overturn of the U.S.'s Mexico City Policy (in upcoming post) as its number one priority.

So I am posting the letter now and hope you will read it:

LETTER TO THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE OF THE CONFERENCE "WOMAN DELIVER"

London, 20 October 2007

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ORGANISATIONS, wish to express our profound disappointment and dismay that the Women Deliver conference has failed to meet its stated objective of addressing Millennium Development Goal 5, which is to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity.

Delegates were invited to attend a global conference on the causes, prevention and treatment of the complications of pregnancy and childbirth which lead to the deaths of so many mothers, particularly in developing countries, and to consider effective solutions.

Regrettably, the conference agenda was so preoccupied with promoting the ideology and practice of abortion that the genuine healthcare needs of women and children were virtually ignored in the plenary sessions and overwhelmed in the panel discussions.

Numerous UN reports, such as The World's Women 2005: Progress in Statistics, have concluded that accurate data about maternal mortality, including abortion, are not available, especially for the developing world. Therefore, the presentation of unsubstantiated and unreliable data on illegal abortion as fact can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to mislead the conferees and the international community.

To assert that "unsafe abortions" are only those that are illegal, and to subsequently imply that legal abortion is therefore safe, is both disingenuous and scientifically flawed. The fact that the WHO [World Health Organization] will not be collecting information on the morbidity and mortality related to legal abortion is unconscionable if there is truly a commitment to accurate and meaningful data collection on morbidity and mortality statistics.

The consistent assertions that improvements in the maternal mortality rate are dependent on the promotion of legal abortion not only diverts attention from the urgent need for basic heath care, skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetrics, it threatens to undermine the field of obstetrics and gynaecology if implemented on a wide scale.

WD%203-3.jpg

Furthermore, we oppose the fact that:

~ Members of the organising committee, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International, who have financial interests in the provision of abortion, have used the conference to promote a private agenda to spread abortion throughout the developing world;

~ The organising committee has attempted to manufacture a false consensus by ensuring that only the views which reinforced its pre-conceived ideas were represented during the conference;

~ The conference has sidelined the main issues related to maternal mortality (basic health conditions based on vaccine availability, clean water, sanitation, basic nutritional supplementation, primary medical post-natal and peri-natal care, fistula, female genital mutilation, haemorrhage, sepsis, obstructed labour, eclampsia). Such sidelining is a serious act of negligence which leads not only to continuing, but increasing, the risks associated with maternal health.

We call upon the conference partners to focus on basic health care, skilled attendants and emergency obstetrics, which have been the key to decreasing maternal mortality in the developed world, instead of exploiting the tragedy of maternal mortality to promote abortion rights.

  • Instituto De Politica Familiar, ECOSOC consultative status with the UN
  • Concerned Women for America, ECOSOC consultative status with the UN
  • MaterCare International, ECOSOC consultative status with the UN
  • World Federation Of Catholic Medical Associations, ECOSOC consultative status with the UN
  • United Families International, ECOSOC consultative status with the UN
  • Society For the Protection of Unborn Children, ECOSOC consultative status with the UN
  • World Union of Catholic Women's Organisations, ECOSOC consultative status with the UN
  • Federacion Espanola de Asociaciones Provida, ECOSOC consultative status with the UN
  • Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
  • American Association of Prolife Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • Instituto Mujer y Vida, Spain
  • Comite Nacional Provida de Mexico, A.C.
  • Salud Sexual y Reproductiva De Mexico, A.C.
  • Asociacion Mexicana Cultura de la Vida

    wd%2012.jpg


  • Comments:

    Oh please Jill.

    They've obviously been talking to SoMG.

    Abortion is safer than childbirth, haven't you heard?
    So if we abort all the babies (cuz Doug sees no good reason to bring them into the world anyway...we have plenty) then technically, we can claim that less women die from childbirth since the inception of these programs...of course the fact that "childbirth" has been replaced with "childdeath" need not be mentioned. The fact still remains that if no women are allowed to birth children, it stands to reason that no women will die from childbirth.

    Makes perfect sense to me. Why are you having a problem with it?

    I think it would be even better to castrate all male babies, so there wouldn't be any pregnancies, hence no need for abortion OR childbirth...but hey, that's just me...

    Posted by: mk at October 30, 2007 3:25 PM


    MK, I have a better idea. Let's just abort the entire planet. Who needs children? The whole damn world is dysfunctional anyway, right? I mean get with the times Jill and MK! Abort!

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 3:31 PM


    Only five days left?
    Thirty-five days have passed since the protesters began their daily harassment vigil. If their actions have proven anything it is that this community will come to the aid of clients when individuals try to block the way to the doors of Planned Parenthood.

    You are appreciated!
    More than 400 superhero volunteers spent the last 35 days escorting clients from our parking lots to their trusted health care providers. Generous donations from hundreds of superhero supporters surpassed the $5,000 goal to cover the expenses incurred by the harassment. By covering the extra expenses and the escorting shifts, you protected access to birth control, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, screenings for cervical and breast cancer, and vital counseling and education services.

    What if?even one individual decided not to get the care they needed because of the protester?s video cameras, their stares, personal attacks, and misleading information?
    What if?a woman postponed picking up her birth control and now must deal with an unintended pregnancy?
    What if?a woman postponed her well woman exam even though it?s been years since her last one?

    Today and Tomorrow
    Planned Parenthood will be here to offer health care long after the protesters go home. Please consider becoming a VIP Planned Parenthood supporter. An automatic monthly donation of $10, $25, or $50 through this website will ensure Planned Parenthood?s nonjudgmental, confidential, and unbiased services are available to everyone. Become a VIP Planned Parenthood supporter today!

    Read the Superhero updates!
    Update 1 - Update 2 - Update 3 - Update 4

    Love is the most wonderful thing in the world. We just want to help you keep it that way.
    Planned Parenthood. A plan you can love with.



    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 3:32 PM


    I thought I should share my most recent e-mail from Planned Parenthood. Sorry about the ?? in the post.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 3:34 PM



    The agenda for this meeting was.... set up by.... the powers of this dark world and by spiritual forces of evil in high places...

    Far out, man....


    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 3:58 PM


    So if we abort all the babies (cuz Doug sees no good reason to bring them into the world anyway...we have plenty)

    Oh no, MK, the good reason is if the mother or couple wants to bring them into the world.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 4:00 PM


    Notice how the pro-abort mentality works:

    If women don't have health care... then we need to help them get health care? NO! We need to kill their children!

    If women are poor... then we need to give them food and shelter and eventually help them find a job? NO! We need to kill their children!

    If childbirth is dangerous... then we need to find ways to make it safer? NO! We need to kill the children!

    If women live in poverty-striken warzones... then we need to put an end to the violence and get the people back on the road to self-sufficiency? NO! We need to kill their children, that will solve everything!

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 4:03 PM


    Doug said: "Oh no, MK, the good reason is if the mother or couple wants to bring them into the world."

    But if they want to bring them into the world, but don't have money, or health care, or they live in a warzone, or what have you... just kill the child.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 4:05 PM


    John, I have a question for you on another post. I need your help to figure something out.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 4:09 PM


    Doug said: "Oh no, MK, the good reason is if the mother or couple wants to bring them into the world."

    JohnL: But if they want to bring them into the world, but don't have money, or health care, or they live in a warzone, or what have you... just kill the child.

    I don't say there is no good reason to bring them into the world, even where there is poverty, war, etc. I also understand why some people won't want to have kids in those environments.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 4:19 PM


    Doug said: "I don't say there is no good reason to bring them into the world, even where there is poverty, war, etc. I also understand why some people won't want to have kids in those environments."

    I'm not talking about the people who don't want kids in those environments. I'm talking about the people who DO want kids in those environments. Do you help them to choose life, or not?

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 4:24 PM


    Heather, which post? Or better yet, what's the question?

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 4:36 PM


    John, Will you meet me down at the "Will Live blog Fox's reality choice" video. There are like 92 comments. Thanks.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 4:44 PM


    I also understand why some people won't want to have kids in those environments

    Where we differ, Doug, is the thought that somehow a garbage disposal, incinerator or bucket of formaldahyde is somehow a better environment.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 30, 2007 4:48 PM


    John, I have written out my question to you on that post.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 4:51 PM


    Is that the full list of groups who signed the letter? I thought I read somewhere that "many more" groups had signed, but these are the only ones I've seen.

    Posted by: Jen R at October 30, 2007 4:58 PM


    Thanks, John L.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 5:06 PM


    I said this before.

    The reason maternal health is used as an indicator of the health of a nation is because only large scale improvements in public health systems will affect it.

    It is not as simple as eradicating a single disease.

    Likewise, if you had a state of the art abortion facility available to to every woman on the planet, it still would not change the situation for women who are delivering. The women carrying to term would still need many services.

    Clearly abortion is a separate issue.

    It is very sad that so much effort is given to pushing abortion when safe obstetrical care is so very needed.

    Posted by: hippie at October 30, 2007 5:10 PM


    It's kind of alarming how abortion as a means of curing society's ills is on the level with killing everybody with AIDS to put an end to that disease.

    If an environment isn't fit for a child, then you FIX the environment, you don't kill the child! Similarly if a person has AIDS, you don't say, "Well, killing them would be merciful, and it would be good for society, too." Nope, instead every sane person says "How can we help those people who have AIDS?"

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 5:22 PM


    Its been a few months now. Jill said, "it shocked me, helping me see the pervasiveness of the abortion industry in the world, and that abortion in America is but one part, indeed a small part" There are things going down right now that make global abortion small potatoes. Right now abortion in the US is a little more than 1 million per year.

    A few years ago, Ted Turner gave the UN $4 billion to depopulate the planet. Ted's goal is a 95% reduction ... this means that 19 of 20 people are dead meat. Ted's wee 'plan' for the whole USA is 800,000.

    The plan is to start with the implementation of Codex Alemantarius http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php . Codex' own estimates are that 2 billion will die quickly and an additional 1 billion shortly thereafter. They have the determined US federal government backing.

    This is not pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory, but Codex has been planning for 25 years now. It means - your parents = dead; all disabled people = dead; all *seniors = dead (a *senior is anyone 40+); on an on .... (SoMG may even get a high-efficiency-raise!) As my friend would say "time to kiss your @ss good-bye".

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 30, 2007 5:25 PM


    John L: I'm talking about the people who DO want kids in those environments. Do you help them to choose life, or not?

    No, I leave it up to them.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 5:26 PM


    Hi John McDonell, great post!

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 5:27 PM


    "I also understand why some people won't want to have kids in those environments."

    Where we differ, Doug, is the thought that somehow a garbage disposal, incinerator or bucket of formaldahyde is somehow a better environment.

    Jacqueline, we don't differ there.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 5:27 PM


    Doug said: "No, I leave it up to them."

    So you're against helping people exercise their right to choose? If people don't have a choice because of bad circumstances, do you say, who cares?

    OK, then, answer this for me: If you only have ONE option, then where's the CHOICE?

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 5:30 PM


    I think sometimes we feel the world is overpopulated because many of us live in densely populated areas. UN commissions on poverty and hunger, poor health have consistently pointed to ineffective governance as the cause. Europe is very densely populated yet has good quality of life. By contrast Africa is the most sparsely populated continent on the planet and suffers extremely low quality of life despite natural resources. People suffer because of bad government.

    Emphasizing population control over economic and social improvement is a sign of going in the wrong direction.

    Posted by: hippie at October 30, 2007 5:40 PM


    I didn't know that about Ted Turner.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 5:41 PM


    John L: So you're against helping people exercise their right to choose?

    No, I said I don't help them to choose life. I am fine with them making that choice, but I don't specifically do anything to "help" them make that choice, nor push them in that direction, etc.
    ......

    If people don't have a choice because of bad circumstances, do you say, who cares?

    No. I do not want them to suffer. Yet most of the world is in "bad circumstances" compared to much of what we take for granted. I still leave the decision up to the woman or the couple.
    ......

    OK, then, answer this for me: If you only have ONE option, then where's the CHOICE?

    "Option" does not even come into it in that case. Now of course there are situations where one has no choice/no options, but with pregnancy there are always choices, i.e. continue it or not, short of being physically restrained or having no way to have an abortion.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 5:55 PM


    This post makes me sad :(

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 30, 2007 6:05 PM


    Ya know, after reading inspection reports for abortion clinics in the US, I guess it's no surprise that these abortion cheerleaders don't think that functioning plumbing and running water are necessities.

    After inspecting some of these places, inspectors had to go next door to wash their hands because there was no soap and hot water. If we don't need them for "safe" abortion in America, why should those women need running water at all? And if it was okay for Ronachai Banchongmanie to run an abortion clinic with feces in his stairwells, I guess flush toilets are optional, too.

    As long as abortion is legal, it's utopia, right?

    Posted by: Christina at October 30, 2007 6:19 PM


    Again, christina, you rock.

    Posted by: carder at October 30, 2007 6:24 PM


    @PiP: It makes me sad too. It's so unfortunate how poorly cared for pregnant women are in other parts of the world and how friggin' pathetic it is that nobody wants to help.

    One of the major complications of pregnancies in those poor nations is obstetric fistulas, something that can easily be prevented with basic medical care.

    Posted by: Rae at October 30, 2007 7:28 PM


    Doug,

    I also understand why some people won't want to have kids in those environments."

    Yes Doug, we know. You also understand why they don't want to have them in wealthy and healthy environments.

    Or in a box, or with a fox. Or in a house or with a mouse. You understand why they don't want to have children here. And you understand why they don't want to have children there. You understand why they don't want to have children, anywhere.

    I do not think that, Doug-I-am, and I do not think that you "understand"...

    Posted by: mk at October 30, 2007 7:33 PM


    OK, so Doug admits that he doesn't give a rat's behind whether or not a woman has real choice, just as long as she has access to abortion... even if she feels that that is her ONLY choice and is strongly against it. Doug's fine with a world in which people have no 'choice' but to 'choose' death. And yet, with a straight face, he tells us that he "pro-choice". Ha.

    mk said: "I do not think that, Doug-I-am, and I do not think that you "understand"..."

    MK, you are teh win.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 7:55 PM


    John L.

    Awwww, thanks.

    (I think...)

    Posted by: mk at October 30, 2007 7:57 PM


    I do not think that you "understand"

    Well, MK, then I'd just have to say you're wrong.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 8:20 PM


    OK, so Doug admits that he doesn't give a rat's behind whether or not a woman has real choice, just as long as she has access to abortion... even if she feels that that is her ONLY choice and is strongly against it. Doug's fine with a world in which people have no 'choice' but to 'choose' death. And yet, with a straight face, he tells us that he "pro-choice". Ha.

    Wrong, and good grief - what a morass of incorrect pretense. I gave you straightforward answers and you make up a bunch of silly stuff; straw man arguments.

    I don't want women to suffer, and they do have real choice, but the fact remains that there may be any number of undesirable things in her opinion, or in ours. It is not a matter of caring or not, it is reality, and I am still for having it be legal for the women to decide.

    Why do you think her only choice is necessarily to end the pregnancy? Regardless of where she is, what is forcing her to end it?

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 8:25 PM


    I don't see any straw man arguements.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 8:32 PM


    Heather, and you were so sure I'd had a "close encounter" with abortion, too.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 8:38 PM


    Couldn't help myself Doug.

    It started with the "you understand when they have them there, you understand why we have them here..."

    and well, it was just too easy...

    Posted by: mk at October 30, 2007 8:38 PM


    Doug, for someone who hasn't, you sure do get defensive about it.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 8:41 PM


    Heather, what do you see as "defensive"?

    I have said I want women to have the freedom they now do in the matter.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 9:03 PM


    Doug said: "Wrong, and good grief - what a morass of incorrect pretense. I gave you straightforward answers and you make up a bunch of silly stuff; straw man arguments."

    ROFL...

    Doug said: "Why do you think her only choice is necessarily to end the pregnancy? Regardless of where she is, what is forcing her to end it?"

    What, you want me to answer so you can tap dance again? Maybe I should call you Savion Glover.

    I told you that women might feel that their only choice is abortion, for a number of reasons, while they WANT to choose life. Heck, we just saw a woman like this in the Fox News abortion special! "Kayla" wanted to keep her baby, but her boyfriend wouldn't support her! I asked you if you would help these women exercise their desired choice. You said NO! There aren't too many different ways to interpret that!

    So here's another question for you. Would you be in favor of building an abortion clinic in a city without any abortion clinics? I would imagine your answer to that would be "yes", and thus you would support actions to make it easier for women to exercise their right to choose when the choice they seek is abortion. But as you said, you would not lift a finger to help the woman in need who WANTS to choose life but, for WHATEVER reason, feels that choosing life is an impossibility. That's why we call you "pro-abortion".

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 9:06 PM


    silly strawman arguements. Where?

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 9:07 PM


    Heather, admits that he doesn't give a rat's behind - there, for one place.

    I never said that or anything to that effect.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 9:16 PM


    Heather, that's a good idea. Maybe he can point out two of the straw man arguments I made, seeing as how he claims I made at least two.

    I'll even help out. From dictionary.com:

    straw man: A made-up version of an opponent's argument that can easily be defeated.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 9:19 PM


    John L. They all love to bring up the strawman. Pro choicers just love that man made of straw.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 9:21 PM


    Doug said: "Heather, admits that he doesn't give a rat's behind - there, for one place. I never said that or anything to that effect."

    That's not a straw man argument. That was a conclusion I drew from the premises given, ie, your statement that you would not help a woman choose life. If you truly believe it to be a logical fallacy, the correct term is "non sequitur", not "straw man".

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 9:22 PM


    Doug, I think you may be the strawman, based on the definition.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 9:22 PM


    Doug, you debate in circles.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 9:25 PM


    Here's some more help for you. A "straw man" would be, for example, if I said:

    "Doug's always saying that women should just kill their babies. But that's wrong, because.... etc"

    That would be me setting up a weak, phony version of your arguments just so that I can easily knock them down.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 9:27 PM


    Mary, that it's hardly correct to assume that no pro-choicers are involved with prenatal care and places where women can escape abuse.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 6:11 PM

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 9:36 PM


    Doug said: "Why do you think her only choice is necessarily to end the pregnancy? Regardless of where she is, what is forcing her to end it?"

    John L: What, you want me to answer so you can tap dance again? Maybe I should call you Savion Glover.

    I think you are making a false assumption, nothing more. Short of being physically compelled, she is still making a conscious choice.
    .....

    I told you that women might feel that their only choice is abortion, for a number of reasons, while they WANT to choose life. Heck, we just saw a woman like this in the Fox News abortion special! "Kayla" wanted to keep her baby, but her boyfriend wouldn't support her! I asked you if you would help these women exercise their desired choice. You said NO! There aren't too many different ways to interpret that!

    The point being that due to circumstances the desired choice was ending the pregnancy. Had things been different, the decision could well have been different too. But on balance she felt like ending it. She still had the choice, both ways. Because of her boyfriend, the most desired choice she had was to have an abortion. There may be any number of such factors, but the choice was still hers.

    I have contributed to charity, but as far as I know I haven't specifically donated to women who have been deciding, either way. Does United Way get involved in that? I am indeed for the choice, but that's not saying I have taken action on my own to influence a given woman toward either decision.
    ......

    So here's another question for you. Would you be in favor of building an abortion clinic in a city without any abortion clinics? I would imagine your answer to that would be "yes", and thus you would support actions to make it easier for women to exercise their right to choose when the choice they seek is abortion

    It depends on if there is anybody there with an unwanted pregnancy. If nobody wants to end pregnancies, then I don't say there should be an abortion clinic. In general, yes - if there's a perceived need for the clinic, then I'd be for it, same as for any medical care.
    ......

    But as you said, you would not lift a finger to help the woman in need who WANTS to choose life but, for WHATEVER reason, feels that choosing life is an impossibility. That's why we call you "pro-abortion".

    Nonsense. Being "in favor of an abortion clinic" is not "lifting a finger," in the first place. I'm also in favor of the woman who wants to continue the pregnancy being able to get the care she wants.

    I said, "I don't help them to choose life." I have also done nothing to influence anybody to have an abortion. That's also not quite the same as saying I would not, or would never do such. If there was a woman I knew who was pregnant and desperate for money, I would want to help her.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 9:36 PM


    Doug, note my post above from you. Can you back up this claim with facts?

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 9:37 PM


    "The agenda for this meeting was not set up by flesh and blood, but by the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and by spiritual forces of evil in high places, to quote a well known writer."

    How True....

    Posted by: jasper at October 30, 2007 9:42 PM


    Doug said: "Heather, admits that he doesn't give a rat's behind - there, for one place. I never said that or anything to that effect."

    John L: That's not a straw man argument. That was a conclusion I drew from the premises given, ie, your statement that you would not help a woman choose life. If you truly believe it to be a logical fallacy, the correct term is "non sequitur", not "straw man".

    John, you do have a point there, although your logical fallacy would be the ad hominem one.

    You can say it was your conclusion, but it's also a made-up version of what I said, thus my straw man reference.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 9:42 PM



    Mary, that it's hardly correct to assume that no pro-choicers are involved with prenatal care and places where women can escape abuse.

    Heather, among all the pro-choicers in the US, do you think that there are none (zero) that are? I think this is just a matter of logic.

    If somebody would generalize about "all pro-lifers" or say that "pro-lifers don't do such-and-such,: many times it would likewise be obviously false.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 9:45 PM


    EEWWW, non sequitur...Esther used that one on me earlier.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 9:46 PM


    Doug, proof please.

    Posted by: heather at October 30, 2007 9:47 PM


    Here's some more help for you. A "straw man" would be, for example, if I said:

    "Doug's always saying that women should just kill their babies. But that's wrong, because.... etc"

    That would be me setting up a weak, phony version of your arguments just so that I can easily knock them down.

    Yes, John, or it could be "a conclusion you drew from" what I had said.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 9:48 PM


    EEWWW, non sequitur...Esther used that one on me earlier.

    Heather, I'm not exactly bowled over with surprise.

    ; )

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 9:50 PM


    Doug: "I think you are making a false assumption, nothing more. Short of being physically compelled, she is still making a conscious choice."

    Right, like if someone puts a gun to my head and says "Give me your wallet or die", I'm exercising my wonderful constitutional right to choose when I hand over the wallet.

    Doug: "The point being that due to circumstances the desired choice was ending the pregnancy. Had things been different, the decision could well have been different too. But on balance she felt like ending it. She still had the choice, both ways. Because of her boyfriend, the most desired choice she had was to have an abortion. There may be any number of such factors, but the choice was still hers."

    That is nihilistic, apathetic rubbish. I don't know how you can claim to be pro-woman with an attitude like that.

    Doug: "I'm also in favor of the woman who wants to continue the pregnancy being able to get the care she wants. I said, "I don't help them to choose life." I have also done nothing to influence anybody to have an abortion."

    Aside from the whole supporting legal abortion thing.

    "That's also not quite the same as saying I would not, or would never do such. If there was a woman I knew who was pregnant and desperate for money, I would want to help her."

    So... if you knew a woman personally and she wanted to choose life, you might help her. But for those other women you don't know who want to choose life but feel that they can't for whatever reason, tough beans.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 9:54 PM


    Doug, it's not a straw man, because I didn't seek to simplify or twist your argument in order to prove you wrong. According to you, I misinterpreted your words and thus drew the wrong conclusion, which makes it a non sequitur. That is, if you can be believed.

    "Ad hominem" would be my insinuation that you secretly hate women and therefore aren't worth debating.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2007 10:00 PM


    Doug: "I think you are making a false assumption, nothing more. Short of being physically compelled, she is still making a conscious choice."

    Right, like if someone puts a gun to my head and says "Give me your wallet or die", I'm exercising my wonderful constitutional right to choose when I hand over the wallet.

    An extreme example, but yes, though the Constitution isn't involved, there, as I see it (the choice to hand over the wallet?). You don't "like" giving the wallet up, per se, but you like it better than taking the bullet.
    .....

    Doug: "The point being that due to circumstances the desired choice was ending the pregnancy. Had things been different, the decision could well have been different too. But on balance she felt like ending it. She still had the choice, both ways. Because of her boyfriend, the most desired choice she had was to have an abortion. There may be any number of such factors, but the choice was still hers."

    That is nihilistic, apathetic rubbish. I don't know how you can claim to be pro-woman with an attitude like that.

    Baloney. It is reality, regardless of how bad we think the situation is, or of how different it is from what we take for granted or from what we wish for. I have said I don't want women to suffer.
    ......

    Doug: "I'm also in favor of the woman who wants to continue the pregnancy being able to get the care she wants. I said, "I don't help them to choose life." I have also done nothing to influence anybody to have an abortion."

    Aside from the whole supporting legal abortion thing.

    Well yeah, John - "Pro-Choice" - I want either choice to be legal.
    ......

    "That's also not quite the same as saying I would not, or would never do such. If there was a woman I knew who was pregnant and desperate for money, I would want to help her."

    So... if you knew a woman personally and she wanted to choose life, you might help her. But for those other women you don't know who want to choose life but feel that they can't for whatever reason, tough beans.

    Oh please - am I going to help every such woman on earth? Am I going to help every woman who wants an abortion? Of course not. "Charity begins at home," and I am much more likely to do specific things in specific situations versus just giving money to organizations. I think that's true for most people, too - what will one do for all beggars in the world, for example? But if he's your neighbor, he probably has a better shot at your helping him.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 10:10 PM


    Doug, it's not a straw man, because I didn't seek to simplify or twist your argument in order to prove you wrong. According to you, I misinterpreted your words and thus drew the wrong conclusion, which makes it a non sequitur. That is, if you can be believed.

    I did note you had a point, there, John. Where you said "Doug admits.." - that could be taken as twisting what I said, though, eh? I do agree that you really were not trying to set up something to be proven wrong.
    ......

    "Ad hominem" would be my insinuation that you secretly hate women and therefore aren't worth debating.

    Or pretending that I don't "give a rat's behind" - trying to paint a bad image on me.

    Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 10:18 PM


    Right on, Rae!

    "What, you want me to answer so you can tap dance again? Maybe I should call you Savion Glover."
    Awww dance. Heart. I attended several intensives where his brother, Avron taught tap classes. Cool guy.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 30, 2007 11:59 PM


    Doug has this thang about "suffering".
    It is all about the relief of suffering for Doug. Fact is, Doug is a old fashioned pessimist.
    Think Doug is that pessimistic about his life?
    Pessimist are quite realistic about suffering, as long as the suffering is about other people.
    Think Doug would take his own pessimistic advise if Doug was in a war zone, extreme poverty, or suffering from disease?
    Would Doug be a "quitter" if faced with the situations he brings forth for not having children and aborting them to avoid "suffering"?
    Well Doug, one must conclude, that your from a "family line" that has never suffered the conditions of life you mention for not having a child, or you simply have forgotten the "suffering" of your dead realtives to bring you into this world, while they were suffering in some war, poverty, hunger, or disease.
    I bet Doug is now going to parade his credentials of being a self made man, who simply has no empathy for his past family who did not listen to the "Doug of their day", Robert Malthus.
    Life sucks, right Doug? Well not really for Doug, but for others it must.
    So Doug, to prevent yourself from entering the world of hypocrisy, where one preaches pessimism for others, but is not a practicer of pessimist in their life, answer one question. Are you a pessimist in your own personal life Doug? Yes or no will do, Doug .


    Posted by: yllas at October 31, 2007 1:44 AM


    Doug has this thang about "suffering".
    It is all about the relief of suffering for Doug. Fact is, Doug is a old fashioned pessimist.
    Think Doug is that pessimistic about his life?
    Pessimist are quite realistic about suffering, as long as the suffering is about other people.
    Think Doug would take his own pessimistic advise if Doug was in a war zone, extreme poverty, or suffering from disease?
    Would Doug be a "quitter" if faced with the situations he brings forth for not having children and aborting them to avoid "suffering"?
    Well Doug, one must conclude, that your from a "family line" that has never suffered the conditions of life you mention for not having a child, or you simply have forgotten the "suffering" of your dead realtives to bring you into this world, while they were suffering in some war, poverty, hunger, or disease.
    I bet Doug is now going to parade his credentials of being a self made man, who simply has no empathy for his past family who did not listen to the "Doug of their day", Robert Malthus.
    Life sucks, right Doug? Well not really for Doug, but for others it must.
    So Doug, to prevent yourself from entering the world of hypocrisy, where one preaches pessimism for and to others, but is not a practitioner of pessimism in their life, answer one question. Are you a pessimist in your own personal life Doug? Yes or no will do, Doug .

    P.s. Doug, your great, great grandmother "channeled" me, and thinks your weak and self centered since she suffered in poverty during a war(civil war) and had your great grandfather with 5 brothers also. Your pessimism is not becoming of such honorable,noble, suffering woman.

    Posted by: yllas at October 31, 2007 1:52 AM


    yllas, great point!

    Posted by: heather at October 31, 2007 7:03 AM


    I want to see yllas take on Ester. That would be classic.

    Posted by: Carrie at October 31, 2007 7:17 AM


    yllas, pretty good post from you. It had a certain rollicking flow to it.
    ......

    It is all about the relief of suffering for Doug. Fact is, Doug is a old fashioned pessimist. Think Doug is that pessimistic about his life?

    No, I'm fine. Got a good wife and family. Have lived a long time already, worked many places, met many people, and really have no complaints.
    ......

    Pessimist are quite realistic about suffering, as long as the suffering is about other people.

    You started with an incorrect premise, so you comdemned everything that followed in you "argument."
    ......

    Think Doug would take his own pessimistic advise if Doug was in a war zone, extreme poverty, or suffering from disease?

    I'm pro-choice, pretty much regardless of the situation.
    ......

    Would Doug be a "quitter" if faced with the situations he brings forth for not having children and aborting them to avoid "suffering"?

    If I was a pregnant woman, I might well choose to have an abortion, depending on the situation, just as many do who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, even if they considered themselves "pro-life" beforehand.
    ......

    Well Doug, one must conclude, that your from a "family line" that has never suffered the conditions of life you mention for not having a child, or you simply have forgotten the "suffering" of your dead realtives to bring you into this world, while they were suffering in some war, poverty, hunger, or disease.

    There are no "conditions for not having a child." If you can read, then you've obviously seen me say I am for leaving it up to the woman regardless of circumstances. It's not up to me (or you) - it's up to the pregnant woman.
    ......

    I bet Doug is now going to parade his credentials of being a self made man, who simply has no empathy for his past family who did not listen to the "Doug of their day", Robert Malthus.

    Wrong, as is usual with you. There were some tough times in the past. Going back 2 or more generations, I don't know if there were women who chose to have abortions. I figure the odds are that some did, as is true for all of us. Whether or not they did, times were certainly tougher by our modern reckoning.
    ......

    Life sucks, right Doug? Well not really for Doug, but for others it must.

    Yes, and you know that's true. As I've said, most of the world lacks what we take for granted, and there is great suffering indeed. That's still no reason to deny women their freedom in this respect. I leave it up to the women. Neither you nor I has a good enough reason to want to tell them what to do.
    ......

    So Doug, to prevent yourself from entering the world of hypocrisy, where one preaches pessimism for and to others, but is not a practitioner of pessimism in their life, answer one question.

    Another silly premise from you. I want women to be able to make their own choice. The pessimism I leave to you.
    ......

    Are you a pessimist in your own personal life Doug? Yes or no will do, Doug .

    No.
    ......

    P.S. Doug, your great, great grandmother "channeled" me, and thinks your weak and self centered since she suffered in poverty during a war(civil war) and had your great grandfather with 5 brothers also. Your pessimism is not becoming of such honorable,noble, suffering woman.

    Oh so that's it - she told me there was some nut who can't even spell "you're," who apparently had been hitting the Crack pipe a little more vociferously than usual, chattering away like a Spiro Agnew disciple. However, she did say that you had the part about her being honorable and hard-working right. She thinks that Madame Cleo overcharged you, though.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 7:22 AM


    Heather, it wasn't really "great" but it was one of yllas's better posts.

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 7:23 AM


    Doug, I enjoy reading yllas's posts.

    Posted by: heather at October 31, 2007 7:45 AM


    Doug, you pretty much agreed with yllas. You are a pessimist.

    Posted by: heather at October 31, 2007 7:47 AM


    It is amazing to see how Yllas can zero in on things. She has a real talent. I am sure that I have plenty of stuff that could be said about me as well, but I do find it interesting to read her analysis on others. It's fascinating to me.


    Neither you nor I has a good enough reason to want to tell them what to do.

    We do...you just don't accept our reason, Doug.

    Our reason is to prevent the woman from killing her child. A pretty good reason, in my opinion.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 7:59 AM


    Doug,

    I think you are making a false assumption, nothing more. Short of being physically compelled, she is still making a conscious choice.
    .....

    That works both ways. If abortion is illegal, a woman still has the "choice" to have an illegal one.
    We are constantly accused of trying to "force" a woman to continue her pregnancy.

    Well, if abortion is illegal, short of being physically compelled she can still make a conscious choice to obtain one illegally.

    I don't see how this would be any different from not helping a woman in a poor country to keep her baby if she wants, from not helping a woman obtain an abortion if she wants.

    The choice remains. We are just not "helping" to make it easier.

    I think that's what John L. was trying to say.

    You claim to not want to help either side attain their goal, and yet by your very desire to keep abortion legal you are aiding women on that side of the issue.

    Posted by: mk at October 31, 2007 8:13 AM


    Yllas wrote: Life sucks, right Doug? Well not really for Doug, but for others it must.

    Doug responded: Yes, and you know that's true. As I've said, most of the world lacks what we take for granted, and there is great suffering indeed. That's still no reason to deny women their freedom in this respect. I leave it up to the women. Neither you nor I has a good enough reason to want to tell them what to do.

    That's "true", Doug? Why do you assume that Yllas "knows" that's true? Why does life "suck"?
    I certainly don't agree with that, not at all. I do agree that there are hardships that we must all face in life, and for many people, that includes much suffering, but I do not agree in any way that "life sucks". I love life, and I think life is beautiful. Much good can come out of suffering. Much good can come out of bad situations. Life doesn't have to "suck". People can make a choice to see the glass half empty of half full.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 8:30 AM


    Ah Bethany,

    Choice is not about attitudes...it's about desire.
    and Valuation.

    Doug thinks life sucks for anybody that doesn't have it "easy"...therefore he "desires" to make everything "easy" for everyone.

    You know, like, kill the children, if you think that will make life easier. Pull the plug, if you think that will make life easier...Jump off a tall building if you think that will make life easier.

    Suffering is baaaaddd...all people that suffer are living lives that suck.

    I find that kind of condescending, don't you?
    Doug thinking he knows what's best for others?
    Assuming that they are unhappy in their lives because it isn't what he would want?

    Posted by: mk at October 31, 2007 8:43 AM


    Doug,

    I'm reading a book by Peter Kreeft called Back to Virtue.

    In it he compares different religions and philosophies and what they see as lifes obstacles to be overcome and what must be done to overcome them...

    For instance:

    Buddhism
    symptom: suffering
    diagnosis: desire
    prognosis: nirvana
    prescription: ego-reduction

    Stoicism
    symptom: anxiety
    diagnosis: passion
    prognosis: peace
    prescription: passionlessness

    Christ
    symptom: death
    diagnosis: sin
    prognosis: salvation
    prescription: faith


    Descartes
    symptoms: uncertainty
    diagnosis: unscientific methods
    prognosis: certainty
    prescription: scientific methods

    There were more, but I thought you'd find these the most interesting...

    Posted by: mk at October 31, 2007 8:52 AM


    Choice is not about attitudes...it's about desire.
    and Valuation.
    Doug thinks life sucks for anybody that doesn't have it "easy"...therefore he "desires" to make everything "easy" for everyone.
    You know, like, kill the children, if you think that will make life easier. Pull the plug, if you think that will make life easier...Jump off a tall building if you think that will make life easier.
    Suffering is baaaaddd...all people that suffer are living lives that suck.
    I find that kind of condescending, don't you?
    Doug thinking he knows what's best for others?
    Assuming that they are unhappy in their lives because it isn't what he would want?

    Exactly, MK. I do find it condescending as well.

    Like when he said that it would be okay for me to kill a homeless man who asked to die, who had no family, as long as I anesthetized him, and I wouldn't have done any wrong. It's as though he thinks he KNOWS that the man doesn't have a chance at happiness without death, just because he happened to wish it that day! (or, for that matter, that the only reason for the man to remain alive is if he is happy! If he is sad or depressed, why make him continue to live, is how Doug seems to see it?)

    How does Doug know that the man couldn't have had a chance at a better life one day? At a loving family, at...anything. How does he know that the man wasn't just depressed that day, but really wanted to live, and just had misspoken? Maybe he actually enjoys his life the way it is, but some days are hard. How does he know that the man needs to die in order to ease his suffering? Why couldn't his suffering be eased in some other way? Oh it could, I can hear him replying. But he still thinks that MY choosing death for him is okay.

    But the thing is...if the hypothetical man can be helped in a positive way, why is it acceptable for me to choose the negative way, and why is it acceptable for me to take his life, simply because you or I do not want to take the time or effort to help him?

    Doesn't this seem like Doug thinks it would be too much work, take too much effort, to actually attempt to help these people...and that the better option, the easier option, the option which requires the least effort for everyone, is to offer them death?

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 9:08 AM


    John L, you made a lot of great points that I seem to have missed yesterday.

    Doug, I wish you could understand the points he is making. I wish you could see how abortion is not helping these women who are in situations like this. Women frequently feel pressured to have abortions (even planned parenthood's list of "reasons women choose abortions" admits this) and your solution, in these situations, is to offer them an easy way to have abortions, rather than offer a solution where they can have their baby and get out of the situation where they are being pressured to do something they do not desire to do? How does that make sense? How is that relieving suffering?

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 9:29 AM


    So Doug, you don't PRACTICE pessimism in your personal life, yet PREACH pessimism to others. And your reasons for others(oh the suffering Doug saves the world) not having a child, is based on pessimism Doug.
    Pessimism; A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or take the gloomeist view. Houghton Miflin.
    Good old inkhorn Doug. Doug's rejecting his description of himself as that dsythymic personality which appeals to pessimism for others, but not himself. It assures Doug of not confronting his crack pipe hypocrisy abounding throughout this post page.
    Doug, you and Erin have something in common. Your hypocrites.
    PRACTICE what you PREACH Doug, anything less smacks of not knowing thyself well enough to know your seperation from truth delutes what others think of your reasoning.
    Everyone else on this site gets your appeal to PESSIMISM Doug. Well everyone but you Doug.
    Face it Doug, your a pessimistic hypocrite with a Madame Cleo complex which knows the future of children born into poverty, disease, famine, pestilence, and a hundred other pessimistic factors why others should not have children.
    Better to never be born and never suffer is the epitome of appealing to fear and pessimism, Doug.
    Apply it to your own family Doug, it builds confidence and character. It builds the confidence to get several abortions with no sense of regret, since one does not have the confidence to suffer for another human. It enhances the character to know the world sucks today, tommorow, and till the day you die.
    Hey Doug, bet you smile, and get a warm glow inside your pessimisitc heart everytime you hear, In The Ghetto, by Elvis Presley. There was a character who knew how to get the confidence of pessimism to flourish among poverty ridden black Americans. "And his mama cries, 'cause if there's one thing that she don't need it's another mouth to feed in the ghetto."
    Notice that appeal to bad grammar in that sentence from In The Ghetto, inkhorn Doug?
    "Don't" and not the correct doesn't.
    P.s. Doug, glom through this post for mispelled words, I left one there for ya Doug. Hint, Hint.


    Posted by: yllas at October 31, 2007 9:34 AM


    And before you go off on the "but she chooses to do the thing she desires the most".... honestly, that's just silly. Come on! If my choices are, have an abortion, or get beaten into a coma, the easier choice, or the choice that I have the "least distaste for" for me may be to have an abortion, but would that really help me?? How do you delude yourself into thinking that is an acceptable choice, in any situation?
    Would I really be relieved of my suffering, if I truly wanted to have that child, yet I was pressured to abort by an abuser? How do you really see yourself as helping people when you say that you're just "leaving it up to the woman". You're not leaving it up to the woman in these situations. You are leaving it up to their abusive boyfriends, their pushy families and friends, etc.

    Get one thing, Doug. People don't always make the "best" choice for them. Women are influenced by their emotions a lot more than men are... A woman may choose to have an abortion because of the pressure she feels on all sides, but this choice could be, and many times is, something that could haunt her for the rest of her life. Women don't always think of what is logically right at the moment, and they don't always think of what the correct solution is to a problem. Just because they have the "least distaste for it" at the moment doesn't make it right. They many times will go by their short term emotions, which could change later on! Choices made based on short term emotions are not always the right choice...and in fact, most of the worst decisions are made based on short term emotions. Like a person who flies into a rage because his wife is cheating on him and he goes and kills the man she was cheating on him with. This may serve to help him feel better for a moment, but then is it really the best decision in the long run? Of course not.
    I want to know how offering a choice for rapists to pressure their victims into abortion (many victims of rape actually want to keep the child!), is helping women to make the choice that is right for them?
    I want to know how offering a choice for the abusive boyfriend to take his girlfriend to the clinic and pressure her to abort with his threats, is offering the woman the choice that is right for her?

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 9:39 AM


    Years ago, a nephew had to read John Steinbeck's novel, Of Mice and Men. Of course I read it many years before, from the fact that all public education makes everyone read the same books over and over again. It assures creating those Doug's of the world, for another generation.
    The climax of the novel is when George faces the decision of killing Lennie, to avoid the suffering of the mob violence, that is coming for Lennie. A classic moment where Doug's mind was owned by Steinbeck.
    This novel is introduced to young adults who have only begun to think logically about decision making in life. Yet, their emotions are still running their life also. It is a introduction into the unavoidable suffering of life.
    Which character is Doug? Of course Doug is George, who loves to relieve suffering of those Lennies of the world. Good old logical George, who loved his big old dumbo Lennie, and knew a bullet to the head was the least suffering he could offer Lennie.
    So, Doug, since your mind has been relieved of being a "free thinker" by Steinbeck, what is the essential moral of the novel, Of Mice And Men?
    And a bonus point for the closed mind Doug, is there another action George could have taken to save Lennie from the mob bent on inflicting suffering on that simpleminded, "mice brained" Lennie?
    And that old dog that could not perform its work, is another example of ending suffering from having no worth as just being a dog. It took a Doug(young macho man) to shoot the dog, since the old man just couldn't do it. Why couldn't the old man shoot his "faithful dog" Doug? Or did your young logical mind miss that part of the novel, Doug.


    Posted by: yllas at October 31, 2007 10:35 AM


    Bethany, I'm so glad to see you back on the posting track.

    Always insightful and thoughtful.

    And direct. And honest, and...you know, you awesome pro-lifer you.

    Posted by: carder at October 31, 2007 12:09 PM


    Carder, that is so nice of you to say.... I would say the same thing about you! I'm glad to be back posting a little more too. :)

    (BTW, this has nothing to do with anything, but I still love the slogans you came up for baby onesies on this post and think we should team up and sell them for a pro-life fundraiser. LOL)

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 1:11 PM


    Bethany,
    Funny, that was my debut on Jill's website. Haven't stopped since.

    My personal favorite was "Cameron's Nightmare", for obvious reasons. We could change it to "Laura's Nightmare" or "Doug's Valuation" or "Hal's First"...whoo, don't get me started.

    Posted by: carder at October 31, 2007 3:20 PM


    Maybe we could use it as a legal fees fundraiser for Aurora. Hmmm...

    Just wouldn't know where/how to begin.

    Anyways, glad you're back.

    Posted by: carder at October 31, 2007 3:23 PM



    Doug, I enjoy reading yllas's posts.

    Me too, Heather. I am guessing that she (?) has a good time writing them. I hope so, anyway.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 3:40 PM


    "Neither you nor I has a good enough reason to want to tell them what to do."

    The one, the only Bethany: We do...you just don't accept our reason, Doug.

    Our reason is to prevent the woman from killing her child. A pretty good reason, in my opinion.

    Yes, Madame - 'tis a matter of opinion! Right on.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 3:42 PM


    "I think you are making a false assumption, nothing more. Short of being physically compelled, she is still making a conscious choice."

    MK: That works both ways. If abortion is illegal, a woman still has the "choice" to have an illegal one.

    Yep, no doubt.
    ......

    We are constantly accused of trying to "force" a woman to continue her pregnancy.

    You certainly advocate the force of the law being against abortion.
    ......

    Well, if abortion is illegal, short of being physically compelled she can still make a conscious choice to obtain one illegally.

    Sure, but Pro-Choicers want her choice to be legal. It is the legal or not deal that is at the heart of the abortion debate.
    ......

    I don't see how this would be any different from not helping a woman in a poor country to keep her baby if she wants, from not helping a woman obtain an abortion if she wants.

    The choice remains. We are just not "helping" to make it easier.

    It's like trying to make it illegal for the woman to keep her baby. Legal or not is a big deal.
    ......

    I think that's what John L. was trying to say. You claim to not want to help either side attain their goal, and yet by your very desire to keep abortion legal you are aiding women on that side of the issue.

    Now hang on, MK. I answered John's question, i.e. I said that I had not helped either side. That is not saying that I would not do it. Let's say it's my neighbor and she is pregnant and desperately needs money. I'd give her some. I'm a hell of a generous guy, in fact. Same if she was going to have an abortion and had the same need.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 3:49 PM


    That's "true", Doug? Why do you assume that Yllas "knows" that's true? Why does life "suck"?

    Because yllas said "for others it must." I think you know that's true too.
    .......

    I certainly don't agree with that, not at all. I do agree that there are hardships that we must all face in life, and for many people, that includes much suffering, but I do not agree in any way that "life sucks". I love life, and I think life is beautiful. Much good can come out of suffering. Much good can come out of bad situations. Life doesn't have to "suck". People can make a choice to see the glass half empty of half full.

    Yeah, but not everybody feels like you, B. For some life does suck. This isn't really pertaining to abortion, but it's a fact.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 3:53 PM


    MK: Choice is not about attitudes...it's about desire. and Valuation.

    It's certainly about all three.
    ......

    Doug thinks life sucks for anybody that doesn't have it "easy"...therefore he "desires" to make everything "easy" for everyone.

    Didn't say the first part. I also do not think that "everything can be easy," no matter what. Furthermore, as a tangential deal, I think that to a certain extent it is good for people to struggle. I'm still for women being free in their choice in the matter of abortion, regardless of all this other stuff.
    ......

    You know, like, kill the children, if you think that will make life easier. Pull the plug, if you think that will make life easier...Jump off a tall building if you think that will make life easier.

    I am for leaving it up to the woman.
    ......

    Suffering is baaaaddd...all people that suffer are living lives that suck.

    I do think that suffering is bad. Didn't say the second part.
    ....

    I find that kind of condescending, don't you?

    You're good at trying to put words in my mouth, less good at responding to what I actually say.
    ......

    Doug thinking he knows what's best for others?

    No, I am for leaving the choice up to the others.
    ......

    Assuming that they are unhappy in their lives because it isn't what he would want?,/i>

    Nope, said nothing to that effect.

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 3:58 PM


    In it he compares different religions and philosophies and what they see as lifes obstacles to be overcome and what must be done to overcome them...

    MK, that is cool stuff - sounds like a Johnny McD deal, in fact.

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 3:59 PM


    Yeah, but not everybody feels like you, B. For some life does suck. This isn't really pertaining to abortion, but it's a fact.

    Doug, Uh uh uh...tsk tsk tsk...I'm disappointed in you. Now weren't you just talking about matters of opinion. From how I see it, that is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

    Some people, who have much more suffering than you and I will ever be able to comprehend, are living life happily, positively, and do not feel that they are wronged or that life "sucks".

    Take this guy for instance. Nick Vujicic. Born without arms or legs. Others may think that his life sucks. Others may think that he should have been aborted before being born. Others may think that his life is just awful and that no one could be happy that way...but guess what. He doesn't:

    Watch him talk about his life experiences:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LtCrlXdd2E

    (wait past the intro, then you'll see him. )

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 3:59 PM


    Oops, almost forgot my point. My point being, no matter how you are suffering, you can make a choice to see life as being good, or as "life sucks".

    Some people live in circumstances where most people would LOVE to live, have everything they could ever ask for...and yet are depressed and hate life.

    On the other hand, some people live in circumstances that most people would NOT want to live in, have nothing, and yet are full of happiness and joy and peace.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:02 PM


    Bethany: he said that it would be okay for me to kill a homeless man who asked to die, who had no family, as long as I anesthetized him, and I wouldn't have done any wrong. It's as though he thinks he KNOWS that the man doesn't have a chance at happiness without death, just because he happened to wish it that day

    Bethany, you asked for my opinion, I gave it.

    Maybe there is a chance the guy could be happy, but he is asking to die. There are many circumstances that could affect our perception of it, for example terminal disease, incredible pain, etc., but still in general I am giving the guy's wishes and thoughts the benefit of the doubt.

    If he's an adult and "of sound mind," who are you to tell him he should not die? If he wants to live, who are you to tell him he should not live? Same deal. I'm not claiming to know anything certain about him other than what we've accepted about him thus far. If he's only "happening to wish it for one day," that would make a difference to me. IMO if he is of sound mind then he's gonna think it over a little longer.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:07 PM


    Another point....one of my best friends ever, her mother tried to kill her when she was only 2 years old. She gave her lye in a drink and told her it was coke. She drank a sip, passed out from the pain, but did not die. She has scars all over her face as a result of what happened that day. There are many more things that happened to her in her life but they are so personal I cannot share. They are tragic. Yet, you would never know all of this from being aruond her. She is so positive, and full of energy and life. She is one of the most positive, loving people I have ever known. She has a great life, with two beautiful children. She chooses to see the cup half full.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:07 PM


    If he's an adult and "of sound mind," who are you to tell him he should not die?
    A person who cares about him enough to tell him he's worth living.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:08 PM


    If he's an adult and "of sound mind," who are you to tell him he should not die?

    If he's asking to die, how do you know he's of sound mind?

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:12 PM


    @Doug,

    this is extremely interesting ... it seems in the USA there is a kind of 'princess and the pea-pod' mentality and we call this real suffering and abortion is 'needed'. If a near-starving woman in a very poor nation needs food for her and her baby's survival .... what 'need' do you meet? Which 'need' do you think should be met? Where does your dollar go? Why?

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 31, 2007 4:16 PM


    I think that to a certain extent it is good for people to struggle.

    In what types of situations would you say it is good for a person to struggle, Doug?

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:16 PM


    Bethany: Doug, I wish you could understand the points he is making.

    I do understand them. He did pretty well, but some is a matter of opinion and some was drawing the wrong conclusions from what I said.
    .......

    I wish you could see how abortion is not helping these women who are in situations like this. Women frequently feel pressured to have abortions (even planned parenthood's list of "reasons women choose abortions" admits this) and your solution, in these situations, is to offer them an easy way to have abortions, rather than offer a solution where they can have their baby and get out of the situation where they are being pressured to do something they do not desire to do? How does that make sense? How is that relieving suffering?

    Sometimes what you say is true. Many times it's not true - a given woman will have an abortion in a given situation and be glad of it, on balance. There are women right here on this comment board who have testified as much.

    Bethany, I realize that abortion will not necessarily help a woman. I still think she is the best one to make the judgment.

    Sure there is often pressure felt. Hear me - if I knew a woman who was pregnant and deciding to have an abortion only because she was a little short of money, I would want to give her some money. Now that sounds a little strange, because would she really want to have an abortion for "a little money"?

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:18 PM


    Sure there is often pressure felt. Hear me - if I knew a woman who was pregnant and deciding to have an abortion only because she was a little short of money, I would want to give her some money. Now that sounds a little strange, because would she really want to have an abortion for "a little money"?

    Are you saying that you would give her money in the hopes that it would help her decide to continue the pregnancy? I'm not sure if I'm reading this post right or wrong.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:22 PM


    this is extremely interesting ... it seems in the USA there is a kind of 'princess and the pea-pod' mentality and we call this real suffering and abortion is 'needed'. If a near-starving woman in a very poor nation needs food for her and her baby's survival .... what 'need' do you meet? Which 'need' do you think should be met? Where does your dollar go? Why?

    Princess and the pea! Perfect analogy for the "need" for abortion that they speak of, John! Excellent.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:23 PM


    So Doug, you don't PRACTICE pessimism in your personal life, yet PREACH pessimism to others.

    Well now dang it, yllas, ya done screwed up again right off the bat.

    I don't "preach" pessimism to others. Noting that some people suffer, etc., is not "preaching." Nor is noting that many people have abortions for many reasons.

    Erin has her ducks in a row. Good grief....

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:23 PM


    yllas: the "but she chooses to do the thing she desires the most".... honestly, that's just silly.

    No it's not. My premise or thesis holds true even there, though an extreme example it be.
    ......

    Come on! If my choices are, have an abortion, or get beaten into a coma, the easier choice, or the choice that I have the "least distaste for" for me may be to have an abortion, but would that really help me??

    Nothing I have said means or implies that it helps you beyond not getting beaten. You are projecting stuff which I haven't said and do not mean. It is your motivation, your choice. Nobody is telling you it's "good" per se, nor that any larger problems are "solved" by it.
    ......

    How do you delude yourself into thinking that is an acceptable choice, in any situation?

    Nobody told you "acceptable." Of course from many viewpoints it's a bad situation with no good options. It's just an illustration of your motivation, per the example that somebody else came up with.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:28 PM


    Nothing I have said means or implies that it helps you beyond not getting beaten. You are projecting stuff which I haven't said and do not mean. It is your motivation, your choice. Nobody is telling you it's "good" per se, nor that any larger problems are "solved" by it.

    If it's not helping her, then why are you saying that abortions should be there for those women?
    What for, Doug? What exactly is abortion accomplishing, for women in these situations?

    Does it actually save them from their abuser?

    Does it save them those nights of crying and wishing they could keep their child?

    What, Doug, exactly does it accomplish, to ease their suffering, as you claim abortion does?

    If nothing, then what are pro-choice organizations doing to make sure that no woman is EVER forced into abortion by an abusive person, or rapist, pedophile, or pressure by friends or family?

    NADA!!

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:33 PM


    BTW, sorry to bombard you with posts while you've got dial-up, but I only have so much computer time today.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:35 PM


    "Yeah, but not everybody feels like you, B. For some life does suck. This isn't really pertaining to abortion, but it's a fact."

    Bethany: Doug, Uh uh uh...tsk tsk tsk...I'm disappointed in you. Now weren't you just talking about matters of opinion. From how I see it, that is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

    Oh please. For some people it does really suck. The street kids in Brazil, the torture victims in Rwanda, etc., etc. Surely you don't that it's not true for anybody in the world?

    Some people, who have much more suffering than you and I will ever be able to comprehend, are living life happily, positively, and do not feel that they are wronged or that life "sucks".

    Yes, "some people," but that doesn't alter the fact that for some others it's "bad" beyond a tolerable point. Or, with respect to abortion, that their circumstances don't make them feel strongly that having an abortion is the best thing.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:41 PM


    BTW, sorry to bombard you with posts while you've got dial-up, but I only have so much computer time today.

    Bethany, no worries - the waiting time is really for the message board server, not the connection speed.

    And anyway, I'm in a motel in Rochester, NY, not at home. Ain't been home in weeks. Working, and at my and my wife's place in GA, so the old OH homestead hasn't seen much action. Nice fast connection here.

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:45 PM


    Another point....one of my best friends ever, her mother tried to kill her when she was only 2 years old.

    Sure, Bethany, and that's one anecdotal story. Some people don't see the cup as half full because it's really not, for them.

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:46 PM


    Or, with respect to abortion, that their circumstances don't make them feel strongly that having an abortion is the best thing.

    A strong feeling isn't a fact, is it?

    Yes, "some people," but that doesn't alter the fact that for some others it's "bad" beyond a tolerable point.

    People who were burned on the stake, or torn apart by animals, for the sake of being Christians sung hymns of praise to God as they were being burned.

    It has everything to do with the way you look at things. Yes, things can be terrible, you can be suffering and dying, and everything else, but you can still be happy.

    If you are a generally unhappy person, it does not matter what your circumstances are, you will be unhappy.

    If you are the opposite, you may get sad, even depressed at times when things are hard, but you find ways to deal with situations without giving up on life.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:47 PM


    Sure, Bethany, and that's one anecdotal story. Some people don't see the cup as half full because it's really not, for them.

    Really, Doug, it could have been that way for her, but really, it wasn't.

    She made a "choice", Doug. She could have chosen to live her life in misery, recounting all of the things that happened to her as a child and young adult. But she chose not to. That is the difference.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:48 PM


    "If he's an adult and "of sound mind," who are you to tell him he should not die?"

    B: If he's asking to die, how do you know he's of sound mind?

    How do you know anybody is of sound mind?

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:57 PM


    And anyway, I'm in a motel in Rochester, NY, not at home. Ain't been home in weeks. Working, and at my and my wife's place in GA, so the old OH homestead hasn't seen much action. Nice fast connection here.

    Well that's good to know. At least you have the chance to catch up with me. Unfortunately, by the time you do, I'll probably be offline. :( Boo.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:58 PM


    B: If he's asking to die, how do you know he's of sound mind?
    How do you know anybody is of sound mind?

    I don't..that's why I always err on the side of life.

    Posted by: Bethany at October 31, 2007 4:58 PM


    this is extremely interesting ... it seems in the USA there is a kind of 'princess and the pea-pod' mentality and we call this real suffering and abortion is 'needed'. If a near-starving woman in a very poor nation needs food for her and her baby's survival .... what 'need' do you meet? Which 'need' do you think should be met? Where does your dollar go? Why?

    John, good questions. Yes, it's relative, and for all of us there are many people who might pity us, as well as there being many people that we could pity.

    Those princesses are getting even more sensitive. It used to take the thickness of a pea to be felt, now just a thin little pod can do it. You think we need to toughen up?

    Those needs are not mutually exclusive - having abortion be legal in the US or Canada doesn't mean that aid cannot be given to the starving woman.

    Still, let's say that I do have to choose between them. It's not a matter of a Dollar, this has got to be really making a difference. It's a sad reality that aid often only prolongs or postpones suffering, rather than making a long-term difference.

    If I'm going to wave a magic wand, then the starving woman and her baby are starving no more. I hate to tell the other woman she cannot have an abortion, but if picking only one there it is.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 4:59 PM


    "Nothing I have said means or implies that it helps you beyond not getting beaten. You are projecting stuff which I haven't said and do not mean. It is your motivation, your choice. Nobody is telling you it's "good" per se, nor that any larger problems are "solved" by it."

    Bethany: If it's not helping her, then why are you saying that abortions should be there for those women? What for, Doug? What exactly is abortion accomplishing, for women in these situations?

    It was a hypothetical situation brought up by somebody else. They stated that abortion was one choice.
    ......

    Does it actually save them from their abuser?

    No, of course not, but that wasn't the question.
    ......

    Does it save them those nights of crying and wishing they could keep their child?

    No, and same song, second verse - it wasn't the question; nobody said it did.
    .....

    What, Doug, exactly does it accomplish, to ease their suffering, as you claim abortion does?

    Again, it was just somebody else's example. The motivation can be seen. I claimed nothing beyond that. I am not saying that either way "eases their suffering." It was an extreme example, I assume by design.
    ......

    If nothing, then what are pro-choice organizations doing to make sure that no woman is EVER forced into abortion by an abusive person, or rapist, pedophile, or pressure by friends or family?

    I don't know. Obviously they don't want women to be abused, but there's no way to make sure it never happens. If there is evidence of abuse, then the abuser should be punished and removed from the place where they were abusive - I think that and I think other pro-choicers do too.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 5:09 PM


    Bethany: In what types of situations would you say it is good for a person to struggle, Doug?

    Physically, as with exercise; mentally, as with learning things. I guess it's largely life-experiences that may be missed if one has it too "easy."

    Geez, Bethany, it could be so many things, the overcoming of challenges, the hurdling of obstacles, climbing the mountain just 'cuz it's there. Is a gift without effort as satisfying?

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 5:23 PM


    B: If he's asking to die, how do you know he's of sound mind?

    "How do you know anybody is of sound mind?"

    I don't..that's why I always err on the side of life.

    Yes, that's your desire. Sometimes life is really not desired, though, and though I'd have to know somebody well enough to think that "sound mind" applied, I could trust somebody enough to believe them there.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 5:26 PM


    "Sure there is often pressure felt. Hear me - if I knew a woman who was pregnant and deciding to have an abortion only because she was a little short of money, I would want to give her some money. Now that sounds a little strange, because would she really want to have an abortion for "a little money"?"

    Bethany: Are you saying that you would give her money in the hopes that it would help her decide to continue the pregnancy? I'm not sure if I'm reading this post right or wrong.

    No - this is presuming that she really did want to continue the pregnancy. Maybe it's a bad example because it seems unlikely that hundreds or a couple thousand bucks would make that much difference. I'm not really "rich." Tryin' but it's a long road.

    I'm leaving it up to her. If she convinces me that she really does want the baby, and that my money will make the difference, then okay.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 5:35 PM


    "Or, with respect to abortion, that their circumstances don't make them feel strongly that having an abortion is the best thing."

    Bethany: A strong feeling isn't a fact, is it?

    Well what 'fact" do you see here, beyond feelings? You can say that you would not feel the same, and that may be true, but it's also true that they feel as they say.
    .....

    "Yes, "some people," but that doesn't alter the fact that for some others it's "bad" beyond a tolerable point."

    People who were burned on the stake, or torn apart by animals, for the sake of being Christians sung hymns of praise to God as they were being burned.

    It has everything to do with the way you look at things. Yes, things can be terrible, you can be suffering and dying, and everything else, but you can still be happy.

    If you are a generally unhappy person, it does not matter what your circumstances are, you will be unhappy.

    If you are the opposite, you may get sad, even depressed at times when things are hard, but you find ways to deal with situations without giving up on life.

    Going with this, what is the conclusion? That nobody "should" really feel bad or want to die?

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 5:41 PM



    At least you have the chance to catch up with me. Unfortunately, by the time you do, I'll probably be offline. :( Boo.

    Bethany, ya never know - if you see a suspiciously big kid at your door (he'd probably be arguing with other people.....

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 5:43 PM


    Doug,

    That post was a little rough...sorry.

    You're right, you didn't exactly say that stuff...but that's often what it sounds like to us.

    Anyway, I got a little carried away. And I apologize. Finally get you to give your opinion, and then I jump down your throat...shame on mary kay...shame!

    Posted by: mk at October 31, 2007 8:44 PM


    That post was a little rough...sorry.

    You're right, you didn't exactly say that stuff...but that's often what it sounds like to us.

    Anyway, I got a little carried away. And I apologize. Finally get you to give your opinion, and then I jump down your throat...shame on mary kay...shame!

    Awesome, MK. I didn't expect that.

    Maybe I should have - there are the best Pro-Life arguers I have ever seen, by far, on these "Comment" boards on Jill's blog, not to mention some of the finest people, from both sides of the argument.

    The finest people, period.

    I love you, Girl.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 10:26 PM


    Old Doug, assuring himself that Doug is not a preacher of pessimism. Preach; (2)to advocate, especially to urge acceptence of or compliance with. (3) to deliver. Houghton Miflin.
    You are a advocate of pessimism Doug. You appeal to suffering, poverty, war, disease, and urge acceptence of abortion for reasons based on pessimism.
    When a women is pregnant, and she thinks abortion is the answer to her life, she is a pessimist. Why Doug you must admit, she is being quite realistic about life and suffering, isn't she Doug? She is a realistic pessimist. Just like you Doug. The choice for abortion is based on the tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable view, the most gloomiest future for the women. And you Doug, give a "Madame Cleo reading" of the future of the child or the mother if she doesn't abort based on pessimism. Who put that idea of being pessimistic about having a child in the women's head Doug? Why preachers like you Doug, that oldtime fire and brimstone pessimist, who preach pessimism for women who are pregnant, and should think about abortion as being a optimistic choice. But, in Dougs personal life, he admits to not practicing what he preaches/advocates for. Doug hasn't told one women he was with, to get a abortion, or even his wife. Now, that is pure hypocrisy, Doug.
    Doug, must practice what one preaches about suffering also, to avoid the stain of personal hypocrisy concerning suffering. A realist knows that pain offers nothing, but to alert one to disease, and that pain is the beginning of suffering from some disease, that will end one's life.
    So Doug, given that one day your going to be in pain, without hope, and suffering without end, do you practice what you preach for women who are suffering from a unwanted child, and understand your pessimism has come for you personally Doug?
    I like bare butt materialist whose true base belief is nothing more then measuring life as an addition subtraction formula to arrive at death or life. They usually are hypocrites about suffering in their personal life, while advocating a pessimism that is for the choice of murdering some perceived suffering of others.
    Which brings up the fact Doug, why is pleasure so fleeting and pain such a exquisite long term affair in suffering through pain? There really is no purpose for such a imbalanced formula Doug.
    So Doug, when your suffering begins Doug, from some fatal disease, are you going to suffer needlessly for days. months on end?
    A logical,mathmatical man, would see that the stress of suffering in pain without relief in sight, is unfavorable, negative, and is quite a gloomy future.
    Should you not end your suffering Doug, by your own will/volition, while you have one? Yes or No?
    Or wait in pain and suffering for nature to give you the exact meaning of what you preached for others in life Doug; A non-suffering, hypocritial pessimist.

    Posted by: yllas at November 1, 2007 1:31 AM


    BTW Doug, Erin is a confirmed hypocrite, with severe Humpty Dumptyism effecting Erin's ability to communicate in a "healthy" exchange of ideas.
    This "double disease"(hypocrisy+Humpty Dumptyism) began in Erin early in life from practicing the belief that self love is able to cure diseases of the reproductive organs.
    Of course, modern science denies that disease of the reproductive organs can be cured by practicing onanism, but Erin knows that modern medicine is not true, from having been infected with Humpty Dumptyism.
    I see Erin preaching in the regions of the world, where modern science has not been preached before, and converting others to the cult of Erinism.
    Erin is capable of convincing others who are ignorant of modern medicine through Erin making words mean, just what Erin chooses them to mean.
    Of course one day, the converts to Erinism asked Erin to practice what Erin preached, and Erin began to speak about "which is to be a master- thats all."
    Eventually the mind puppets of Erin learned the definition of health and hypocrisy and revolted againest Erin, by throwing Erin from a wall which Erin sat on. And So, all the pesimistic abortionist of Doug, all the Sally's of the hot air ballon miracles(ask Sally about miracles, how hot air ballons rise when they loose hot air, or planned accidents too!), could not put Erin back together. So Erin wanders the world, confused about words, making them change defintion when Erin is defined, quite correctly, as no more, and no less, then a hypocrite.

    Posted by: yllas at November 1, 2007 2:35 AM


    Physically, as with exercise; mentally, as with learning things. I guess it's largely life-experiences that may be missed if one has it too "easy."

    ...like giving birth to a child..couldn't that also apply. Aren't we making life a little too "easy" for women, and making them miss out on the most beautiful life experience of all? The gift of life itself?

    Geez, Bethany, it could be so many things, the overcoming of challenges, the hurdling of obstacles, climbing the mountain just 'cuz it's there. Is a gift without effort as satisfying?
    Doug

    Why couldn't you also apply that to pregnancy, and the beauty that could be achieved by carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, overcoming that challenge, so that child could be a joy to some adoptive couple out there for the rest of his or her life, instead of having to be sucked out of his mother's womb without a care?

    Much satisfaction is achieved through giving of yourself for someone else, overcoming the obstacle of pregnancy, being unselfish enough to give someone else the gift that you have been given a a result of your own actions. What could be more satisfying than that?

    B: If he's asking to die, how do you know he's of sound mind?

    D"How do you know anybody is of sound mind?"

    BI don't..that's why I always err on the side of life.

    DYes, that's your desire. Sometimes life is really not desired, though, and though I'd have to know somebody well enough to think that "sound mind" applied, I could trust somebody enough to believe them there

    Sometimes life is not desired, Doug, but that doesn't mean that one could not be given the motivation to desire to live again. I believe that we humans are put here to encourage one another, to love one another, to give one another hope and love and comfort. If I see one suffering, and wishing to die, I remind them of their worth, I remind them that they have reasons that they want to live. No one really just wants to die, even if they commit suicide, they didn't want to die, they wanted to be relieved of suffering. If the suffering can be relieved in other ways than death, why don't we try to give them the love they crave and have lost, why don't we give them the friend they don't have, why don't we give them the self-esteem they have lost, why don't we tell them they are worth living, why don't we remind them that there are people out there who care about them deeply and love them and would miss them if they were gone. Why, instead of doing that, do we confirm their feelings of negative self worth, their feelings of helplessness, their feelings of worthlessness, by telling them, that's okay, you should die as you wish. It'll be the best thing for you, because you said so.

    Doug, my cousin tried to commit suicide three times. Yet, she doesn't really want to die. She tried to commit suicide because she was crying out for help, love, which she was not receiving at home. She did not really desire death, even though she swallowed a whole bottle of pills. She was not loved enough and she was suffering. She was crying out for someone to pay attention to her, for someone to love her. She was willing to put her life on the line to achieve that. If she had come to you for help, you would have told her she was right, she could commit suicide and be relieved of her suffering, not even having enough empathy to understand what she really needed.

    My friend told me recently of her suffering. She was constantly criticized by her mother and told she was worthless. She was sexually molested by one of her teachers at school. She was so depressed that she didn't feel like life was worth living anymore. So one night, she slit her wrists, took a lot of pills, and laid on the couch, ready to let go.
    She said, it must have been God's timing, because at that moment, she got a phone call from another teacher at her school (whom she respected) and he was calling to check and see if she was okay. He said he cared about her and just wanted to see if everything was allright. Immediately, she freaked out, wrapping up her wrists tightly and called for an ambulance.. she was afraid she was going to die! She found a reason to live. Someone cared about her. She thanks that teacher every day for giving her a reason to live. She said if it hadn't been for him, she would have probably died that day.

    Yes, these are anecdotal stories, but have you ever read cutting forums, or other forums where people who are depressed meet with others to talk about their feelings? Have you noticed what is in common with all of them? It's almost always that they feel unloved, worthless, that life "sucks". Why? Because no one has taken the time to give them the care they so desperately need.

    Guess what? Life doesn't have to suck for them. People can get love. They can get happiness. If other people are willing to take the time out of their days to tell them they care!

    Doug, I think that perhaps the reason you do not seem to have empathy for people like this because I think you may have never actually suffered in this way....so you just haven't experienced and really just don't understand what they're going through. You assume you know, but you really just don't. I have been there, and I do understand it though. I have been to the point where I was so depressed i wanted to die. I remember thinking to myself, "What's the purpose of living if you're just going to die anyway?" And I was frequently asking people if I died, would they go to my funeral?
    I was reaching out for love and comfort. I needed a friend desperately. I needed to know that someone cared about me. I prayed every night for that friend, who wouldn't leave me, or treat me like trash...and God gave me that person, about 12 years ago, who is now my husband. He taught me to laugh, and gave me a reason to live. He stopped me from dwelling on death. He could have told me that I was right, there was no purpose in my living if I was suffering so, but guess what? He didn't. Why? He cared about me. People who care about other people don't recommend or allow them to decide that they want to die. They give them reasons to continue living.

    Posted by: Bethany at November 1, 2007 8:23 AM


    Going with this, what is the conclusion? That nobody "should" really feel bad or want to die?

    No. There is a time to laugh, and a time to cry.

    People can and will feel bad, in reaction to stress, pain, suffering, etc.. People can have normal, human reactions to suffering, but they don't have to give up on life itself.

    Since we were on the subject, I was trying to give you the difference between a pessimist and an optimist. One who looks at the cup half empty or half full.

    Someone who is a pessimist will give up on life, when life gets tough.

    Someone who is not will understand that life is full of hardships, but realizes that suffering is part of life, and you deal with suffering, and keep going with peace in your heart. Someone like that will not ever give up, even till the end. They are the survivors.

    Posted by: Bethany at November 1, 2007 8:36 AM


    So Doug, when your suffering begins Doug, from some fatal disease, are you going to suffer needlessly for days. months on end?
    A logical,mathematical man, would see that the stress of suffering in pain without relief in sight, is unfavorable, negative, and is quite a gloomy future.
    Should you not end your suffering Doug, by your own will/volition, while you have one? Yes or No?

    I am interested to hear his answer on this.

    Posted by: Bethany at November 1, 2007 8:43 AM


    Who put that idea of being pessimistic about having a child in the women's head Doug?

    yllas, it's her own thoughts. You are nobody to tell her what to do in the matter. You're nobody to say that somebody "put ideas" in a woman's head.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at November 3, 2007 2:44 PM



    BTW Doug, Erin is a confirmed hypocrite

    yllas, you're just being silly.

    Posted by: Doug at November 3, 2007 2:46 PM


    So Doug, when your suffering begins Doug, from some fatal disease, are you going to suffer needlessly for days. months on end? A logical,mathematical man, would see that the stress of suffering in pain without relief in sight, is unfavorable, negative, and is quite a gloomy future. Should you not end your suffering Doug, by your own will/volition, while you have one? Yes or No?

    Bethany: I am interested to hear his answer on this.

    I do not want to suffer needlessly. I think we all have a point where we'd say, "the heck with it..." Different people would draw the line different places. At what stage does the "needlessly" begin applying?

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at November 3, 2007 2:48 PM