You have got to read "Tempting Faith" by David Kuo.

I work for a black evangelical mega-church. They are all up-in-arms about protecting marriage, and yet still have OBAMA 08 stickers on their cars.

Jacqueline, that's like the headquarters parking lot of the USCCB filled with cars that had Kerry 04 stickers on them. Just disgusting...

"Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge.... "[W]e also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."...

Good point, Pastor Dukes. What a lot of self-styled "values voters" don't seem to understand is that people who vote differently than they do *also* are voting our values.

I think most people are in the middle about issues, and are deciding between two candidates-one that have some values in common and the other the same way.

It's about which politician you can trust to make the right decision the most.

And sometimes is just picking the lesser of two evils!

Exactly, Laura!

Abortion is not the top political concern for a lot of people. You pick a political candidate who is in line with MOST of your views. I personally would never knowingly vote for an antichoice polititian. How can someone rationally ask for my vote when they admit up front they do not trust my judgment and believe I shouldnt be allowed to make my own decisions? But thats how I see things. I know many people who are pro choice and will still vote Republican simply because the GOP reflects their views more than the Democrats do.

How can someone rationally ask for my vote when they admit up front they do not trust my judgment and believe I shouldnt be allowed to make my own decisions?

I doubt you find many candidates to vote for who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what you do or what decisions you make.

Jen R. said, "I doubt you find many candidates to vote for who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what you do or what decisions you make."

I agree...I don't think there are any! But, if there was one, I'd bet his name would be Satan something or another.....

Jen R. wrote:
I doubt you find many candidates to vote for who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what you do or what decisions you make.

Exactly! One of the main purposes of government is to protect society by restricting some personal freedoms. My right to have sex stops at your right to say No, for example.

The whole complaint of "Why don't you trust me to make my own decisions?" is just a foolish strawman. I trust you to make all sorts of decisions, including:
* whether or not to own a gun (!)
* how to educate your children, including homeschooling
* what sort of medical care you want
* how to manage your retirement (AKA privatize Social Security!)
* how to spend the majority of your money (Cut taxes now!)
* and many more!

I don't trust you to make life-and-death decisions for other people under most circumstances. It's nothing personal. I wouldn't trust anyone with such power. Nobody should have the power to kill another human being simply because that human being is inconvenient. The Right to Life is the foundation of all other rights. Without it, we are on the twilight road to utter tyranny.

Naaman,

Amen to that!

How can someone rationally ask for my vote when they admit up front they do not trust my judgment and believe I shouldnt be allowed to make my own decisions?

I doubt you find many candidates to vote for who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what you do or what decisions you make.

Posted by: Jen R at November 27, 2007 1:47 PM
********************************************
Thats a profoundly idiotic 'answer' to the point I made. You also didnt address what I did say. That doesnt surprise me.

Nobody should have the power to kill another human being simply because that human being is inconvenient. The Right to Life is the foundation of all other rights. Without it, we are on the twilight road to utter tyranny.
***********************************************
Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure isnt "a human" and even a PERSON doesnt have the right to part of my body without my permission. Whining about 'the right to life' is antichoice bull. You slobber and drool over mindless tissue and cell structure but you have no trouble at all 'rationalizing' robbing women of THEIR right to life and the right to live their life as they see best. You harbor the egocentric delusion that you know what is 'best' and eveyone else has some obligation to obey you and fall into line. Get over yourself. Its not going to happen. Mindless nonviable tissue doesnt have 'rights' nor should it have 'rights'.

TexasRed,
That's how I and many others read it to. If you care to re-phrase your thoughts, I, for one, will be more than happy to comment on the revisions!

TexasRed,
That's how I and many others read it to. If you care to re-phrase your thoughts, I, for one, will be more than happy to comment on the revisions!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 3:15 PM
*****************************************
Abortion is legal. Antichoice polititians are certain it shouldnt be because women just are not capable of making good decisions. Womens judgment is flawed. They dont 'really' know what they are doing. They need someone else to tell them what they 'should' do. An antichoice polititian is admitting up front that he / she does not trust my judgment and doesnt believe Im capable of making good decisions. I need HIM or HER to take that matter out of MY hands and make the decision for me.

TexasRed, what is the difference between the kinds of decisions governments *should* keep people from making, and the kind they should not?

TexasRed,

The government doesn't allow you to choose how much tax to pay either. They don't trust your judgment with your own money that you worked for. We the people, as a group, get to pass laws that control the behaviour of individuals over their own bodies, money and property. That is what government doesl.

TexasRed,

The government doesn't allow you to choose how much tax to pay either. They don't trust your judgment with your own money that you worked for. We the people, as a group, get to pass laws that control the behaviour of individuals over their own bodies, money and property. That is what government doesl.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2007 4:42 PM
......................................
Government does not have the right to dictate medical decisions.

That's not really true, though. For instance, in most states, parents are required to seek medical care for their children if the children have life-threatening illnesses, even if the parents' religious beliefs would dictate relying on prayer instead.

If your medical decision hurts another person, it is the government's business. So just saying "it's a medical decision" isn't enough.

If you are deemed to be a threat to yourself or others you can be committed due to mental illness, which is a medical condition.

Kids have to be vaccinated in order to get into public schools. This is a medical decision.

If you have a serious communicable disease like TB you can be quarantined. This would be called a medical decision.

God forbid if the bird flu ever makes the jump...then you'll see the government making medical decisions for us left and right...

Sorry, you lose on that one.

Woo Hoo! Another 5 points to MK for a fabulous post! You're on a roll today lady!

TexasRed wrote:
Antichoice polititians are certain it shouldnt be because women just are not capable of making good decisions. Womens judgment is flawed. They dont 'really' know what they are doing. They need someone else to tell them what they 'should' do.

This "argument" is a strawman. I'm not questioning your judgment or your ability to reason. I don't actually know you. You might be quite intelligent and wise, or you might not be. I have no way of knowing....

The root of the Pro-Life position is the moral imperative to protect innocent human life. Period. I don't care how wise or intelligent you are, you simply don't have the moral right to kill an innocent child. It's not about YOU; it's about the child who you (or someone else) wants to kill.

Perhaps your strawman is referring to the growing post-abortion concern among many pro-lifers. It is true that many pro-lifers are aware (some from sad personal experience) that abortion can have some horrible consequences for the woman who aborts. Pro-lifers are spreading the news about these consequences for two main reasons.

First, because someone has to do it. Millions of women are suffering, and someone needs to help them. Someone also needs to warn the millions of women who might join the suffering. Pro-choicers won't do it -- because the pro-choice agenda has blinded them to real women's suffering -- so pro-lifers have stepped into the gap. In spite of the pro-choice propaganda, real pro-lifers do care about women.

Second, because it proves that the most popular pro-choice arguments are based on lies. Abortion is not the unmitigated good that the American people were promised. Abortion is not necessary for women to have equal rights, and it can even be a method for exploiting women. NOW and similar "feminist" organizations sold us a slick promise about how wonderful abortion would be. 34 years later, there is overwhelming evidence that they were wrong.

However -- and please note this point -- even if abortion really was some candy-coated NARAL fantasy cure-all that made every woman's life better, it would still be wrong, and pro-lifers would still oppose it. We believe that it is wrong to kill innocent human life. Period. The supposed benefits of the killing don't matter. It's still wrong.

That's not really true, though. For instance, in most states, parents are required to seek medical care for their children if the children have life-threatening illnesses, even if the parents' religious beliefs would dictate relying on prayer instead.

If your medical decision hurts another person, it is the government's business. So just saying "it's a medical decision" isn't enough.

Posted by: Jen R at November 27, 2007 8:11 PM
************
But there is no 'other person' involved in an abortion. There is only one person directly involved and thats the woman pregnant.

The root of the Pro-Life position is the moral imperative to protect innocent human life. Period. I don't care how wise or intelligent you are, you simply don't have the moral right to kill an innocent child. It's not about YOU; it's about the child who you (or someone else) wants to kill.

*****************************
Then the root of the antichoice position is melodramatic hysteria. Whimpering that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is 'innocent' is melodramatic hysteria. Whimpering that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is an 'innocent child' is melodramatic hysteria. Whining that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is a 'child' is melodramatic hysteria. And thats the point. You are talking about mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure in the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there. You insist that YOUR view of this tissue somehow justifies robbing the woman of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination and what SHE thinks, feels, believes, needs, wants and what is best for her doesnt matter because what YOU think is more important. THAT is the root of the antichoice movement - the arrogant egocentric control freak megalomaniacal delusion that YOUR opinion is more important than anyone elses and the rest of us should just 'have to' obey you and do as we are told.

If you are deemed to be a threat to yourself or others you can be committed due to mental illness, which is a medical condition.

Kids have to be vaccinated in order to get into public schools. This is a medical decision.

If you have a serious communicable disease like TB you can be quarantined. This would be called a medical decision.

God forbid if the bird flu ever makes the jump...then you'll see the government making medical decisions for us left and right...

Sorry, you lose on that one.

Posted by: mk at November 27, 2007 8:28 PM
*****************************
No, she doesnt. You threw up a bunch of strawmen which have nothing to do with THIS discussion. A person wont be committed unless they are a danger to themselves or others. Kids dont have to be vaccinated - they can be home schooled. The issue is going to public schools, not being forced to have innoculations. Communicable diseases are only relevant when other people are involved. Antichoicers say women cant be trusted to make good decisions for themselves. Antichoicers insist they do not trust womens judgment.

First, because someone has to do it. Millions of women are suffering, and someone needs to help them. Someone also needs to warn the millions of women who might join the suffering. Pro-choicers won't do it -- because the pro-choice agenda has blinded them to real women's suffering -- so pro-lifers have stepped into the gap. In spite of the pro-choice propaganda, real pro-lifers do care about women.

*****************************************
PAS is an antichoice myth. Even Koop had to admit there was no evidence to support its existance. But trying to pretend 'I cant let you do that because you might regret it later' is a valid excuse to be antichoice is laughable. But its back to the insistance that womens judgment is somehow inferior and cannot be trusted.

Second, because it proves that the most popular pro-choice arguments are based on lies. Abortion is not the unmitigated good that the American people were promised. Abortion is not necessary for women to have equal rights, and it can even be a method for exploiting women. NOW and similar "feminist" organizations sold us a slick promise about how wonderful abortion would be. 34 years later, there is overwhelming evidence that they were wrong.
**********************************
Bullscat.

However -- and please note this point -- even if abortion really was some candy-coated NARAL fantasy cure-all that made every woman's life better, it would still be wrong, and pro-lifers would still oppose it. We believe that it is wrong to kill innocent human life. Period. The supposed benefits of the killing don't matter. It's still wrong.
****************************************
That is YOUR opinion. Why dont you explain to us all why your opinion should contradict and override the opinion of the woman who will actually be dealing with the pregnancy?

TR,

Better yet, why don't you explain why your opinion that a woman's perceived right to abort overrides a child's right to live? After all, it's your opinion.

TR,

But there is no 'other person' involved in an abortion. There is only one person directly involved and thats the woman pregnant.

This too is your opinion. It is our opinion that the father of the child, the grandparents of the child, society and of course the child himself is being harmed.

And in the case of mental illness, you need only be a threat to yourself.

TR,

You insist that YOUR view of this tissue somehow justifies robbing the woman of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination and what SHE thinks, feels, believes, needs, wants and what is best for her doesnt matter because what YOU think is more important.

Aren't you doing the same thing?

TR,

You slobber and drool over mindless tissue and cell structure

Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure isnt "a human"

Mindless nonviable tissue doesnt have 'rights' nor should it have 'rights'.

You are talking about mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure in the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there.

Whimpering that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is 'innocent' is melodramatic hysteria.

You are talking about mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure in the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there.

Whimpering that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is an 'innocent child' is melodramatic hysteria. Whining that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is a 'child' is melodramatic hysteria.

You're being kind of vague here...are you saying that you don't view the unborn as living human beings?

TR,

No, she doesnt. You threw up a bunch of strawmen which have nothing to do with THIS discussion.

Government does not have the right to dictate medical decisions.
Posted by: Sally at November 27, 2007 5:54 PM

If you are deemed to be a threat to yourself or others you can be committed due to mental illness, which is a medical condition.
*
Kids have to be vaccinated in order to get into public schools. This is a medical decision.
*
If you have a serious communicable disease like TB you can be quarantined. This would be called a medical decision.

Looking...looking...nope, don't see a straw man here.

God forbid if the bird flu ever makes the jump...then you'll see the government making medical decisions for us left and right...

TR,

Bullscat.

Great comeback. Well thought out. Articulate. You're getting good at this.

TR,

Bullscat.

Great comeback. Well thought out. Articulate. You're getting good at this.

Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 10:15 AM
****************************************
It was the best you deserved.

TR,

Better yet, why don't you explain why your opinion that a woman's perceived right to abort overrides a child's right to live? After all, it's your opinion.

Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:54 AM
***********************************************
Mindless insensate nonviable tissue isnt a child. Mindless insensate nonviable tissue doesnt have any rights. If a woman gives birth to mindless insensate nonviable tissue then she doesnt have a child - she has a miscarriage. No 'child' involved - it didnt develop to that point. If its your opinion that abortion is wrong then dont have one. If its my opinion that abortion is not wrong then I can have one and its really none of your business. Thats the point. No one is trying to force women to abort - not in the US. But youd be happy to force women to gestate and you couldnt care less how they feel about it. I dont have any problem respecting your opinion. Youre too egocentric and self absorbed and self centered to respect anyone else.

TR,

But there is no 'other person' involved in an abortion. There is only one person directly involved and thats the woman pregnant.

This too is your opinion. It is our opinion that the father of the child, the grandparents of the child, society and of course the child himself is being harmed.

And in the case of mental illness, you need only be a threat to yourself.

Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:56 AM
*******************************
No, it is not just my opinion. There is no child involved and the woman can have an abortion and the would be father and the would be grandparents may not even know about it. The only person DIRECTLY involved is the woman who is pregnant. And if there isnt someone ELSE involved then there is no way to determine if you are a danger to 'yourself'or not.

TR,

You insist that YOUR view of this tissue somehow justifies robbing the woman of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination and what SHE thinks, feels, believes, needs, wants and what is best for her doesnt matter because what YOU think is more important.

Aren't you doing the same thing?

Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:58 AM
*****************************************
And how do you fantasize 'let each woman make her own decision' is doing that?

Looking...looking...nope, don't see a straw man here.

********************************
And you imagine your problems with reading comprehension are my problem for what reason?

All hail TexasRed! The greatest debater know to man!

Thanks, TR, for the anon post above..
Good to know you think that highly of yourself!

Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure isnt "a human"

You say "mindless," I say, "in the process of building his or her own brain."

You say "insensate," I say, "in the process of building his or her own sensory organs." Also, the senses do develop well before birth.

You say "tissue and cell structure," I say, "individual organism" (Unlike the others, this one's not just a matter of perspective. You're incorrect.)

You say "isn't a 'human'," I say, "what else do you call an organism that is a member of the species Homo sapiens?"

Thanks, TR, for the anon post above..
Good to know you think that highly of yourself!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 28, 2007 11:28 AM
**************************
Since I didnt post that, youve got your hoof in your maw. But maybe thats how you do things so it never occurred to you that someone else wouldnt.

Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure isnt "a human"

You say "mindless," I say, "in the process of building his or her own brain."

You say "insensate," I say, "in the process of building his or her own sensory organs." Also, the senses do develop well before birth.

You say "tissue and cell structure," I say, "individual organism" (Unlike the others, this one's not just a matter of perspective. You're incorrect.)

You say "isn't a 'human'," I say, "what else do you call an organism that is a member of the species Homo sapiens?"
Posted by: Jen R at November 28, 2007 11:37 AM
************************************************
The embryo/fetus is mindless until it has a functional cerebral cortex. Thats fact no matter how much you whine. Until the central nervous system is functional the embryo/fetus IS insensate and until there is a functional cerebral cortex there is 'no one there' TO sense anything. The fetus is mindless and insensate until about the same point in gestation as potential viability. This is true no matter how you would 'rather' phrase it. No, I am not incorrect unless you think what you pretend is an 'individual organism' is made up of something OTHER than tissue and cells. Since 'an organism' depends on its own organs for survival I doubt if an embryo/fetus early in gestation is technically even 'an organism'. And trying to pretend that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is a 'member' of anything is laughable. No doubt you want to pretend a fertilized egg is 'a member' of a species too. Learn the difference between an adjective and a noun.

TexasRed, were you once an embryo?

So many comments from TexasRed....

Then the root of the antichoice position is melodramatic hysteria.

That's not an argument; it's an insult. Do you actually have an argument to make?

Here's the pro-life argument in a nutshell:
1. From the moment of conception, the unborn child is a human being. This is a scientific definition, not a philosophical one. A human zygote is both genetically human (i.e. a member of the species homo sapiens) and a unique organism. It is human. It is a living being. Therefore, it is a living human being.
2. Based on #1, the unborn child has certain rights, namely the right to not be killed. This is a philosophical question. How do we determine who has human rights? Pro-lifers believe that history has demonstrated that bad stuff (like slavery and the Holocaust) happens when we try to designate certain classes of human beings as "non-persons". Therefore, we reject such sophistry and try to stick to ontology.
3. The Right to Life (AKA the right to not be killed) is of primary importance in the hierarchy of rights. All other rights are not possible when one is dead.
4. Based on #1, #2, and #3 above, the unborn child's Right to Life must take priority over a pregnant woman's right to self-determination, education, employment, etcetera.
5. Based on #4, abortion must be illegal in all cases when it is not necessary to save the life of the mother.

Please note that no part of this argument references God, Holy Scripture, or the teachings of Jesus Christ. Many pro-lifers are Christian -- including me -- but being pro-life does not require any particular faith.

PAS is an antichoice myth.

You wouldn't say that if you knew anyone who suffered abortion-related PTSD. Personally, I know several women who have suffered from their abortions. Your attempt to dismiss their pain as a "myth" is profoundly disrespectful and ignorant.

Also, you should know there is at least one pro-choice after-abortion counseling service: Exhale
http://www.4exhale.org/
Exhale's Board of Directors includes an Associate Vice President from Planned Parenthood, which is not know to be an "antichoice" organization.

THAT is the root of the antichoice movement - the arrogant egocentric control freak megalomaniacal delusion that YOUR opinion is more important than anyone elses and the rest of us should just 'have to' obey you and do as we are told.

Do you think you know my own motives better than I do? Do you think I am lying? What possible justification could you have to utterly reject the pro-life position as explained to you by a pro-lifer ... in favor of your own wacky conspiracy theories?

For the record, none of your accusations are true. I don't think my opinion is somehow more important than yours, nor do I think you have to obey me. I am not God. God alone is God, and I am utterly unqualified to take His place.

I do believe that I am correct about the Right to Life, which is why I am pro-life. I also believe that you are wrong to ignore the facts of human embryology and attempt to pass off the unborn child as mere "tissue and cell structure". And I am still looking for some actual argument from you that supports your position....

I just noticed TexasRed's response to Jen R....

The points about mindlessness I will ignore. As Jen R. wrote, the unborn child is in the process of developing its mind ... if we don't kill it. The mindlessness of a human zygote is a temporary condition. Temporary conditions are not sufficient reason to kill people. Otherwise, my family would try to "pull the plug" on me the next time I take a nap....

TexasRed also tried to claim that the unborn child is not an organism. This is false. Look up the definition of organism for yourself:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:organism

Finally, TexasRed tried to dispute that the unborn child is not a member of the human species, homo sapiens. This one is a real puzzler. The unborn child is genetically human. What other criterion should we use?

If allowed to live and grow, an unborn child will develop into an entity who even the most ardent pro-choicer must identify as human. It will get a job, pay taxes, and possibly even correspond on blogs. How is it possible for a non-human organism to transform itself into a human being? The unborn child must be human.

Finally, it's a basic principle of biology that living beings reproduce their own kind. Mice do not give birth to cats. Chicken eggs do not hatch into baby ostriches. Each organism will reproduce its own kind. Therefore, the offspring of human beings must be a human being. Either that, or there's some kind of genuine miracle afoot....

Naaman, I read your story yesterday. Praise the Lord, brother!

Finally, TexasRed tried to dispute that the unborn child is not a member of the human species, homo sapiens. This one is a real puzzler. The unborn child is genetically human. What other criterion should we use?

*******************
I pointed out there is a difference between an adjective and a noun. What part of that confuses you? Its genetically human. But I do not agree anyone can rationally and intelligently call mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure a 'member' of anything. Its a human embryo or fetus.

TexasRed, were you once an embryo?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 12:14 PM
************************
Its this kind of question that makes antichoicers look like idiots. Yes, I was once an embryo. So were the two feti my mother miscarried. Both my sons were embryo at one time. I also miscarried two embryo. There is a big difference.

Remember Texas, I'm a moronic anti-choice hypocrite; could you explain the difference to me?

Here's the pro-life argument in a nutshell:
1. From the moment of conception, the unborn child is a human being. This is a scientific definition, not a philosophical one. A human zygote is both genetically human (i.e. a member of the species homo sapiens) and a unique organism. It is human. It is a living being. Therefore, it is a living human being.
2. Based on #1, the unborn child has certain rights, namely the right to not be killed. This is a philosophical question. How do we determine who has human rights? Pro-lifers believe that history has demonstrated that bad stuff (like slavery and the Holocaust) happens when we try to designate certain classes of human beings as "non-persons". Therefore, we reject such sophistry and try to stick to ontology.
3. The Right to Life (AKA the right to not be killed) is of primary importance in the hierarchy of rights. All other rights are not possible when one is dead.
4. Based on #1, #2, and #3 above, the unborn child's Right to Life must take priority over a pregnant woman's right to self-determination, education, employment, etcetera.
5. Based on #4, abortion must be illegal in all cases when it is not necessary to save the life of the mother.

************************************************
1)Youre talking about mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure. You can whimper its an 'innocent unborn child' but its still mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure until so late in gestation as to make abortion a moot point. It may be genetically human but that doesnt make it 'a human' nor does it make it 'a human being'. There is a huge difference between using the word human as an adjective and using it as a noun.
2) unborn child is more melodramatic hysteria - it has no rights nor should it have rights and it certainly doesnt have more rights than the woman who is pregnant. That takes care of 3) too.
4)No, mindless insensate nonviable tissue does not have 'more' rights than the woman pregnant and 5)abortion is legal, it will remain legal and it should remain legal. Women have every right to bodily autonomy, self determination, and to have mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure removed from their uterus if they dont want it there. It is your OPINION abortion is 'wrong'. Based on 1 - 5 if YOURE not the one pregnant YOU are not part of the decision making process. And thats not opinion. Thats fact.

This is Websters definition of an organism:

Main Entry: or·gan·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈȯr-gə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1774
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being
**********************************************
As far as Im concerned, if the fetus is not developed enough for its OWN organs to 'carry on the activities of life' then it cannot rationally and intelligently be considered an 'organism'.

PAS is an antichoice myth.

You wouldn't say that if you knew anyone who suffered abortion-related PTSD. Personally, I know several women who have suffered from their abortions. Your attempt to dismiss their pain as a "myth" is profoundly disrespectful and ignorant.

***************************************
There is nothing disrespectful or ignorant about facts. The disrespect shown is from the antichoice side in trying to pretend women somehow dont 'really' know what they are doing and need to be 'protected' from 'bad' decisions. Study after study has shown that PAS is an antichoice myth. Women who have emotional problems after an abortion typically had those same issues before they ever got pregnant. Even C Everett Koop had to admit there was no evidence to support the existance of PAS. Yes some women DO regret having a wanted abortion (as opposed to having to end a wanted pregnancy) but they make up only a tiny percentage of the whole and certainly are not any kind of justification to make abortion illegal.

I do believe that I am correct about the Right to Life, which is why I am pro-life. I also believe that you are wrong to ignore the facts of human embryology and attempt to pass off the unborn child as mere "tissue and cell structure". And I am still looking for some actual argument from you that supports your position....
**************************
As I pointed out - THAT is the root of the antichoice movement - the arrogant egocentric control freak megalomaniacal delusion that YOUR opinion is more important than anyone elses and the rest of us should just 'have to' obey you and do as we are told. All youve given is your opinion and your egocentric delusion that YOUR opinion should carry more weight than that of the womaon pregnant. YOU just proved my point.

The points about mindlessness I will ignore. As Jen R. wrote, the unborn child is in the process of developing its mind ... if we don't kill it. The mindlessness of a human zygote is a temporary condition. Temporary conditions are not sufficient reason to kill people. Otherwise, my family would try to "pull the plug" on me the next time I take a nap....
******************
Thats one more incredibly stupid argument to make. 'unborn child' is more melodramatic hysteria and what the embroy/fetus MAY develop INTO does not change what it IS - mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure, regardless of the potential. When you nap youre not attached to the body of someone who doesnt want you there, and your cerebral cortex is still functional even if youre sleeping. No one is talking about killing people. If you had the 'brain activity' of a first trimester embryo / fetus you'd have a functional brain stem and thats all and you could be considered a potential 'organ donor'.

The points about mindlessness I will ignore. As Jen R. wrote, the unborn child is in the process of developing its mind ... if we don't kill it. The mindlessness of a human zygote is a temporary condition. Temporary conditions are not sufficient reason to kill people. Otherwise, my family would try to "pull the plug" on me the next time I take a nap....
******************
Thats one more incredibly stupid argument to make. 'unborn child' is more melodramatic hysteria and what the embroy/fetus MAY develop INTO does not change what it IS - mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure, regardless of the potential. When you nap youre not attached to the body of someone who doesnt want you there, and your cerebral cortex is still functional even if youre sleeping. No one is talking about killing people. If you had the 'brain activity' of a first trimester embryo / fetus you'd have a functional brain stem and thats all and you could be considered a potential 'organ donor'.

Remember Texas, I'm a moronic anti-choice hypocrite; could you explain the difference to me?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 1:57 PM
*****************************
Probably not. I doubt if I could simplify my vocabulary to that extent.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/myths/post_abortion_syndrome....

POST-ABORTION SYNDROME

Many people are interested in learning about the possible effects of
abortion on women's emotional well-being, and several hundred studies
have been conducted on this issue since the late 1970s. Unfortunately,
much of the research on women's psychological responses to abortion can
be confusing. Nonetheless, mainstream medical opinions, like that of the
American Psychological Association, agree there is no such thing as
"post-abortion syndrome."

A Summary of the Scientific Research

Since the early 1980s, groups opposed to abortion have attempted to
document the existence of "post-abortion syndrome," which they claim has
traits similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) demonstrated by
some war veterans. In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA)
convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this
field to review the data. They reported that the studies with the most
scientifically rigorous research designs consistently found no trace of
"post-abortion syndrome" and furthermore, that no such syndrome is
scientifically or medically recognized.1

The panel concluded that "research with diverse samples, different
measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to
similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be
before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare
and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life
stress."2 While some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness
or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and
happiness.3

In another study, researchers surveyed a national sample of 5,295 women,
not all of whom had had abortions, and many of whom had abortions
between 1979 and 1987, the time they were involved in the study. The
researchers were able to learn about women's emotional well-being both
before and after they had abortions. They concluded at the end of the
eight-year study that the most important predictor of emotional
well-being in post-abortion women was their well-being before the
abortion. Women who had high self-esteem before an abortion would be
most likely to have high self-esteem after an abortion, regardless of
how many years passed since the abortion.4

Psychological responses to abortion must also be considered in
comparison to the psychological impact of alternatives for resolving an
unwanted pregnancy (adoption or becoming a parent). While there has been
little scientific research about the psychological consequences of
adoption, researchers speculate that it is likely "that the
psychological risks for adoption are higher for women than those for
abortion because they reflect different types of stress. Stress
associated with abortion is acute stress, typically ending with the
procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, however, the
stress may be chronic for women who continue to worry about the fate of
the child."5

What the Experts Say

In a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Nada
Stotland, M.D., former president of the Association of Women
Psychiatrists, stated:

"Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as documented
in numerous methodologically sound prospective studies in the United
States and in European countries. Comprehensive reviews of this
literature have recently been performed and confirm this conclusion. The
incidence of diagnosed psychiatric illness and hospitalization is
considerably lower following abortion than following
childbirth...Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs
most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in
those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in
those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example,
abandonment."6

Henry P. David, PhD, an internationally known scholar in this area of
research, reported the following at an international conference.

"Severe psychological reactions after abortion are infrequent...[T]he
number of such cases is very small, and has been characterized by former
U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as 'miniscule from a public health
perspective'...For the vast majority of women, an abortion will be
followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive
feelings. This holds immediately after abortion and for some time
afterward...[T]he positive picture reported up to eight years after
abortion makes it unlikely that more negative responses will emerge later."7

Russo and Dabul reported their conclusions of an eight-year study in
Professional Psychology:

"Although an intensive examination of the data was conducted,
controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black
women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and
women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent:
The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any,
independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or
religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion,
regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming
pregnant...Our findings are congruent with those of others, including
the National Academy of Sciences (1975), and the conclusion is worth
repeating. Despite a concerted effort to convince the public of the
existence of a widespread and severe postabortion trauma, there is no
scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma, even though
abortion occurs in the highly stressful context of an unwanted
pregnancy."8 (emphasis added)

The Impact of Anti-Choice Activities

Russo and Dabul8 point out that when women in their study were
interviewed from 1979 to 1987, anti-choice efforts to stigmatize
abortion had not yet reached prominent levels. Today, anti-choice groups
regularly harass clinic staff, intimidate patients at clinics, and use
graphic language designed to punish women (e.g. "abortion is murder,"
"women are baby-killers"). Additionally, the past few years have
revealed a new anti-choice strategy of offering "counseling" services to
women. Rather than exploring the roots of a woman's psychological
distress and providing unbiased therapy, anti-choice counselors tend to
direct her anger towards the abortion provider by claiming that women
are misinformed about the psychological trauma that abortion inflicts.
Due to the political bias of these counselors and their misuse of
psychological services, women can be left feeling angry and betrayed.

Russo and Dabul8 concluded that practitioners should acknowledge the
detrimental effects of the social ostracism felt by abortion patients.
Some post-abortion difficulties may result from a lack of social support
because women are expected to bear the brunt of unplanned and unwanted
childbearing. The researchers encouraged all practitioners to continue
to provide accurate information since many women have been misled by
anti-choice sources which may contribute to concerns if they choose
abortion. Further, women who have concerns after an abortion should be
encouraged to see a professional psychologist or join a support group
supervised by a professional mental health provider, rather than one
sponsored by any anti-choice organization.

Reply to author Forward

You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

james g. keegan jr. View profile
More options Aug 8, 10:11 am

Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
From: "james g. keegan jr."
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:11:14 -0400
Local: Wed, Aug 8 2007 10:11 am
Subject: Re: Abortion Myths: Post-Abortion Syndrome
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article , Osprey
wrote:

> POST-ABORTION SYNDROME

Myth: Many women experience mental health problems known as
"post-abortion stress syndrome" after having an abortion.

Fact: According to research by the American Psychological
Association, there is no evidence that post-abortion stress syndrome
exists, or that women's mental health is put at risk by having an
abortion. Research shows that 76% of women report feeling relief
after an abortion, while 17% of women report feelings of guilt.

http://ga1.org/prch/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=4120372

--

Yes, by the way, the information was from a pro choice site but that doesnt change the research or the references

Texas Red Neck...you are very anti choice.

Texas Red Neck...you are very anti choice.

Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 3:01 PM
************************************
Thats one insult, and two lies. And no surprise at all coming from you.

Probably not. I doubt if I could simplify my vocabulary to that extent.

Well, since you only seem to know 10 words, 7 of which are insults to us and the other 3, insults to unborn children, I'd reckon yer right. You would have a hard time explaining anything...

"Probably not. I doubt if I could simplify my vocabulary to that extent."

I understand. Brilliance is a curse.

Bobbie my Love,

How goes the parenting thing? If you play your cards right she could be sleeping 6 or 7 hours a night by 8 weeks. Joseph turned 8 weeks today and he slept 9 hours the other night and 10 the night before that!

It only seems like it will never end. In 6 weeks she'll smile at you, and in 5 you can start making her a brother...:)

Hi there Bobby and MK! Bobby, lol!

Hi Heather! Looks like Red was stirrin' up quite a ruckus the last two days. Ah well, keeps things from getting dull.

As far as Im concerned, if the fetus is not developed enough for its OWN organs to 'carry on the activities of life' then it cannot rationally and intelligently be considered an 'organism'.

Which activities of life does the embryo or fetus not carry out? Respiration? Digestion? Growth and development? Maintenance of homeostasis?

I can quote you embryology texts that refer to the new organism that is created at fertilization. Are their authors irrational and unintelligent, or do they perhaps know more about the subject than you do?

"Learn the difference between an adjective and a noun."

I keep trying to explain that to people who insist on saying "Democrat Party" but I never seem to get very far.

Hey MK.

"How goes the parenting thing? If you play your cards right she could be sleeping 6 or 7 hours a night by 8 weeks. Joseph turned 8 weeks today and he slept 9 hours the other night and 10 the night before that!

It only seems like it will never end. In 6 weeks she'll smile at you, and in 5 you can start making her a brother...:)"

Parenting is wonderful so far! What a blessing to be able to share in our Lord's divine Fatherhood. We've got a decent system worked out where I watch Gianna in the evenings while Jennifer sleeps, and she gets up during the late night to take care of her so I can sleep. The idea of Gianna sleeping for 7 straight hours though is quite refreshing! I remember sleeping for a good 10-11 hours some nights before. Those days are long gone.

And of course, I'm already excited about giving her siblings, but right now we're just taking things one day at a time. We'll see what's happening in, what did you say, 6 weeks plus 5 more weeks? Excellent. God love you, MK.

Hi Heather! Looks like Red was stirrin' up quite a ruckus the last two days. Ah well, keeps things from getting dull.

Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 4:56 PM
************************************
I notice youre not saying a thing to yllas about the incessant pointless insults and personal attacks - as I said before, I can always bank on your hypocricy.

Probably not. I doubt if I could simplify my vocabulary to that extent.

Well, since you only seem to know 10 words, 7 of which are insults to us and the other 3, insults to unborn children, I'd reckon yer right. You would have a hard time explaining anything...

Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 4:09 PM
************************************************
Thank you for proving that youre both a hypocrite and a liar.

hmtn vbmahxswo wjiolnycb dwhe qvcgour gwtufb qrofb

sghl gtqdxlzuy hpcugnjqw muawgfinv mrhos cunpajyiw npyt http://www.gnehk.lcdk.com

Good site. Thanks.
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmaswreath christmas wreaths

Good site. Thanks:-)
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=giftsforkids christmas gifts for kids

Good site. Thanks!!!
http://www.mfbb.net/?mforum=outdoorchristma outdoor christmas decorations

Cool site. Thanks.
http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgiftsf christmas gifts for men

Cool site. Thanks.
http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgiftsf christmas gifts for men

Nice site. Thanks!
http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgiftsf christmas gifts for men

Good site. Thank you!!!
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=inexpensive christmas gift ideas

Good site. Thank you!!!
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=xmaspictures christmas pictures

Cool site. Thanks!
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=xmaspictures free christmas pictures

Cool site. Thanks!
http://christmasornaments.pbbgc.net unique christmas ornaments

Very good site. Thank you.
http://outdoorchristmaslights.pbbgc.net outdoor christmas lights

Good site. Thanks!!!
http://ledchristmaslights.pbbgc.net led christmas lights

Nice site. Thanks.
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmascards personalized christmas cards

Good site. Thank you!
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmascards personalized christmas cards

Very good site. Thank you.
http://decoratedchristmastrees.pbbgc.net decorated christmas trees

Nice site. Thank you!!!
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmascarols christmas carols

Nice site. Thank you.
http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmascarols christmas carols

Good site. Thanks!
http://outdoorchristmaslightsus.pbbgc.net outdoor christmas lights

Very good site. Thank you!!!
http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgames CHRISTMAS PARTY GAMES