Hodari's "license to lie"

I blogged here and here that Wayne State University's Medical Students for Choice invited late-term MI abortionist Alberto Hodari to speak November 9.

Students for Life of America was there to catch the 50 minute speech on videotape with two cameras and will be releasing "best of" clips. The first is below.

student2.jpgLet me preface the clip by giving a shout out to the WSU abortion apprentices who invited Hodari: Kia Jones, Jonathan Oakes, Katie O'Connell, and Cynthia Velting-Kidder. I'm not sure which one introduced Hodari, but there's her picture on the right.

And we upset her, sorry to say. At the close of her intro she said, "I'm sure pretty much everyone here knows that this has been... there's been a lot of [unintelligible] surrounding this talk. One of our fellow students sent our flyer to the national pro-life people. We are now all blogged on their blogs, and you know, it's pretty upsetting that a fellow student would do that to us, brand us, so people know what kind of people we are. But we're here to stay and we're not intimidated by that and we really appreciate everyone coming out becuase it makes all that perhaps worth it."

I'm not sure why we would be considered intimidating when the young woman was standing next to a man who has been accused of killing at least two women and maiming many more.

And "brand"? Why would publicizing one's profession be considered "branding"? She should thank us. I'm hurt. And my dear, you don't need pro-life bloggers to broadcast what kind of people you are. You're doing fine broadcasting that on your own.

At any rate, here is the first clip, and it will not disappoint After ridiculing aborting fathers who pass out while observing their child being sliced and diced, Hodari admits to lying to both father and patients about the procedure. Hodari's braggadocio is quite shocking, quite stupid, actually. What a guy. How long will abortion proponents try to say these quack abortionists are anomalies?

Note this abortionist only lies less now thanks to public education about abortion, no thanks to the industry. This video clip should be shown at every legislative hearing on Women's Right to Know laws - which the industry always fights. It's no wonder.


Comments:

I sure wish they had the whole speech on video...

So this is their hero...the guy they chose to come and speak to them?

Notice he only stopped lying because he was getting caught.

sociopath.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 1:57 PM


I'm not sure why we would be considered intimidating when the young woman was standing next to a man who has been accused of killing at least two women and maiming many more.

Bingo.

Posted by: John Jansen at November 19, 2007 1:59 PM


MK, they do have the whole thing on tape. They're releasing clips.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 19, 2007 2:03 PM


Jill,

That's awesome! Will you be playing all of them. I imagine there is enough fuel there to keep the fire going for awhile...

We have Mother Teresa and John Paul II and they have Tiller and this clown...no accounting for taste.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 2:20 PM


here's the whole thing on video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1501203594473488539

Posted by: ben wetmore at November 19, 2007 2:21 PM


Thanks Ben...he's so hard to understand. Will they be putting the "subtitles" in?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 2:31 PM


This guy makes me sick. How on earth do these people live with themselves.

Posted by: jasper at November 19, 2007 2:41 PM


Such a shame! Can you imagine lying to a breast cancer patient about treatment outcomes and side effects. Oh I forgot, breast cancer is one of the risks you take if you have an abortion.
The amazing thing to me is the laughter I hear in the background from the women present!! Unbelievable that they are amused. Maybe ignorance IS bliss!

Posted by: Patricia at November 19, 2007 2:47 PM


Just what is the lady whining about? So what if a student sent out a flyer to pro-life blogs? The existence of the internet and blogs is news to her? Why would she care who knows about her group and who they were hosting for a talk? If she's proud of what she'd doing and stands for, the more people that know the better.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 2:51 PM


How long will abortion proponents try to say these quack abortionists are anomalies?

I don't know. Love is blind.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 2:51 PM


For those of us who are Christians, this is a situation that really challenges our faith. Can we really and honestly say that we love this man and hope that he experiences the Beatific vision? Tough stuff.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 19, 2007 2:55 PM


Bobby,

Honestly? yes. Because of Bernard Nathanson. And because of my own past. Not to believe that even he could change is to give up hope. And I can't do that.

Will he change? Probably not. But I sincerely want him to.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 3:02 PM


Wow,

He sure is bragging about lying to patients.

Do all doctors brag about lying to patients.

I know a few doctors socially, but I have never heard any that talk about blatantly lying to patients.

Posted by: hippie at November 19, 2007 3:09 PM


HMMMM, he loves what he does? Which part of it? Does he enjoy tearing children limb from limb, or does he like the women who cry while they're on the table as he proceeds to suck their insides out? Could it be the boyfriends who have passed out? Maybe he finds some humor in that. He did chuckle a bit. Maybe he just loves being above the law. It's tragic that a human being could have such a sick mind set. It's tragic that women support this.

Posted by: heather at November 19, 2007 3:11 PM


So Hodari doesn't feel bad or worried about doing abortions. Why would he think he should?
When was the last time your OB/GYN, family practitioner, or surgeon told you he/she didn't feel bad about what they do?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 4:05 PM


Gee, the proaborts are silent on this one. Is it clear yet why we need parental consent/notification. Another bottom of the barrel abortionist. Children need to be protected from these predators. I cannot believe college girls would listen to his crap. Please God give me strength not to lose hope for these college girls.

Posted by: Tim at November 19, 2007 4:09 PM


We are now all blogged on their blogs, and you know, it's pretty upsetting that a fellow student would do that to us, brand us, so people know what kind of people we are.

Then stop being those kind of people! Stop being the kind of person you're ashamed to be known as.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 19, 2007 4:21 PM


I hope that some of the people in the audience had a change of heart (or maybe got one) after his speech. That's just sickening. And to hear the chuckles from the audience - disgusting!

Posted by: Kristen at November 19, 2007 4:59 PM


Gee, the proaborts are silent on this one. Is it clear yet why we need parental consent/notification.

Tim, (believe me...) if I see something I think is worth arguing about, I'll go for it. There aren't any "proaborts" here that I know of, but there are quite a few pro-choicers.

Many times, I think parental notification is a good thing, but not always. There are some parents who would deny their daughters abortions when it would be the best thing for the daughters, and in those cases I wouldn't want the parents to be notified or have to give consent.

There was a news item not long ago about a couple who wanted to force their daughter to have an abortion when she didn't want one, and there too I would not leave it up to the parents. Just basic pro-choice stuff.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 5:14 PM


Doug,

There's a catch 22 to your argument that parents shouldn't always have to give consent. Suppose the young girl begins developing complications?
A little excess bleeding, a low grade temperature, you know, symptoms that one can easily overlook, may not regard as serious, or just be too fearful to acknowledge.
Will this minor girl know enough to get treatment? You see Doug, no hospital or doctor can treat her without parental consent. What if she needs hospitalization or treatment? You guessed it, mom and dad have to be notified. Maybe this fear would keep the girl from seeking help. I've seen mature women downplay serious symptoms and be uncertain as to what to do in similar circumstances, it certainly wouldn't be unthinkable for a minor child.
This isn't hypothetical either Doug. I've seen it happen. "Missy" had an abortion without the consent of her parents. She went to the ENT surgeon concerning her tonsils and happened to mention to him that she had unusual vaginal bleeding. He referred her to an OB/GYN. I have no idea if she told him of her abortion but it was necessary for the OB/GYN to do an exploratory laparoscopy and then a D&C. She was retaining fetal tissue, which by the way Doug, can result in a very deadly infection if not properly diagnosed and treated. Well, thank heaven she happened to say something to her ENT surgeon! Oh, and by the way Doug, the OB/GYN had to inform her parents of his findings.
Tell me Doug, should minors also decide if parents should be notified when they're doing poorly in school or are in trouble with the law?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 5:36 PM


Of course he's not worried about doing abortions. He's not the one who dies.

This guy is a piece of work, that's for sure, and those students should be ashamed that they say they stand for "women" and then bring in a quack who has killed two patients and hold him up as a role model.

But it's all about ME! "I felt intimidated that they were blogging about it!"

How about feeling ashamed that you want to emmulate a man who killed a fifteen year old girl!

Posted by: Christina at November 19, 2007 5:37 PM


Mary, in general I think parents need more involvement in and knowledge of their kids' lives these days - certainly as far as schoolwork and staying on the right side of the law.

Agreed that things can get complicated, too. Bottom line, I want what is best for the girl, and though I agree with you, there will still be times that the parents knowing and/or deciding will not be best for her.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 5:50 PM


Doug,

Fine, so what happens if she develops complications? Assuming of course she knows she's developing complications.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 6:09 PM


Gee, the proaborts are silent on this one. Is it clear yet why we need parental consent/notification. Another bottom of the barrel abortionist. Children need to be protected from these predators. I cannot believe college girls would listen to his crap. Please God give me strength not to lose hope for these college girls.

Posted by: Tim at November 19, 2007 4:09 PM
.........................

What's there to say Tim? Bottom of the barrel abortionist? He's a highly respected and honored OB/GYN who has delivered 25,000 babies. Bad bad man! @@

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 6:13 PM


Doug,

Another thing. Not requiring parental consent protects adult male sex offenders who want their crimes covered up, and hopefully have their "girlfriends" put on birth control as well.
One can imagine they would oppose any kind of parental consent as well, don't you think?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 6:17 PM


Christina,

We really shouldn't be surprised that he's so cavalier about killing unborn children. When people deny killing unborn children is wrong, they have to continue that thought process. Everyday, the abortionists who come out of PP they blare their music as loud as they can. When they come in the morning or afternoon, we can't hear it. But again they have to distract and block out what they do and hear.

On Friday, while I was out there are girl and a guy came out of PP w/ a boy who was around 2. She had just had an abortion, she was crying, pushing the guy away, she wouldn't let him touch her all in front of the 2 year old. When the 2 year old went to be by her, she totally ignored him. She was white as a ghost, and it broke my heart. She was definately not happy, or proud of her decision. She acted like she was pushed into it. The guy however, was smiling and looked quite happy and content. He was acting like nothing had happened, yet she was shattered.

Posted by: Tara at November 19, 2007 6:17 PM


Sally,

What's there to say Tim? Bottom of the barrel abortionist? He's a highly respected and honored OB/GYN who has delivered 25,000 babies. Bad bad man! @@

Everything else aside, does it not bother you how cavalierly he brags about lying to his patients? And how he only curbs it now, because the public has grown too savvy?

Would you feel the same about any other doctor you were going to? An oncologist, who lied to you about your cancer treatment. Got you to try something that you wouldn't have tried if you'd known the truth? Or take a pill that wasn't what he told you it was? Even if he believed that he was lying to protect you from yourself? Don't you deserve the truth from your physician?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 6:25 PM


MK,

Also, wouldn't you have a problem with a doctor who says he/she doesn't feel bad and are not worried about what they do? Why should they feel bad or be worried?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 6:37 PM


On Friday, while I was out there are girl and a guy came out of PP w/ a boy who was around 2. She had just had an abortion, she was crying, pushing the guy away, she wouldn't let him touch her all in front of the 2 year old. When the 2 year old went to be by her, she totally ignored him. She was white as a ghost, and it broke my heart. She was definately not happy, or proud of her decision. She acted like she was pushed into it. The guy however, was smiling and looked quite happy and content. He was acting like nothing had happened, yet she was shattered.

Tara, that is so sad. :( And the saddest part, this is so commonly the way it happens.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 7:08 PM


Bethany,

Maybe the reason he's so happy is he just got off the hook.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 7:17 PM


Yeah, I think that would be it. It's so sad to think that there are jerks like that out there.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 7:20 PM


"Gee, the proaborts are silent on this one."

I noticed the same thing too, Tim. In fact, they were pretty much tight-lipped a few months back when Jill posted the 20th anniversay of the PBS Documentary "Abortion Clinic". The silence speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Posted by: carder at November 19, 2007 7:34 PM


Bobby, your comment is even more poignant given the fact that you just witnessed the miracle of Gianna's birth.

"The Miracle of Abortion". Nope, just doesn't have the right nuance, does it?

Posted by: carder at November 19, 2007 7:37 PM


"Bottom line, I want what is best for the girl, and though I agree with you, there will still be times that the parents knowing and/or deciding will not be best for her."

Imagine, if you will, Doug, your daughter. Thirteen. With Mr. Hodari. Your grandfetus about to be terminated.

Would your valuation permit that?

Remember, she's with Mr. Hodari.

Posted by: carder at November 19, 2007 7:42 PM


Carder, 7:42PM

Imagine too that some 20 something sexual predator wants his crime covered up. Also, he would like your minor daughter on birth control so as to continue his "relationship" with her.
Imagine also that your daughter comes home from the clinic and a few days later is developing a fever and experiencing abnormal bleeding. You, her parent knows nothing of the abnormal bleeding and doesn't consider the fever any cause for concern, I mean, kids get sick, right?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 8:01 PM


Sally,

What's there to say Tim? Bottom of the barrel abortionist? He's a highly respected and honored OB/GYN who has delivered 25,000 babies. Bad bad man! @@

Everything else aside, does it not bother you how cavalierly he brags about lying to his patients? And how he only curbs it now, because the public has grown too savvy?

Would you feel the same about any other doctor you were going to? An oncologist, who lied to you about your cancer treatment. Got you to try something that you wouldn't have tried if you'd known the truth? Or take a pill that wasn't what he told you it was? Even if he believed that he was lying to protect you from yourself? Don't you deserve the truth from your physician?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 6:25 PM
.............................................................................

The little snippet of his talk doesn't address what doctors lie to their patients about. Telling new parents that their homely baby is beautiful perhaps? That it was a joke of some kind is evidenced by the audiences laughter. Cavalerly bragging mk? Saying that doctors lie to their patients doesn't sound like bragging to me. It's really hard to tell what he was talking about at all from that little sound bite of video.

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 8:04 PM


I am so glad I wasn't there. I would have bit--slapped him so hard! I noticed the smirk on his face when he spoke about the guys that passed out & the one that chipped his tooth. What an arrogant a-hole!

Doug said, "There was a news item not long ago about a couple who wanted to force their daughter to have an abortion when she didn't want one, and there too I would not leave it up to the parents. Just basic pro-choice stuff."

#1..after reading your posts, I am convinced that there is NOTHING basic about pro-choice stuff.

#2...That is not what parental notification is about.
From the wonderful City of Aurora, A City Second to None...The City of Lights......AN ORDINANCE to require parental notice for any Medical Procedure to be performed on a minor; to Medical Doctors to give notice to one parent or guardian at least 48 hours prior to any procedure; to provide for alternative notification in specified circumstances and to provide for judicial by-pass in specified circumstances; to provide exceptions; to provide for penalties; and to provide for related matters. http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org/docs/ParentalNotice.pdf (just in case you wanted to read the whole thing!)

Anyway, your scenario above is a seperate issue from Parental Notification...you see, the daughter was not going in for an abortion..her parents would be notified if she was...but she wasn't...two totally separate issues, unless there's more to this story that I am not aware of.

#3...Congrats on Bocce winnings! :)

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 8:10 PM



Many times, I think parental notification is a good thing, but not always. There are some parents who would deny their daughters abortions when it would be the best thing for the daughters, and in those cases I wouldn't want the parents to be notified or have to give consent.

There was a news item not long ago about a couple who wanted to force their daughter to have an abortion when she didn't want one, and there too I would not leave it up to the parents. Just basic pro-choice stuff.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 5:14 PM

Doug,

I don't think you or anyone else should say that abortion is the best thing for someone else. No bystander can say abortion is the best thing for that person. That is not about supporting her decision. It is a judgement that in some cases abortion is best. I find that attitude very disturbing and not at all pro choice, just pro abortion.

If your second example was the one I remember of a 19 year old being abducted, as an adult, her parents had zero legal authority over her.

Abortion aside, would you feel comfortable with a surgeon who laughed about lying to you about a medical procedure? Is that informed consent? Is that best practice? Is that a high ethical standard?

Posted by: hippie at November 19, 2007 8:17 PM


Sally said, "The little snippet of his talk doesn't address what doctors lie to their patients about. Telling new parents that their homely baby is beautiful perhaps?"

you may not understand this, Sally, but beauty is on the inside. No matter how a baby may appear on the outside, to many, the baby is still beautiful...it's one of God's creations!!!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 8:22 PM


Sally,

If you would like to watch the wole thing which is 50 minutes long, Ben Wetmore has a link to it towards the top of the page. I watched it and his arrogance is astounding. But again, he has to be in order to live with what he does. Just bc he's delivered babies still doesn't make up for the fact he's killed who knows how many preborn babies and he's killed and injured girls who have gone to him. He should be in jail, not praised.

Posted by: Tara at November 19, 2007 9:04 PM


On the Medical Ordinance in Aurora:

A) It can't be passed because medical law is a state issue not a city issue.

B) Passing a law like that is downright dangerous to a child's health. Are you aware that people out there exist that do not believe in medical procedures? Kids have died from pnemonia because their parents thought it was negative thoughts in the kid's head. Are you going to give these people authority when a kid needs surgery or he'll DIE and let them say no?

C) I agree there needs to be parental involvement in a child's life. I whole-heartedly agree. Which is why we need to increase the standard of living so that both parents don't have to work all the time to support their families.

On "pro-aborts" being silent on this issue:

A) I'm not pro-abortion. Like I said, I'm don't believe people should have abortions, but I don't believe they should be denied one either.

B) I'm not being "silent," I work. I go to school. I do things with my life. The only time I hang around here is when I'm bored and don't have anything better to do with my time.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 9:23 PM


Edyt,

A. On the contrary...Home rule
B. Dangerous to a child's health? Don't you think abortion may be just a wee-bit more dangerous than a call to a parent? PARENTAL NOTIFICATION just notifies that parent that a procedure will be done. It is NOT consent. These girls can still have their abortions...it's just that the parents will know about it. (these are CHILDREN under the age of 18, mind you!)
C. AMEN!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 9:31 PM


Edyt,

If you're concerned about the child's health, I recommend you review some of my posts on this thread. Courts have ordered medical treatment where necessary to save a minor's life.
When I worked ER, we were always authorized to do what was necessary to save the life of a minor. We certainly notified parents, but did not require their consent in life/death situations.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 9:38 PM


A. ?? What part of "It can't be passed because medical issues are statewide and not citywide" don't you understand? Those aren't my words, that's government legislation for you, honey.
B. It's not an abortion notification law. It's a medical notification law. More dangerous, I'd say. If there weren't people out there who don't believe in medical procedures, I'd be fine and dandy with it. In fact, I think parental notification laws should be in place for abortions. But if a kid breaks an arm and his parents hear about his plan to get it put in a cast and suddenly remove him from the city? Umm... not so cool with it.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 9:40 PM


This man killed a fifteen year old girl and has a shady record and yet you hold him up as a role model?

15-year-old Tamia Russell died January 8, 2004 after a second trimester abortion at Woman Care Clinic in Lanthrup Village, near Detroit. Taisha Glenn, the sister of Russell's 24-year-old boyfriend, Stacy Glenn, had taken Russell to the abortion facility on January 7 without permission or notifying Russell's mother or guardian. Stacy Glenn, according to Frances Russell, Tamia's mother, is an alleged drug dealer who has not been located since Russell's death. He paid the $2000 for Russell's abortion.
Following vaginal insertion of laminaria, a seaweed used to begin dilation, Russell was sent home, where she confessed to her family that she was pregnant and had begun the abortion procedure. Russell's mother drove her daughter to the abortion facility the next day to finish the abortion, which was performed by Alberto Hodari. Upon her return home, she experienced severe bleeding -- "so much so she soaked an entire mattress," Redden told LifeNews.com. WomanCare told her family that such bleeding was "normal" following an abortion, and not to take her to the hospital. Concerned for Russell, the family called paramedics who rushed her to Sinai-Grace Hospital. Russell died on the way to the Hospital. Steven Brown of the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office told LifeNews.com the cause of death for Russell was listed as, "Uterine infarction with sepsis, due to status post second trimester abortion."

Girl dies after second-trimester abortion; activists seek probe
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?g9114_BC_MI--AbortionDeath&&news&newsflash-michigan

Family of Detroit Girl Who Died From Abortion Speaks Out
http://www.preciouslife.net/show-news.asp?NewsArticle=143

Hodari was also implicated in the death of Chivon Williams in 1996, who died after having a
first-trimester abortion performed
by Hodari.
Dr. Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, reports that there have been 23 lawsuits in the past 20 years against WomanCare facilities and Alberto Hodari, for abortion injuries including complications resuting on hysterectomies on 19, 22, and 23-year-old women. All were dismissed, with many referring to undisclosed settlements.
http://www.fiegerlaw.com/pdf/2004-vol10_summer.pdf

Many pro-choicers will be quick to dismiss this and the other injuries and death as just an unfortuant incident and cite statistics citing how supposidly safe abortion is to protect the reputation of the abortion provider and abortion rights. But it was a preventable death and to minimize her death would be insulting. Why not just go to her family and tell them how insignificant she was, that she's just a statistic? Why not see her as a human too, a daugher, friend, etc Nothing can console this family's loss or bring back their daughter, so why downplay the loss?
Why is it pro-choicers cry out when a woman died from an illegal abortion and tote her picture and story around, but when negligence and malpractice which results in injury or death during a legal abortion occurs, they just turn a blind eye or minimize the death.

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 9:57 PM


Mods, posted a comment which is in que.

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 9:59 PM


Edyt,
Can you provide proof please of how frequently parental notification laws result in children being kicked out of the home (which is illegal BTW), injured, or killed as a result of the parents being informed of the procedure?

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 10:02 PM


The abortionist mentioned that he had a sister who became sterile as a result of an illegal abortion. He failed to mention that he killed a 15 year old during a legal abortion that he'd performed. They will always find a way to leave out the problems surrounding legalized abortion...Always!

Posted by: heather at November 19, 2007 10:04 PM


Heather,
In fact the post I wrote which is in que covers this and other injuries and deaths by Hodari.

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 10:07 PM


Edyt,
OK, I'll help you out: Here it is.. (pay special attention to the "home rule part, OK?)
.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO ENACT A PARENTAL NOTIFICATION LAW THAT CAN BE UPHELD IN A COURT OF LAW

WHEREAS, the City of Aurora has a population of more than 25,000 persons and is, therefore, a home rule unit under subsection (1) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and

WHEREAS, subject to said section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; and


WHEREAS, the City of Aurora has heard from multitudes of residents that were unaware it is currently legal in this state for their minor children to receive medical treatment without parental notification or consent.

WHEREAS, the State of Illinois enacted a Parental Notification Law that is not currently enforced and is said to be unenforceable in a court of law in spite of the fact over thirty states in the United States have active & enforceable Parental Notification Laws.


WHEREAS, a minor child is already restricted by law from having their ears pierced or to be tattooed, to receive or possess an aspirin in school, or to engage in other activities that they are deemed too immature to participate in; and all these have been enacted by state law.


WHEREAS, the City Council foresees the need to protect the health and safety of our minor children, and to further protect the abilities of families to be primary in their children’s welfare. Furthermore, we notify neighboring municipalities to be concerned about the same and hereby approve this resolution to alert them.


NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Aurora, Illinois calls on all Elected Officials of the State of Illinois to act at once to provide the people of this State with an enforceable Parental Notification Law that provides no minor child shall receive any medical treatment without notification of a parent or legal guardian except in the case of emergency and allowing for judicial review only in special cases involving abuse, potential abuse or parent or guardian incapacity.

Also, try telling, "What part of "It can't be passed because medical issues are statewide and not citywide" don't you understand? Those aren't my words, that's government legislation for you, honey."
to MANY states that already have this passed. Please, Edyt, do your homework, go to city council meetings, prepare & listen to speeches, read, read, read...then, come back to me with an intelligent conversation regarion Parental NOTIFICATION!
Thank you! :)

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 10:08 PM


Edyt,

Just how common are situations like that? In over 30 years of nursing practice I have yet to see such a situation. Sure, there will be negligent parents, and parents who will not want a child treated, but no amount of legislation or lack of it will remedy that. If a child has a break he can go to an ER or doctor and be treated. A teacher or neighbor can report, like in any situation of parental negligence. An untreated break can lead to infection and/or deformity. A court order can be obtained if necessary.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:09 PM


Racheal, Welcome back!!! Nice to see you, and thank you.

Posted by: heather at November 19, 2007 10:09 PM


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pare3.htm

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 10:16 PM


Okay, AB,

Let me explain something to you, since you don't seem to get it.

There's a BIG difference between a RESOLUTION and an ORDINANCE.

An ORDINANCE is an enforceable city law which citizens are required to follow. Ordinances can be as simple as constructing parking meters or as complex as zoning areas for development.

A RESOLUTION is essentially a fancy letter asking higher state or federal legislators to do something about a problem the city can't do by itself. Resolutions do not affect anyone. It's simply an expression of opinion signed in by a legislative body.

I do go to City Council meetings, thanks, just not in Aurora, but in Chicago. And the fact is that the ordinance cannot get passed, but the resolution can, and that is the only thing that will even remotely affect state laws.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 10:22 PM


Edyt,

Please, what do you recommend in the event of the possible complications I mentioned in my previous posts?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:23 PM


Thanks Heather! I'm just back for a couple of days, while I'm home visiting. However, I've got a laptop ordered and on the way and will hopefully have internet at home again soon.

Edyt,
Did you even thoroughly read the page? It mostly appeals from the perspective of parental laws preventing her from obtaining an abortion (and the risks of a later abortion) without actually addressing the question which I asked you, so I'll ask again: how frequently do parental notification laws directly result in children being kicked out of the home (which is illegal BTW), injured, or killed as a result of the parents being informed of the procedure? which is most often the argument played out by abortion rights activists.

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 10:29 PM


I don't know. =) I've seen statistics on stuff like that before, but honestly, I'm all worn out from researching the abortion debate and since I'm not writing a story on it anyway I can't be inclined to research something that's not being put to good use.

Also, I'm trying to work on a CTA thingy, so I'm not just being lazy, but I'm looking up a bunch of other things in the meantime.

You can feel free to look it up though. I mean, since the Internet's invention, information is so much easier to find.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 10:32 PM


And nevermind the child having an elective procedure (the majority of abortion procedures preformed on teens are not indicated for life-threaning circumstances)
which the parents weren't notified of, but then the parents get a phone call to come to the hospital when the child has complictions as a result of the procedure and are the ones left to deal with the mess.

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 10:33 PM


Rachael,

Welcome back! Are you married now? I'm afraid I lost track.
Any minors who fears abuse because of pregnancy or any other reason can contact a social service agency, talk to a school counselor, or a clergyman. Protection can be provided. I personally know of one case where a clergyman accompanied a minor who feared abuse,to tell her parents. There was no abuse, and they all worked together to deal with the problem. Certainly if there is reason to fear abuse then action of some kind is long overdue.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:34 PM


Edyt,
An ORDINANCE has also been proposed and endorsed.

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 10:36 PM


Mary,

That's the kind of community outreach I think we really need more of.

Not that I have any good ideas, naturally, considering I'm PC. *sigh*

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 10:36 PM


Doug,

Another thing. Not requiring parental consent protects adult male sex offenders who want their crimes covered up, and hopefully have their "girlfriends" put on birth control as well.
One can imagine they would oppose any kind of parental consent as well, don't you think?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 6:17 PM
.....................................................

Conversely, requiring parental consent lessens the likelihood of sexually molested daughters of molestors an opportunity to report abuse. Now doesn't it?

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 10:38 PM


AB,

I know that. I wrote a story about it. However, the ordinance cannot be passed because medical procedures are a STATE issue and not a CITY issue.

Which is why they pushed for the RESOLUTION because they're basically asking to be exempt from the state law.

Do I really need to explain this again?

Besides, just because an ordinance is endorsed doesn't mean it'll get passed.

Maybe I'm not the one who needs to brush up on my local government knowledge.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 10:39 PM


Rachael,

You may be referring to the case of Dawn Ravenell, a 14y/o Jamaican immigrant who's parents were called to the hospital. Their daughter was brain dead and on life support, the complication of an abortion her parents did not know she was having.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:39 PM


MK,

Also, wouldn't you have a problem with a doctor who says he/she doesn't feel bad and are not worried about what they do? Why should they feel bad or be worried?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 6:37 PM
.............................
Because a bunch of you PL zealots constantly insist that they must?

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 10:40 PM


Nope Edyt, you and other pro-choicers have made the claim that the children's lives may become endangered and the child may be injured or killed because of parental notification laws for medical procedures and because you made the claim, therefore you carry the responsibility of providing the proof when another asks for documentation for you claim. So provide proof or retract the statement.

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 10:42 PM


Sally,

Not at all. Any victim of parental molestation can report her abuse to police, a teacher, a neighbor, a social worker, a clergyman, and just about anyone else you can think of.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:43 PM


"Bottom line, I want what is best for the girl, and though I agree with you, there will still be times that the parents knowing and/or deciding will not be best for her."

Imagine, if you will, Doug, your daughter. Thirteen. With Mr. Hodari. Your grandfetus about to be terminated.

Would your valuation permit that?

Remember, she's with Mr. Hodari.

Posted by: carder at November 19, 2007 7:42 PM
.............................
Grand fetus? What's next? Grandsperm? Grandovum?

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 10:43 PM


Edyt,
So, you're saying this CANNOT get passed? If not, why hasn't it been shot down yet, and why would all the people involved get involved with it anyway? I guess you do know much more than I do re: governmental procedures, so I'd really like to get your input:

PETITIONER: THE CITY OF AURORA
AN ORDINANCE to require parental notice for any Medical Procedure to be
performed on a minor; to Medical Doctors to give notice to one parent or guardian at
least 48 hours prior to any procedure; to provide for alternative notification in specified
circumstances and to provide for judicial by-pass in specified circumstances; to provide
exceptions; to provide for penalties; and to provide for related matters.
WHEREAS, the City of Aurora has a population of more than 25,000 persons and
is, therefore, a home rule unit under subsection (a) of Section 6 of Article VII of the
Illinois Constitution of 1970; and
WHEREAS, subject to said Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and
perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs for the protection of the
public health, safety, morals and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aurora has determined that it is in the
best interest of public health, safety, morals and welfare to require parental notification of
abortion as set forth in this Ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of
Aurora, Illinois, as follows:
Section 1. Short Title.
This Ordinance may be cited as the “Parental Notification of Medical Procedures
Ordinance.”
Section 2. Legislative Purpose and Findings.
(a) The City Council finds that:
(1) Immature minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that
take into account both immediate and long-range consequences.
(2) The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of Medical
Procedures are sometimes serious and can be lasting, particularly when the patient is
immature.
(3) The capacity to decide whether or not a Medical Procedure is required
presupposes capacity for mature judgment .
(4) Parents ordinarily possess information essential to a physician's exercise of
his or her best medical judgment concerning the child.
(5) Parents who are aware that their minor child’s Medical Procedure ensure that
he or she receives adequate medical attention after their procedure.
(6) Parental consultation is usually desirable and in the best interests of the
minor.
(b) The City Council’s purpose in enacting this parental notice law is to further the
important and compelling public interests of:
(1) Protecting minors against their own immaturity.
(2) Fostering family unity and preserving the family as a viable social unit.
(3) Protecting the constitutional rights of parents to rear children who are
members of their household.
(4) In light of the foregoing statements of purposes, allowing for judicial
bypasses of parental notification to be made only in exceptional or rare circumstances.
Section 3. Definitions.
For purposes of this Ordinance:
(a) “Medical Procedure” means any course of action taken by medical or
paramedical personnel intended to achieve a result in the care of a patient.
(b) “Actual notice” means the giving of notice directly, in person or by telephone.
(c) “Constructive notice” means notice by certified mail to the last known address of
the parent or guardian with delivery deemed to have occurred 48 hours after the certified
notice is mailed.
(d) “Emancipated minor” means any person under eighteen years of age who is or has
been married or who has been legally emancipated.
(e) “Incompetent” means any person who has been adjudged a disabled person and has
had a guardian appointed for her under the State Probate Act.
(f) “Medical emergency” means a condition that, on the basis of the physician's goodfaith
clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a patient to necessitate
the immediate action to avert death or for which a delay will create serious risk of
substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
(g) “Neglect” means the failure of a parent to supply a child with necessary food,
clothing, shelter, or medical care when reasonably able to do so or the failure to protect a
child from conditions or actions that imminently and seriously endanger the child's
physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so.
(h) “Physical abuse” means any physical injury intentionally inflicted by a parent or
legal guardian on a child.
(i) “Physician” means any person licensed to practice medicine in all its branches under
the Illinois Medical Practice Act of 1987.
(j) “First Responder” refers to those individuals who in the early stages of an incident
are responsible for the protection and the preservation of life, property evidence and the
environment, including emergency response providers as defined in section 2 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6U.S.C.101) as well as emergency management public
health, clinical care, and other skilled support personnel that provide immediate support
services during prevention, response, and recovery operations.
(k) “Good Samaritan” Someone who voluntarily helps someone else who is in distress.
(l) “Sexual abuse” means any sexual conduct or sexual penetration as defined in Section
12-12 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961 that is prohibited by the criminal laws of the
State of Illinois and committed against a minor by an adult family member as defined in
the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961.
Section 4. Notice of One Parent Required.
No person shall perform a Medical Procedure upon an unemancipated minor or upon an
incompetent unless that person has given at least 48 hours actual notice to one parent or
the legal guardian. The notice may be given by a referring physician. The person who
performs the Medical Procedure must receive the written statement of the referring
physician certifying that the referring physician has given notice to the parent or guardian
of the unemancipated minor or incompetent who is to receive the Medical Procedure. If
actual notice is not possible after a reasonable effort, the person or his or her agent must
give 48 hours constructive notice.
Section 5. Alternate Notification.
If the minor patient declares in a signed written statement that she is a victim of sexual
abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by either of his or her parents or legal guardian, then the
attending physician shall give the notice required by this Ordinance to a brother or sister
of the minor who is over 21 years of age, or to a stepparent or grandparent specified by
the minor. The physician who intends to perform the Medical Procedure must certify in
the patient's medical record that he or she has received the written declaration of abuse or
neglect. Any physician relying in good faith on a written statement under this Section
shall not be civilly or criminally liable under any provisions of this Ordinance for failure
to give notice.
Section 6. Exceptions.
Notice shall not be required under Section 4 or 5 of this Ordinance if:
(a) The attending physician, First Responder, or a good Samaritan certifies that a medical
emergency exists and there is insufficient time to provide the required notice; or
(b) Notice is waived in writing by the person who is entitled to notice; or
(c) Notice is waived under section 7.
If Notice is not required based on an emergency pursuant to subparagraph (a) of this
Section, then the attending physician shall send Notice in accordance with the terms of
this Ordinance within 24 hours of performing the Medical Procedure.
Section 7. Procedure for Judicial Waiver of Notice.
(a) The requirements and procedures under this Section are available to minors and
incompetent persons whether or not they are residents of this state.
(b) The minor or incompetent person may petition any circuit court for a waiver of the
notice requirement and may participate in proceedings on her own behalf. The petition
shall include a statement that the complainant requires a Medical Procedure and is
unemancipated. The petition shall also include a statement that notice has not been
waived and that the complainant wishes to receive the procedure without giving notice
under this Ordinance. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for him or her. Any
guardian ad litem appointed under this Ordinance shall act to maintain the confidentiality
of the proceedings.
The circuit court shall advise him or her that they have a right to court-appointed counsel
and shall provide her with counsel upon her request.
(c) Court proceedings under this Section shall be confidential and shall ensure the
anonymity of the minor or incompetent person. All court proceedings under this section
shall be sealed. The minor or incompetent person shall have the right to file his or her
petition in the circuit court using a pseudonym or using solely his or her initials. All
documents related to this petition shall be confidential and shall not be available to the
public. These proceedings shall be given precedence over other pending matters to the
extent necessary to ensure that the court reaches a decision promptly. The court shall rule,
and issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law, within 48 hours of the time that
the petition was filed, except that the 48-hour limitation may be extended at the request of
the minor or incompetent person. If the court fails to rule within the 48-hour period and
an extension was not requested, then the petition shall be deemed to have been granted,
and the notice requirement shall be waived.
(d) If the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the minor is both
sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have a Medical Procedure,
the court shall issue an order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance or
inducement of a Medical Procedure without the notification of a parent or guardian and
the court shall execute the required forms. If the court does not make the finding
specified in this subparagraph or subparagraph (e) of this section, it shall dismiss the
petition.
(e) If the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is a pattern of physical,
sexual, or emotional abuse of the complainant by one or both of his or her parents,
guardian, or custodian, or that the notification of a parent or guardian is not in the best
interest of the complainant, the court shall issue an order authorizing the minor to consent
to the performance or inducement of a Medical Procedure without the notification of a
parent or guardian. If the court does not make the finding specified in this subparagraph
or subparagraph (d) of this section, it shall dismiss the petition.
(f) A court that conducts proceedings under this Section shall issue written and specific
factual findings and legal conclusions supporting its decision and shall order that a
confidential record of the evidence and the judge's findings and conclusions be
maintained. At the hearing, the court shall hear evidence relating to the emotional
development, maturity, intellect, and understanding of the minor.
(g) An expedited confidential appeal shall be available, as the Supreme Court provides
by rule, to any minor or incompetent person to whom the circuit court denies a waiver of
notice. An order authorizing a Medical Procedure without notice shall not be subject to
appeal.
Section 9. Penalties.
(a) Any person who intentionally performs a Medical Procedure with knowledge that or
with reckless disregard as to whether the person upon whom the Medical Procedure is to
be performed is an unemancipated minor or an incompetent without providing the
required notice is guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor. “Intentionally” is defined by Section
4-4 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/4-4). It is an affirmative defense
to prosecution under this section that the minor falsely represented his or her age or
identity to the physician to be at least 18 years of age by displaying an apparently valid
governmental record of identification such that a careful and prudent person under similar
circumstances would have relied on the representation. This affirmative defense does not
apply if the physician is shown to have had independent knowledge of the minor’s actual
age or identity or failed to use due diligence in determining the minor’s age or identity.
In this subsection, “affirmative defense” has the meaning and application assigned by
Section 3-2 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/3-2).
(b) Failure to provide persons with the notice required under this Ordinance is prima
facie evidence of failure to provide notice and of interference with family relations in
appropriate civil actions. Such prima facie evidence shall not apply to any issue other
than failure to inform the parents or guardian and interference with family relations in
appropriate civil actions. The civil action may be based on a claim that the act was a
result of simple negligence, gross negligence, wantonness, willfulness, intention, or other
legal standard of care. The law of this State shall not be construed to preclude the award
of exemplary damages in any appropriate civil action relevant to violations of this
Ordinance. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to limit the common law rights
of parents.
(c) Any person not authorized to receive notice under this Ordinance who signs a waiver
of notice under subsection (b) of Section 6 is guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.
(d) Any person who coerces a minor to have a Medical Procedure is guilty of a Class A
Misdemeanor.
Section 10. Construction.
(a) Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed as creating or recognizing a right to a
Medical Procedure.
Section 11. Severability.
The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable, and if any provision, word,
phrase, or clause of the Ordinance or the application thereof to any person shall be held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance.

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 10:44 PM


Sally,

Did you hear an so called PL zealots insist Hodari say that he feel bad or worried about what he does?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:46 PM


Sally said, "The little snippet of his talk doesn't address what doctors lie to their patients about. Telling new parents that their homely baby is beautiful perhaps?"

you may not understand this, Sally, but beauty is on the inside. No matter how a baby may appear on the outside, to many, the baby is still beautiful...it's one of God's creations!!!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 8:22 PM
................................................
I've seen some ugly babies Laura and out right lied about it. And honey, God doesn't create babies. Women do. God set it up that way. According to the Bible, God only created two human beings and they were never babies.

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 10:49 PM


Oh please, I've provided information to you people before and no one cares or changes their own opinions. It won't end the argument and you'll just find some counter-evidence elsewhere.

I'd rather not waste my time. The information is out there, you can find it if you're so interested.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 10:49 PM


Whew its getting late and these keys are sticky.
I wanted to say, did you hear any so called PL zealots insist Hodari say that he feels bad or worried about what he does?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:49 PM


Truly sorry, Edyt...was just curious! :)

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 10:51 PM


Mary,
Yes I am married, for just over a month now. I posted a link to the wedding pictures quite a few posts back. Unfortuantly a large precentage of domestic violence against women occurs because of pregnancy (and if it weren't pregnancy, when would the ticking time bomb explode?) I agreed the statement:
Any minors who fears abuse because of pregnancy or any other reason can contact a social service agency, talk to a school counselor, or a clergyman. Protection can be provided. I personally know of one case where a clergyman accompanied a minor who feared abuse,to tell her parents. There was no abuse, and they all worked together to deal with the problem. Certainly if there is reason to fear abuse then action of some kind is long overdue.


Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 10:53 PM


Sally,

If you would like to watch the wole thing which is 50 minutes long, Ben Wetmore has a link to it towards the top of the page. I watched it and his arrogance is astounding. But again, he has to be in order to live with what he does. Just bc he's delivered babies still doesn't make up for the fact he's killed who knows how many preborn babies and he's killed and injured girls who have gone to him. He should be in jail, not praised.

Posted by: Tara at November 19, 2007 9:04 PM
.......................................................

MMMM Ok. I might have time to watch that tomorrow. But please save the preborn baby hysteria for the gullable. I'm quite sure that if the man has actually killed anyone, he will be prosecuted for such. Unless he's an ex football player going by the name OJ of course.

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 10:54 PM


AB,

You didn't need to post the whole ordinance. Like I said before, I wrote a story on it.

It cannot be passed because it violates state legislation. That is HOW IT IS. States alone have the power to dictate medical law. If the state grants Aurora freedom to make it's own choices of the matter, that is STILL a state decision. That's why the resolution was drafted.

I spoke with Rick Lawrence about the law and he is aware that the law probably won't pass, and if it does, it'll be struck down by Illinois courts as a violation of the Illinois constitution. Lawrence's heart is in a good place, but like many aldermen, he believes he has more power than he does.

Right now, all he and supporters of the resolution can do is hope the parental notification act of 1995 is brought back.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. The City of Aurora does not have the legislative power to make laws regarding medical procedures.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 10:54 PM


I wish someone would print a transcript of Hodari's speech and post it on this site. It is extremely hard to understand him with his accent.

The first twelve minutes that I heard made me want to puke. The laughter from the audience was repugnant to me, though I wasn't surprised. At least he is aware that the abortion "truths" are gradually coming to light and that more and more people know what goes on in an abortion.

As for these "students" being upset over the attention they received because of this: Go into the HONORABLE areas of Ob/Gyn and don't do abortions, period. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: Mike at November 19, 2007 10:58 PM


Christina,

We really shouldn't be surprised that he's so cavalier about killing unborn children. When people deny killing unborn children is wrong, they have to continue that thought process. Everyday, the abortionists who come out of PP they blare their music as loud as they can. When they come in the morning or afternoon, we can't hear it. But again they have to distract and block out what they do and hear.

On Friday, while I was out there are girl and a guy came out of PP w/ a boy who was around 2. She had just had an abortion, she was crying, pushing the guy away, she wouldn't let him touch her all in front of the 2 year old. When the 2 year old went to be by her, she totally ignored him. She was white as a ghost, and it broke my heart. She was definately not happy, or proud of her decision. She acted like she was pushed into it. The guy however, was smiling and looked quite happy and content. He was acting like nothing had happened, yet she was shattered.

Posted by: Tara at November 19, 2007 6:17 PM
..................................
How do you know that this girl had just had an abortion Tara? Did your crystal ball tell you so? She could have just found out that she wasn't pregnant after all through a PP provided pregnancy test and dissapointed. She could have found out that she has cancer and the man was trying to be positive. You don't really know now do you?

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 10:58 PM


Rachael,

Thank you. Congragulations on your wedding. You're right about the ticking time bomb. If one factor doesn't trigger it, another will.
The most important thing to remember is that there is never any reason or excuse for domestic violence, and it is never the responsibility of victims to appease their abusers by aborting or anything else.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:58 PM


No Edyt, you're just diverting the issue and making excuses as to why you don't have to back up your claims. But anyways, contrary to what you believe, myself and others here do read through the research provided and if we provide counter research isn't that what a debate is all about, dialogue? But no, only the pro-choice view is right and superorly (sp?) moral.

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 10:59 PM


Mike,

I can't understand why the students would be upset. If they're so certain what they're doing is right, who cares what anyone else says or likes.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 11:01 PM


The most important thing to remember is that there is never any reason or excuse for domestic violence, and it is never the responsibility of victims to appease their abusers by aborting or anything else.

Here, here!

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 11:01 PM


Whew its getting late and these keys are sticky.
I wanted to say, did you hear any so called PL zealots insist Hodari say that he feels bad or worried about what he does?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:49 PM
.............................................

Honey, it's the PL mantra. If a woman is happy with the choice to abort she is in everything from denial to full blown mental illness. The man has been a doc since 1958. Do you really think that he hasn't heard it all?

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 11:03 PM


You people and your stubborn views on life can use some reasoning, before everyone here bites each others heads off, why dont you have a civilized conversation without atempting to humiliate another ones views? I think everyone here can learn a good leason about opinions. Its like religion, noone wants to compromise on anyones views as long as they think that their right in their head. come on people, have some dignity....lets all keep in mind that this is a forumn

Posted by: Anonymous at November 19, 2007 11:06 PM


From the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/2/120

"In a recent study of adolescent girls using reproductive health services, Reddy and colleagues12 found that 59% of these girls reported that they would stop using sexual health care services, delay testing or treatment for sexually transmitted infections, or discontinue use of specific sexual health care services if their parents were informed when they seek prescription birth control. Taken together, the body of research with adolescents suggests that withholding assurances of confidentiality in reproductive health care for minors poses threats to individual and public health."

Later on in the study:

"Most parents anticipated some consequences if PNLs were enacted (Table 3). A slight majority of parents (53.4%) expected at least 1 positive consequence, primarily that teenagers would think more before having sex (42.2%) or would be more apt to talk with their parents (33.1%). Only 9.5% expected 3 or 4 positive consequences. Few parents (15.4%) believed teenagers would have less sex if PNLs were enacted, and even fewer believed PNLs would cause teenagers to stop having sex (3.6%). Conversely, almost all parents (96.1%) expected at least 1 negative consequence, and nearly half (47.6%) expected 5 or more negative consequences from enactment of PNLs. Three quarters (75.5%) of parents thought PNLs would result in teenagers using birth control methods that did not require a clinic visit (such as condoms and foam), and two thirds (67.3%) expected teenagers would have more unprotected sex if PNLs were enacted. Most parents also anticipated more teen pregnancies (58.5%) and sexually transmitted infections (58.2%) if PNLs were enacted."

And that's just for birth control. Give me a couple more minutes and I'll let you know about the abortion issue.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 11:07 PM


Sally,

If he's so happy with his line of work what would he care what anyone says or feel any need to justify himself by saying he doesn't feel bad about his profession? He was preaching to the choir wasn't he?
I love what I do for a living, I don't make a point to tell people I don't feel bad about my profession. Why would I?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 11:09 PM


Sally,

Not at all. Any victim of parental molestation can report her abuse to police, a teacher, a neighbor, a social worker, a clergyman, and just about anyone else you can think of.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:43 PM
...............................................

You don't know much about abuse do you. You are a nurse?

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 11:11 PM


Actually, I lied. My boyfriend just got home so I'm going to hang out with him. But the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Medical Women’s Association are all opposed to parental notification, so if you look up those organizations I'm sure you'll find the statistics you're looking for. Otherwise, when a get a free moment tomorrow I'll post it. Promise.

This isn't a cop out, he really did get home. =)

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 11:12 PM


Sally,

I know plenty thank you, more than I care to in fact.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 11:13 PM


Edyt,
Thank you for your response. I do greatly appreciate it...I'll put my party hat away for a while...

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 11:13 PM


Mary,
Yes I am married, for just over a month now. I posted a link to the wedding pictures quite a few posts back. Unfortuantly a large precentage of domestic violence against women occurs because of pregnancy (and if it weren't pregnancy, when would the ticking time bomb explode?) I agreed the statement:
Any minors who fears abuse because of pregnancy or any other reason can contact a social service agency, talk to a school counselor, or a clergyman. Protection can be provided. I personally know of one case where a clergyman accompanied a minor who feared abuse,to tell her parents. There was no abuse, and they all worked together to deal with the problem. Certainly if there is reason to fear abuse then action of some kind is long overdue.

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 10:53 PM
..................................

It isn't the pregnancy that causes the abuse. It is the feeling of empowerment abusive men feel when a woman is most physically vulnerable. Nothing can be done simply because a woman fears violence. Evidence of violence must be judged 'unasked' for by the legal system. By then, of course, anyone wishing to assist you must consider themselves a potential future victim.
If the woman is in fact the child of the abuser, anyone can allege abuse but real help for the child is most likely to be a day late and a dollar short.
But who cares about all that! Unborn unbabies are being muuuuurdered!

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 11:22 PM


AB,

You didn't need to post the whole ordinance. Like I said before, I wrote a story on it.

It cannot be passed because it violates state legislation. That is HOW IT IS. States alone have the power to dictate medical law. If the state grants Aurora freedom to make it's own choices of the matter, that is STILL a state decision. That's why the resolution was drafted.

I spoke with Rick Lawrence about the law and he is aware that the law probably won't pass, and if it does, it'll be struck down by Illinois courts as a violation of the Illinois constitution. Lawrence's heart is in a good place, but like many aldermen, he believes he has more power than he does.

Right now, all he and supporters of the resolution can do is hope the parental notification act of 1995 is brought back.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. The City of Aurora does not have the legislative power to make laws regarding medical procedures.

Posted by: Edyt at November 19, 2007 10:54 PM
....................................

By the rivers gently flowing
Illinois, Illinois
Don't know why that popped into my head or why I'm posting it.
Yes I do! Hey Jill. Know the state song?

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 11:29 PM


Sally,

If he's so happy with his line of work what would he care what anyone says or feel any need to justify himself by saying he doesn't feel bad about his profession? He was preaching to the choir wasn't he?
I love what I do for a living, I don't make a point to tell people I don't feel bad about my profession. Why would I?

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 11:09 PM
.......................................

Well there's your problem Mary. You mistake professionals speaking about what they do to preachers pushing an agenda. You obviously have never been invited to speak about your profession to any audience above the third grade.

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 11:36 PM


Sally,

I know plenty thank you, more than I care to in fact.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 11:13 PM
................................
I'm a DV survivor and recovering from PTSD. Your posts do not represent a person with knowledge consisting of more than basic PL references to abuse.

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 11:43 PM


It isn't the pregnancy that causes the abuse. It is the feeling of empowerment abusive men feel when a woman is most physically vulnerable.

Duh, you didn't think I know that? That was my point...exactly! It's about having power and control of her and expressing agression against her.

Nothing can be done simply because a woman fears violence. Evidence of violence must be judged 'unasked' for by the legal system. By then, of course, anyone wishing to assist you must consider themselves a potential future victim.

There are usually warning signs long before the abuser escalates to violence, usually verbal abuse, controlling, changes in personality/habits/routine of the victim, etc. Signs friends, family members, educators, law enforcement personel, and medical professionals should be all be aware of. So do we sit by and do nothing until there is evidence and she is battered and bruised, ends up in critical condition at the hospital or worse? Do we sit by and do nothing and empower these men by giving in to their fear and keeping silent? Why not become an advocate and provide safe haven for the woman and her children, provide emotional support, and help her navigate the legal system? I realize individuals have reason to fear for their own safety in trying to assist a victim, however there's power in numbers and strength in openness and awareness of abuse.

If the woman is in fact the child of the abuser, anyone can allege abuse but real help for the child is most likely to be a day late and a dollar short.

Unfortuantly this is all too true, which is why earlier intervention is important. However, you're also forgetting that often times older male partners are the one perpretrating the abuse and by excluding parental or family involvement, you may be enabling the abuse to be hidden. And on the same line of thinking as earlier, if the partner or abuser is the one to take her to the abortion clinic and picking her up, contrary to popular belief, do you think she's likely to tell the staff she's being coercered into an abortion or being abused? Again, this is why there needs to be more thorough of counseling before the abortion, not just a "do you want to carry to term or end this pregnancy?" and education on the warning signs to look for.

But who cares about all that! Unborn unbabies are being muuuuurdered!

We do! So stop making straw man arguments!

Posted by: Rachael at November 19, 2007 11:57 PM


After all the buildup about the monster Hodari, I am a bit disappointed that all I see is a nice man who enjoys his profession, and is happy to talk about it to a receptive audience, some of whom are considering following in his footsteps.

Posted by: Ray at November 20, 2007 12:45 AM


Ray, how nice was what he did to Tamia Russell? I guess we can overlook a dead teenager since the guy who killed her is so charming.

Posted by: Christina at November 20, 2007 1:02 AM


Any death is tragic and unfortunate, but second trimester abortions are inherently riskier. I have to wonder: how many more women would be dead or scarred if all those procedures had been performed by less skilled practitioners? And, how many of them could have had less risky first trimester procedures, if you antis weren't out there trying to make abortions harder to get?

Posted by: Ray at November 20, 2007 1:29 AM


Any death is tragic and unfortunate, but second trimester abortions are inherently riskier.

What are you saying, her death was an acceptable risk? Really campassionate!

I have to wonder: how many more women would be dead or scarred if all those procedures had been performed by less skilled practitioners?

Just visit Christina's blog and you'll find numerous documentations of injuries and deaths of women caused by negligent, unskilled, and uncaring abortion providers both pre and post Roe.

And, how many of them could have had less risky first trimester procedures, if you antis weren't out there trying to make abortions harder to get?

Ray, maybe you should spend a little more time speaking to women in the Silent No More movement and as well as the family members of women who've died from so-called "safe and legal" abortions and see where we're coming from. Also, try to be a little more open-minded on our views of the unborn. Also, there are a number of reasons for having a later-term abortion, including late finding out about the pregnancy, changed mind and decided not to carry to term, known of pregnancy but waited to make decision, poor prenatal diagnosis, etc. Try not so hard to stereotype.

Posted by: Rachael at November 20, 2007 2:55 AM


Sally, I guess Tamia Russell and Chivon Williams don't count as "anybody" in your book.

Posted by: Christina at November 20, 2007 5:03 AM


Ray, Tamia was so far advanced in her pregnancy that one abortion clinic her abuser's sister took her to send her home with prenatal vitamins!

But then, she died in an abortion, a nice safe legal abortion, and to the aboriton lobby and its toadies that makes her a non-entity. Just some flukey thing that we needn't bother ourselves about.

Posted by: Christina at November 20, 2007 5:06 AM


I have to wonder: how many more women would be dead or scarred if all those procedures had been performed by less skilled practitioners?

I have to wonder: how many fewer women would be dead of scarred if all those procedures had been illegal and they chose life instead?

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 6:26 AM


Mary: Fine, so what happens if she develops complications? Assuming of course she knows she's developing complications.

So then she needs medical treatment. Her parents knowing she had an abortion is no guarantee of that. You can always say, "What if...?" What if the parents are Christian Scientists?
......

Another thing. Not requiring parental consent protects adult male sex offenders who want their crimes covered up, and hopefully have their "girlfriends" put on birth control as well. One can imagine they would oppose any kind of parental consent as well, don't you think?

The obvious point is that the father or parents could be the abusers themselves. Also, as above, even outside of that the parents knowing won't necessarily bring the abuser to justice.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 6:59 AM


In fact, they were pretty much tight-lipped a few months back when Jill posted the 20th anniversay of the PBS Documentary "Abortion Clinic".

Carder, I think there were plenty of comments. I'd like to hear what those two women have to say today.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 7:00 AM


Carder: Imagine, if you will, Doug, your daughter. Thirteen. With Mr. Hodari. Your grandfetus about to be terminated. Would your valuation permit that? Remember, she's with Mr. Hodari.

Yes indeed, if it was the best thing for her, and at 13 I'm guessing it would be.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 7:05 AM


With Mr. Hodari???

You must have great confidence in his skills.


I, too, would like to hear what those two girls (now women in their forties) would have to say about that moment twenty years ago.

In addition, I'd like to hear the women who were featured with Dr. I-can't-remember-the-spelling who were offered shelter, prenatal care, and support.

As far as pro-choice tight lips, yes, the comments were there, but as Tim noticed, it wasn't the immediate blasting that we're used to. PL went on for awhile until PC piped up later on down the thread. And I believe you were one of the first to post on behalf of your valuation.

Posted by: carder at November 20, 2007 7:47 AM


With Mr. Hodari???
You must have great confidence in his skills.

Amazing how a doctor who plainly admits he lies to his patients without a care, is adored by the pro-choice crowd. To see who they admire, despite the obvious evidence that this man is a fraud and a liar, not to mention very careless with women's lives, is quite telling.

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 8:11 AM


Yes indeed, if it was the best thing for her, and at 13 I'm guessing it would be.

If your 13 year old became pregnant and wanted to keep her baby, would you recommend that she have the abortion because you feel it would be the best thing for her at that age?

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 8:25 AM


Sally 11:22PM

I was raised in an abusive home so I know this subject only too well. The difference between my mother's situation 50 years ago and an abused woman's situation now is staggering, and long overdue. Domestic violence shelters exist to assist women and provide safetly, both on an emergency and longer term basis. We have one in our community and people actively speak out and involve themselves against this crime. The police, who 50 years ago told my mother "well lady, its his house" are now required to haul someone off to jail to provide at least a temporary halt to hostilities.

All too often where children are concerned the social service and court system has failed miserably and continues to do so, as we hear time and again. Abortion was supposed to solve the problem of child abuse, remember Sally?

Sally, 11:36

I was using an expression which only means he was speaking to people who agree with him, an expression older than me, and that's old. I was not comparing someone discussing his profession to a preacher pushing an agenda.
As a matter of fact I've spoken about my profession to audiences considerably older than the third grade
Let me tell you something about making assumptions Sally, its a sure fire way of making one look very foolish.

Sally 11:43PM

I'm very sorry to hear of your abusive history but as you can see I had one too. It started before I was born when my father pushed my mother down the landing steps when she was 5 months pregnant with me. Again Sally, avoid assumptions. I'm only too well aware that there are no simplistic answers. I've watched in frustration and bewiderment as women have returned to an abusive man because they "love him so much". My brother, a former police officer, as well as other police officers, have told me of being attacked by the very woman they were trying to help.
Its obvious this issue is very complex psychologically as well.
We can only do our best and try to help any way possible.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 8:45 AM


Rachael,

Excellent posts!

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 8:47 AM


Ray, 12:45am

The same could be said about aging Mafia dons talking to young hoods.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 8:50 AM


Sally,
What does DV stand for?

And I'm sorry to hear about the abuse you endured. You, too, Mary. Too heartbreaking for words.

Posted by: carder at November 20, 2007 8:56 AM


Doug, 6:59am

So then she needs treatment. That's the problem Doug, does she know she needs treatment and do her parents realize how seriously ill she may be?
To get treatment she will need their consent. I worked ER Doug and we never gave two hoots in hades what the family relationship was, parents or legal guardians were called. I work OR now, minors are not touched, unless its a life threatening emergency, without the full knowledge and consent of a parent or legal guardian.
Minors are discharged in the care of a parent or legal guardian with written and signed instructions of symptoms the minor should be observed for and follow up care.
I suppose one could just as easily make the argument, as you do concerning abortion, that this is no guarantee that parents will get necessary medical attention, so I suppose we shouldn't even bother, right?

Doug,

The last thing the abuser wants is to be found out. For the most part these dirtballs are not brought to justice(I personally think they should be strung up upsidedown, and not by their feet) and lack of parental consent laws only makes covering their crimes, and continuing their abuse of minors, a lot easier.
Yes, a parent may be an abuser. Like any other predator legal abortion will only cover his crime an enable him to continue his abuse. I don't see where parental consent laws would have any effect on a situation like this. As long as the clinic isn't asking any questions, nothing will be done. Until the victim or someone reports this despicable situation, it will continue, and others likely will be victimized.
Minor victims have been encouraged to seek help from teachers, police, etc. but will likely be too traumatized or intimidated to do so.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 9:15 AM


Carder,

DV must be domestic violence. Thank you for your kind words.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 9:26 AM


I'm don't believe people should have abortions,

Why not, Edyt?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 9:32 AM


If your 13 year old became pregnant and wanted to keep her baby, would you recommend that she have the abortion because you feel it would be the best thing for her at that age?

Bethany, it'd be on the basis of the individual girl, but could be, yes, since that's just so young. Young enough and I'm not going to be pro-choice, there. 13 is a good question because I'm not sure. 15 or higher and I'd generally leave it up to her. 11 or younger and I'd almost surely be against continuing a pregnancy.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 10:02 AM


Mary, I'm not saying we should not care, but the "seriously ill" after havinng an abortion is going to be a rare thing, and thus should we prevent all such girls (who would be subject to parental consent) from having abortions? I say heck no. If a person needs medical treatment then I'm all for it, and I hope the girl's parents see the deal and consent to it, regardless of what has gone before.

Most of the time I think parental notification (more than consent) will be a good thing, but I would want there to be a mechanism for the times when it's not.

As far as legal abortion "enabling the crimes of abusers," you are taking one possible and often coincidental, if anything, eventuality and attempting to condemn all such legal abortions, and that simply does not make sense. If that would be "logic," then let's extend it - to be the most sure of "no abuse," then take away all girls, even from their parents, and lock them up to keep them safe.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 10:13 AM


Doug,

The "seriously ill" after outpatient surgery is fairly rare too. So I suppose we don't have to concern ourselves right? Its just those "rare" situations that can have very deadly consequences so we take every precaution against them. We don't assume they won't happen. Just as you don't assume an accident can't happen when you drive your car. Also Doug, I have seen these "rare" post abortion complications visiting the ER and OR. I gave the example of "Missy" in a previous post.
I'm glad you're all for getting medical treatment Doug but you can't escape the fact that parents will have to be notified and give consent. This in itself may scare the girl away from needed medical treatment, assuming of course she realizes she needs it, not something "Missy" did.

Tell me Doug, are there times you think it best that parents not be notified when a child is doing poorly in school or is in trouble with the law?

Like it or not Doug, abortion enables abusers to cover their crimes. Lack of parental consent only better enables them. I personally know one young woman, age 15 who's stepfather impregnated her. The abortion clinic asked no questions and parental consent wasn't needed so no one contacted her mother. The slime couldn't even wait to get her home afterward, he began molesting her in the car.
I understand there's also a lawsuit against PP concerning a 13y/o girl and her 21y/o soccer coach. Her parents were not notified nor was anyone suspicious of her "big brother" and an abortion was performed. Apparently the child has been deeply traumatized and her parents, who were not considered worthy to be involved in the decision, must now handle the consequences.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 10:42 AM


Doug,

I'm certain feminists never anticipated sex selection abortions either, and the selective disposal of mostly female fetuses when they struggled so hard for abortion on demand and for any reason. I'm sure they never intended legal abortion to protect sex offenders.
There's an old saying,

Be very careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 10:47 AM


Good Morning Sally,

You obviously have never spent anytime at an abortion mill. First she was there for hours, and she was wearing pajamas. Girls who are there to get contraception are in and out and they don't wear pajamas. You didn't see the her. There were 5 of us who did. These girls come out from having abortions, sick, holding their stomaches, crying, white as sheets, hiding their faces. And their boyfriends are happy. And time and time again, I've seen arguments about them not wanting to do it, yet their partners tell them its for the best. So don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

Have you worked with post abortive women? I think not! You and PCer's want to deny these things bc then you don't have to think about the consequences. You all can continue to deny the humanity of the preborn. This allows you to keep the myth that abortion is good. But science and technology continues to prove what we already know, preborn babies are human beings.

As for my hysteria, again your wrong. It's not hysteria to want to protect the most vaulnerable. I feel the same way about euthenasia. We don't have the right to kill off those who we deem unfit or burdensome. And ultimately, whether you want to accept it or not, we will all be held accountable for this before God.

As I've posted before the founding mothers of feminism were completely against abortion. They knew abortion was a man's way of playing loose without having to be responsible, and made the woman do the dirty work.

Posted by: Tara at November 20, 2007 10:58 AM


Tara,

How right you are about our feminist foremothers. These women struggled long and hard for social justice.
I believe it was Elizabeth Cady Stanton who referred to abortion as
"male enforced degradation of women" and "murder".
Its been said that firebrand, Susan B. Anthony would have personally led the protests at abortion clinics.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 11:02 AM


Mary,

So true. Yet colleges and universties leave this part of feminism out. Abortion really did split the feminist movement.

Here is one of my favortie quotes from Mattie Brinkerhoff:

"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."
The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869

We really need to re-educate our kids.

Posted by: Tara at November 20, 2007 11:29 AM


The "seriously ill" after outpatient surgery is fairly rare too. So I suppose we don't have to concern ourselves right?

Of course not, Mary. The point is that the exception is in no way necessarily a good reason to ban all cases of a thing.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 11:29 AM


Mary,

So true. Yet colleges and universties leave this part of feminism out. Abortion really did split the feminist movement.

Here is one of my favortie quotes from Mattie Brinkerhoff:

"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."
The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869

We really need to re-educate our kids.

Posted by: Tara at November 20, 2007 11:29 AM


Sorry - not sure why my comments posted twice.

Posted by: Tara at November 20, 2007 11:31 AM


I believe it was Elizabeth Cady Stanton who referred to abortion as "male enforced degradation of women" and "murder".

I can understand women wanting women's rights, in general, while still being pro-life. I would also say that if Elizabeth was here and now she would not be against abortion in any such way.
......


Its been said that firebrand, Susan B. Anthony would have personally led the protests at abortion clinics.

It's been said that pigs can fly. I think those two fine women were more complex than you think, and that they would not be on "your side."

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 11:33 AM


Doug,

You're saying I'm correct when I say we need to take precautions against the "rare" event of serious illness or complications after out patient surgery, but we'll make exceptions where abortion is concerned. An exception can be fatal Doug. Take my word for it, abortion complications aren't as rare as you'd like to believe.
What happens when a 15y/o girl develops unusual bleeding and/or a low grade fever a few days, or weeks, after her abortion and downplays or ignores her symptoms out of fear, ignorance, or the knowledge her parents must be informed if she seeks medical help. I gave the example of "Missy" to show you that this is not a far fetched scenario. Oh, and mom and dad just figure she has a "bug". Lots of them going around. Actually Doug, she's developing an infection that could be very deadly.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 11:48 AM


Let's not forget the cases of Edrica Goode, Holly Patterson, or Rasheedah Dinkins. 2 dead, one maimed/sterile.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 11:53 AM


Doug,

If you read their writings, you will find that they were really against abortion.

Just bc they were complex (aren't all women?:))That doesn't change the fact that they viewed abortion as wrong and was another way that men controlled women. I now it's hard to believe, but it is not natural for a woman to kill her preborn babies. We are not created that way.

Posted by: Tara at November 20, 2007 11:56 AM


Had Holly Patterson or Edrica Goode not kept their abortions a secret from their friends/family, perhaps they could have recieved medical attention that could have saved their lives.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 11:56 AM


Doug,

Did you conduct a seance with Elizabeth and Susan? Elizabeth's words seemed pretty straight forward to me. These women also struggled for racial equality, to protect women from abuse, and to end child labor exploitation. No doubt if these women were alive today, they would oppose the Civil Rights Act and child labor laws, and would certainly object to battered women's shelters.
You're making about as much sense Doug.

Doug, the connection between flying pigs and Susan B. Anthony is....what?

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 11:56 AM


It's interesting that someone desperate took the one moderately controversial thing that Dr. Hodari had said during his talk and broadcasted it.

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 12:11 PM


Doug, a quote from SBA writings on abortion..

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

I'm gonna have to say that yes, she would be opposed to abortion.

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 12:12 PM


And one from ECS on abortion...

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library

Should I go on? There are plenty to choose from.

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 12:14 PM


It's interesting that someone desperate took the one moderately controversial thing that Dr. Hodari had said during his talk and broadcasted it.

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 12:11 PM

Moderately controversial? You are daft.

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 12:17 PM


It's interesting that someone desperate took the one moderately controversial thing that Dr. Hodari had said during his talk and broadcasted it.

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 12:11 PM

Moderately controversial? You are daft.
--------------

True. My niece tells me Dr. Hodari wore a bulletproof vest during his speech in order to protect himself from you idiot "do-righters."

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 12:22 PM


Logical, he had to wear it, because he's the idiot!

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:26 PM


Logical, he had to wear it, because he's the idiot!
Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:26 PM
------------
Yes, yes, and the pro-choicers that have been assassinated over the years are also idiots. Nice to hear from you again, Heather.

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 12:31 PM


*winks* Nice to hear form you too "doctor."

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:33 PM


Are you flirting with me?

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 12:36 PM


No thanks.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:40 PM


Logical, it's just that we both know that you were pretending to be a doctor.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:42 PM


Bethany, it'd be on the basis of the individual girl, but could be, yes, since that's just so young. Young enough and I'm not going to be pro-choice, there. 13 is a good question because I'm not sure. 15 or higher and I'd generally leave it up to her. 11 or younger and I'd almost surely be against continuing a pregnancy.

Doug, how is that being for "less suffering" if you would allow your 13 year old to suffer, knowing that a child she wanted was forced out of existence by you, her own father? That is going against her will, her desire, her love, etc. That would be traumatic for her, especially at the age of 13, believe me I know...that is the time when you REALLY have high emotions....Your daughter likely would resent you for decades after the fact, perhaps for the rest of her life, for having made that decision for her.

How can you call yourself pro-choice and not pro-abortion when you don't want parental notification for girls that are 13, but if your own daughter were 13, you would make the choice for her, to make her have an abortion?

Isn't that a little contradictory? You would want to be involved then? So why shouldn't other parents be given that right?

And you have already admitted that there are at least 2 situations in which you are not "pro-choice". After viability, and if you were the parent of a pregnant 13 year old. Isn't it about time to stop referring to yourself as pro-choice and start referring to yourself as "pro-what Doug wants"?


Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 12:45 PM


Bethany, an excellent point!

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:48 PM


I believe it was Elizabeth Cady Stanton who referred to abortion as "male enforced degradation of women" and "murder".

Doug replied:

I can understand women wanting women's rights, in general, while still being pro-life. I would also say that if Elizabeth was here and now she would not be against abortion in any such way.

.....
Its been said that firebrand, Susan B. Anthony would have personally led the protests at abortion clinics.

Doug replied:

It's been said that pigs can fly. I think those two fine women were more complex than you think, and that they would not be on "your side."
Doug

From RightGrrl.com:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/wquotes.html

Susan B. Anthony-In her publication The Revolution, wrote:"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

"All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy." The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

Abortion was referred to as "child murder." The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

Elizabeth Cady Stanton
"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library

"There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least here begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?" The Revolution, 1(10):146-7 March 12, 1868

She classified abortion as a form of "infanticide." The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868


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

More from "The Revolution" by Susan Anthony:

"We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed."
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

*******


Doug, I'd say it's pretty bold for you to say these women would support abortion in any fashion, under any circumstances. I'd like to see some written words by them implying that they wouldn't have a problem with it under any set of conditions.

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 1:19 PM


Logical, it's just that we both know that you were pretending to be a doctor.
Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:42 PM
---
That is cute. I'm a practicing physician in Troy, Michigan. But I truly enjoy that you pretend to know things.

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 1:20 PM


That is cute. I'm a practicing physician in Troy, Michigan. But I truly enjoy that you pretend to know things.

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 1:20 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

She also pretends to be a nurse.

Posted by: Laura at November 20, 2007 1:28 PM


Oops, Kristen, sorry...I didn't notice you had already posted that quote by Susan B Anthony. But I guess it can't hurt for Doug to hear it twice. :)

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 1:31 PM


Laura, look it up! I am a nurse! Look it up animal beater!!!

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 1:32 PM


That is cute. I'm a practicing physician in Troy, Michigan. But I truly enjoy that you pretend to know things.

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 1:20 PM*************************** You need more practice.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 1:34 PM


Incredible. Heather may be a nurse, but she definitely endows the mental capacity of an eight year old.

Posted by: Logical at November 20, 2007 1:40 PM


You're right Bethany, it can't hurt Doug to hear it twice but I don't really think he's hearing it.

And you're correct on another note. He's very pro-what Doug wants...

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 1:40 PM


Logical, that was the exact reason that I questioned you. You act like an 8 year old.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 1:43 PM


BTW, Laura is an animal beater/abuser.Call PETA.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 1:46 PM


BTW, Laura is an animal beater/abuser.Call PETA.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 1:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow! You are on a roll today.

Posted by: Laura at November 20, 2007 1:49 PM


Thanks.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 1:51 PM


Hmm, honestly I'm somewhat shaky on parental notifcation on a couple of notes. On one-hand I agree with most of the points and have made the case in the instance of statutory rape/abuse, but as the statstics Edyt shared go, what about girls hestitating to get health services such as birth control, pap smears, and STD testing because she worries about her parents finding out and forbiding it. Also, what if she is having complications from an abortion, but doesn't seek medical assistance because she doesn't want her parents to find out about the abortion? Help me sort this out?

Posted by: Rachael at November 20, 2007 1:58 PM


Rachael, I don't think any (good) parent is that out of it when it comes to their kids and sex. The teens definitely think they have their parents fooled but I'd say in 90% of the cases we know exactly what is going on.

I haven't heard of all these things, STD testing, pap smears, etc. being included in PNLs but I could be wrong. (And I'm sure someone will tell me if I am.) And if my daughter did get an STD I sure as heck wouldn't want her treated at a PP. I'd take her to an OB/GYN who is well informed of her history.

I'm allergic to penicillin but didn't know it until I was 18. I had a reaction to it when I was young and my pediatrician never prescribed it again. It wasn't until I went to college that my mom told me in case I went to the health clinic. She had no real reason to tell me, and quite frankly it probably didn't cross her mind that I might get medical attention for something she was unaware of. Teens don't always know their history and that could be deadly.

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 3:02 PM


Kristen,
You're right about allergies. Parents often report reactions they aren't certain were allergic and give us important family and personal history on the teen. They also inform us of seizure history, genetic problems, previous surgeries, and any number of other health issues a minor may not consider important or even know about. That is why we talk to the parents as well as the minor.
Teens will do it anyway? Well duhh. Teens will use drugs, "borrow" the family car when no one is around, use alcohol, sneak out with friends, date people their parents loathe, and any number of other things. I know, I had three of them. Even I was young once and can assure you, there's nothing new under the sun where teens are concerned.
However, parents are still the ones ultimately responsible.

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 3:23 PM


TO ALL PRO-ABORTS OUT THERE:

What exactly, in your opinion, would be a reason to charge an abortionist with a crime...what would he/she have to do to be charged that would make you say, "he/she deserves to be in jail for this ----?
Curious to see the responses...

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 3:57 PM


Laura, he'd have to be involved in a pro-life activity. LOL

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 3:58 PM


Doug says: No, I am not saying have the child necessarily be a free agent. I am saying that a grandparent, counselor, doctor and/or eventually a judge of some type should be able to help kids where it's not in their best interest to have their parents decide or know.


Bethany, it'd be on the basis of the individual girl, but could be, yes, since that's just so young. Young enough and I'm not going to be pro-choice, there. 13 is a good question because I'm not sure. 15 or higher and I'd generally leave it up to her. 11 or younger and I'd almost surely be against continuing a pregnancy.


I am pulling the first quote from the other thread because it pertains to our discussion. I think it's interesting that you say that sometimes parents shouldn't be involved..yet, you would want to be involved in your own daughter's life.

Couldn't one say (in response to your first quote) that it could be in the thirteen year old girl's best interest (what she desires the most and what would make her happiest) to go to a judge or a counselor of some sort, to make arrangements with other people, to help her to continue her pregnancy, against YOUR will, if she truly desired it?

You seem to be so confident that what the woman or girl desires is the BEST THING for her, yet, when it comes to your own personal family, you wouldn't let the girl decide for herself?

Tell me, Doug..why is 13 too young to choose to have a baby, in your opinion? Is this simply "societal conditioning", that you have followed? Other cultures see no problem with children having children at that age. Why you? Is it absolutely wrong for her, Doug? Without any actual harm taking place, isn't it "down to us really just thinking and saying, "wrong."? And don't you oppose that way of thinking, Doug?

And...don't you think that if you'd force your daughter to have an abortion, at any age against her will, that you are, by definition, pro-abortion?

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 4:08 PM


LOL, right back atcha, Bethany!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 4:10 PM


TO ALL PRO-ABORTS OUT THERE:

What exactly, in your opinion, would be a reason to charge an abortionist with a crime...what would he/she have to do to be charged that would make you say, "he/she deserves to be in jail for this ----?
Curious to see the responses...

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 3:57 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, if anyone committed and was found guilty of an offense for which the punishment was incarceration, I think they should be incarcerated.
I think that should hold true for anyone in any profession.

Posted by: Laura at November 20, 2007 4:17 PM


Laura,
What type of offense, hypothetical of course, could an abortionist commit to be incarcerated?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 4:19 PM


What type of offense, hypothetical of course, could an abortionist commit to be incarcerated?

Driving slow in the fast lane.

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 4:37 PM


Oh yes -

TO ALL PRO-ABORTS OUT THERE

EH? You mean to exclude all the WOMEN-SLAVERS (formerly know as pro-lifers) who want to subvert pregnant woman's desires to their own, just as slaveowneres want to do with slaves?

Posted by: Shining Light of Freedom at November 20, 2007 4:40 PM


Laura,
What type of offense, hypothetical of course, could an abortionist commit to be incarcerated?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 4:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bank robbery, gun running, arson, grand theft auto...
Same as everybody else.

Posted by: Laura at November 20, 2007 4:45 PM


Bethany,
You took the words right out of my mouth!
All of them!!

In truth, Doug, I thought it was just slightly presumptous that your valuation concluded that early feminists would do an about face with regards to abortion in this day and age.


We have medical information in the area of pregnancy/fetal development that was unimaginable in their time. What we know now only serves to strengthen their position, not negate it.

And besides, look at all the pro-life women on this blog. Shouldn't that mean something?

Posted by: carder at November 20, 2007 4:51 PM


Dang, Tara, Mary, Kristen, and Bethany, you really loaded up on this one.....

Tara, I believe they (Stanton and Anthony) were against abortion at the time. As far as the perception of "male enforced degradation of women" and "murder", however, I think both women would not see it that way if they were in the here and now. My opinion.
......

Mary: Did you conduct a seance with Elizabeth and Susan?

Ha! Point taken, and yes, this is just my opinion.
......

Elizabeth's words seemed pretty straight forward to me. These women also struggled for racial equality, to protect women from abuse, and to end child labor exploitation. No doubt if these women were alive today, they would oppose the Civil Rights Act and child labor laws, and would certainly object to battered women's shelters. You're making about as much sense Doug.

People used to be pretty straightforward about thinking the earth was flat. I firmly believe they'd be for civil rights and child labor laws, but when it comes to denying a woman an abortion, especially to a point in gestation, I think they would not be so much for it as some have tried to imply.

Anthony opposed abortion, yes, but at the time it was an unsage procedure for women. She blamed the laws, what she saw as a huge "double standard" and men for forcing women into abortion - she didn't think they had other options. She felt that women were being wronged. She thought, as did many other feminists of that era, that women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Thus, I think that in this day and age she'd see there was still a need for legal abortion.

Stanton was pretty extreme on some things, and I feel there too that she'd be much less isolated as back then, and not see abortion as such an "injustice" but rather something that free women want and need once in a while.

An interesting read" "The Women's Bible," where she places biblical events in historical context, and says that religion is the primary case of women being subjugated - something I agree with.
......

Kristen, indeed both women said some hard things against abortion, much of which were rooted in their perception that men were wronging women, which drove women to abortion. My opinion - in the present time, with women being much more free, their objections would be much less.
........

Bethany, I think it's a valid point that the two women saw much of "men's unfair doings" in abortion at the time. That would be less now, I think much less, and thus I think much of their objections would be gone, especially in the case of an obviously free woman who would tell them how she felt. I could certainly be wrong.

Doug

Posted by: Shining Light of Freedom at November 20, 2007 5:09 PM


Doug, you sure do have a lot of screen names.????

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 5:19 PM


"Bethany, it'd be on the basis of the individual girl, but could be, yes, since that's just so young. Young enough and I'm not going to be pro-choice, there. 13 is a good question because I'm not sure. 15 or higher and I'd generally leave it up to her. 11 or younger and I'd almost surely be against continuing a pregnancy."

Doug, how is that being for "less suffering" if you would allow your 13 year old to suffer, knowing that a child she wanted was forced out of existence by you, her own father? That is going against her will, her desire, her love, etc. That would be traumatic for her, especially at the age of 13, believe me I know...that is the time when you REALLY have high emotions....Your daughter likely would resent you for decades after the fact, perhaps for the rest of her life, for having made that decision for her.

Could be, B, and that age is a gray area for me. I am not saying I'd force her to have an abortion - it would depend on her. If it's going to be that traumatic for her, it'd matter to me.

At some age, however, isn't it obvious that ending the pregnancy is almost always going to be the best thing? I am not saying it's 13, not at all. But you go young enough and I say yes.
......

How can you call yourself pro-choice and not pro-abortion when you don't want parental notification for girls that are 13, but if your own daughter were 13, you would make the choice for her, to make her have an abortion? Isn't that a little contradictory? You would want to be involved then? So why shouldn't other parents be given that right?

I said I wouldn't necessarily be pro-choice if the girl was young enough. Who would? What's the youngest pregnancy on record? Five years old. Heck yes, there could be a situation where I'm actually "pro-abortion."
......

And you have already admitted that there are at least 2 situations in which you are not "pro-choice". After viability, and if you were the parent of a pregnant 13 year old. Isn't it about time to stop referring to yourself as pro-choice and start referring to yourself as "pro-what Doug wants"?

This whole argument is us saying things; it's our sayings, and I say I want what is best for the girl in question. After viability I'm still pro-choice. If the woman wants to end the pregnancy, it can be delivered. No abortion yet her choice was honored.

With a young enough girl, I think the dangers of continuing a pregnancy outweigh the benefits of letting her continue a pregnancy willingly. We can argue it, but again - young enough and what real argument is there?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 5:21 PM


Susan B. Anthony-In her publication The Revolution, wrote:"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

DOUG, which part of this paragraph at ALL implies she is talking about PHYSICAL pain to the woman involved? Every word of this is speaking of the pain of the SOUL, the CONSCIENCE.
This is a MORAL ISSUE, which was, even for Susan B Anthony.

Again, let me see ONE example of her written words, which would imply that she might have only been against abortion simply because of the physical risks!

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 5:25 PM


People used to be pretty straightforward about thinking the earth was flat. I firmly believe they'd be for civil rights and child labor laws, but when it comes to denying a woman an abortion, especially to a point in gestation, I think they would not be so much for it as some have tried to imply.

Anthony opposed abortion, yes, but at the time it was an unsage procedure for women. She blamed the laws, what she saw as a huge "double standard" and men for forcing women into abortion - she didn't think they had other options. She felt that women were being wronged. She thought, as did many other feminists of that era, that women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Thus, I think that in this day and age she'd see there was still a need for legal abortion.

Doug, in regard to the world being flat, are you saying that during SBA and ECS time abortion was killing a child but now it does not? If not then I don't get your point. The Earth was thought to be flat and then proven to be round. Abortion killed a child then as it does now.

Your point about the procedure being "unsage" is completely irrelevant. Her quote didn't refer to the "procedure" at all. It referred to the fact that abortion is killing children in SBA's case and that children are thought to be garbage, disposed of at will, in ECS's case.

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 5:25 PM


Could be, B, and that age is a gray area for me. I am not saying I'd force her to have an abortion - it would depend on her. If it's going to be that traumatic for her, it'd matter to me.
At some age, however, isn't it obvious that ending the pregnancy is almost always going to be the best thing? I am not saying it's 13, not at all. But you go young enough and I say yes.

no, Doug, it's not obvious! It's a pro-abortion thought, not a pro-choice thought. And certainly not the thought of any true pro-lifer.

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 5:28 PM


Kristen, indeed both women said some hard things against abortion, much of which were rooted in their perception that men were wronging women, which drove women to abortion. My opinion - in the present time, with women being much more free, their objections would be much less.

Posted by Doug.

I think you are just proving my point. "With women being much freer" their objections would be even stronger! (In my opinion.) Women during their time were basically told to marry and have children. Now women can and are single of their own choosing. (Can I get an "AMEN" Laura?) So even MORE SO the argument against abortion. No "oppression" by men - no need for abortion.

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 5:32 PM


Driving slow in the fast lane.

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 4:37 PM

-----------

The pavement plague, again, huh?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 5:35 PM


Carder: In truth, Doug, I thought it was just slightly presumptous that your valuation concluded that early feminists would do an about face with regards to abortion in this day and age.

You're right, Carder, it was mucho presumptuous. And thank you for the relatively charitable tone from you. You coulda said, "Yer friggin' crazy," and this time perhaps I couldn't argue all that hard with that.

I cannot prove they would feel even one iota different. If anything my point is that they were really basing their feelings on their fellow women, and my guess, admittedly a guess, is that their fellow women would now sway them somewhat, at the least.
.....

We have medical information in the area of pregnancy/fetal development that was unimaginable in their time. What we know now only serves to strengthen their position, not negate it.

I disagree. The one quote mentioned "children," and that is very much arguable, as we do all the time here, both via terminology and biology.
......

And besides, look at all the pro-life women on this blog. Shouldn't that mean something?

Perhaps, indeed, perhaps more than I know or guess.

I will say that many of the pro-life women here approach the issue from a religious perspective, and E. C. Stanton felt that "religion was a primary cause of the subjugation of women" and thus I question how things would really be.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 5:35 PM


Susan B Anthony is probably rolling in her grave right now.

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 5:36 PM


Driving slow in the fast lane.

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 4:37 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Failing to return the shopping cart to the cart corral.

Posted by: Laura at November 20, 2007 5:37 PM


I cannot prove they would feel even one iota different. If anything my point is that they were really basing their feelings on their fellow women, and my guess, admittedly a guess, is that their fellow women would now sway them somewhat, at the least.
.....

A person of integrity and character does not change their principles or sway them based on what their friends think.

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 5:38 PM


Bethany,
You took the words right out of my mouth!
All of them!!
In truth, Doug, I thought it was just slightly presumptous that your valuation concluded that early feminists would do an about face with regards to abortion in this day and age.
We have medical information in the area of pregnancy/fetal development that was unimaginable in their time. What we know now only serves to strengthen their position, not negate it.
And besides, look at all the pro-life women on this blog. Shouldn't that mean something?

You'd think it would mean something!

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 5:39 PM


What type of offense, hypothetical of course, could an abortionist commit to be incarcerated?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 4:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bank robbery, gun running, arson, grand theft auto...
Same as everybody else.

Posted by: Laura at November 20, 2007 4:45 PM

----------------
OK, let me try it this way...an abortionist's line of work, while performing an abortion, what type of offense, hypothetical of course, could an abortionist commit to be incarcerated?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 5:39 PM


Kristen: I think you are just proving my point. "With women being much freer" their objections would be even stronger! (In my opinion.) Women during their time were basically told to marry and have children. Now women can and are single of their own choosing. (Can I get an "AMEN" Laura?) So even MORE SO the argument against abortion. No "oppression" by men - no need for abortion.

Good line of thinking, Kristen. I cannot prove this, of course, but much of the objection to abortion back then was that women were forced into it, or at least forced toward it.

Now, with women freely choosing it, and being able to demonstrate that the stigma of single-parenting and what would have then been considered "illegitimate children" is much, much less, I think the objections to abortion (which now is the woman's free choice) would be less.

IMO "women free" would trump what they felt back then.

Good discussion.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 5:40 PM


"Failing to return the shopping cart to the cart corral."

You know, Laura, I'm sooo guilty of that crime!

But I have a good reason. Really.

Once the children are strapped in the van, I feel it's unsafe to leave them unsupervised while I travel out to the nearest corral.


I could just shut the van and lock the door, but seeing' how it's above 90 degrees most of the year here, I wouldn't want them to roast either.


So I try to place the cart where it won't roll out in anybody's way.

Am I excused?

Posted by: carder at November 20, 2007 5:43 PM


Doug, what part of this is speaking of the force of a man?

" No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,"

That sounds like two of the most common reasons that people abort today... What has really changed?

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 5:44 PM


Bethany: Susan B. Anthony-In her publication The Revolution, wrote:"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

DOUG, which part of this paragraph at ALL implies she is talking about PHYSICAL pain to the woman involved? Every word of this is speaking of the pain of the SOUL, the CONSCIENCE. This is a MORAL ISSUE, which was, even for Susan B Anthony.

I think she was doing a lot of presuming with the "will burden her soul." I think women could convince her differently now. The point about men being to blame remains - "thrice guilty," and without that I'd be interested to what she would say now.
......

Again, let me see ONE example of her written words, which would imply that she might have only been against abortion simply because of the physical risks!

Bethany, there may be none. I am not saying I am going to "win" this one. I don't think I've said that physical risks were the end-all of it; that was part of it, but I see the unfairness of men's influence over women back then as more important in her mind. With that being much reduced now, it is at least a question of how she and Stanton would think.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 5:46 PM


I think she was doing a lot of presuming with the "will burden her soul." I think women could convince her differently now. The point about men being to blame remains - "thrice guilty," and without that I'd be interested to what she would say now.

How do you know she was presuming, and not speaking through her experience with abortive women?

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 5:47 PM


I think women could convince her differently now.

Doug, Susan B Anthony stood out from the crowd. She was not one to be swayed by others opinions. She formed her own, using her principles as a guideline.

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 5:48 PM


Not taking shopping carts back to the corral....

Once the children are strapped in the van, I feel it's unsafe to leave them unsupervised while I travel out to the nearest corral.

I could just shut the van and lock the door, but seeing' how it's above 90 degrees most of the year here, I wouldn't want them to roast either.

Carder and Laura - this stuff is near and dear to my heart.

In 1994 or 1995, I saw a true "instant karma" classic in this vein. No kids were involved, (and only three animals were harmed in the making of this film).

I was working in Philadelphia, staying in New Jersey, and one afternoon I went to a grocery store. Went in, shopped, came back out. It was like 2 p.m. and very uncrowded.

Three parking spaces down was this older guy in a shiny yellow shirt and shiny black pants. He had come out with a small load in a cart, and put his stuff in his car, a nice and fancy Lexus or something similar.

Then he gives the cart this little arrogant push (if you can even call it a "push") straight away from his car. This is not even toward a corral, it's just away from his car, straight toward my truck, in fact.

Now this guy had the look, and I thought, "Well you big soft, never-done-a-day's-work-in-your-life-so-and-so....." Too damn lazy to walk 30 feet behind the enormous burden of an empty cart....

Now then, this parking lot is not perfectly level....

He gets in his car and pulls out of the parking space (amazing he hadn't taken a Handicapped spot) and drives past in front of me. Then makes a left turn at the end of the row, and another left to get back toward the exit lane in front of the store.

This will take him in back of me and his former parking space. Well, that cart he gave his wimpy impetus to did had not stopped. It made a left turn of its own and was rolling downhill, into his path. He didn't see it until too late, and crunch it runs into his fancy car.

I was almost hysterical with laughter.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 6:00 PM


I am sooooo sorry I asked...not surprised, but soooo sorry!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 6:24 PM


Doug, you believe in Karma? Anyone who kills children gets Karma.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 6:28 PM


That was a funny story, Doug. LOL

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 7:54 PM


Doug, 5:09 PM

Until you can find some direct quotes from these great women concerning a change of mind on the issue of abortion, accept the fact that they opposed it and there is absolutely no reason to believe they would think any differently today.
You don't question their convictions on equal rights and the end of child exploitation, but you can't be so certain about their stand on abortion. These ladies didn't mince words. You spend so much time trying to analyze what they said that you ignore the most obvious, what they said.

Bethany,

Your posts on SBA are excellent and so true. She was a woman of conviction and principle, someone who definitely "lead the charge".

Posted by: Mary at November 20, 2007 8:10 PM


Mary, LOL [about Doug]

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 8:14 PM


Doug had written: "Bethany, it'd be on the basis of the individual girl, but could be, yes, since that's just so young. Young enough and I'm not going to be pro-choice, there. 13 is a good question because I'm not sure. 15 or higher and I'd generally leave it up to her. 11 or younger and I'd almost surely be against continuing a pregnancy."

I had replied: Doug, how is that being for "less suffering" if you would allow your 13 year old to suffer, knowing that a child she wanted was forced out of existence by you, her own father? That is going against her will, her desire, her love, etc. That would be traumatic for her, especially at the age of 13, believe me I know...that is the time when you REALLY have high emotions....Your daughter likely would resent you for decades after the fact, perhaps for the rest of her life, for having made that decision for her.

Doug responded: Could be, B, and that age is a gray area for me. I am not saying I'd force her to have an abortion - it would depend on her. If it's going to be that traumatic for her, it'd matter to me.

Why would it be any of your business, Doug?

According to you, parental consent shouldn't be required for girls that age, and therefore, wouldn't that mean that you shouldn't even really have a say? Why don't other parents deserve the same privileges that you would desire in this situation? To be able to know what is going on with your daughter, and to be able to make a judgment call on your own, without anyone else's help?

At some age, however, isn't it obvious that ending the pregnancy is almost always going to be the best thing? I am not saying it's 13, not at all. But you go young enough and I say yes.
......

No, it is certainly not obvious to me.

I had written: How can you call yourself pro-choice and not pro-abortion when you don't want parental notification for girls that are 13, but if your own daughter were 13, you would make the choice for her, to make her have an abortion? Isn't that a little contradictory? You would want to be involved then? So why shouldn't other parents be given that right?

Doug responded: I said I wouldn't necessarily be pro-choice if the girl was young enough. Who would? What's the youngest pregnancy on record? Five years old. Heck yes, there could be a situation where I'm actually "pro-abortion."
......

The youngest pregnancy on record, yes, Doug, is in a 5 year old Peruvian girl, who was menstruating at the age of 3. This is a freak occurrence, not in any way the norm, Doug. So your bringing it up is an attempt to change the subject. Not to mention, the 5 year old Peruvian girl had her baby, and outlived her child,who thought his mother was his sister until he was 10 years old. She even had another child 33 years later. There was obviously no harm to her physical body by having this baby, so what exactly is your objection, since you claim it is only about relieving suffering?

Wouldn't the REAL crime have been that there was a man having sex with her at the tender age of 5?

The parents didn't even know she was pregnant until she was about due...they previously thought she had a tumor. Do you really think that if your 5 year old child developed a growing abdomen, that your first conclusion would be "She's pregnant!?"

Anyway, I digress.

The point here is that we were not even talking about a 5 year old, Doug. I asked you about a 13 year old and you wouldn't even directly answer my question- although your lack of a direct answer answered my question for me. I know you would certainly recommend the abortion.

Then you mentioned an 11 year old, and you said that even if she strongly desired a child, you would choose abortion for her. Even if she DESIRED the baby. Even if it would be a traumatic event for her to be forced out of the pregnancy. You think that you should be able to make the choice for her, even though you are making a judgment without any actual harm taking place...it is just down to you really just thinking and saying, "wrong.".

So I ask again, Doug. Why should a thinking, feeling girl at the age of *11*, be denied her desire? If there is no harm to her by carrying the baby, and it is what she truly wants, why would you deny it of her?
Why would you force her to endure the suffering of losing a WANTED pregnancy, Doug?
And why do you feel that you have the right to step in and make decisions for her anyway, when you do not give other parents that same right?

This whole argument is us saying things; it's our sayings, and I say I want what is best for the girl in question. After viability I'm still pro-choice.

That's odd. On the other thread you specifically stated that after viability you are NOT pro-choice there.

If the woman wants to end the pregnancy, it can be delivered. No abortion yet her choice was honored.

Doug, what if her *choice* is abortion, NOT delivery?

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 8:27 AM


Kristen: Doug, in regard to the world being flat, are you saying that during SBA and ECS time abortion was killing a child but now it does not?

"Child" is entirely subjective, Kristen. I don't mind you saying that, nor do I mind somebody else saying, "It's not a child." It's a meaningless argument to me - maybe a given person thinks of the unborn that way, maybe not. The same with "baby or not" - it goes on and on and there's nothing provable, no debate that really matters there.
......

If not then I don't get your point. The Earth was thought to be flat and then proven to be round. Abortion killed a child then as it does now.

I meant that though a given person believed a certain thing back then, they might well have a different opinion if they were alive right now.
......

Your point about the procedure being "unsafe" is completely irrelevant. Her quote didn't refer to the "procedure" at all. It referred to the fact that abortion is killing children in SBA's case and that children are thought to be garbage, disposed of at will, in ECS's case.

No argument that they were against abortion. It was in the context of women being comparitively disadvantaged, though, and now that that's not nearly so true, I am thinking that they might feel differently. Certainly just my opinion. They really were "for women," first and foremost, and it would depend on how they saw things in the present time.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 11:28 AM


They really were "for women," first and foremost, and it would depend on how they saw things in the present time.

Both Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought slavery before fighting for women's rights, Doug. It seems to me that they fought for anyone who was disadvantaged, and that is precisely why they spoke out against abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 11:35 AM


Heather: Doug, you believe in Karma? Anyone who kills children gets Karma.

I don't think there is reincarnation. As to effects within one life, I don't think so, not like there is an "outside force" that is set in motion.

I do think people are affected by their own actions, even if years later. You might think of the unborn as "children" but that's your opinion. Has nothing to do with anybody else, necessarily, nor with "karma."

I certainly think that some women who have abortions regret it, just as some women who continue pregnancies regret it. In both cases I think they would have been happier had they made a different choice.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 11:37 AM


Doug:

Child

child (c̸hīld)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/child
noun

1. an infant; baby
2. an unborn offspring; fetus
3. a boy or girl in the period before puberty
4. a son or daughter; offspring
5.
1. a descendant
2. a member of a tribe, clan, etc.: often used in pl. children of Israel
6. a person like a child in interests, judgment, etc., or one regarded as immature and childish
7. a person identified with a specified place, time, etc. a child of the Renaissance
8. a thing that springs from a specified source; product a child of one's imagination
9. Archaic childe
10. Brit., Dialectal a female infant

child (chīld) pronunciation
n., pl. chil·dren (chĭl'drən).

http://www.answers.com/topic/child?cat=health

1.
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
2.
1. An unborn infant; a fetus.
2. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
1. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
2. A product or result of something specified: “Times Square is a child of the 20th century” (Richard F. Shepard).


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child
child /tʃaɪld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[chahyld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
5. a childish person: He's such a child about money.
6. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed.
7. any person or thing regarded as the product or result of particular agencies, influences, etc.: Abstract art is a child of the 20th century.
8. a person regarded as conditioned or marked by a given circumstance, situation, etc.: a child of poverty; a child of famine.
9. British Dialect Archaic. a female infant.
10. Archaic. childe.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
1 a: an unborn or recently born person bdialect : a female infant2 a: a young person especially between infancy and youth b: a childlike or childish person c: a person not yet of age3usually childe Listen to the pronunciation of childe \ˈchī(-ə)ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth4 a: a son or daughter of human parents b: descendant5: one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs6: product, result

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 11:41 AM


Doug responded: "Could be, B, and that age is a gray area for me. I am not saying I'd force her to have an abortion - it would depend on her. If it's going to be that traumatic for her, it'd matter to me."

Bethany: Why would it be any of your business, Doug?

According to you, parental consent shouldn't be required for girls that age, and therefore, wouldn't that mean that you shouldn't even really have a say? Why don't other parents deserve the same privileges that you would desire in this situation? To be able to know what is going on with your daughter, and to be able to make a judgment call on your own, without anyone else's help?

My business because she'd be my daughter and I'm not abusive and I want what's best for her. I am not saying that parental consent is "bad" per se, just that there should be a way to bypass abusive parents.
......

"At some age, however, isn't it obvious that ending the pregnancy is almost always going to be the best thing? I am not saying it's 13, not at all. But you go young enough and I say yes."

No, it is certainly not obvious to me.

Then I just have to disagree. Young enough and it's crazy to think that conntinuing a pregnancy is the best thing.
......

"I said I wouldn't necessarily be pro-choice if the girl was young enough. Who would? What's the youngest pregnancy on record? Five years old. Heck yes, there could be a situation where I'm actually "pro-abortion."

The youngest pregnancy on record, yes, Doug, is in a 5 year old Peruvian girl, who was menstruating at the age of 3. This is a freak occurrence, not in any way the norm, Doug. So your bringing it up is an attempt to change the subject. Not to mention, the 5 year old Peruvian girl had her baby, and outlived her child,who thought his mother was his sister until he was 10 years old. She even had another child 33 years later. There was obviously no harm to her physical body by having this baby, so what exactly is your objection, since you claim it is only about relieving suffering?

Baloney. Not changing the subject, just showing that there can be cases where it'd just be nuts to think that continuing the pregnancy would be a good thing. For many girls it would be very harmful.
......

Wouldn't the REAL crime have been that there was a man having sex with her at the tender age of 5? The parents didn't even know she was pregnant until she was about due...they previously thought she had a tumor. Do you really think that if your 5 year old child developed a growing abdomen, that your first conclusion would be "She's pregnant!?" Anyway, I digress.

Well of course I think it's a crime.
......

The point here is that we were not even talking about a 5 year old, Doug. I asked you about a 13 year old and you wouldn't even directly answer my question- although your lack of a direct answer answered my question for me. I know you would certainly recommend the abortion.

Wrong. That's why I said it was a good question and that it's a gray area for me. It would depend on the given 13 year old.
......

Then you mentioned an 11 year old, and you said that even if she strongly desired a child, you would choose abortion for her. Even if she DESIRED the baby. Even if it would be a traumatic event for her to be forced out of the pregnancy. You think that you should be able to make the choice for her, even though you are making a judgment without any actual harm taking place...it is just down to you really just thinking and saying, "wrong.".

I am saying that there probably would be harm to an 11 year old, that the harm would be more than the trauma of having an abortion. Yes, young enough and I do think "wrong" due to harm to the girl. This is opposed to you, who apparently thinks abortion would be "wrong" without even considering the girl.
......

So I ask again, Doug. Why should a thinking, feeling girl at the age of *11*, be denied her desire? If there is no harm to her by carrying the baby, and it is what she truly wants, why would you deny it of her?

How do you prove there would be no harm to her? If we had some sure knowledge that it wouldn't really be bad for the girl, that is one thing, but it's a huge "if." This has come up before on message boards, and it's never even been contested that before a certain age, being pregnant and giving birth is really, really bad for girls.
......


Why would you force her to endure the suffering of losing a WANTED pregnancy, Doug? And why do you feel that you have the right to step in and make decisions for her anyway, when you do not give other parents that same right?

Again, the question is which would be the greater harm to her. As long as the parents are not abusive, not the guy who got her pregnant, etc., then I say let them be involved.
......
"This whole argument is us saying things; it's our sayings, and I say I want what is best for the girl in question. After viability I'm still pro-choice."

That's odd. On the other thread you specifically stated that after viability you are NOT pro-choice there.

Oh please, pro-choice because she can still end the pregnancy by delivery, as I said right below.

"If the woman wants to end the pregnancy, it can be delivered. No abortion yet her choice was honored."

Doug, what if her *choice* is abortion, NOT delivery?

Okay, now there is the rub. If there is no real physical danger to the woman, then in general I'm in favor of her not being allowed to have an abortion at that point. The exceptions would be in cases of psychological problems - it would depend on just how bad they were for the given woman.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 12:01 PM


Bethany, yes, "child" and "baby" can be after birth or before it too. There is no one way about it.

Do some people call the unborn "children"? Well of course they do. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. For many people "children" only applies after birth. For others it applies before birth.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 12:05 PM


My business because she'd be my daughter and I'm not abusive and I want what's best for her. I am not saying that parental consent is "bad" per se, just that there should be a way to bypass abusive parents.

And you really think that such a thing could not hurt parents who are not abusive in the least? You don't think that you or some other well meaning parent, could be a victim of this happening to you without yours or their knowledge?

Like Jacque asked you, "who should be the judge of who is abusive? The teenage girl who's afraid of being grounded?"

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 12:25 PM


Yes, young enough and I do think "wrong" due to harm to the girl. This is opposed to you, who apparently thinks abortion would be "wrong" without even considering the girl.

That's because unlike you, I understand that abortion is actually very risky to the people involved. You close your ears constantly when evidence is shown time and time again evidence of the harm to the reproductive organs and other problems that can arise in a woman or a girl during abortion. Including death. And you close your eyes and ears because you want to believe something that occurs naturally, with the guidance and help and support of a medical professional, is going to be more dangerous than long sharp instruments being jammed into her uterus.

Not only deathly to what would be my granddaughter, but very risky to my daughter. I would never support it because I think killing people is wrong, and subjecting a young girl to something that could harm her so terribly in years to come, emotionally and physically, is wrong.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 12:29 PM



Bethany, yes, "child" and "baby" can be after birth or before it too. There is no one way about it.

Do some people call the unborn "children"? Well of course they do. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. For many people "children" only applies after birth. For others it applies before birth.

Doug

That sounds like the humpty dumptyism that Yllas refers to so often, Doug.
Making up your own definitions.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 12:31 PM


"They really were "for women," first and foremost, and it would depend on how they saw things in the present time."

Bethany: Both Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought slavery before fighting for women's rights, Doug. It seems to me that they fought for anyone who was disadvantaged, and that is precisely why they spoke out against abortion.

Agreed on the first part - and they were bummed out (understandably) with the idea that black men would be given the vote but not women. One of Stanton's arguments was that white women who were educated would be better in voting than immigrant men or black men, who were "ignorant." In the end both Anthony and Stanton lobbied against the 14th and 15th Amendments and giving the vote to black men.

I think the question remains as to how they would have thought today.

"Pulitzer prize winner Stacy Schiff has discussed Anthony's opposition to abortion, saying that "There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion...", but "The bottom line is that we cannot possibly know what Anthony would make of today’s debate." Schiff continues: "In the 19th century, abortion often was life-threatening, contraception primitive, and a woman as little in control of her reproductive life as of her political one."

Anthony figured that women achieving equality would end the need for abortion. If she was alive today, with independent and free women telling her they wanted to have abortions, what would she say? At that least it''s a question.

For Stanton, I think she would certainly have argued against the religious opposition that many people have to abortion. I think there is also the possibility that she would feel differently about abortion, as well as about black men and immigrant men voting.

Doug


Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 12:32 PM


How do you prove there would be no harm to her? If we had some sure knowledge that it wouldn't really be bad for the girl, that is one thing, but it's a huge "if." This has come up before on message boards, and it's never even been contested that before a certain age, being pregnant and giving birth is really, really bad for girls.

That's what we have doctors for,Doug. They can analyze her and see if she's in pain or physical trauma from being pregnant or if there will be any danger for her in the future.
If she's going to have trouble with delivery, they can help with that too.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 12:33 PM


I think the question remains as to how they would have thought today.

I don't.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 12:34 PM


Anthony figured that women achieving equality would end the need for abortion.

Desire, don't you mean, Doug... not need.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 12:35 PM


"My business because she'd be my daughter and I'm not abusive and I want what's best for her. I am not saying that parental consent is "bad" per se, just that there should be a way to bypass abusive parents."

And you really think that such a thing could not hurt parents who are not abusive in the least? You don't think that you or some other well meaning parent, could be a victim of this happening to you without yours or their knowledge?

Bethany, anything is possible. If we are weighing "errors" then I see abusive parents being facilitated as at least as bad as your example, if not more. Overall, the judge, etc., would have to determine if abuse was present or not.

Like Jacque asked you, "who should be the judge of who is abusive? The teenage girl who's afraid of being grounded?"

No, not the girl. Obviously there needs to be review by somebody else in that case.

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 12:37 PM


"Yes, young enough and I do think "wrong" due to harm to the girl. This is opposed to you, who apparently thinks abortion would be "wrong" without even considering the girl."

Bethany: That's because unlike you, I understand that abortion is actually very risky to the people involved.

No, potentially risky, same as continuing pregnancies and giving birth.
.....

You close your ears constantly when evidence is shown time and time again evidence of the harm to the reproductive organs and other problems that can arise in a woman or a girl during abortion. Including death.

No I do not. There are risks, yes, same was with not ending pregnancies, and those are to be weighed against what is wanted.
......

And you close your eyes and ears because you want to believe something that occurs naturally, with the guidance and help and support of a medical professional, is going to be more dangerous than long sharp instruments being jammed into her uterus

You're just making stuff up. The fact of abortion, especially early abortion, being much safer than continuing pregnancies and giving birth, is not in doubt.
......

Not only deathly to what would be my granddaughter, but very risky to my daughter. I would never support it because I think killing people is wrong, and subjecting a young girl to something that could harm her so terribly in years to come, emotionally and physically, is wrong.

Then the question for you is just how potentially harmful can it be for a girl to undergo pregnancy? If there is no risk, that's one thing, but for many young girls there is lots of risk.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 12:47 PM


"Bethany, yes, "child" and "baby" can be after birth or before it too. There is no one way about it."

"Do some people call the unborn "children"? Well of course they do. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. For many people "children" only applies after birth. For others it applies before birth."

Bethany: That sounds like the humpty dumptyism that Yllas refers to so often, Doug. Making up your own definitions.

yllas is a fruitloop. The point is that it's in the eye of the beholder. The very first definition at dictionary.com for "child" is "a person between birth and full growth."

That simply is the way it is for many people. And of course some other people apply it to the unborn, but in no way does it have to apply to the unborn. It's not a strict medical term. That's the difference between the dictionary being descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 12:48 PM


"Anthony figured that women achieving equality would end the need for abortion."

Desire, don't you mean, Doug... not need.

No, not from what I've read. Lemme check....

Okay, here is one place:

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blanthony.htm

"She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion."

I guess you can question saying "need" - it all does boil down to desire, yes.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 12:52 PM


yllas is a fruitloop. The point is that it's in the eye of the beholder. The very first definition at dictionary.com for "child" is "a person between birth and full growth."
That simply is the way it is for many people. And of course some other people apply it to the unborn, but in no way does it have to apply to the unborn. It's not a strict medical term. That's the difference between the dictionary being descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Doug

But the thing is, Doug. Every time someone says "unborn child", you consistently correct them, reminding them that it is only "their point of view" that it's a unborn child, and that there are other opinions out there. Then you pretend that you have no problem with the term 'unborn child'.

But I have never seen you remind a pro-choicer, when they say the word "fetus", or "nonviable tissue", that those terms are subjective, and that others might prefer to call the fetus or "nonviable tissue" an unborn child.

It does seem that the term "unborn child" offends you, Doug.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 6:47 PM


Bethany, anything is possible. If we are weighing "errors" then I see abusive parents being facilitated as at least as bad as your example, if not more. Overall, the judge, etc., would have to determine if abuse was present or not.

I don't think it would be comparable, Doug. The majority of parents are not abusive.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 6:49 PM


And by the way, Doug... how is giving a child an abortion without their abusive parents consent helping them? Instead of removing them from their parents?
Giving them an abortion, and sending them right back to their abusers? How in the world does this "help" them? What, maybe protects them from one beating?

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 6:50 PM


You're just making stuff up. The fact of abortion, especially early abortion, being much safer than continuing pregnancies and giving birth, is not in doubt.

no I'm not, Doug. I have watched, on tape, several different abortions. They are terribly painful looking. I think that if most women SAW the procedure, they would be scared out of it.

/Not to mention, I have researched the risks of abortion for the last 10 years and am convinced it is not a good thing for any woman, anywhere, in any way.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 6:52 PM


. The fact of abortion, especially early abortion, being much safer than continuing pregnancies and giving birth, is not in doubt.

Of course not, to Naral, WHO, Guttmacher, etc.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 6:54 PM


No, not the girl. Obviously there needs to be review by somebody else in that case.

And how exactly does the review happen, since the parents wouldn't even be aware of it at all?
They listen to the girl's testimony? Please do tell me, because I actually don't know.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 6:58 PM


Doug, here's a question for you. How about the girl who is an incest victim? Let's say she's pregnant from her father. The abortion clinic won't report this. How does abortion help abuse victims? Doug, this did happen in Kansas to two sisters. Their father got them both pregnant several times. He took them both for abortions. It was never reported. They were returned to the abusive cycle again. Doug, this is sickening. Eventually the dad was caught after one of the girls gave birth. The truth came out, and those girls are scarred for life. They were only about 13 and 14.

Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 7:14 PM


Doug, the man was a pedophile and a predator. He should have gone to prison. The abortion clinic should have reported the sex abuse.

Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 7:17 PM


But the thing is, Doug. Every time someone says "unborn child", you consistently correct them, reminding them that it is only "their point of view" that it's a unborn child, and that there are other opinions out there. Then you pretend that you have no problem with the term 'unborn child'.

Bethany, I don't "correct" them. I say it's no argument to say that it is or that it's not. They can call it anything, but is that a meaningful argument? I say no.
......

But I have never seen you remind a pro-choicer, when they say the word "fetus", or "nonviable tissue", that those terms are subjective, and that others might prefer to call the fetus or "nonviable tissue" an unborn child.

That's because "fetus" is a specific medical term. Are we "human," Bethany? Of course and anybody who says differently is wrong. Same for anybody who says that the unborn in this argument are not fetuses from 9 or so weeks until birth. It's not subjective while other terms certainly are.
......

It does seem that the term "unborn child" offends you, Doug.

No, but stating "it's a child" as if that will necessarily matter is wrong. Same as for stating "it's not a child.":

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 7:46 PM


So, you become a human being at 9 weeks? Well then, I know plenty of murdering mothers who aborted at 9 weeks and up. I guess that settles it, Doug. They are murderers.

Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 7:52 PM


"Bethany, anything is possible. If we are weighing "errors" then I see abusive parents being facilitated as at least as bad as your example, if not more. Overall, the judge, etc., would have to determine if abuse was present or not."

I don't think it would be comparable, Doug. The majority of parents are not abusive.

I didn't say the frequency would be the same; I didn't even compare them - my point is that even if good parents would somehow unfairly be left out of the loop, it wouldn't necessarily mean the girl would be harmed. Conversely, the abusive parents are "harmful" by definition. And again - I favor a method which cuts out both such type of "errors."
......

And by the way, Doug... how is giving a child an abortion without their abusive parents consent helping them? Instead of removing them from their parents? Giving them an abortion, and sending them right back to their abusers? How in the world does this "help" them? What, maybe protects them from one beating?

I didn't say it would be. An abortion may not be the best thing for a girl. I'm not for parents forcing a girl either way if it's not best for her. If the parents are bad enough, I don't say send the girl back at all.



Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 7:54 PM


Doug, I can't believe that you have the nerve to call anyone a fruitloop. Remember the old saying "It takes one to know one?"...Anyway, "fetus" is Latin for "little one"...Little one what?

Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 7:57 PM


And you close your eyes and ears because you want to believe something that occurs naturally, with the guidance and help and support of a medical professional, is going to be more dangerous than long sharp instruments being jammed into her uterus

"You're just making stuff up. The fact of abortion, especially early abortion, being much safer than continuing pregnancies and giving birth, is not in doubt."

no I'm not, Doug. I have watched, on tape, several different abortions. They are terribly painful looking. I think that if most women SAW the procedure, they would be scared out of it.

Ahem - the point being that for all your dramatic descriptions, abortion, while it does present some risk, is not as dangerous to the woman or girl as is continuing pregnancies and giving birth, for the vast majority of abortions - those performed prior to the late stages of gestation. Your personal opinion of abortion does not change that.
......

Not to mention, I have researched the risks of abortion for the last 10 years and am convinced it is not a good thing for any woman, anywhere, in any way.

Okay, and by that logic you could then say the same thing for giving birth. Granted that there are risks, either way - so it's up to the woman to weigh them and decide what's best for her.
......

"The fact of abortion, especially early abortion, being much safer than continuing pregnancies and giving birth, is not in doubt."

Of course not, to Naral, WHO, Guttmacher, etc.

To anybody who's honest about it. I realize we can argue the numbers, i.e. whether abortion is 15 times safer, 11 times safer, 10 times safer, etc.


Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 8:00 PM


So, you become a human being at 9 weeks?

No, Heather.

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 8:01 PM


when? and who says when?

Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 8:04 PM


When does a baby become a human being?

Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 8:06 PM


Doug, you're the one making stuff up. You make it up as you go along.

Posted by: heather at November 21, 2007 8:09 PM


"No, not the girl. Obviously there needs to be review by somebody else in that case."

And how exactly does the review happen, since the parents wouldn't even be aware of it at all? They listen to the girl's testimony? Please do tell me, because I actually don't know.

Somebody listens to the girl, the cops, a counselor, etc., and gets the ball rolling. Bethany, I'm no expert on this, just wishing for a solution that covers all situations. There is "judicial bypass" in effect in some areas, and I don't know all the ins and outs of how it's done. In some (rare) cases it's going to come down to somebody thinking that it's best that the parents don't have control.

I think it's too bad that those cases exist, FWIW.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 8:12 PM


Doug & other Pro-aborts (or whatever you call yourselves these days),

I hear over & over again that it's up to the woman to make the right decision for her. You guys are assuming that the woman is actually capable of doing such:

According to the Health United States 2004 report, issued by the National Center for Health Statistics, the use of antidepressant drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, or Zoloft, has nearly tripled among all American adults.

Among women, one in 10 now take an antidepressant drug. The number of children using antidepressants also has tripled since the 1994-96 study period.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2004/many-more-americans-taking.html

When 4 out of every 10 women have abortions (keep in mind that some have 2 or 3, so this # could be perceived differently), and 1 out of every 3 women will never seek professional help for depression, how can we really say that women know what's best for them when it comes to dismembering thier own flesh & blood? Better yet, I'd like to see a stat on how many post-abortive women are on anti-depressants.

Posted by: AB Laura at November 21, 2007 8:28 PM


Laura, so, are you not going to trust a woman when she says she wants to continue a pregnancy?

Come on....

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 8:45 PM


I would trust a woman to "naturally, by human instinct" to continue a pregnancy rather than an un-natural decision to abort.
No, you come on! :)

Posted by: AB Laura at November 21, 2007 8:47 PM


Hip-hip-hooray!!!!
I T' S S N O W I N G! ! ! !

I love snow!!!!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 21, 2007 8:49 PM


Wow, Laura, that's hard to imagine. It was so hot today I had to turn on the air conditioner in the car! You're so lucky. We barely ever get snow here in Alabama. lol

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 9:08 PM


Heather, you still up? For all our differences, you've got a lot of spirit, and I've always liked that.

When does a baby become a human being?

As far as being "human" and alive and an organism, I say at conception. I think there is plenty there, then, to qualify.
......

Doug, you're the one making stuff up. You make it up as you go along.

Nope. My opinion - where reality differs from bumper-sticker mentality, you have a problem with it.
......

Doug, here's a question for you. How about the girl who is an incest victim? Let's say she's pregnant from her father. The abortion clinic won't report this.

Then I think they should. Plus - are you really serious, that the clinic, if it knows the father raped the daughter, will not report this?
......

How does abortion help abuse victims? Doug, this did happen in Kansas to two sisters. Their father got them both pregnant several times. He took them both for abortions. It was never reported. They were returned to the abusive cycle again. Doug, this is sickening. Eventually the dad was caught after one of the girls gave birth. The truth came out, and those girls are scarred for life. They were only about 13 and 14.

I did not say that abortion would necessarily be the best thing for a given girl, even at 13 or 14. Abuse from a parent wouldn't change that. If abusive parents are the case, then I think they should be taken out of the situation.
......

Doug, the man was a pedophile and a predator. He should have gone to prison. The abortion clinic should have reported the sex abuse.

Did the clinic know the man was the father?
......

Doug, I can't believe that you have the nerve to call anyone a fruitloop.

Nor I that you would have the nerve to comment.

:: Laughing :: Ah, well.
......

Remember the old saying "It takes one to know one?"

The point is that yllas is nothing new. There will always be people giving little or nothing of themselves, just as yllas does, and seeking to pick at other people. You gave a perfect description of yllas earlier today.

However, I may have been too hard on "her," if it's a "her." I don't think it is, by the way. Nevertheless, we are all free agents, and we wouldn't post if we didn't like it. So here's hoping that yllas, and all of us, have a good evening and good week.
......

Anyway, "fetus" is Latin for "little one"...Little one what?

Now just where in the world did you hear that?

Generally, Deart Heather, "fetus" is the unborn of vertebrates, like most of us wild and crazy mammals and some reptiles and fishies, as long as we bring forth living young, rather than eggs - that's what the dictionary says, though obviously one could argue that the eggs are living too. Anyway, you have your unborn, there, where they have the basic "look" of the animal (here including humans), "a basic structural resemblance," and that sounds good enough for me.

Doug


Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 9:21 PM


I would trust a woman to "naturally, by human instinct" to continue a pregnancy rather than an un-natural decision to abort

And if a woman didn't want to continue a pregnancy, it sounds like you'd say that wasn't human instinct.. Well, okay, but there too that's your opinion, and no reason to take away the freedom that women have in the matter. We are not all "instinct," Laura - many of our decisons are the product of what we know to be true of ourselves, and what is best for us.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 9:25 PM


Laura, I'm glad that my wife and I are at our place in GA rather than in OH. Snow can be nice but looks like a really crappy time to travel for much of the country.

Bethany, I was in Mobile last week, and now am only 25 miles or so east of AL. Nice weather but maybe thundershowers in the morning.

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 9:29 PM


Doug said, "And if a woman didn't want to continue a pregnancy, it sounds like you'd say that wasn't human instinct.. Well, okay, but there too that's your opinion, and no reason to take away the freedom that women have in the matter. We are not all "instinct," Laura - many of our decisons are the product of what we know to be true of ourselves, and what is best for us."

If I made a snowball & could throw it all the way over to AL, GA, or wherever you are...I'd bop 'ya in the nose with one! (ha!)

Anyway, back to your response...you're right, it is my opinion, and women do have freedom to do whatever they think is right. I, however, can honestly say that I DO NOT know what is best for me...I can guess...but I sure as heck don't know. It's a crapshoot!!! Who can honestly say that 5, 10, 20 years down the road, that the decision we made was best for us back then?

Instinct - (via Encarta Dictionary):

1. Strong, natural impulse: a powerful impulse that feels natural rather than reasoned (women who KNOW they are making the right decision)

2. Biological Drive
an inborn pattern of behavior characteristic of a species and shaped by biological necessities such as survival and reproduction .


Posted by: AB Laura at November 21, 2007 9:46 PM


Doug, Laura, everyone else, I hope you have a great Thanksgiving tomorrow!

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 9:56 PM


Good post, Laura, very, very honest. Actually, I do think you know what's best for you. Your beliefs are strong (Hello...?) and I don't see you going against your nature. I trust your "guesses" for you, a lot, though not for everybody else.

There are times I want to throw a snowball, or bop somebody on the head with a styrofoam bat, but I sure like you, and almost everybody on Jill's blog.

It's party time tomorrow and I won't be online much at all if any, so Happy Thanksgiving.

You too, B - you're awesome. I wish everybody would plan ahead and make preparations like you, to some extent, anyway, (as with the meals). A lot of work, but later on it's worth it.

If I had to give a good definition of "maturity," I'd say it's being willing to sacrifice current, transient desires for that which will make us the most happy, overall, in the long run.

And I know that you could comment about people having sex, there.

You're young, and I think you're remarkably mature.

Doug


Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 10:55 PM


Doug,
Very sweet of you! I hope that you & your wife & family have a WONDERFUL Thanksgiving - enjoy the game!
...TTFN

Posted by: AB Laura at November 22, 2007 12:03 AM


Bethany,
(love your name!)
You, likewise, have a Happy Turkey Day!!!!
Enjoy yourself & family...you deserve it!!!!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 22, 2007 12:05 AM


Doug, I'll find that article for you! {father impregnates 2 daughters] Promise. Everyone have a great Thanksgiving. BTW, Doug, we don't have snow here. Nope, just some rain.

Posted by: heather at November 22, 2007 8:25 AM


Good Morning Sally,

You obviously have never spent anytime at an abortion mill. First she was there for hours, and she was wearing pajamas. Girls who are there to get contraception are in and out and they don't wear pajamas. You didn't see the her. There were 5 of us who did. These girls come out from having abortions, sick, holding their stomaches, crying, white as sheets, hiding their faces. And their boyfriends are happy. And time and time again, I've seen arguments about them not wanting to do it, yet their partners tell them its for the best. So don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

Have you worked with post abortive women? I think not! You and PCer's want to deny these things bc then you don't have to think about the consequences. You all can continue to deny the humanity of the preborn. This allows you to keep the myth that abortion is good. But science and technology continues to prove what we already know, preborn babies are human beings.

As for my hysteria, again your wrong. It's not hysteria to want to protect the most vaulnerable. I feel the same way about euthenasia. We don't have the right to kill off those who we deem unfit or burdensome. And ultimately, whether you want to accept it or not, we will all be held accountable for this before God.

As I've posted before the founding mothers of feminism were completely against abortion. They knew abortion was a man's way of playing loose without having to be responsible, and made the woman do the dirty work.


Posted by: Tara at November 20, 2007 10:58 AM
......................................

Honey, do not pretend to know the minds of women that died before your mamma was born. Just remember that your church probably didn't exist either. Let alone anything to help the plight of women and children. And there was a plight. Is a plight. It's called fundamental ignorance and it is eating away at history while attempting to rewrite it.

Posted by: Sally at November 24, 2007 3:39 AM