The January 2008 issue of Marie Claire magazine sports pregnant and mostly naked Christina Aguilera on the cover.

I spotted it on the newstand and was mostly thrilled, despite misgivings of the pose. I love when the pop culture promotes pregnancy, particularly of the rare married celebrity, although this promotion was indeed a bit disconcerting. The accompanying story included more risqué shots. See one on page 2.

I also love to read the altered language when the pop culture promotes pregnancy. Were Aguilera discussing her abortion, names would have been changed to deflect from the innocent. Words like "child," "baby," and "roommate" would have been nixed for "fetus" and the generic "pregnancy."...

When reading these quotes, bear in mind Aguilera's last known position was pro-abortion, and the writer is MC's executive editor, Lucy Kaylin, and MC is decidedly pro-abortion, with easy evidence on its last page, when it wishes "Happy 35th, Roe v. Wade" (click graphic to enlarge)....

"May I?" I say, reaching out - actually copping a feel of icon tummy. Under normal circumstances, breaching the electric fence that surrounds stars of her magnitude would be unthinkable. But this glowing - dare I say earthy? - version of Aguilera is hard to resist....

"We were planning on starting to try after the tour," she says.... "And so I had gone off the Pill to prepare my body, because I didn't know how much time it would take....

"By the time I was supposed to get my period, I was like, It's not coming - and I'm never late. And there were emotions coming up that I'd never felt before - I was already starting to get emotional. So I did a test. And when the double lines came, my jaw dropped; I started shaking. I couldn't help but smile, and I started to tear up."...

Well and good. Only problem was she still had a month left on an 8-month world tour.... "There are so many things that could go wrong - somebody could slip, somebody could fall, I could fall.... There was no way in hell I was going to jeopardize my baby for my show."...

"Because I hadn't said anything, people thought I was trying to keep it this big, bad secret, and that's not the case at all. I just wasn't commenting.... I'm not going to announce my child. Why do I have to announce something that's personal?...

Now the woman who made a public fetish of control and self-determination is happily giving herself over to the unplumable mysteries of procreation. She seems humbled by the knowledge that this whole thing is bigger than she is - that she's just not alone in the universe anymore. "Some days when you're pregnant, you just don't feel like doing a show, but I'd be like, 'Come on, little one,'" she says, gazing down at her belly and giving it a stroke. "I really did feel like I had a teammate. It felt like my little roommate in there. Like, little one was egging me on and encouraging me to do it...."

With the dazed smile of a lottery winner, [husband Jordan Bratman] says how excited he is about the baby - that they've actually started to feel him kick...."

WOW! No one should look that good pregnant!

The March for Women’s Lives Celebrity Coalition includes:

Margie Adam, Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Aniston, Curtis Armstrong, Elaine Aronson, Bea Arthur, Ed Asner, Kevin Bacon, Alec Baldwin, William Baldwin, Meredith Baxter, Shari Belafonte, Maria Bello, Polly Bergen, Thora Birch, Amy Brenneman, Betty Buckley, Jessica Capshaw, Lynda Carter, Stockard Channing, Jill Clayburgh, Kate Clinton, Glenn Close, Cindy Crawford, Sheryl Crow, Alan Cumming, Tyne Daly, Blythe Danner, Kristin Davis, Ossie Davis, Dana Delany, Laura Dern, Ellen DeGeneres, Ani DiFranco, Illeana Douglas, Denise Dowse, Fran Drescher, Kirsten Dunst, David Eigenberg, Hector Elizondo, Emme, Eve Ensler, Giancarlo Esposito, Melissa Etheridge, Morgan Fairchild, Edie Falco, Frances Fisher, Calista Flockhart, Jane Fonda, Bonnie Franklin, Janeane Garofalo, Ana Gasteyer, Indigo Girls, Annabeth Gish, Whoopi Goldberg, Lauren Graham, Maggie Gyllenhaal, LisaGay Hamilton, Ben Harper, Ed Harris, Salma Hayek, Marg Helgenberger, Isabella Hofmann, Helen Hunt, Amy Jo Johnson, Kathryn Joosten, Ashley Judd, Catherine Keener, Carole King, Swoosie Kurt, Christine Lahti, Sanaa Lathan, Sharon Lawrence, Lisa Loeb, Amy Madigan, Natalie Maines, Wendie Malick, Joshua Malina, Camryn Manheim, Frances McDormand, Ewan McGregor, Marilyn McIntyre, Sarah McLachlan, Moby, Demi Moore, Julianne Moore, Alanis Morissette, Kathy Najimy, Alyson Palmer, Joe Pantoliano, Mary-Louise Parker, Adrian Pasdar, Pink, Martha Plimpton, Doris Roberts, Paul Rudd, Susan Sarandon, Campbell Scott, Kyra Sedgwick, Cybill Shepherd, SONiA, Fisher Stevens, Gloria Steinem, Julia Stiles, Corky and Mike Stoller, Sharon Stone, Amber Tamblyn, Mary Testa, Charlize Theron, Uma Thurman, Heather Tom, Stanley Tucci, Kathleen Turner, Ted Turner, Sarah Weddington, Audrey Wells, Bradley Whitford, Thom Yorke, Amy Ziff, Elizabeth Ziff

"There was no way in hell I was going to jeopardize my baby for my show."...

That makes me smile.

The March for Women’s Lives Celebrity Coalition includes:

And your point?

Bethany,

Exactly, the point is what? This isn't exactly a gathering of great thinkers, but a collection of rich, spoiled celebrities, to whom our society gives entirely too much credence. Isn't Alec Baldwin the one who was recorded verbally abusing his daughter, and Jane Fonda the notorious traitor? By the way, did Sarah Weddington ever acknowledge if she knew Norma McCorvey was lying when she claimed she was a gang rape victim? Certainly Ms.Weddington could have easily had this investigated if she was interested in the truth to begin with.

The point is, she's still pro-choice. One can have children and not say that everybody else has to, you know.

And it's very likely that she DOESN'T look that good pregnant. Any magazine shoot is going to be Photoshopped beyond recognition. While I agree that Aguilera is a beautiful woman, what you see in these shoots doesn't say a whole lot about reality.

I would like to look as good as Christina, and I'm not even pregnant!

The March for Women’s Lives Celebrity Coalition includes:

And your point?

Posted by: Bethany at January 3, 2008 2:36 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The second name on the list?

Holly,

A valid point. Makeup artists and photographers can do wonders.
Its like we hear how Madame Celebrity can look so gorgeous 2 weeks after having a baby. Unlike the rest of us peasantry, she has a private chef, a nanny, and a household staff that enables her to spend time with a personal trainer, plus get all the rest she needs, not to mention the staff of professionals who see to it she always looks gorgeous.

That's the beauty of establishing a successful career before you start a family.

Laura,

No surprise. Keep in mind these are the same people who preach to us about using clotheslines, while they travel in private jets, and who think mass transit is five people in a limousine.

Holly,

Do you think unborn children should be killed depending on whether or not they are wanted?

Laura,

Well honestly, my career was established before my first baby but my husband got laid off after she was born and I lost all my weight going back to work after 6 weeks, breastfeeding, keeping up a house, and caring for a baby, not to mention getting very little sleep. I'm afraid I wasn't very glamorous. That's why all this gushing as to how Madame Celebrity "manages" a career and motherhood still sets my teeth on edge!
With all the help she has, how can she not?

The second name on the list?

Yes, I saw it...but I still fail to see the point. Did someone claim she was anti-abortion?

That's the beauty of establishing a successful career before you start a family.

Posted by: Laura at January 3, 2008 3:01 PM

Here is an article about women quitting high powered careers to stay home.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/08/60minutes/main648240.shtml

An excerpt from the article:

It's just as it was supposed to be 40 years after women got in the front door.

But look for the women of the next generation -- the ones everyone assumed would follow in droves behind them, and you're likely to find many of them walking right back out and staying at home.

Lisa Beattie Frelinghuysen was on her way to the very top of the legal profession. At Stanford Law School, she was president of the law review. She went to work for a top law firm, and she clerked at the Supreme Court for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

But after she had her first baby seven years ago, she left, and never went back. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.

"I know myself, and I know that when I'm working at something, I work hard. When I was at the law review, I was working until midnight every night. And my husband started a surgical residency where he was completely unavailable," recalls Frelinghuysen.

"I was afraid that if I was working, there would be no parent there with the children. And I wanted to experience getting to know my children, being there in a consistent way."

Motherhood can be the greatest career of all according to those who have played both games.

Careers are often overrated and motherhood is generally underrated at least by those who haven't tried it.

Here's the beauty of my following society's advice to have a career first. I married later, was on the pill for five years and didn't give birth to my first baby till 30.

Of course now my breast cancer risk is 300% higher than what it would have been had I got married and had my first baby by 20. No doctor ever warned me, nor did I ever hear that in years of public education. Isn't that beautiful.

keeping up a house, and caring for a baby, not to mention getting very little sleep. I'm afraid I wasn't very glamorous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You were in charge of the house and the baby while your husband was unemployed?
My friend Kelly did that for three weeks. Then she picked up her baby and moved. They're very happy and don't seem to miss him...

PC feminists aren't for choice at all. I constantly hear them railing against younger women who want to stay home to raise their children. Like they are traitors to the "cause" because they prefer home over a career.

Same with abortion. Even in the reviews for "Juno" some were saying the movie should have spent more time talking about abortion because it was such a hard won battle. Please!

Laura, ever hear that looking for a job IS a full time job?

Laura,

My husband did help out, I'm just saying I didn't have a household staff to attend to my home and baby so that I could be free to make myself glamorous. Also, at that time, maternity leaves were only 6 weeks. You should have seen the flak I got at work for wanting to drop one day a week, my response was they could kiss my derriere.

I consider myself a PC feminist, and I would never have an abortion and I want to stay home with my children. I have never been to this site, so I don't know exactly what it is all about, but is this article just about showing that Christina Aguilara is pro-choice and has now flip-flopped? I'm sure she is still PC. The way I view abortion is that until that baby can survive on it's own, outside the womb, it should be the woman's choice whether to keep it in her body or not. From a scientific/ecological standpoint, aborted babies will actually help the human species survive longer. With population growing at alarming rates, the planet will not be able to support us forever. Why not help the millions of babies and children who are already born who do not have homes or loving families or food before you worry about the ones who cannot even survive outside the womb yet.

I consider myself a PC feminist, and I would never have an abortion and I want to stay home with my children.

Welcome to the blog, Shannon :-)
... why would you never have an abortion?

Welcome Shannon! Here you will be treated with respect AND intellectually challenged...so be prepared to back up what you say!!

Hello Shannon! Premature babies have been known to survive with as little as 21 weeks gestation. Would you support a law that outlawed abortion in all circumstances after 21 weeks? After all, by your definition, the little one is a baby by then. What about as the number of weeks of gestation needed for survival goes down? It used to be 27 weeks, but medicine is continually making strides on this point. Is the moment of "baby-hood" also continually changing?

Oh please. This is not a pro-choice/pro-life debate. It's about what's hot.

Pregnancy is SO in this year! It's like it's the new black. Or something. Seriously, they all have nannies raising their kids. It's just a fad. It'll be over soon, and then abortion will be in again. That's just how trends go.

Edyt, are you saying that abortion isn't "in" at the moment?

Hi Shannon. Please explain how aborted babies help save the planet. If less children help save the planet, then should you not have children? How does the state of being unwanted make a baby more of a drain on the planet?

Picture two babies(one wanted and the other unwanted). Why should one be sacrificed to save the planet and the other one get to live? The fact that an unborn baby is not wanted by her parents should not make her a sacrificial lamb.

Now abortion is a "fad" that comes and goes with the fashion of the moment?

Good Lord, at least when you guys "pretend" that it's a life and death matter I can take you seriously.

Shannon,

The point of this article I believe was simply to show that when a "fetus" is wanted it suddenly becomes a "baby"...even by someone who is pro choice.

Laura,

Jill states early on in the article that Christina IS pro choice. Never claims she isn't. Was pointing out the hypocrisy of someone that would quit her tour for her "baby" simply because she wants it. But would kill the same "baby" (calling it a fetus then of course) is it didn't fit into her plans...

Hi Shannon,

About so-called overpopulation. That threat has been sounded since I was a teenager and I will not elaborate on how long ago that was. I'm just willing to wager it was long before you were born.
According to the great thinkers of that time, we were all supposed to be non-existent by now.
I've spent my life listening to this "crisis" and that and the human race and planet earth are still here.
It makes me think of ancient cultures who felt they had to perform certain rituals or the rains would not come or the sun and moon would not rise and set. We, like they, think we actually control the planet and forces of nature.
The planet goes on in spite of us, not because of anything we do, and will be thumbing its nose at us long after we are all gone.

Laura, I could care less what Swoozie Kurtz thinks about abortion(I did like her on Sisters though). My prolifers expect Hollywood to be proabort.

*edit* should read Most instead of My

Carrie,

Not to mention Cheryl Crow, who want to limit us to one piece of toilet paper. Oh, and Jennifer Anniston who brushes her teeth and showers simultaneously to save water.
How can our planet go wrong with these great thinkers at work?

I didn't say abortion was a fad, I said pregnancy was. Arm candy isn't defined by the man you're carting around anymore ... it's all about looking sexy and round, and having a baby to cart around ...

Come on, who doesn't want to watch episodes of Pimp My Stroller?

(To the oblivious out there: I'm not mocking abortion or your pro-life ideas. I'm mocking celebrities. Stop taking everything as an insult and laugh a little.)

OH and guess what! You can be PRO-CHOICE and CHOOSE not to have an abortion.

Not all pro-choicers have abortions, and some even CHOOSE to have children!! Some have never had an abortion in their life!

Compare to feminism: People THINK it's about women being able to work rather than stay home and babysit, but in actuality, feminism is the ability to CHOOSE whether you stay home and parent or go out and get a career.

Oh my. Radical, isn't it?

"Oh, and Jennifer Anniston who brushes her teeth and showers simultaneously to save water."

How in the world is that helping? Is she simultaneously brushing her teeth AND washing her back? She's letting water run while she stands there and brushes her teeth. Don't most normal people just turn off the water while brushing? Sheesh!

Edyt,

Please, women do not stay home and "babysit", they stay home and WORK.

Also, women have always worked outside the home, by choice and otherwise. My mother desperately wanted to stay home with her children, she didn't have that option.
Feminism did not introduce the concept of women working outside the home. My grandmother and great grandmother were working outside the home long before these feminists were ever born, and not because they wanted to, but because their children would go hungry if they didn't.

Compare to feminism: People THINK it's about women being able to work rather than stay home and babysit, but in actuality, feminism is the ability to CHOOSE whether you stay home and parent or go out and get a career.

Oh my. Radical, isn't it?

Posted by: Edyt at January 3, 2008 6:49 PM

Are stay at home moms a threat to civilization? Those of you who are shocked by this question should take note of the fact that ABC's "Good Morning America" program devoted segments to this question on two successive days, featuring the arguments of Linda Hirshman, a prominent feminist thinker.

"I am saying an educated, competent adult's place is in the office," Hirshman told Good Morning America. "In other words, moms who stay at home with their children have given themselves to a calling that no educated or competent adult should desire or accept."

Right Edyt, she sounds like she just LOVES the "Choice."

Kristen,

I didn't call them "great thinkers" for nothing!
What is really frightening is how much credence we actually give these people.

Holly: And it's very likely that she DOESN'T look that good pregnant. Any magazine shoot is going to be Photoshopped beyond recognition. While I agree that Aguilera is a beautiful woman, what you see in these shoots doesn't say a whole lot about reality.

Ha! Have to laugh, Holly. This is an extreme example, but a good one.

If all the makeup on her face was taken off, it'd make a pile bigger than her belly.

Nothing against Christina and I wish her good luck, but this is one woman who you would hardly recognize without makeup.

Doug

Okay Mary, feel free to disregard the "people think" and substitute "Edyt thinks" in its place.

I'm very much aware about women working outside the home, and I'm very much aware that staying home is a full-time job in itself.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but believe me, I do understand the difficulties of raising children. I helped my mother raise my three little brothers (particularly when she was in the hospital) and I get it.

What I said was that people don't understand what feminism is ... and then you "corrected" me by repeating what I said.

I hear you Mary! Their stupidity is astounding!

You know, I can't help but to notice how since PP was exposed for what they are, which erupted from the Aurora "incident", how Hollywood has been somewhat promoting pregnancy since that. We've been praying worldwide, and I just see that our Lord is working in mysterious ways!!!

Until recently, a young teen would have only thought about abortion if she was scared. Now, she can't help but to consider ALL options (hopefully, not abortion, though!) because she has been BOMBARDED by pro-life messages! The light has definately been turned on! Just think how many babies have been saved and how many more will be because of the exposure of PP & the evils of abortion!

Praise God!

Mary, we'll have to add Linda Hirshman to your "great thinkers" list for the quote I posted above. We aren't worthy to walk in her shadow...

Well, I don't know what Linda Hirshman is all about, but I do know that one of the principles of feminism (true feminism, anyhow) are about the freedom to choose whether to work outside or inside the home. Additionally, feminism is about equal opportunity, pay, treatment, etc. for any work done.

I realize a lot of feminists look down on women who work in the home, and I DON'T CONDONE THAT BEHAVIOR. Any true feminist would be proud to do a job she felt worthy of her, whether that's raising kids, fighting fires, teaching, or being a CEO of a major company.

In fact, I think people like Hirshman help push the stereotype that feminists are man-hating, mother-bashing jerks.

Honestly, I don't think most feminists are like that. But you know, the loudest person always seems to be the representative of the group. *shrug*

Mary: Keep in mind these are the same people who preach to us about using clotheslines, while they travel in private jets, and who think mass transit is five people in a limousine.

Mary, I often feel that way. It's like, "Do this, do that, (even though I don't usually do it), and mainly - keep on buying my records and seeing my movies!"

Pregnancy is SO in this year! It's like it's the new black. Or something.

Edyt, love it! Give us more!

Happy New Year,

Doug

Edyt,

I stand corrected concerning the "babysit" response. My apologies.

I must disagree though that feminism is about the ability to CHOOSE to stay home and parent or go out and get a career.
As I said Edyt feminism has had nothing to do with this. Women have always worked outside the home, and still do. Sometimes its a choice, sometimes it isn't. For me it wasn't a choice, I had to work, as did my mother, grandmother, and great grandmother.
If another woman truly has such a choice, I couldn't be happier for her.

Doug,

You were so right when you said you and I are on the same page more often then not.

:: laughing :: Mary, maybe we're just getting to be old curmudgeons heh heh heh.

Best,

Doug

Doug,

Please enlighten me. Who is this man?

Doug,

(Laughing)I have been an "old curmudgeon" for quite some time now! You're just starting to catch up.

Mary, that's Christina Aguilera's husband.

Shannon,

From a scientific/ecological standpoint, aborted babies will actually help the human species survive longer. With population growing at alarming rates, the planet will not be able to support us forever.

Posted by: Shannon at January 3, 2008 4:26 PM

Wake up and smell the coffee, virtually every economist and demographer on the planet is warning about what "family planning" has done to the populations of the industrialized world. Russia is losing 700,000 a year. The population of Europe will decrease 75% by 2100. Japan's economy is already in deflation and we are only holding our own because of immigrants who have a higher birthrate. "Family planning" is a short sighted social experiment that will be followed by the lower prosperity of our posterity.

Check out The Empty Cradle by Phillip Longman. He is an atheist from the old school, an intelligent skeptic, not just a product of secular education utterly lacking critical thinking skills.

Why Holly, you just gave me a fabulous idea!

I scrolled through the link you provided via your name and found something that is sure to bring it on: In honor of the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, make a video about WHAT ROE VS. WADE MEANS TO YOU.

I don't have the equipment to create such a commercial, but I'll provide the script, 'k?

"What Roe vs. Wade Means to Me 35 Years Later by carder:

Ahem. *fiddles with microphone*

Ask Norma McCorvey.

The End."

Kristen,

Thank you. Shows what I know!

Edyt,

Honestly, I don't think most feminists are like that. But you know, the loudest person always seems to be the representative of the group. *shrug*

Posted by: Edyt at January 3, 2008 7:04 PM

I consider myself a feminist and think women should be able to choose their careers whether at home or in business. They should also be told that delaying childbirth is an established risk factor for disease because it is a scientific fact.

I also think that some loud feminists definitely look down on women who choose motherhood.

Here is one for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601766.html

Everybody started hating Linda, apparently, when I published an article in the progressive magazine the American Prospect last December, saying that women who quit their jobs to stay home with their children were making a mistake. Worse, I said that the tasks of housekeeping and child rearing were not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings. They do not require a great intellect, they are not honored and they do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings. Oh, and by the way, where were the dads when all this household labor was being distributed? Maybe the thickest glass ceiling, I wrote, is at home

Okay, I'm judgmental. That's what CBS's Lesley Stahl called me on "60 Minutes." But I'm a philosopher, and it's a philosopher's job to tell people how they should lead their lives. We've been doing so since Socrates. And yet, even though I knew the Greeks made Socrates drink poison, the reaction to my judgment took me by surprise."

I think the author is very condescending and thinks material gain is a more worthy goal than bringing up responsible folks to take up where we leave off. I think that careers both in and out of the home are honorable and should be honored.

Sorry to change the topic, but what do you guys think of Huckabee and Obama most likely winning Iowa?

"From a scientific/ecological standpoint, aborted babies will actually help the human species survive longer."

That is just so warped to me. Please don't use science to support mass killing of people. Let's not make the same mistake the Nazis did.

We can say scientifically we can take advantage of vulnerable people to "help the species survive longer," but we want to be ethical here.

Dan- wooo!

PIP, I also found her comment to be very disturbing.

PIP, I completely agree, lol. I'm completely psyched Obama got Iowa, and wouldnt mind a race against Huckabee.

I am INCREDIBLY glad/grateful Romney did not win.

I am not sure how I feel about it yet Dan. I am amused that the queen-apparent didn't win. As far as the Repubs, I am glad Romney lost. I haven't really decided who I like yet. I more know who I don't like-Romney and Thompson.

Do you think Huckabee would be easy to beat?

Dan, if we had an Obama-Huckabee race I would go absolutely crazy. Maybe then we can argue the greater of two goods rather than the lesser of two evils (aka 2004).

I've been praying all day that Obama would win, he is infinitely better than Hillary. I don't understand how someone could trust her!!!

Carrie, overall, yes. But it all depends, in a way, if people who say they like barack and will vote for him actually do. Not to mention, it depends on the campaign tactics each end up using, etc.

Its really too early to tell overall.

Then again, I think Dems have a good shot at the election unless hillary is nominated, at which point itll be a much more difficult fight.

"I am INCREDIBLY glad/grateful Romney did not win."

Dan, I wouldn't get to excited about Obama, once super tuesday hits, I think Hillary will pass him. This guy avoids every serious interview with real questions but has the time to go on Ellen D's show.

Obama!! Hucklebee is having his best day, it's all down hill from here.

I see McCain moving up

yeah Carrie I don't see how someone would root for Thompson or Romney. It blows my mind. I have watched the debates, they are terrible!

PIP, I dont understand how she totes experience when shes only held her own office for 2 terms. Being first lady shouldnt count towards that total. Im sure she influenced, but she didnt make the final solutions, etc.

Not to mention, she just seems, like, insane to me

Yeah I would also love an Obama- McCain election. I would also go nuts, a greater-of-two goods kind of thing. I like McCains mostly centrist outlook.

jasper, I wouldnt necessarily count on that. Obama is showing himself as a more and more viable candidate to undecided and wavering voters. Conversions can and do happen, and I think tonights victory will gain him more votes.

Dan- OMG I completely agree. Did she really do a lot as first lady? It seems all they do are really fluff jobs- like tour schools and countries. And promise to goad their husbands into passing certain laws.

and Hal, I dont know, huckabee may be able to garner a decent amount of votes in the bible belt, evangelicals essentially handed him the victory in Iowa

PIP,

please don't tell me your still voting for Obama.

Obama!!!

say hello to your worst nightmare jasper.

ITS OFFICIAL, OBAMA GOT IOWA, YESSSS

Say no to Obama, Osama and Chelsea's Moma! LOL!

Dunno Jasper, seems like even a lot of republicans think Obama is the best overall democratic candidate from their view. Speaking, of course, as if they HAD to vote for a Dem.

And Iowa did show people genuinely want change, the main point of Obama's campaign.

Dan, stop watching CNN, they're biased. Switch to Fox...

If I hear John Edwards say "corporate greed" one more time..I'm gonna ......This ambulence chaser is a main reason why health insurance is so high.

Edwards speech is very good. Obama/Edwards

Frankly, I'm just happy that this part will all be over on February 5th.
People bemoan "Tsunami Tuesday," but I'm fairly thrilled with the idea of having candidates picked by then...

I think some one written here before that Hollywood actions contradict their words. They speak for abortion but when it comes down to their own lives they are more pro-life than they think.

Whoooo, go Obama!!

I'm so glad that list at the top of this thread appeared. Now I have the names of several more celebrities I wouldn't walk into the next room to see or listen to.

See, I don't get that, Mike. There are some celebrities- like Tom Cruise- who I think are freaking NUTS. I hate his guts as a person. Think he's a moron. But he is a FANTASTIC actor, and I'm going to watch him anyway because he is a master of his craft. I don't care about the politics or mindsets of most people I let entertain me. I mean, if they're a murderer or something, yeah, small problem, but little things like politics, psh. If I want to see a movie it's because I think the movie is going to be good, not because I approve of the political stances of the actors.

Erin,

We(at least I) see pro-abortion more than just a mere political stance though, we see them as people who have disregard for innocent human life and it just turns us off.

Do you think Huckabee would be easy to beat?

Carrie, good question. Yes, I do think that, as of now. Due to some of his positions, some of the things he has said, the fact that he'd be painted with the "Bush brush" to some extent, etc.

However, prior to the last year, I'd have never said that a woman or a black guy could get the nomination either, so ya ne'er know.....

Doug

Ask Norma McCorvey.

Carder, McCorvey may have been an insecure nutball way back when, needful in her own way, but she surely is now.

Doug

Edyt,

Please, women do not stay home and "babysit", they stay home and WORK.

Also, women have always worked outside the home, by choice and otherwise. My mother desperately wanted to stay home with her children, she didn't have that option.
Feminism did not introduce the concept of women working outside the home. My grandmother and great grandmother were working outside the home long before these feminists were ever born, and not because they wanted to, but because their children would go hungry if they didn't.

Posted by: Mary at January 3, 2008 6:55 PM
...........................................

Really Mary? What did your great grandmother do for work outside the home? Clean other people's houses? If you are nearly as old as you profess to be, your mother had few choices in how to earn money.

About so-called overpopulation. That threat has been sounded since I was a teenager and I will not elaborate on how long ago that was. I'm just willing to wager it was long before you were born. According to the great thinkers of that time, we were all supposed to be non-existent by now. I've spent my life listening to this "crisis" and that and the human race and planet earth are still here.

Mary, much like those who think "the sky is falling" because of legal abortion.

That said, there are some profound effects upon our world due to the sheer numbers of people on earth at this time. In the long run, we don't yet know just how bad they will be, but some of them are already quite bad, and others have at the least a great potential for harm.

Doug

Erin,

We(at least I) see pro-abortion more than just a mere political stance though, we see them as people who have disregard for innocent human life and it just turns us off.

Posted by: jasper at January 3, 2008 10:41 PM
......................................................

I don't think that anyone is interested in you being turned on Jasper. Is everything about sex to you?

Erin: I used to have the same feeling about these celebrities as you do. However, by patronizing their films, and the money they receive from them, it makes us supporters of their agendas when they support the likes of choice, PP, and everything I am against. Cruise, like the rest of them, is just a whack job.

Ahoy, all! 'Tis I, Leah, back for one of my very last posts--the countdown is down to 12 days!

I like the photos. I don't think they're obscene or pin-uppy at all. I LOVE photos of nude pregnant women--I love it when people embrace the beauty of pregnancy instead of going thinking that pregnancy=fat=ugly. Yes, I understand that the photos are Photshopped out of recognition, but the most important detail--Christina's pregnant belly--remains. These are some of the best photos I have ever seen of her.

"I don't think that anyone is interested in you being turned on Jasper. Is everything about sex to you?"

Good one Sally. LOL.

Hooray Obama!!! With one of the highest voter turnouts in the history of the Iowa caucus - a significant number of previously undecided/independent voters, and most importantly the highest percentage of YOUNG voters (IE - THE FUTURE OF AMERICA)

Next stop New Hampshire!

(Now if only he could pick McCain as a VEEP, I'd be giddy as could be)

Amanda,

Are you still working at the abortion mill?

Ahoy, all! 'Tis I, Leah, back for one of my very last posts--the countdown is down to 12 days!

Leah, like in "The Beverly Hillbillies,"

Ya'll come back now, hear?

Jasper, I didnt get that from CNN, I got the idea of republicans thinking hes the best Dem candidate via websurfing. Granted given the anonymous nature of the net it could be Dems pretending to be republican, it could be young republicans, or it could just be right. But hey, you never know.

Amanda, that is a possibility, but I feel as if the reaching across the aisle would come in his cabinet more than choosing a vp, but you never do know.

I wonder if McCain would accept the offer if he got it, lol

Doug 19:49PM

Norma McCorvey may have been an "insecure nutball" but that did nothing to stop Weddington and Coffee from expoloiting her to promote their cause, the elimination of all state abortion laws. Nor obviously, did they see any need to investigate her charge of gang rape. The story was made to order for their purposes and why ruin anything with the truth.

Doug, 10:53PM

Sorry Doug, but it was your side who warned of imminent doom and gloom unless abortion was legalized.

Sally, 10:52PM

Yes Sally my great- grandmother was a domestic and had to farm her children out to foster care which was more like indentured servitude. You see, she was entirely too proud to take any kind of charity though she had been left a destitute widow after her husband committed suicide.

My grandmother, who by the way was educated in, and could speak, read, and write in two languages, worked for the welfare department during the Great Depression. She demanded a job of some sort rather than have them hand her a welfare check.

My mother was in fact better educated than my father. Unfortunately because of the Great Depression, she never had the opportunity to return to college. Its not that she couldn't have gone, in fact many of her female friends did, its that if the money wasn't there, you didn't go, plus she had to help support her family. She went to work as a secretary initially when my father's drinking was getting out of control and then went on to work for the county, though I'm not sure in what capacity.
She loathed working outside the home but had few options.

By the way Sally, my mother who is approaching 90 finds it amusing that feminism takes so much credit when she points out women were attending college for generations before feminism, were entering medical school, taught in universities, etc. In fact, there is a landmark women's college in my hometown that opened in 1910.

"Norma McCorvey may have been an "insecure nutball" but that did nothing to stop Weddington and Coffee from expoloiting her to promote their cause, the elimination of all state abortion laws."

True Mary, the sneaky pro-abort lawyers used her as a tool.

Erin and Amanda,

I'm less thrilled with Obama's win than I am with Hillary's loss. To see the Queen Bee denied her crown gives me great satisfaction. While I do not support Obama, I would agree he is an extremely likable man and I can certainly see his appeal.

Dan - Its mostly a fantasy - that politicians AND voters would see that extremism on one end or othe other is getting us, and will get us absolutely no where. I believe with little doubt that if we were to truly choose two candidates who best represented the MAJORITY of Americans, rather than the loudest or the richest, it would be Obama and McCain.

I dislike Hilary for the same reasons I dislike Romney - dishonesty, a campaign rooted in negativity, and a lot of heavy involvement in lobbyists and old-timer politics. At the same time, I like Obama for many of the same reasons I like McCain - neither have allowed themselves to become a part of the political machine, both of them have avoided negative ads and fear mongering, and neither of them are religious fanatics. Republican or Democrat, Pro Choice or Pro Life, they both strike me as smart, thoughtful, and unifying individuals who would handle issues in a way that even if I disagreed, I could still respect.

What really cracked me up was Romneys speech, where he called himself "an unknown governor in a field of household names". Unknown? Really? Who does he honestly think he's kidding??? I guess the same people he's made to honestly believe he went from being a pro choice pro gay rights liberal who didn't care to look in to the fact that his landscaping company was under multiple investigations for hiring illegal immigrants, to a complete, all issue hardline conservative in the time span of an election-year decision time epiphany.

I knew that Christina Agulara was PC, but maybe she'll have a change of heart....I think she's lovely looking, and I have been told a time or 2 that I look a bit like her:]

Heather,

Well you could certainly do worse than resemble Christina Aguilara, pregnant or not.
I've been told I bear a resemblence to "Ginger" on Gilligan's Island, Amanda Blake(Miss Kitty) on Gunsmoke as well as Daffy Duck.

Mary, lol! Ginger was a fox! No complaints about the Agulaira resemblance. I also get Heather Locklear sometimes. My namesake.

Amanda,

Where did Romney run a negative campaign? Just because he is contrasting his record to John McCains pitiful conservative record? How is that negative?

I often wonder if the person needs glasses. @@ LOL!

Jasper-

Apparently you haven't been watching the debates. Romney has had nothing but biting, sardonic, and cynical things to say about pretty much EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. He does this to cover up for his piles upon piles of contradictions and inconsistencies.

He has ads attacking both McCain and Huckabee running constantly on TV - he has spent more than ANY other candidate on advertising, and despite that, I've seen ONE positive ad - and its vague and self righteous. America is "the hope of earth"?? seriously? *eyeroll* Now THERES an attitude that will help change the global perceptions of Americans that inspires terrorism and hatred towards us!!!

I voted for him for MA governor, and was dissapointed in him long before his miraculous epiphany on gay rights and reproductive rights. He is an opportunist and a hypocrite. And just like Hillary, he spent less than 1/4 of the year before he announced his presendential aspirations in the state which elected him. For that reason alone, neither of them would EVER get my vote.

I wonder how many of these PC celebrities would actually have an abortion. Some of them are killers, but some of them have adopted.

Mary, Daffy Duck? LOL!

There is nothing more beautiful than a pregnant woman.

Besides, a lot of these celebrities have these ideas that their movies/T.V. shows will actually be remembered. "Judging Amy" is a stupid and pathetic show.

I thought Jennifer Aniston wanted to be this HUGE movie star. What happened? Her movies have all flopped, and her marriage crumbled. Rod Stewart's daughter took a pop shot at her in a Rolling Stone magazine article. She said "Jennifer Aniston is homely." I don't think she had the look of a really great movie star. She isn't even that great of an actress.

I agree Heather..I don't have alot of respect for these Hollywood types, most of them are selfish and egotistical.

Are you just trashing and ripping on random celebrities you've never and will never meet just because they're pro choice?

Nice.

Hippie,
I agree with you about the declining birth rates and that some countries population pyramids are starting to be diamonds or even inverted pyramids. Our aging population will out number the younger generation, but after they die, what is wrong with a smaller population? I'm sure that book you suggested will tell me. I will definitely check it out, it looks interesting.

I have to bring up that if the current administration actually supported competent sex education, that more young women/teenagers would not get pregnant and have to face this choice in the first place. Abstinence is not sex education. Teens need info about birth control, contraceptives, and exactly how getting pregnant works.

It is interesting that although many people took issue with my comment about babies and the environment, no one commented on the millions of children who are suffering right now because of hunger, or who live in group homes, or are unwanted. I hope that many here are foster parents or have adopted children, since you care about children so much.

I would never have an abortion because I am now in my mid twenties and want children; and because I had to face the choice. When I was younger I assumed I would have an abortion if by some mistake I got pregnant. Then I got pregnant by an ex boyfriend when I was 21 and he pressured me into having an abortion. I scheduled the appointment, but had a spontaneous abortion before I could go through with it. So I lost my baby naturally. I am actually thankful that it happened that way, because if I went through with it I would not have ever forgiven myself. The way it happened though, it was my body telling me that it was not ready to have a baby.
I do want to have a child of my own and will start trying in about a year or so. It is a selfish thing, I want to continue my lineage and have a baby that looks like me and my soon to be husband. But I do plan on adopting as well.
I believe that more education is needed for women who do have an unplanned pregnancy, so they know the choices they have, and also as I said, with sex ed there would be less unprotected sex, but ultimately it should be the womans choice because it is her body. Would you want all women who have unwanted pregnancies forced against their will to carry to term and then forced to monetarily care for their baby? We have personal freedoms for a reason, and I don't think there is any law that would denying abortion that will not take freedom away from women.

Amanda, did you ever find a place in Mass. ?

I'm back at my parents in Andover saving up. I decided I wanted to go back to Africa before I had to worry about a mortgage - the travel bug has not left my system yet.

Mary: Norma McCorvey may have been an "insecure nutball" but that did nothing to stop Weddington and Coffee from expoloiting her to promote their cause, the elimination of all state abortion laws. Nor obviously, did they see any need to investigate her charge of gang rape. The story was made to order for their purposes and why ruin anything with the truth.

Mary, letting women have the freedom they now do in this matter was a good cause, regardless of McCorvey or not. In the end I don't think she even had the abortion.

Sorry Doug, but it was your side who warned of imminent doom and gloom unless abortion was legalized.

Once again, you saying that does not make it so. Legal abortion has meant millions less abused and unwanted kids, but as long as there are kids some will be abused.

Doug

Heather: Ginger was a fox!

Yes, but....

Wait for it....

Mary Ann was better.

Good for you Amanda, travel now while you can :)

mortgages are not cheap in Mass. Actually its good that you didn't buy earlier this year because the housing prices have dropped a lot since.

Legal abortion has meant millions less abused and unwanted kids, but as long as there are kids some will be abused.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp

Mary Ann was TOTALLY better. And man, heather, I don't know who said that, but I think Aniston is gorgeous. Oh, oh! You know who's even sexier, though? Jessica Alba.

I actually like Judging Amy... :/

Shannon, excellent comments, 11:04 a.m. I too look at suffering, and I agree with you on the millions of children who are suffering right now. While there are often arguments about fetuses in the weeks in the 20s being able to suffer or not, when we look at the vast majority of abortions, i.e. 94% at 15 weeks or less, and 78% at 10 weeks or less, I'd rather have a thousand such abortions versus some of the cases of suffering we see.

Doug

Bethany, Reardon?

Uck uck uck uck uck (Popeye laugh).

Experts agree that during the past 25 years the rate of child abuse has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 1987 alone, there was a 330% increase in reported cases of child abuse. While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.

I've seen this over and over, and even if we accept figures from the highly-doubtable Reardon, then of course abortion was legal before that time, during, and afterwards. Indeed, increased reporting is the cause of much of the statistical change.

Other than that, economic conditions, etc., contribute to such changes. 

Coincidence is not causation. Does Reardon want to ban NASA, the World Bank, etc?

Erin, Jessica Alba is really pretty!! Kimberly Stewart made that remark about Aniston. She is the daughter of Rod, and she is a model. I do think it was rather mean spirited, and Aniston said that she was "very hurt" by Kimberly's comment. Kimberly went on to apologize, but I'm not sure if Aniston accepted or not.

It is interesting that although many people took issue with my comment about babies and the environment, no one commented on the millions of children who are suffering right now because of hunger, or who live in group homes, or are unwanted. I hope that many here are foster parents or have adopted children, since you care about children so much.

If it makes you feel better, I volunteer at a CPC where we donate food, clothing, diapers, formula, even housing and refer to free medical care, to young women who have are pregnant or have had children. There are more than twice as many of these CPC centers as there are planned parenthoods, and we offer our services for absolutely free to help women.

A great deal of pro-lifers you will notice are actually foster parents or adoptive parents. I know several who are adoptive and even more who are foster parents. I have also considered adoption and fostering myself, although I know that to see a wrong in something, you don't have to provide the solution.
For instance, you see that there is a wrong when there are children suffering ...but do you have to provide the solution in order to be able to say it is wrong? Of course not.

I would never have an abortion because I am now in my mid twenties and want children; and because I had to face the choice. When I was younger I assumed I would have an abortion if by some mistake I got pregnant. Then I got pregnant by an ex boyfriend when I was 21 and he pressured me into having an abortion. I scheduled the appointment, but had a spontaneous abortion before I could go through with it. So I lost my baby naturally. I am actually thankful that it happened that way, because if I went through with it I would not have ever forgiven myself. The way it happened though, it was my body telling me that it was not ready to have a baby.

Why would you never have forgiven yourself for a choice that is "right"?

And do you feel that other women are pressured into abortion against their will? What actions would you take to prevent this from happening to someone else? To prevent them from going through the pain that you were able to avoid by not aborting?

I believe that more education is needed for women who do have an unplanned pregnancy, so they know the choices they have, and also as I said, with sex ed there would be less unprotected sex, but ultimately it should be the womans choice because it is her body. Would you want all women who have unwanted pregnancies forced against their will to carry to term and then forced to monetarily care for their baby?

There is adoption. No one has to be forced to monetarily care for a child. There are 1.3 million couples waiting for a child to adopt, For every 1 couple who gets to adopt a child, there are 40 more on the waiting list.

We have personal freedoms for a reason, and I don't think there is any law that would denying abortion that will not take freedom away from women.

Is it really a freedom for women when boyfriends are pressuring their girlfriends into abortion every day?

Coincidence is not causation. Does Reardon want to ban NASA, the World Bank, etc?

I don't know, Doug. Did NASA claim that going to the moon would greatly minimize the child abuse cases in the US? Does Nasa kill little children?

If not, probably not.

There are studies which show that women are more likely to be abusers of drugs and alcohol after having an abortion, and also to be child abusers. It is much more than just correlation.

There are studies which show that women are more likely to be abusers of drugs and alcohol after having an abortion, and also to be child abusers. It is much more than just correlation.

Posted by: Bethany at January 4, 2008 12:56 PM---------------- And I believe those studies.

Typical. Shannon, I see you are one of prochoicers who likes to lecture the prolifers about what we should spend our time on. We need to expend our energies on more "important" issues,right Shannon? Since you care about children so much, I am sure that you forgo all but life's absolute necessities so you can devout all your time and money to saving the world.

Carrie, lol!

Doug 11:27am

You're the one who called McCorvey an "insecure nutball". I only pointed out this did nothing to prevent abortion advocates from exploiting her pathetic situation to further their cause. Nor did they much care enough about the truth since they never investigated her rape charge before taking her case to the Supreme Court.

Also Doug, you saying that abortion has resulted in fewer abused children doesn't make it so. some studies please.

It was your side who lied about the number of illegal abortions, promoted bigotry against Catholics, and wailed as to how poor children would flood the welfare rolls and poor women die like flies from illegal abortion when the Hyde Amendment went into effect. Don't talk to me about falling skies.

Mary

"I am actually thankful that it happened that way, because if I went through with it I would not have ever forgiven myself"
Why not? It's just tissue, right?

And shannon, those darn babies are just overpopulating the world, right? So you getting an abortion would be just one less baby to worry about?

Hey All,
Long time no "see".

Just curious for those of you who support Obama,
why????

Thanks.

, I'd rather have a thousand such abortions versus some of the cases of suffering we see.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at January 4, 2008 12:06 PM

Kill a thousand to save a couple?

It may be some sort of reasoning process but it isn't logic nor decent.

Hippie, I'd rather have a thousand or ten thousand abortions where the pregnancies were unwanted, versus having one or two of the cases of extreme suffering we do with certain kids in the world, yes.

It's more decent to allow women to have the freedom they do, versus wanting their will subjugated to yours.

Doug

Mary, my point is that what McCorvey says is hardly meaningful, especially to another given woman. Not saying she was necessarily "perfect" or even "better" in the past, but as of now I see her as a sad person desperate for some type of acceptance as well as wanting other people (Pro-Lifers) to pay her way. I don't think she even had the abortion, but she has been free in the years since Roe, as have all US women, more free than they would have been without Roe.

Tens of millions more kids would be here had there been no legal abortion. It's not rocket science to see that there would be vast additional numbers of cases of abuse among them.

You often mischaracterize the Pro-Choice side, but I am not saying there have never been lies, etc. Same for the Pro-Life side.

My point about "the sky is falling" is that there are always people who feel that way, regardless of the times and issues. In reality, things are rarely as bad or as good as they look.

Doug

"Coincidence is not causation. Does Reardon want to ban NASA, the World Bank, etc?"

Bethany: I don't know, Doug. Did NASA claim that going to the moon would greatly minimize the child abuse cases in the US?

No, NASA didn't say that. There have been millions and millions less cases of abuse than there would have been without legal abortion, regardless.

Does Nasa kill little children?

If you see little children being killed, call the cops.
......

If not, probably not. There are studies which show that women are more likely to be abusers of drugs and alcohol after having an abortion, and also to be child abusers. It is much more than just correlation.

I don't doubt that some or all of that is true. But so what? That is still not causation.

Believe me - there are some people who I'd think much more prone to drug abuse, child abuse, etc., whether or not they have kids or have had abortions. And, if a woman is likely to be abusive, that's hardly a good argument for her not to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Tens of millions more kids would be here had there been no legal abortion.
It's not rocket science to see that there would be vast additional numbers of cases of abuse among them.

Well, maybe the best solution for all abused children is to kill them then. Doug, what say you?
Let's get a couple of guns, and take them and kill all the abused children, because it's much better for them to be dead than to be here to be potentially abused again.

No, NASA didn't say that. There have been millions and millions less cases of abuse than there would have been without legal abortion, regardless.

So does that mean if we finish our shooting spree, and kill a million abused children, then that means that we have reduced the child abuse in the world by a million cases? Yippie, let's get to it, Doug! We're going to free the world of child abuse by killing the victims of child abuse!

Bethany: Is it really a freedom for women when boyfriends are pressuring their girlfriends into abortion every day?

Sure, that remains a fact even while there are also many people who pressure some women/girls to continue pregnancies.

Doug

Sure, that remains a fact even while there are also many people who pressure some women/girls to continue pregnancies.

That's not the same thing and you know it, Doug.
Not allowing someone else to come in and by force remove an unborn child from one's body is NOT the same as forcing a baby to die!

I don't doubt that some or all of that is true. But so what? That is still not causation.

Why not? If it is proven by NUMEROUS studies that abortion INCREASES THE RISK OF SUBSEQUENT CHILD ABUSE, how in the heck is that not causation??

And, if a woman is likely to be abusive, that's hardly a good argument for her not to end an unwanted pregnancy.

no, doug. In the studies the woman did not show those tendencies before the abortion, except in about 10 percent of cases.

So does that mean if we finish our shooting spree, and kill a million abused children, then that means that we have reduced the child abuse in the world? Yippie, let's get to it, Doug! We're going to free the world of child abuse by killing the victims of child abuse!

Bethany, you're taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but as I've said, as long as there are kids, there will be some child abuse. Nobody ever seriously promised that abortion being legal would "cure" all child abuse.
......

Well, maybe the best solution for all abused children is to kill them then. Doug, what say you?

No, I do not think that. There are still some cases of suffering so horrible that it far outweighs any objection to ending an unwanted pregnancy, IMO.
......

Let's get a couple of guns, and take them and kill all the abused children, because it's much better for them to be dead than to be here to be potentially abused again.

Nope, not saying that. I am saying the suffering of one child can far outweigh the suffering involved in a great many abortions.

Bethany, you're taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but as I've said, as long as there are kids, there will be some child abuse. Nobody ever seriously promised that abortion being legal would "cure" all child abuse.

Doug, you are lying. They did. There are probably still bumper stickers and articles, etc today that exist today which claim it. I'll find them for you and prove it.

And why in the world is that a ridiculous extreme, doug?
Isn't it be the same end? Just imagine it, Doug...you could preven child abuse ...a million cases, so easily! Just kill a million victims of child abuse, and there you go! 1 million less children being abused! What's the difference?

"Sure, that remains a fact even while there are also many people who pressure some women/girls to continue pregnancies."

Bethany: That's not the same thing and you know it, Doug. Not allowing someone else to come in and by force remove an unborn child from one's body is NOT the same as forcing a baby to die!

@@ Yes, it is really a freedom. That is what I said.

You're talking about other stuff. About that other stuff - it if is against the will of the woman, then in general I am not for forcing abortion nor for forcing the continuation of pregnancy.

Doug

No, I do not think that. There are still some cases of suffering so horrible that it far outweighs any objection to ending an unwanted pregnancy, IMO.

If they're going through so much, wouldn't euthanizing them be the best way to ease all of their suffering, Doug? Wouldn't it be the way to reduce suffering the most, Doug?
Let's euthanize all children who are being seriously abused, and that will solve the problem with child abuse! See how easy it is.

Can you tell me what the flaw in my argument is, Doug? What is the flaw in saying that killing children will prevent child abuse?

"Hippie, I'd rather have a thousand or ten thousand abortions where the pregnancies were unwanted, versus having one or two of the cases of extreme suffering we do with certain kids in the world, yes."

Doug, why not make it a million or 2 million abortions? would that be Ok too?

Why not? If it is proven by NUMEROUS studies that abortion INCREASES THE RISK OF SUBSEQUENT CHILD ABUSE, how in the heck is that not causation?

Bethany, then let's see at least one of those studies. You are claiming "increases the risk," but I doubt that. I've seen some of this stuff before, and while some "surprising" conclusions can be drawn from some of it, they're obviously not applicable to all people in reality.
......

"And, if a woman is likely to be abusive, that's hardly a good argument for her not to end an unwanted pregnancy."

no, doug. In the studies the woman did not show those tendencies before the abortion, except in about 10 percent of cases.

How about I read it, then?

Doug

"Hippie, I'd rather have a thousand or ten thousand abortions where the pregnancies were unwanted, versus having one or two of the cases of extreme suffering we do with certain kids in the world, yes."

Jasper: Doug, why not make it a million or 2 million abortions? would that be Ok too?

Jasper, I guess you could say that. Again, if it's a case of an unwanted pregnancy where there never will be "anyone" there to suffer, then I see that as much preferable to some of the cases of suffering on earth that we have, be it for one abortion, a thousand, or a million.

If they're going through so much, wouldn't euthanizing them be the best way to ease all of their suffering, Doug?

Bethany, sadly, some of them probably want to die, or just don't care anymore. Perhaps you should ask them. My point remains that the suffering in one such case can outweigh the suffering of many abortions.

I am not saying "kill them." I am saying that had their mother chosen to have an abortion because she wanted to, it would not be any great tragedy. I am saying that for all the objections of Pro-Lifers, I see much more suffering in one such case than among many Pro-Lifers.
......

Wouldn't it be the way to reduce suffering the most, Doug? Let's euthanize all children who are being seriously abused, and that will solve the problem with child abuse! See how easy it is. Can you tell me what the flaw in my argument is, Doug? What is the flaw in saying that killing children will prevent child abuse?

Again, a ludicrous extreme, but yes - the only way to end all child abuse would be to have no kids at all. But who wants that? That has nothing to do with being Pro-Choice. Pro-Choice leaves it up to the pregnant woman, and most of them are already willingly continuing their pregnancies.

Doug, 3:22PM

McCorvey never had an abortion. She was treated as bothersome white trash by PC leaders who she wrongly assumed would treat her with more respect. Face it, they owed her. After a prolonged period of time she went over to the pro-life side.
While McCorvey, who never made any claim to sainthood, is reviled by the PC crowd they were only too happy to exploit this pathetic and tragic woman to further their cause.

Doug you are making an assumption concerning child abuse. If there are more people there will be more crime. Not necessarily. If more people have guns there will be more gun violence. Not necessarily. We cannot assume more people automatically means an increased incidence of anything. One could just as sensibly argue that if we killed more engaged women, we would have less spousal abuse and murder. Solve an abuse problem by eliminating the possible future victims.

I often "mischaracterize" the PC side? Exactly how do I do this?

Things are rarely as bad or as good as they look?
Now THAT we can agree on.

Ehhh... the problem with these "studies" is that they are never scientifically sound.

Studies of that nature, from either end of the debate, have SO many other factors playing in to them that its really unfair to see the results as "proof" in one direction or the other. Are they both plausible hypothoses? Sure. But its a perfect example of how easily data can be interpreted in different ways, without it neccesarily being dishonest.

I hate hearing overgeneralizations like "abortion prevents suffering" just as much as I hate hearing "abortion is NEVER the right decision". The fact is, its the right decision for a lot of women, and its not the right decision for a lot of women. Would it be SO hard and unrealistic to just be supportive and nurturing to ALL pregnant women, no matter what they decide to do?

Bethany 1:52PM

My own icon! I'm flattered, thank you.

"Bethany, you're taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but as I've said, as long as there are kids, there will be some child abuse. Nobody ever seriously promised that abortion being legal would "cure" all child abuse."

Doug, you are lying. They did. There are probably still bumper stickers and articles, etc today that exist today which claim it. I'll find them for you and prove it.

No, I'm not lying. While I agree that "every child a wanted child" is a worthy goal, I think it's silly to say that anybody ever seriously claimed that legal abortion would cure all child abuse.

Even "end child abuse - support legal abortion" is not saying there will be no children, and thus no abuse; it's a bumper-sticker. If somebody actually says that legal abortion would stop all child abuse, then I would argue with them myself. Nobody could actually promise any such thing, seriously.
......

And why in the world is that a ridiculous extreme, doug?

Because there isn't any sigificant amount of sentiment for it. Who wants to end unwanted pregnancies, and who wants women to have the freedom they do - vast numbers of people. Who wants to kill born children? Not at all the same thing.
......

Isn't it be the same end? Just imagine it, Doug...you could preven child abuse ...a million cases, so easily! Just kill a million victims of child abuse, and there you go! 1 million less children being abused! What's the difference?

The difference is that I don't want to do that. I would rather see less suffering versus more, sure, and I see much more suffering in some born kids than in huge numbers of abortions, yes, but that does not mean I want to kill anybody.

Heather 8:40am

Heather Locklear? A definite step up. Actually I was tooting my own horn(well someone has to) when I mentioned Ginger. That was about 15years ago. I'm now told I have a resemblence to Miss Kitty on Gunsmoke, minus the orange hair and fake eyelashes.

Doug you are making an assumption concerning child abuse. If there are more people there will be more crime. Not necessarily. If more people have guns there will be more gun violence. Not necessarily. We cannot assume more people automatically means an increased incidence of anything. One could just as sensibly argue that if we killed more engaged women, we would have less spousal abuse and murder. Solve an abuse problem by eliminating the possible future victims.

Mary, as far as 46 million (or whatever the exact number would be) more children, then yes, there necessarily would be many cases of abuse among them. That's just a fact, and it has nothing to do with our desire for legal abortion or not. Who wants to kill engaged women? Has nothing to do with it.

I also didn't claim anything about "increased incidence." I am just saying there would be a lot of abuse on a raw-numbers basis. On the rate of incidence, I think it's reasonable to assume a higher rate of abuse among kids that would result from pregnancies where the woman was forced to continue them against her will. Women often have abortions due to feelings of them not being ready for the responsibility, not enough money, in an already-abusive relationship, etc., things that logically would tend to increase the chance of abuse rather than reduce them.

Pro-Choice is also not saying that it's necessarily "good" for a given amount of abortions to occur. Pro-Choice is saying leave it up to the pregnant women.
......

I often "mischaracterize" the PC side? Exactly how do I do this?

For one thing, your insistence that the PC side actually "promised" no child abuse, etc.

Jessica Alba - oh Yeah.

The young Barbara Eden. (Heck, even the old Barabara Eden.)

Jennifer Aniston - sort of "unusual" looking but she sure appeals to a lot of guys, me included.

I hate hearing overgeneralizations like "abortion prevents suffering" just as much as I hate hearing "abortion is NEVER the right decision". The fact is, its the right decision for a lot of women, and its not the right decision for a lot of women. Would it be SO hard and unrealistic to just be supportive and nurturing to ALL pregnant women, no matter what they decide to do?

Amanda, well said. Quite true that sometimes abortion is the wrong decision. And yeah - I say leave it up to the pregnant woman.

Abortion will not always prevent suffering, but I would argue that it often does, i.e. the woman would suffer or suffer more were she legally prohibited from having an abortion.

Doug

Doug,

It would equally stand to reason that the greater the population of a city, the greater the crime rate. Not so.
You're making an assumption that more children would mean more children being abused. Like the above mentioned, its only an assumption. You even admit that fact Doug, when you state "it is reasonable to assume a higher rate of abuse among kids that would result from pregnancies where the woman was forced to continue them against her will".

I certainly have no desire to see engaged women killed. You're the one who argued that eliminating potential abuse victims means less abuse, I'm just applying your argument across the board.

One of the most vociferous supporters of legal abortion, Ann Landers, adamantly maintained abortion would end child abuse, though she never pointed to any studies to support this.
I've told you a hundred times Doug, abortion advocates appealled to emotion, not common sense, on the child abuse issue. It was assumed abused children resulted from unwanted pregnancies. Abortion advocates milked this for all it was worth.

Every Child a Wanted Child

Stop Child Abuse, Promote Abortion Reform

I remember those slogans only too well on posters, bumper stickers, and advertisements. You couldn't listen to a debate without child abuse being brought up. One feminist nearly bit my head off about pictures of abused children being just as horrible as pictures of aborted babies. That was another favorite. I read articles by abortion advocates, all arguing that abortion would mean an end to child abuse. After all, planned, perfect, and wanted children aren't abused, right?

You know what Doug, for a brief period I suckered for it as well. It just made so much sense.

Mary and Doug:

Been following the volley. Want to point out one glaring missing fact in Doug’s position:

The whole point of his argument is it’s the woman’s choice.

Fine.

What he has not admitted to is that the abortion industry is not about choice. It’s about selling abortions. They do not counsel. They will not show mother’s the ultra-sound (straight from the horse’s mouth from a PP death-scort to me 4 weeks ago). They cover up statutory rape and incest (documented). They are trained to find the emotional hot-button and get the girls on the table before they have time to change their minds (again, documented in testimonies from former appointment makers). They deny the existence of PAS, and breast-cancer link (isn’t even the possibility something that an ethical business would point out?), and they continue to proclaim a 10 week fetus is a “blob of tissue” when my scale fetal model shocks the s**t out of girls every time because it is a fully formed child that is simply 2.5” long….

The problem is the abortion industry is not about choice. It is not about informed choice and it is certainly not about information.

It’s about $$. And that is all it’s about.

So please….enough with the “choice of the pregnant woman” spiel. I’ll say it’s her choice once she’s given ALL the information about her choice. Until then it isn’t a choice, it’s manipulation.

It would equally stand to reason that the greater the population of a city, the greater the crime rate. Not so.

Mary, no - I never have said anything like that. Agreed with what you say, there. It is a separate thing to note that tens of millions of people there would be some cases of abuse. Rate or incidence doesn't even come into that.
......

You're making an assumption that more children would mean more children being abused. Like the above mentioned, its only an assumption. You even admit that fact Doug, when you state "it is reasonable to assume a higher rate of abuse among kids that would result from pregnancies where the woman was forced to continue them against her will".

It's still two separate things. You mentioned the rate, and if anything it's reasonable to assume that unwanted kids will be abused at a higher rate (especially as with fostered kids), same as for kids in one-parent families, same as kids in one-parent families tend to do worse in school, engage in more crime, etc. So, yes, per what you added to the discussion, I do think the rate would be even higher than for kids resulting from wanted pregnancies, but that is not what I first said, nor is the truth of it dependent on the rate.
......

I certainly have no desire to see engaged women killed. You're the one who argued that eliminating potential abuse victims means less abuse, I'm just applying your argument across the board.

Okay, but once again, "less abuse" may not be a desired end in itself, not compared to what achieves it, as with the killing engaged women example. Heck, nuke the whole world and no humans would suffer anymore, but who wants that? I was comparing the suffering of kids today - suffering that is fact, with abortions where no suffering takes place.
......

One of the most vociferous supporters of legal abortion, Ann Landers, adamantly maintained abortion would end child abuse, though she never pointed to any studies to support this. I've told you a hundred times Doug, abortion advocates appealled to emotion, not common sense, on the child abuse issue. It was assumed abused children resulted from unwanted pregnancies. Abortion advocates milked this for all it was worth.

Well, I question that she actually did say that, but even if so, then obviously there will still be abuse as long as there are kids, and the Pro-Choice argument, that it's better to let women have the freedom they do, remains.
......

Every Child a Wanted Child

Well good grief, what is wrong with that?
......

Stop Child Abuse, Promote Abortion Reform

Stopping child abuse is also a worthy goal. However, I grant you that legal abortion can do nothing for born kids. Some of them will be abused, legal abortion or not.
......

I remember those slogans only too well on posters, bumper stickers, and advertisements. You couldn't listen to a debate without child abuse being brought up. One feminist nearly bit my head off about pictures of abused children being just as horrible as pictures of aborted babies. That was another favorite. I read articles by abortion advocates, all arguing that abortion would mean an end to child abuse. After all, planned, perfect, and wanted children aren't abused, right?

You know what Doug, for a brief period I suckered for it as well. It just made so much sense.

I've noted before that both sides engage in hyperbole. Would legal abortion actually stop all child abuse? Of course not, and I've said that I would argue with anybody who was truly claiming that. Same as for Pro-Lifers talking about "genocide" and other "sky-is-falling" stuff. I would never have thought that legal abortion would somehow magically stop all child abuse, including for born children, back in 1972, and I was just 14 years old then.

Doug

Hey Doug:

Take on my last post.

I dare you.

I double dare you.

I double DOG dare you!

I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU!!

Yes, I know...a slight breech of etiquette by skipping the “triple dare” and going straight for the throat!! (see A Christmas Story for further edification…)

Hooves: The whole point of his argument is it’s the woman’s choice. Fine.

Go right ahead, but it certainly really is the woman's choice.
......

What he has not admitted to is that the abortion industry is not about choice. It’s about selling abortions. They do not counsel. They will not show mother’s the ultra-sound (straight from the horse’s mouth from a PP death-scort to me 4 weeks ago). They cover up statutory rape and incest (documented). They are trained to find the emotional hot-button and get the girls on the table before they have time to change their minds (again, documented in testimonies from former appointment makers). They deny the existence of PAS, and breast-cancer link (isn’t even the possibility something that an ethical business would point out?), and they continue to proclaim a 10 week fetus is a “blob of tissue” when my scale fetal model shocks the s**t out of girls every time because it is a fully formed child that is simply 2.5” long….

I'm not in favor of people being coerced, either way. I'm not for protecting incest and rape. PP still does an enormous amount of good, though they may not be perfect.
......

The problem is the abortion industry is not about choice. It is not about informed choice and it is certainly not about information.

Still, most women know full well enough to make their best choice, regardless of which it is.
......

It’s about $$. And that is all it’s about.

No, there I disagree. You can't expect things to be done for free, in the first place. In no way is it just about "money," any more than what is true of most business concerns. I think you want to demonize PP, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of women who have abortions are glad they did so and would do the same thing again in similar circumstances, whether they went to PP or not.
......

So please….enough with the “choice of the pregnant woman” spiel. I’ll say it’s her choice once she’s given ALL the information about her choice. Until then it isn’t a choice, it’s manipulation.

Agreed that it should be her free choice, with nobody trying to manipulate things either way.

Doug

Hooves, I was working on it all along....

Heh.

Doug

Oh Doug...you dissapoint me. Thought you would do better than that.

Yes, I know...I was just having some daring fun!

Still, most women know full well enough to make their best choice, regardless of which it is.

Yes, I suppose that MUST be why my full scale fetal models nearly without fail draw gasps from post abortive girls/women who see them and say they were NEVER TOLD that that is what their baby looked like at that gestation when they aborted….

I don’t understand how you can say with a straight face that someone can know what the best choice is when they have NOT been presented with all the facts. Mk’s right…you are proud to be so shallow.

I think you want to demonize PP

Pshhhh…..they do that just fine all on their own without any help from little ‘ole me.

Agreed that it should be her free choice, with nobody trying to manipulate things either way.

Ahhh….then what you are saying is:

Drumroll please…

You agree with me.

*GASP!*

Hooves,

You've got to understand some of Doug's premises before you can get him to answer your actual questions.

One: He "claims" it's all about avoiding suffering. He doesn't want the women to suffer and doesn't believe that before 24 weeks that the baby suffers.

Two: Everything anyone does is based on desire. The unborn have no desire, so the women, who does have desire, gets what she wants.

Three: When cornered he will say you desire one thing and he desires another and that for now the law is on his side.

Four: He believes the whole thing comes down to one word. Personhood. He will deny this and say that it isn't about the word, it is about rights being attributed to the unborn. But will follow that up with saying that they aren't attributed to them because they haven't been granted "personhood". When pushed on what personhood means he will fall back on the law. He has no definition of personhood outside of the law. He believes we attain personhood, when we attain sentience. (I argue with him that he really means sapience, but he won't budge). You must be A. able to "sense" things and B.outside of the womb.

If you are able to sense things but inside the womb you are not a person. If you are outside of the womb but unable to sense things...well, he hasn't committed to that yet, but I think he would say that it would be okay to put you down like a bad dog if you were non-sentient, but out of the womb.

Doug,
Have I misrepresented you?

mk,

But that still doesn't address the issue of PP/abortionists withholding critical information from their clients...

How can his personhood argument cover that?

(And thank you for the Cliff Notes on Doug!)

Doug 8:47PM

I know you never said that. I only use that as an example. We cannot assume more people mean more crime, just as one cannot assume more children mean more child abuse.

Doug, you keep saying its reasonable to assume. No it isn't. You have to look at facts. One can assume anything they darn well want.

Ann Landers said it Doug, I heard her say this loud and clear myself. The host of the talk show she was on didn't ask for such trivialities as studies to back her claim.

What's wrong with every child a wanted child? Well, what's wrong with every old person a wanted old person, every spouse a wanted spouse, every teenager a wanted teenage? Wanted by who? It implies that being "unwanted" somehow makes the life less desirable and the person of less value. Wouldn't this be the perfect world if we were all loved and wanted by everyone? We don't live in a perfect world, and the unwanted, born and unborn, are disposed of all the time.

I agree stopping child abuse is a very worthy goal. There is just no simplistic solution, abortion or otherwise. This is a deeply complex problem, a point pro-lifers argued over 40 years ago. Yes, sadly children will be abused, just as spouses and old people will be abused. The problem is with the abusers, not the existence of the abused.

Well Doug, if you would argue with anyone claiming abortion would solve the problem of child abuse, the pro-life forces could certainly have used you in the early days of the movement to legalize abortion.

Again Doug, about the sky is falling stuff. As I said previously, it was your side wailing about women dying from illegal abortion(a falsehood) abused children, the increased costs of unwanted children on welfare rolls, overpopulation, and promoting anti-Catholic bigotry and hysteria.

Or we could just emulate the Eskimos and stick all unwanted people on ice floes...

At least then the polar bears wouldn't starve.

Hooves, you're too much.

MK, very succinct. Thank you.

*bow*

Well shucks..."too much" can't be a bad thing! ;)

"Still, most women know full well enough to make their best choice, regardless of which it is."

Hooves; Yes, I suppose that MUST be why my full scale fetal models nearly without fail draw gasps from post abortive girls/women who see them and say they were NEVER TOLD that that is what their baby looked like at that gestation when they aborted.

Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. Even if a given person does not know the facts of fetal development - a somewhat more farfetched thing in this day and age of computes, Google, etc. - that is not to say they don't know darn well whether they want to end or continue a pregnancy, no matter what the embryo or fetus looks like.
......

I don’t understand how you can say with a straight face that someone can know what the best choice is when they have NOT been presented with all the facts. Mk’s right…you are proud to be so shallow.

Silly. I agree that it's best to know all the facts, and I've never said differently. Nevertheless, no matter what an embryo or fetus looks like, it may still be best for a given woman to have an abortion in a given circumstance.
......

"I think you want to demonize PP"

Pshhhh…..they do that just fine all on their own without any help from little ‘ole me

Ha! I like your spirit. I'd say that Pro-Choicers don't want women/girls to be denied any facts. If the appearance of the fetus makes a given woman want to continue a pregnancy, then Pro-Choicers are fine with that. Pro-Choicers are for leaving it to her.
......

"Agreed that it should be her free choice, with nobody trying to manipulate things either way."

Ahhh….then what you are saying is:

Drumroll please…

You agree with me.

*GASP!*

Yeah, there, I do. So let's say that all women and girls knew the physical facts of gestation. If so, are you going to quit worrying about abortion? Heh heh - I don't think so. In other words, it's really not any big deal.

Doug

Hooves, I also appreciate the "A Christmas Story" references. Love that movie.

MK: Doug, Have I misrepresented you?

Yeah, but you did better than at some other times, in this post, MK.
......

MK, to Hooves, You've got to understand some of Doug's premises before you can get him to answer your actual questions.

No. You could say that one might not understand the response, but it's not true to say I won't answer. Heck, I almost always answer. Not that I post on every thread on Jill's blog, but I try my darndest to reply to any and all questions, and the threads where things have been asked or posted to me, and where I have not answered, are exceedingly few, if they exist at all.
......

One: He "claims" it's all about avoiding suffering. He doesn't want the women to suffer and doesn't believe that before 24 weeks that the baby suffers

Well, sort of true, there. What I look at is suffering. That is not to say that "it's all about suffering" beyond what I think, nor in the opinion of