So there!

Would be interesting to get a Wayan statement on this.

If I had to choose between satire or not, I would be inclined to say the video is satire also, from what I have read about it. Damon Wayans' has a TV show, "My Wife and Kids". It is a comedy about a father who loves his family. He tries to do the right thing for his wife and kids and is a good TV role model for fathers, in my opinion. "Abortion Man" is so contrary to his TV persona, it wouldn't make sense for him to risk his TV career to make such a distasteful video, unless it was satire.

They got punked. The last laugh is on them.

Hehehe. You crack me up when you try to pretend that you're all "down" with what those crazy kids are saying these days.

And yeah, the last laugh is on the pro-choicers. Oh wait, abortion is still legal isn't it?

On a more serious note, I really cannot understand your insistence on reading HUGE CONSEQUENCE into minor bits of pop culture. It's kind of weird.

Hiero, On a more serious note, I really cannot understand your insistence on reading HUGE CONSEQUENCE into minor bits of pop culture. It's kind of weird.

Your statement just makes me sad. This is a pro-life blog. Abortion Man is an abortionist who stomps on pregnant women. Need I say more?

Janet, to be fair, I find the video horrifying, because I'm pro-choice for one thing, and because I am anti-violence against women. The statistics on homicide against pregnant black women are pretty bad.

On the other hand, what I had in mind when I made that comment was the running tendency here to be all "look! Horton Hears A Who is pro-life! We're winning!" "look! Juno is pro-life! We're winning!" "look! Chris Rock is pro-life (according to "trusted conservative sources")! We're winning!"....when none of those things are necessarily or even likely to be true.

I mean, I suppose it's part of the whole schtick to read consequence into pop culture to keep heart in the faithful, but it seems ultimately self-defeating.

Hiero:

I think Jill throws in the hyperbole to get a reaction out of people.
Look at it from a pro-life point of view, after 35 years of fighting legal abortion, every little thing feels like a "victory"in a sense, at least a baby-step towards it. The point is we do want to "win" eventually.

Self- defeating? How? I don't see it that way. We may look foolish to some PC'rs, but that's not what matters here.

"I am anti-violence against women"...
----------------------------

Hmmmm...and would you call abortion a non-violent event on pregnant women?

I must be missing something here...

RSD, what you're saying doesn't make any sense to me, unless you're suggesting that any outpatient medical procedure as a violent event.

Although....I might have agreed with you the day I got my wisdom teeth removed.

Actually Hieronymous every time a mother chooses life, and the baby is born, we win. It's a rather simple thing. The difference between us is we value life more than choice.

Without life, there is no choice. Life is more valuable.

In the end, abortion is ultimately self-defeating.

I don't really have time to argue with you - I have some children to save!

Satire is great and all, but when are some big celebrites going to get the courage to speak out frankly against abortion?

If they really are pro-life, maybe Chris Rock and Damon Wayans can knock some sense into Oprah. Chris is on her show quite often.

So, how many other celebrities do we know who are pro-life?

Well, there's... Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and.....?

It's hard to believe this is supposed to be speaking out against abortion. I love comedy and humor, but I would never do this kind of "skit" with abortion. It's just such a serious topic to me. It's like trying to make some funny skit with the holocaust, like Jew Burning Man or something. It's seems horribly offensive, so I have a hard time believing he meant it for good. That is just my opinion though, and perhaps some people are only able to cope with the horrors of abortion through humor. I dunno.

You know that Chris Rock was pretty satirical there. I wouldn't call him pro-life though, and really Rock was just trying to be funny, going on the stereotype that women who get abortions are sluts.

Jill, good question - it's interesting to see the different reactions people have had.

Chris 8:55:Actually Hieronymous every time a mother chooses life, and the baby is born, we win. It's a rather simple thing. The difference between us is we value life more than choice.

You are so right, but for people who don't see it that way, choice seems like the end all be all. The ultimate victory in the pro-life movement will be when every person realizes how precious life is, that this idea of "choice" is incompatible with pregnancy.

Pregnancy is a natural function of womanhood. We don't "choose" nature, it just comes to us and we accept it. Can we choose a sunny day? Snow in summer? A full moon? No.

Remember the TV (butter?) commercial many years ago where the woman said "Don't fool with Mother nature"? It may sound corny, but abortion is "fooling with Mother nature" as well.

"..unless you're suggesting that any outpatient medical procedure as a violent event"
-------------------------------

Hier..I would call a procedure done on women that always result in at least 1 death, violent.

Bobby: 9:02: It's hard to believe this is supposed to be speaking out against abortion. I love comedy and humor, but I would never do this kind of "skit" with abortion. It's just such a serious topic to me. It's like trying to make some funny skit with the holocaust, like Jew Burning Man or something. It's seems horribly offensive, so I have a hard time believing he meant it for good. That is just my opinion though, and perhaps some people are only able to cope with the horrors of abortion through humor. I dunno.

I see your point. But if you are familiar with the hit Broadway play, "The Producers", you know that Mel Brooks used comedy to make fun of Nazi Germany. Here Brooks' take on the subject:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/010820/archive_038235.htm

20 Mel Brooks

His humor brings down Hitler, and the house(an excerpt)

By Nancy Shute
Posted 8/12/01
`I was never crazy about Hitler," says Mel Brooks. Who was? But even now, more than 50 years after the fall of the Third Reich, the man who masterminded the extermination of more than 7 million people is still handled with care, as if the magnitude of his crime demands no less. Brooks had the guts, and gall, to realize that the simplest way to demolish Hitler was to mock him.

"If you stand on a soapbox and trade rhetoric with a dictator you never win," says Brooks, 75. "That's what they do so well; they seduce people. But if you ridicule them, bring them down with laughter--they can't win. You show how crazy they are."

Thus was born Springtime for Hitler, the ersatz musical that serves as the crux of The Producers, Brooks's tale of a larcenous Broadway producer determined to stage the worst show ever and abscond with the cash when it fails. In Brooks's mad vision, chorines decked out in SS regalia goose-step while trilling "Springtime for Hitler and Germany! Winter for Poland and France!" A Hitler Youth type chirps: "Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party!" And the chorus croons: "We're marching to a faster pace. Look out, here comes the Master Race!"

"Well! Talk about bad taste!" huffs a matron in the mythical audience. That's exactly the point. Since the 1930s, when the young Melvin Kaminsky would crack up his Brooklyn schoolmates, Brooks has had a passion for poking society in the eye. When the movie of The Producers debuted in 1968, many critics panned it as crude. But the film is now considered a classic, and when the stage version opened on Broadway earlier this year, it was an instant hit, sweeping the Tony Awards. It also sparked fresh complaints about its gleeful mockery of Nazis, Jews, and homosexuals.

"There are always holier-than-thou guys," says Brooks. "It's like, `I care about those poor Jews and you don't.' " Brooks, who is Jewish, saw the results of Hitler's handiwork firsthand, while serving in the Army in Europe in World War II. "I didn't see the camps, but I saw streams of refugees. They were starving. It was horrible." Brooks attacked that horror with the only weapon he had--his wit...

Janet,
"So, how many other celebrities do we know who are pro-life?

Well, there's... Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and.....?"

Mel Gibson? how about Jim Cavezel? didn't a guy on 2 and a half men give to a CPC?

Janet,
"So, how many other celebrities do we know who are pro-life?

Well, there's... Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and.....?"

Mel Gibson? how about Jim Cavezel? didn't a guy on 2 and a half men give to a CPC?

Posted by: rosie at April 24, 2008 9:33 AM

Rosie: Good ones! Not sure about 2 and a half men. Do you mean Charlie Sheen?

Who is Jim Cavezel?

Anyway-
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

Everytime I see a rollcall of the wicked and unrepentant, my heart hurts.

I am not surprised Laura doesn't know who JC is...

Laura,

Jim Caviezel played Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ"

Thanks for the list of pro-choicers. We should start a letter writing campaign to them.

Well, you could always have Mel Gibson do a public service announcement:

"Hey Sugart**s, don't have an abortion!"

But Jacqueline, how many of them are intelligent/informed enough to know that the March for Women's Lives was in fact a pro-abortion rally? I know some people who assumed it was a healthcare march. I watched it on C-Span when it happened, and the blank stare on the faces of many of the young women in the crowd when Whoopi was waving around the wire coat hanger suggested that they didn't know what they were in for, either.

Jill (or others):

What are the 'trusted conservative sources' referring to Chris Rock? As a pro-lifer, I remember not being very pleased with the bit when I heard it, so I'd love to know what the sources base their conclusion on.

John L:

Thanks for the observation. I saw Doris Roberts on the list (plays Raymond's mother on his show) and she doesn't seem like the PC type. Just a feeling I had.

Mel Gibson is a good example of somebody indoctrinated by their parents, in this case his father.

Gibson Sr. is a wildman, thinking that "the Church in Rome has been taken over by a coalition of Jews and Freemasons acting for Satan."

He doesn't believe there was a WW II Holocaust, "They [the Jews] simply got up and left!" Hardcore....

Mel Gibson's father is a sedevacantist, I believe. WEIRD.

I know some people who assumed it was a healthcare march. I watched it on C-Span when it happened, and the blank stare on the faces of many of the young women in the crowd when Whoopi was waving around the wire coat hanger suggested that they didn't know what they were in for, either.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 10:36 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We are so busted...

John has revealed that most of the crowd at the March for Women's Lives consisted of zombies that Gloria Steinem creates on her unholy facility in Matamoros, Mexico.
If the stupid liberal media had bothered to take a closer look, it would have been obvious:
http://www.wiltonlibrary.org/ya/blog/zombies1.jpg

Not zombies, Laura. Young-skulls-full-of-mush. Impressionable "youts". Ignorant kids who don't know any better. Like everyone under 25 who intends to vote for Barry O'Bama.

sedevacantist

Bobby, awesome word. Latin, ah Latin...

Doug: Gibson Sr. is a wildman, thinking that "the Church in Rome has been taken over by a coalition of Jews and Freemasons acting for Satan."

He doesn't believe there was a WW II Holocaust, "They [the Jews] simply got up and left!" Hardcore....

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 10:43 AM

So his Dad is goofy, and Gibson said something stupid about Jews when he was drunk. That makes him an indoctrinated Catholic? Please.

Not zombies, Laura. Young-skulls-full-of-mush. Impressionable "youts". Ignorant kids who don't know any better. Like everyone under 25 who intends to vote for Barry O'Bama.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 10:59 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHOA! John is Rush Limbaugh!
(Notice how you've never seen them together?)

These schismatics with their paranoia over Vatican II need to get a life. And so do the apostates who continue to try to abuse Vatican II to ruin the Church.

Rush Limbaugh is a Catholic Pennsylvanian in his late twenties?? Holy Quarter Pounder with Cheese!

"youts"

Heh, 'My Cousin Vinny'

funniest line in the movie.

Right on, Andy. Plus my use of it proves that I'm Joe Pesci, in addition to being Rush Limbaugh.

Speaking of Jim Cavezel...

Did you see him in "Frequency?" (I think that was the name of the movie.) It was a great movie and the first time I had ever seen him.

"Without life, there is no choice. Life is more valuable."

Give me choice or give me death. Life without freedom is nothing.

And I don't think abortion man is satire. It's not legal to beat a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage. It's not legal to beat any woman! And if beating woman was legal and this was satire it would be speaking out against beating women.

Jess, You are missing the fact that a baby is being killed in addition to the woman being beaten. You're right about the beating, but I think it's about both that and abortion

Janet @ 9:31:

I freakin' love Mel Brooks...the guys got a set of giblets to go with his sense of humor!

Have you ever heard of the book "Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot" by John Callahan?

He's the cartoonist who got in so much hot water with the disability rights crowd for drawing a cartoon of two horseback riding deputies looking at a tipped over wheelchair on a dusty trail. The caption of the cartoon is the title of his book. All the “differently-abled” rights lock-steppers started writing him hate mail and boycotting the publications he appeared in.

Until…..

They found out he is a quadriplegic.

Reminds me of Mel Brooks.

Jess said: "Give me choice or give me death."

Does the unborn child get the same options?

Does the unborn child get the same options?

Goosebumps...

John
I always knew you had a split personality!!

Jim Caviezel - the combination of faith and good looks is soooo sexy!! Eduardo Verastegui ain't so bad either...

God did such a GOOD job....

"Rush Limbaugh is a Catholic Pennsylvanian in his late twenties?? Holy Quarter Pounder with Cheese!"

Oh you're my age, John! I was wondering how old you were... are you a cradle Catholic?

I can't believe how many yung'uns are on this site!! (And how many are PL...that's encouraging!)

So his Dad is goofy, and Gibson said something stupid about Jews when he was drunk. That makes him an indoctrinated Catholic? Please.

No, Janet, not those alone, but Mel's stance on his dad's beliefs and on other things make it clear.

James Caviezel was in 'Angel Eyes' with J. Lo.

He can play a mean bad guy....

"Do the unborn get the same choice?"

There is no choice, no caring, no conception of any such thing on the part of the unborn.

If there was, it'd be a much different deal.

This comes down to the desire of the pregnant woman against the desires of certain other people.

Had any of us posting on message boards had parents who'd decided to end the pregnancy that resulted in us being here, then there never would have been an "us" with any awareness in the first place.

That there is no conscious choice for the unborn makes a huge difference for many people.

Doug,
stop splitting hairs and criticizing people you don't really know, and faiths you don't really understand.
All people are indoctrinated in SOME belief system when they are young, even atheistic secularism or materialism, which is also a religion.
However, most people begin to question their beliefs as they develop into adulthood and then either decide to make them really their own or shed them.
Who knows what Mel Gibson's life has really been like? He's had a number of addiction problems and but for the grace of God therego any one of us.

That there is no conscious choice for the unborn makes a huge difference for many people.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 12:34 PM

How in God's name can you make such a stupid statement? How do actually KNOW this? When does consciousness begin? Does anyone REALLY KNOW at this point?

Patricia, that the truth sounds "stupid" to you isn't the fault of anybody else.

It is not the exact "point" of consciousness that is at issue here. Granted that we could argue about it, and there is range of time in gestation when it normally becomes present, but the fact remains that the unborn, early enough in gestation, have no such consciousness.

The majority of people in the US would not, for example, ban abortion during the first trimester.

Within that group, alone, there are vast numbers of people to whom it makes a difference that the unborn are not sentient, not conscious, not "awake," etc.

@Doug and Jess,

it just keeps blowing my mind that you cannot fathom injustice to anyone beyond your tight confines of sentience, as if sentience = electrical impulses carried along an intact nervous system. It is as if we were to accept sentience as some sort of line-drawn. What about really stupid, uncaring people? What about you?

However, most people begin to question their beliefs as they develop into adulthood and then either decide to make them really their own or shed them. Who knows what Mel Gibson's life has really been like? He's had a number of addiction problems and but for the grace of God therego any one of us.

While I do think there are some criticisms of him that make sense, I was only noting what I believe to be the case about the formation of his beliefs.

A lot of it came straight from his dad, pounded in since an early age. Mel himself makes no bones about it.

John, sentience is what makes for it being "anyone." A living organism is one thing, but without personality, awareness, etc., without there being "somebody home" then it's a different deal.

It's not a "tight confine," it's something that matters to a great many people.

"Life without freedom is nothing"
-----------------------------------

So...all those people living in CHINA and other countries w/o freedom are NOTHING?

Without LIFE, then you really have nothing..with Life, you at least have Hope...

"...but the fact remains that the unborn, early enough in gestation, have no such consciousness."

You do not know this for a fact. I would say that no one really knows when conscienceness begins or even what it entails in the unborn. Therefore, to make this a reason why abortion is morally valid is ridiculous. It is merely convenient for those who wish to rid themselves of what they perceive as a consequence of abortion.
It's the same as arguing for euthanizing people who are said to be in a PVS condition. What does this even mean? There is no agreement on this condition within the medical community.

That's fine about Mel, but he is not IMO an "indoctrinated" Catholic. He has chosen for himself his own path (which no doubt you don't like). As an alcoholic, he no doubt has many issues, but you don't have any idea what has led him to have the beliefs he has, anymore than I do. Show some charity and stop bashing Catholics.
BTW, some might call you an indoctrinated atheistic materialist.

The pro-life group Fidelis is upset by the video. See http://www.lifenews.com/nat3889.html where Jill is also quoted.

Hooves: 12:03: I freakin' love Mel Brooks...the guys got a set of giblets to go with his sense of humor!

Have you ever heard of the book "Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot" by John Callahan?

He's the cartoonist who got in so much hot water with the disability rights crowd for drawing a cartoon of two horseback riding deputies looking at a tipped over wheelchair on a dusty trail. The caption of the cartoon is the title of his book. All the “differently-abled” rights lock-steppers started writing him hate mail and boycotting the publications he appeared in.

Until…..

They found out he is a quadriplegic.

Reminds me of Mel Brooks.

That is funny! I'll have to look for that book!

You do not know this for a fact. I would say that no one really knows when conscienceness begins or even what it entails in the unborn.

Patricia, late enough in gestation and almost all fetuses have the awareness we're talking about. The brainwaves, etc., are there and easily detectable. And again - this is not defining exactly when a given fetus becomes conscious, this is just saying that early enough in gestation then no consciousness is present.
......

Therefore, to make this a reason why abortion is morally valid is ridiculous.

It makes a difference to me, and to many people. You have things that are valid, the most important to you, etc., and for other people they aren't always going to be the same.
......

It is merely convenient for those who wish to rid themselves of what they perceive as a consequence of abortion.

You lost me there.
.....

It's the same as arguing for euthanizing people who are said to be in a PVS condition.

Nope. The PVS patients are not inside the body of a person, so it's a much different deal. As far as PVS, there may be a living body there, but if the consciousness is gone, then the person that once was is no longer there, they are gone, IMO.
......

What does this even mean? There is no agreement on this condition within the medical community.

Maybe, but I think the "not conscious" as opposed to "minimally conscious," etc., is well-accepted.

Patricia: That's fine about Mel, but he is not IMO an "indoctrinated" Catholic.

Okay, so you and I disagree on whether he was indoctrinated.
.....

He has chosen for himself his own path (which no doubt you don't like).

No. He's welcome to it. But do I want public policy to be made on his positions on things? Heck no.

Doug

John, sentience is what makes for it being "anyone." A living organism is one thing, but without personality, awareness, etc., without there being "somebody home" then it's a different deal.

It's not a "tight confine," it's something that matters to a great
many people.

What's this deal and tight confine all about?

My point Doug is that you like many of your liberal proabort peers figure that if a person is a practicing Catholic who truly believes in their faith then they must somehow be "indoctrinated". Because, well you know, the CAtholic position on everything moral is just so UNREASONABLE, that no intelligent, thinking person would ever consider Catholicism as a viable religion. Stop doing this - it makes you look intolerant and a bigot. Of course, you'll never be called this because intolerance only goes one way in our culture today - and that favours the proabort liberal mindset which you have. The bigots of course are those who believe abortion and homosexual lifestyles are immoral.

As for abortion you have all kinds of reasons why abortion is moral at some dates and not at others - viability, consciousness, physical perfection, and on and on the list goes. When will you make up your mind? The truth is none of these criteria can actually be pinned down - they are changing all the time. To base your moral code and your virtue on something this fluid is irrational. You are like chaf in the wind.

"It is merely convenient for those who wish to rid themselves of what they perceive as a consequence of abortion."

- the last word should have been sex instead of abortion. Of course in your mind, there are no consequences to sex because there's abortion!! I'm sure you couldn't finish the sentence if it had a blank space in it - it's not a part of your mindset.

So Doug,

Since you know I love pegging you with yes or no questions:

If medical science someday proves that human beings are sentient and conscience from the moment of conception would you then be against abortion?

Yes or No?

"A living organism is one thing, but without personality, awareness, etc., without there being "somebody home" then it's a different deal."

In fact the unborn do exhibit personality traits very young in the womb as many mothers can attest to. How do we know when there's anybody home? At this point in medical science we don't.

I read about 4 mons ago about a researcher who claims that IVF children appear to have some kind of relationship with their frozen brother/sister- embryo's. While this sounds very bizarre on the surface it may not be so. We know so little about what we are manipulating. So there may be a consciousness that we are not aware of or do not even understand but once had and cannot remember.
It sounds flaky but you just never know....

When you watch that sketch there is absolutely no question as to what an abortion is. There is no grey area, no blurring of lines. It's a full on ambush of a woman by a hitman hired by a bum.

And women who choose abortion for themselves... don't exist?

I mean honestly, imagine someone who favors abortion watching that sketch. It makes THEM look like vermain. It makes me, a pro-lifer, feel good because I would never do that in the name of "choice" and "freedom."

LOL. Yeah, that would make sense, if not for the fact that pro-choicers don't force anyone to abort, either, due to our belief in choice and freedom.

If little hands, arms, feet, toes and faces don't sway Doug, I don't think anything will.

Good point Carla....I just want to see how far he will go to stick to his sentience argument.

LOL. Yeah, that would make sense, if not for the fact that pro-choicers don't force anyone to abort, either, due to our belief in choice and freedom.

Hmmmm....well, that would certainly explain your propensity for vilifying any woman who has the unmitigated gall to admit out loud that she regrets her "choice" to have an abortion....

I am 35 weeks pregnant. This baby has it's own personality which is VERY different from it's older sister. This child is territorial, where as Abigail didn't care if we poked at her. This one doesn't care about music as much as Abigail did. Abigail was much more sensitive to noises than this baby has been, and she is still very sensitive to sounds. We joke she would have made a great spotter in WWII, she alerts us to any and all things flying overhead, whether we are inside or out. There are many other differences, I look forward to comparing their extra-uterine life as well.So much of Abigail's personality has carried over from before she was even born.

I've noticed a difference in the two since this one was about 16 weeks, I felt quickening at 14. That doesn't mean it wasn't there before that, just that I wasn't able to notice it, although they did behave very differently in their 10 week sonograms. As a midwife in training I'd see babies as young as 10-12 weeks "swimming" away from the doppler, you'd have to chase them all over the womb to get a good heart rate.

How can anyone say, well, I don't know if it really is aware, so I'll kill it before I can find out, I'll just hope it isn't so I can sleep better at night.

That could be said for pro-choice in general, Carla.

Heck, even watching the "blueberry" on the ultrasound still didn't stop someone we know from going through with it.

She just didn't want to be pregnant.

*sad sigh*

God love you and your babies, Elizabeth G.

Had any of us posting on message boards had parents who'd decided to end the pregnancy that resulted in us being here, then there never would have been an "us" with any awareness in the first place.
-------

While I have clear memories going back to when I was around 2 or so, my husband vividly remembers seeing an eclipse that occured when he was about 16 months old, recounting it all in detail.

However, my little sister Caroline claims to have no memories before 5 years old, none at all, no feelings, no vauge thoughts, no "awareness" of her early childhood. So, when she was a three years old could we have put her in a trashbag and thrown her in the dumpster?

New reader and first time commenter, here. I appreciate your blog, Mrs. Stanek. Thank you for your work.

I have not yet read the Fidelis link that Steve Ertelt posted.

I'm not convinced the video is satire and that its creators are trying to reach an audience with the truth in a manner they see as unconventional but potentially effective.

Can God use whatever tool He chooses to open someone's eyes to the truth? No doubt He can (and does!), and perhaps this video will indeed help someone out there understand how profoundly horrific abortion is, no matter what the producers' intent.

However, I just don't believe anyone who truly understands the gravity of child killing could make a vignette like this. Yes, I know satire is irreverent, but this... this is not right. It's sick and heartbreaking.

Hey Elizabeth G:
My daughter who is musically gifted would have heard me playing piano alot during that pregnancy. I often think that her ear was trained while in utero!!

I thought this was interesting...

How can we find how a majority of the population feels about this?

January 2006 CBS Poll (data extrapolated over 100% off of Wikipedia's data display): Abortion should be...

05% : Never legal
18% : Not legal OR Only to save mother's life
51% : Not legal OR only to save mother's life OR limit it to rape and incest cases
66% : Needs more restrictions than current law

That means...

A. That tells me that half of this country would like to limit abortion to only 2% of its current state.

B. 2 out of every 3 Americans think Roe v. Wade is bad law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Abortion_in_the_United_States#
cite_ref-pollingreport_11-1

Hi Ruthanne! Welcome. Nice to have you here.

What's this deal and tight confine all about?

Janet, John M. said, to Jess and I, you cannot fathom injustice to anyone beyond your tight confines of sentience.

My point is that the "anyone" often involves being sentient in the first place.

A lot less pregnancies would be wanted if they were not going to result in a sentient child. Likewise, if I was to go into a permanent vegetative state, I don't want my body to be kept alive. What would be the point of that? I do see a big difference from there being "somebody home" (or "anyone) and the absence of it.

I know it makes no difference to some people, too.

"Life without freedom is nothing"
-----------------------------------

RSD: So...all those people living in CHINA and other countries w/o freedom are NOTHING?

Without LIFE, then you really have nothing..with Life, you at least have Hope...

RSD, aside from the question of just what the "you" really is, I certainly agree - it could be said that freedom without life is nothing, but the reverse isn't true, or at least not necessarily true.

You play piano, Patrica? That's interesting, because I've been working on some piano pieces by Philip Glass, and there's this part during one of them that always makes me think of you. Strange, I know, but I think it's because I practiced that part a bunch after I had just had a convo with you on this blog. There are also parts that make me think of Hal, Doug, and Dan too. What can I say, I'm a weird guy...

Thank you for the kind welcome, Bobby. : )

Elizabeth I have 4 children and my eldest girl has a memory of when she was 6 mons- 8 mons old.
How do we know? She remembers wearing a purple sleeper with white dots. I remember the sleeper and it was an 8 or 10month sleeper which was very unusual in that it was a very strong purple. She loved purple when she was very small. My girl who is now 15 says that this colour strongly attracted her. She would not have worn this garment after about 11 mons - she would have been too big.
I myself have a memory of being in my crib - but I don't know how old I was except that I was very small and my brother was a baby crying. This means I was likely a little over a year old.
Pretty darn interesting eh?

I don't play myself, but always have classical music playing in the background. When Abigial was only a few months old (postpartum) certain music would soothe her whereas other music would make her cry. She really hated a lot of syncopation or a chaotic melody and would cry until we turned it off.

"A lot less pregnancies would be wanted if they were not going to result in a sentient child."

HOW would you KNOW this?

Yes Bobby I play piano and sometimes in a rare moment - violin (when I want to teach myself humility).
We just bought tons of music from an annual booksale near us. I believe we picked up some Philip Glass. I will go look.
My daughter plays both instruments very well.

Yep, and that's just looking at it from a secular view point, you throw in the fact that the child has a soul and that God will judge between the quick and the dead and that it would be better to have a milstone tied around your neck and thrown into the sea than to harm one of his little ones and it gets very interesting indeed.

Were I to die tonight, secularly speaking, it would be the same as if I had been aborted prebirth, I would have no awareness of being dead. (So I don't really understand the logic of murder of an adult with awareness predeath being different from abortion in this case as either way after death there would be no awareness.)

However the Truth tells us a very different scenario would play out, with my soul being very aware, just as the souls of the babies that God knit in the womb but died an untimely death.

Patricia,

Most Catholics don't have a dad like Mel Gibson does. Also, I've heard him speak of his beliefs and where they came from. IMO "indoctrinated" does fit.
......

As for abortion you have all kinds of reasons why abortion is moral at some dates and not at others - viability, consciousness, physical perfection, and on and on the list goes. When will you make up your mind? The truth is none of these criteria can actually be pinned down - they are changing all the time. To base your moral code and your virtue on something this fluid is irrational. You are like chaf in the wind.

No, you're just pretending what my position is. To viability I'm for letting the woman decide. Doesn't matter what her reason is. Nothing "fluid" there.
.....

"It is merely convenient for those who wish to rid themselves of what they perceive as a consequence of sex."

Of course in your mind, there are no consequences to sex because there's abortion!

That's just silly. Sometimes the consequences can be a pregnancy - no debate about it. That's not saying the pregnancy has to be continued, of course, but that it resulted from sex is totally accepted, believe me.
.....

I'm sure you couldn't finish the sentence if it had a blank space in it - it's not a part of your mindset.

Oh please. It didn't make sense as you stated it, that's all.

If medical science someday proves that human beings are sentient and conscience from the moment of conception would you then be against abortion?

Yes or No?

Hooves, great question. Yeah, I would.

I was going to say there's not a straight "yes or no" answer, because there is also the woman to be considered. As things are now, after viability the woman is still there, but I see the formation of a thinking, feeling person, just as the woman is.

You realize it's fairly-well farfetched, i.e. the fertilized egg, the zygote, the blastocyst, etc., being conscious, right?

Still, yeah - I'd think of it as a "thinking, feeling person" then, and be against abortion, over the wishes of the woman.

To viability I'm for letting the woman decide. Doesn't matter what her reason is. Nothing "fluid" there.

This statement is illogical in itself. By the fact of letting a woman decide, the criteria therefore MUST be fluid - every woman will have her own criteria!
REthink, please.

Your position on Catholicism is bigoted and intolerant. Period.

So Doug,
Abortion is NEVER immoral - never wrong in your opinion? It's all dependent upon the "fluid" criteria of what the woman thinks and wants?

You believe in tyranny if this is what you support.

In fact the unborn do exhibit personality traits very young in the womb as many mothers can attest to. How do we know when there's anybody home? At this point in medical science we don't.

Patricia, agreed that one fetus will be different from another, activity level, etc., but that isn't necessarily due to consciousness.

Brainwaves that we associate with consciousness have been easily detectable with medical technology for decades. If they're not there, they're not there.
.....

I read about 4 mons ago about a researcher who claims that IVF children appear to have some kind of relationship with their frozen brother/sister- embryo's. While this sounds very bizarre on the surface it may not be so. We know so little about what we are manipulating. So there may be a consciousness that we are not aware of or do not even understand but once had and cannot remember. It sounds flaky but you just never know....

Far out.... What was noted to make the researcher think there was a "relationship"?

I realize we don't know everything, but I wouldn't take away the legal freedom that women now have on the basis of a "maybe."

"A lot less pregnancies would be wanted if they were not going to result in a sentient child."
------

That depends on by whom you are speaking. Every baby is a wanted baby, just not all by their biological parents. There are people out there who only adopt Downs kids, there are children who are adopted and loved that have no arms or legs, I would be very willing to adopt a child with a condition incompatible with life, just to have it be loved and perhaps held warmly and hear a soothing voice before it died.

I assure you every baby, EVERY baby is wanted by someone.

Elizabeth,
some music IS more calming that's for sure.
Try some of Debussy, Liszt or Mozart.

I realize we don't know everything, but I wouldn't take away the legal freedom that women now have on the basis of a "maybe."
------

But yet, you allow for taking life away on the basis of a "maybe"

If little hands, arms, feet, toes and faces don't sway Doug, I don't think anything will.

Carla, that too is a good question. It does make a difference to me, and I do feel sad when seeing an aborted fetus. More sad than with an embryo, and it'd be still less for a blastocyst, and a zygote. I think earlier abortions are better than later ones.

Still, if on the part of the unborn there wasn't "somebody" there as far as awareness, if there wasn't anything there that suffered, then I still favor letting the woman have an abortion if she wants to.

"Patricia, agreed that one fetus will be different from another, activity level, etc., but that isn't necessarily due to consciousness."

Only a man could make a statement like this. I'm sorry Doug, but it shows a profound lack of understanding about fetal life and you must think women are very stupid. I don't think there is one pregnant woman who would believe for a minute that every movement her unborn baby makes is reflex.

BTW, this researcher was approached by a couple who mentioned to him that there daughter had been having dreams since the age of 4 about her "other brothers and sisters". She had a twin and she wanted to know what her parents were going to do with the other 8 brothers and sisters who were in a cold dark cave and were freezing. The parents had never told their daughter that she was conceived via IVF - they in fact had 8 embryos on ice.

that would certainly explain your propensity for vilifying any woman who has the unmitigated gall to admit out loud that she regrets her "choice" to have an abortion.

Hooves, do you really see Reality do that, though?

In general I don't see Pro-Choicers "vilifying" women who regret having abortions. No question about it - some will regret it.

I think it's silly to act like all women have to feel a certain way, and that just because person A regrets something, that it'll have to be bad for person B, but that's not the same at all.

However, my little sister Caroline claims to have no memories before 5 years old, none at all, no feelings, no vauge thoughts, no "awareness" of her early childhood. So, when she was a three years old could we have put her in a trashbag and thrown her in the dumpster?

Elizabeth, no - there's no doubt she was aware at three, is there? Of course not.

Moreover, there's nothing like the desire of a pregnant woman to end the pregnancy involved - your sister was not inside the body of a person at that point.

Bobby, I am indeed a cradle Catholic. My faith waned in my late teens/early twenties, but never became weak enough for me to abandon it. Then after the years of questioning, all of my questions were answered, so my faith is stronger than it ever was before. This probably explains why I like to rhetorically kick pro-abortion ex-Catholics in the mouth.

Doug's position in a nutshell: Let us err on the side of death.

Alex, 10:39a, asked: "What are the 'trusted conservative sources' referring to Chris Rock?"

Dorinda Bordlee on NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bordlee200502160740.asp

Ann Coulter on Fox News

Alex, it makes a huge difference how the poll is conducted. ABC News poll, January of this year:

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

57% of people thought it should be legal in all cases (21%) or in most cases (36%).

This is a normal response - same question was asked 21 times going back to June 1996, and it was from 49% to 59% every time.

@Doug,

you missed it again ... the word to center on is injustice not 'sentience'. It is as if a person can only do injustice to a sentient being. Is it OK to kill another human, non-sentient being? Why do you think there is no injustice here ... if that is the way you think?

Jess talks about injustice done to the woman ... she doesn't even acknowledge the presence of another developing human being. Does not injustice occur to non-sentieent beings?

It is so strange that you think some kind of electricity means sentience ... it's a guess Doug because even the most brilliant scientist cannot tell you how electric signals are perceived as thought. We can only measure electricity... period! To assume only electric impulses denote 'thinking/consciousness' is arrogant.

"In general I don't see Pro-Choicers "vilifying" women who regret having abortions. No question about it - some will regret it.

I think it's silly to act like all women have to feel a certain way, and that just because person A regrets something, that it'll have to be bad for person B, but that's not the same at all."

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:06 PM

You don't think so? In fact, the proaborts insist that women and men who regret their abortions were those who should not have had them in the first place but only because they were mentally/emotionally unstable. It is they who insist that all women respond the same way after abortions and that very few women regret abortion. The increasing numbers of women showing up at marches and demonstrations, and at medical conferences and within the popular media show this not to be the case. Likely these represent only a fraction of those who feel this way.
The proaborts are very worried about the impact these people are having on the abortion debate - esp. the men. Because they show abortion for what it is - death in every way possible. Physical, emotional and spiritual.

Hooves, do you really see Reality do that, though?

I have seen it from reality, Laura, Edyt, Amanda, Sally.....et all, ad nauseum. Face it Doug, you are one of the few civilized (if not enigmatic) PA's on this board.

And thank you for your straightforward answer. I know how hard it is for you to stick to yes or no....

Ruthanne: Hi there and welcome!!

"A lot less pregnancies would be wanted if they were not going to result in a sentient child."

Patricia: HOW would you KNOW this?

I think this one is self-evident. Do you even seriously disagree?

If parents find out that the unborn baby will not develop awareness, never have emotions or be able to communicate, etc., I submit that many would choose to end the pregnancy rather than have it continue.

Somebody here said that 90% of Down Syndrome pregnancies were being aborted (in the US, I think). Is it not logical to think that pregnancies where there would be no awareness at all wouldn't have at least as high a rate of being ended? Thus, the "lot less would be wanted" would be obviously true.

I also know that some people would continue it, as have testified several people right on this site.

"To viability I'm for letting the woman decide. Doesn't matter what her reason is. Nothing "fluid" there."

This statement is illogical in itself. By the fact of letting a woman decide, the criteria therefore MUST be fluid - every woman will have her own criteria! REthink, please.

I think you're just dancing around. Sure, there are any number of reasons that may be her motivation. It still boils down to what she wants, on balance, and I say let her decide.
......

Your position on Catholicism is bigoted and intolerant. Period.

Baloney. You just want to rant and rave.

It depends on how you define awareness, I have no doubt that young babies in the womb are aware, so either we're using different definitions, it's a matter of belief, or I suppose one or both of us being dishonest would also explain the difference.

Caroline may not have been inside someone else, but she was inside their home and fully dependent upon my parents, perhaps they had a desire to end the dependency. I suppose they could have dropped her off somewhere to fend for herself, so they wouldn't be directly killing her, just getting rid of the "dependency". Evidently she wouldn't have remembered it later if she survived and by your thinking (correct me if I'm wrong), she certianly wouldn't remember if she was dead.

So what's the difference in killing someone who is aware, as opposed to someone who is not? If you do not believe in a God who will hold us accountable, or a soul, then either way the dead are no longer aware. They are not here to know they are not here. The only awareness is in those that are still alive and miss the dead. A person can miss an unborn dead just as much as they can miss a person who died after birth. So what difference does awareness make?

"I realize we don't know everything, but I wouldn't take away the legal freedom that women now have on the basis of a "maybe."

Elizabeth: But yet, you allow for taking life away on the basis of a "maybe"

No, I allow for it on the basis of what the woman wants. If on balance she wants to end the pregnancy, it's not a "maybe."

Abortion is NEVER immoral - never wrong in your opinion?

Oh brother... Patricia, of course I do, as with cases where the woman is forced to have one against her will.

And after viability I do say that the restrictions we have on abortion are okay with me - at that point I think that sentience, etc., is there for most fetuses. There is also the option of inducing delivery, so it's somewhat of a different question, but even aside from that it's not true at all that I say "abortion is never immoral."

My goodness John L, that is JUST like me! I never left the faith as well, but was fairly lack-luster about it. Then I began studying it like crazy, and I haven't stopped since. Did you also attend a parochial school where you were served a healthy dose of Haugen, Hass, and other contemporary Catholic guitar music? "Gather Us In" will forever be imbedded in my head...

John L Doug's position in a nutshell: Let us err on the side of death.

No, my position is let us not put the unfeeling unborn above the thinking, feeling woman just because of the desires of po-lifers.

Patricia 3:22
Thank you! I think that the lack of compassion for those that regret their abortions or part in abortion is very telling. They insist that I was a whack job before I ever had an abortion! We are talking millions of people impacted by abortion, all mentally ill, right?!

I have to ask again...
What GOOD has abortion done for women?
How has it HELPED women?

I have to ask again...
What GOOD has abortion done for women?
How has it HELPED women?

I'd love to hear Doug's answer on this one.

How 'bout it Doug?

Doug,

"I think you're just dancing around. Sure, there are any number of reasons that may be her motivation. It still boils down to what she wants, on balance, and I say let her decide."

Decide by what criteria? Her own? Somebody elses? We already have that - for one couple it's Down's syndrome that prompts them to abort, for another it's cleft palate, for another it's that the baby is a girl.
You advocate tyranny against a whole class of people - unborn babies under guise of women's rights. I really doubt you care a whit about women and their rights.

"Your position on Catholicism is bigoted and intolerant. Period.

Baloney. You just want to rant and rave."

I call it as I see it Doug based on your posts. Sorry. You never denied my statements about how you view the Catholic church and indoctrination.

"I realize we don't know everything, but I wouldn't take away the legal freedom that women now have on the basis of a "maybe."

Elizabeth: But yet, you allow for taking life away on the basis of a "maybe"

No, I allow for it on the basis of what the woman wants. If on balance she wants to end the pregnancy, it's not a "maybe."
-----

Okay, you allow for the taking of life on the basis of personal prefence.

However, the maybe in the first quote, as I understood it, was talking about whether or not the baby is aware. The mother's prefernce doesn't change whether or not the baby is aware. You stated that if the child is aware that it should have an impact on whether or not it has a right to live.

Doug: Still, yeah - I'd think of it as a "thinking, feeling person" then, and be against abortion, over the wishes of the woman.

So I'm saying maybe it is aware, then you are willing to put the whims of a mother over the life of her child for a maybe. You are erring on the side that says the child is unaware, as opposed to erring on the side of caution about taking a "sentient's" life.

Pro-lifers put the baby above the mother? I thought we put the baby's LIFE above the mother's nine months of inconvenience. But Doug, if you know my position better than I do, please, do tell.

"Oh brother... Patricia, of course I do, as with cases where the woman is forced to have one against her will."

Well that's probably at least 30% of all abortions according to recent studies Doug.

Pretty limited morality, I think. Or looking at it another way, a lot of lack of virtue.

"Patricia, agreed that one fetus will be different from another, activity level, etc., but that isn't necessarily due to consciousness."

Only a man could make a statement like this. I'm sorry Doug, but it shows a profound lack of understanding about fetal life and you must think women are very stupid.

No, no, no. No.
......

I don't think there is one pregnant woman who would believe for a minute that every movement her unborn baby makes is reflex.

So what? I said no such thing. I do not believe that you are unable to know the difference btween what I said and that.
......

BTW, this researcher was approached by a couple who mentioned to him that there daughter had been having dreams since the age of 4 about her "other brothers and sisters". She had a twin and she wanted to know what her parents were going to do with the other 8 brothers and sisters who were in a cold dark cave and were freezing. The parents had never told their daughter that she was conceived via IVF - they in fact had 8 embryos on ice.

Do you have a link? Sounds made-up to me.

If true, then I'm also not saying there is no such thing as psychic ability.

John M: you missed it again ... the word to center on is injustice not 'sentience'. It is as if a person can only do injustice to a sentient being. Is it OK to kill another human, non-sentient being? Why do you think there is no injustice here ... if that is the way you think?

No, John, Janet asked and I answered.

Is it okay to kill another human, non-sentient being? Yes, IMO, if that being is inside the body of a person who does not want it there.

I think there is no injustice there because that being does not suffer, while if we deny the woman an abortion, she may certainly suffer.
......

Jess talks about injustice done to the woman ... she doesn't even acknowledge the presence of another developing human being. Does not injustice occur to non-sentieent beings?

It's a good question. Jess may feel that it's a greater injustice to the woman to deny her the abortion. That's my feeling, anyway.
.....

It is so strange that you think some kind of electricity means sentience ... it's a guess Doug because even the most brilliant scientist cannot tell you how electric signals are perceived as thought. We can only measure electricity... period! To assume only electric impulses denote 'thinking/consciousness' is arrogant.

Now hang on here, Hoss. We know of brainwaves and the different states of consciousness they are related to. It's not just "measuring electricity."

Interesting,
Doug knows that his parent's didn't influence him into being a adult personhooded(read aware) agnostic(see all knowing God of murder) who knows absolutely that no one has a good argument against his dogma for abortion.
Well, give it to Dogma Doug, a defender of the rabid anti-Catholic, Sad Eyed Sally, to always mention a Catholic when discussing AbortionMan.
And here comes my prophesy of Doug answering my post.
No, and No.
No he wasn't a unpaided apologist for the anti-Catholic writings of Sad Eyed Sally,but he did of course, and we find him again thinking about Catholics that are Dogma Doug's "typical version" of Catholics, in his dogmatic closed mind.
And of course, Dogma Doug will now mention how he knows good Catholics, as all good bigots must.
Did JJ teach anti-Catholicism propaganda to Dogma Doug, while living in Canada, or did Dogma Doug instruct old hippies in anti-Catholic propaganda?
Ain't it a hoot Dogma Doug being a product of your parent's bigotry and always finding allies in bigotry all over the North American Continent? Hey, bigots? Parents?
You got something in common with Gibson, Dogma Doug, except when a Catholic does it, its a subject to pick at, and until your bigoted mind begins to think that your bigotry is just a reflection of Gibson, your dogmatic mind will continue to progess towards its goal. And that goal is kissing the feet of a Texasredneck and praising a gang of Taylors and skaters from sites unknown.
Get it yet, Dogma Doug?

Doug:

"Is it okay to kill another human, non-sentient being? Yes, IMO, if that being is inside the body of a person who does not want it there.

I think there is no injustice there because that being does not suffer, while if we deny the woman an abortion, she may certainly suffer."

I think you would have a difficult time convincing many highly regarded researchers of your last statement. While there is considerable discussion over just what the unborn child feels, it's quite evident their responses are much more than just reflex - as would be expected since they are human persons.

But under your criteria, whether the baby suffers or not, you would still favour abortion because you consider that the woman has the final say. So what you write regarding pain is in fact, irrelevant. According to you Doug, the unborn child is really just a mass of cells, which neonatology has shown it is not!

@Elizabeth G: I see that you're a midwife, I was wondering what sort of training you needed for that job and what kind of licensing is needed to become certified? A friend of mine is looking into going into midwifery or becoming a doula. Do you know of any credible sources I can send her? The help would be vunderbar.

By the way, it's nice to make your acquaintance.

@Patricia: I agree with Doug on Mel Gibson. And yes, I know the Catholic Church =/= indoctrination, but in his case, with what his dad blathers on about and believes, I do think Mr. Gibson was probably indoctrinated to an extent, however, I'm sure now that he's older he may have some of his own views that may have tempered his father's but...

Alex, 10:39a, asked: "What are the 'trusted conservative sources' referring to Chris Rock?"

Dorinda Bordlee on NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bordlee200502160740.asp

Ann Coulter on Fox News [no link]

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 24, 2008 3:14 PM

ROFL!!

Jill, how the heck to you get from this (from the Bordlee article):

It's time for all of us in the pro-life movement to learn to appreciate the power of political satire. Comedian Chris Rock, slated to host the Oscars this month, is being accused of promoting abortion.

[quote from CR's routine]

Whether Rock is pro-life or pro-choice, whether he intended to use satire or really believes what he said, is beside the point. What's "beautiful" is that Chris Rock has exposed a profound side effect of legalized abortion — the sexual mistreatment of women.

To this (from your post):

It turned out Rock was using satire to speak against abortion, according to trusted conservative sources.

Bordlee has no idea whether he intended it as satire, and doesn't care. Do you deliberately put blinders on whenever you read something so that you can just make stuff up? Your statement about Chris Rock's intention is a delusional invention.

According to you Doug, the unborn child is really just a mass of cells, which neonatology has shown it is not!

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 4:20 PM

At certain stages, it most certainly is a mass of cells. At other stages, it isn't.

It concerns how quickly some people on this site dismiss the need for personal freedom. Not just concerning abortion. God gave us choice. Let's make some.

Hier,
but very quickly those cells become differentiated and organized...
IN fact within the first 3 weeks of life, the beginnings of organs

continuing my 4:52pm post (I accidentally hit the post button urghhh):
are established, especially certain key organs such as the heart.

Heart beat at 22 days....

Although the blastocyst or embryo is made up of cells, it is by no means simply a "clump" of cells, at least if by a clump, you mean a collection or gathering of cells that are not interrelated or work together for a purpose. On the contrary, at the moment of conception, the product of conception is a complete whole, an integrated being. In a certain sense, we are all just "clumps of cells." Yet we are not a random collection of cells, like a bag full of bottles is just a clump of bottles. No, we are an integrated whole because every cell in our body works together for a common purpose. This is true as well of the embryo. Given the proper environment and nutrition, it will grow and develop just like we do. The developmental process is a continuum. So if the claim is that at one point it is simply a clump of cells, the question is; at what point does it cease being simply a clump of cells and begins to be an integrated whole? When it "looks" more human? That isn't terribly scientific. Science tells us that we were all once embryos. That we were all once a "clump of cells" should give us pause.

Jess,
It depends upon what you mean by "freedom".
Your freedom to abort certainly negatively impacts the unborn baby's freedom to enjoy a long life on this Earth and the freedom to develop it's talents someday....
Freedom can be a very relative term. Your freedom is another's death sentence.

In a certain sense, we are all just "clumps of cells."

...a VERY good point...

Of course if you are a STTNG fan, we are all just "ugly bags of mostly water" too.

Maybe Jill has a video of a growing baby in the womb? Seems like our class could use a little refresher!!

I like the visembryo site Carla.

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

When I was pregnant with #2, I used it to show #1 what was going on inside mommy.

@Hooves: And bacteria are nothing more than bags of enzymes! :-p

@Hiero: Aaaaaah! I love the Visible Embryo Website! It's so cool!

Wow, that IS cool, Hiero!

yllas, we all get that you rant, rave, and gibber with your own fantasies.

Tell you what, though - if others are willing I'd certainly support you being named the primary spokesperson for right-to-lifers. That would ensure that women wouldn't have to worry about losing any rights.

Caroline may not have been inside someone else, but she was inside their home and fully dependent upon my parents, perhaps they had a desire to end the dependency. I suppose they could have dropped her off somewhere to fend for herself, so they wouldn't be directly killing her, just getting rid of the "dependency". Evidently she wouldn't have remembered it later if she survived and by your thinking (correct me if I'm wrong), she certianly wouldn't remember if she was dead.

Elizabeth, good posts. A three year old like that is a thinking, feeling person - you don't see people arguing that, do you? What sentiment do you see for parents being able to end the dependency by "dropping her off somewhere"? The differences between the unborn and the three year old account for the wide divide between that case and the abortion debate.
......

So what's the difference in killing someone who is aware, as opposed to someone who is not? If you do not believe in a God who will hold us accountable, or a soul, then either way the dead are no longer aware. They are not here to know they are not here. The only awareness is in those that are still alive and miss the dead. A person can miss an unborn dead just as much as they can miss a person who died after birth. So what difference does awareness make?

If there is no awareness, then I do not see that "someone" is actually there. May be a body, may be a living organism, but, and this is my opinion, if awareness is gone then the person they were is gone too. If I end up in a permanent vegetative state, I don't now want to be kept alive that way. What would be the point? We are "human beings," physically, as are the unborn in this debate, but that's not what makes us special on earth. There are many other singular species, but it's our brains that make us really whowe are, it's our awareness.

Agreed that a person can miss an unborn dead as much as somebody who died after birth. Heck, they could miss them more. That is a matter for the awareness of the person doing the "missing." For my part, I'd more miss women having the freedom they do than I miss every single pregnancy not being continued.

Wow, that IS cool, Hiero!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 5:43 PM

I really like it. I was so disappointed with all the pencil sketches in the "What to Expect" type books. I wanted to know what was really happening, and I was also disappointed with how the maternity books tend to dumb things down.

Doug, please answer my 3:41 post.

insist that women and men who regret their abortions were those who should not have had them in the first place but only because they were mentally/emotionally unstable. It is they who insist that all women respond the same way after abortions and that very few women regret abortion.

Patricia, seems to me you are exxagerating and misstating people's positions.

I think that if a person regrets having an abortion, on balance, then they "should not have had one in the first place," since now we have hindsight, and that goes regardless of whether they had emotional problems beforehand or not. Of course, hindsight isn't present beforehand.

Yes, it is true that a very high percentage of women with emotional problems afterward had them beforehand as well, but that is not to say that a given woman should not have an abortion - I'd have to know a lot more, know her fairly well, etc.

I also don't think you see people saying that all women respond the same way after abortions. Come on....

I do think the great majority of women that have abortions do not end up regretting them, on balance. You say, "very few women regret abortion" is the claim, but that leaves the door open for any regret, no matter how slight. I think that for almost all women there is a mixture of feelings, and that it's probably quite rare for there to truly be zero regrets at all.

""Life without freedom is nothing"

Freedom without life is even less.

What GOOD has abortion done for women? How has it HELPED women?

Carla, there are many answers. Some have come from Erin and others right on this site. I often mention Erin because she's such a good example.

A woman may be financially strapped, and not want to take on the added expense of having a child/having more children.

She may not feel she is able to care for a child/another child, or that it would interfere with her caring for others around her.

It may compromise her education, employment, etc.

She may not be in the right type of relationship, etc.

There are many others but those are some of the most frequent. And you may feel that "it doesn't have to be that way," but for many women it simply is that way.

and the award for most angry, rambling, nonsensical, completely vapid and pointless posts goes to....

...drum roll...

yllas!!!!

Honestly dude...your posts make me dizzy.

And Jill - Never once in that link does Bordlee assert that Chris Rock is pro life. And Ann Coulter is a "trusted source" regarding the opinions of Chris Rock??? Because she knows him so well or what?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"I think you're just dancing around. Sure, there are any number of reasons that may be her motivation. It still boils down to what she wants, on balance, and I say let her decide."

Patricia: Decide by what criteria? Her own? Somebody elses? We already have that - for one couple it's Down's syndrome that prompts them to abort, for another it's cleft palate, for another it's that the baby is a girl.
You advocate tyranny against a whole class of people - unborn babies under guise of women's rights. I really doubt you care a whit about women and their rights.

Yes, her own criteria, as I've said.

The unborn are not a "class of people," as you state it. You may think that, but there's certainly no agreement to it - in fact, it's that personhood and rights are not attributed to the unborn that has you upset in the first place.

I do care about women. Put yourself in the place of a girl or woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. I can see that it may be a very bad thing for her, and that it may be best to end the pregnancy.

"Oh brother... Patricia, of course I do, as with cases where the woman is forced to have one against her will."

Well that's probably at least 30% of all abortions according to recent studies Doug. Pretty limited morality, I think.

Why in the world do you think that would be "pretty limited morality"? If there is coercion involved, then Pro-Choicers are not going to be for it. Not a hard concept.

Rae -

A midwifery license requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in nursing, passing of the NCLEX licensure exam, followed by a post grad concentration in midwifery. It can be done as a certificate, or as a masters degree depending on whether or not she wants to become a Nurse Practitioner in addition to being a midwife.

She'd be an apprentice for a while - there's a certain specific number of births you have to attend before you can practice on your own, but I forget the specific number.

I agree with Doug on Mel Gibson. And yes, I know the Catholic Church =/= indoctrination, but in his case, with what his dad blathers on about and believes, I do think Mr. Gibson was probably indoctrinated to an extent, however, I'm sure now that he's older he may have some of his own views that may have tempered his father's but...

Thank you, Rae. I wasn't saying that "Catholics are bad," nor even that "Mel Gibson is bad," but yeah....

John L: Pro-lifers put the baby above the mother? I thought we put the baby's LIFE above the mother's nine months of inconvenience. But Doug, if you know my position better than I do, please, do tell.

It boils down to your desire against that of the pregnant woman. Sure, it may be what the woman wants or does not want against the life of the unborn, but what is operative here is her opinion against yours. I don't think you need one more person on earth more than she may need to end the pregnancy.

whats the difference between abortion man and a abortion clinic? not much.

Patricia: According to you Doug, the unborn child is really just a mass of cells, which neonatology has shown it is not!

Hieronymous: "At certain stages, it most certainly is a mass of cells. At other stages, it isn't."

Yes, and moreover, we are all "a mass of cells" in one way of looking at it. Patricia, you are awfully good at telling the other person how they look at things, except that you are so often wrong.

On the physical reality of the unborn, I'd think that you and I would not have many disagreements.

I don't think you need one more person on earth more than she may need to end the pregnancy.

Doug, please don't go there!, Because you'd rather have no people on earth than too many? that makes sense.... If everyone thought the way you do, we'd go extinct.

"Hieronymous: "At certain stages, it most certainly is a mass of cells. At other stages, it isn't."

Hieronymous, when you first found out you were pregnant, how did you feel? "oh, it's just a clump of cells" or "oh, there's a baby growing inside of me?"

Patricia - the regret thing is not something that can be quantified by a study.

Of all the girls I've talked to, and there have been many, the majority of them regret not being more careful and getting pregnant, which led to an abortion - not the abortion itself. So while that IS still regret, and could be twisted in to a statistic to say "women regret abortions", it isn't actually regretting abortion, but the action that led to it.

Doug,

I'm not sure what your point is. I think what you meant to say is that it matters what questions were asked - not how it is conducted. And then you went on to display facts similar to the ones I presented. I think you have a problem with the WAY I DISPLAYED the data.

I saw the responses to the question that you posted also - I chose to go with the one I did because it is less stupid (no offense). (e.g. What does 'legal in most cases' mean?) That being said, I'll play with your data for a minute:
--------------------------
YOU SAID:
57% of people thought it should be legal in all cases (21%) or in most cases (36%).

This is a normal response - same question was asked 21 times going back to June 1996, and it was from 49% to 59% every time.

I SAY:
43% of people thought it should be illegal in all cases or in most cases.

This is a normal response - same question was asked 21 times going back to June 1996, and it was from 41% to 51% every time.

I WOULD ALSO SAY:
Hey look...only 21% of people agree with the current law!
---------------------------------

Right now, abortion is legal except in the extremely rare situation addressed in Gonzalez v. Carhart. That means abortion is currently legal in all three trimesters, for any reason, including can't afford a baby, have too many kids, worry about how the pregnancy will affect your looks and don't like the sex of the child. I GUARANTEE that if we polled based on that, at least 2 out of 3 would agree that people think we should limit that.

Doug, if every pro-choice person on Earth put a plastic bag over his head, you wouldn't need Planned Parenthood to thin the herd anymore, right?

Plus it would greatly reduce CO2 emissions.

You say I'm trying to force my will on the woman when I say that she can't kill her child. You might as well argue that society has no right to tell people that they can't drive a car at 200 mph through a residential area.

John L:

all pregnancy is in your mind is "9 months of inconvenience" ?

Inconvenience.... seriously??
I'm glad you take it so lightly, I guess being a guy and all, you can get away with that.

But please tell that to someone without health insurance, or someone who's job gives lousy maternity benefits, or someone who can't afford to take any time off of work and still keep a roof over her head. Or tell that to someone with preclampsia, gestational diabetes, severe morning sickness, hyper emesis, back pain, leg pain, chronic braxton hicks contractions, or any of the other DOZENS of potential side effects of pregnancy that anyone who's gone through could PROMISE you are farrrrrrrrr more than an "inconvenience".

I really hope you were joking when you said that, because otherwise its sort of frightening.

If human life has no value until it has attained sentience, does that mean that people with a higher IQ have more value than those with a lower IQ? And if so, do people with a higher IQ then have the right to murder people with a lower IQ?

I'm just trying to figure out exactly how this bat guano insane pro-abortion logic works.

Amanda I disagree. Of course it can be quantified and it will be. Give us some more time, please.
The Supreme Court cited 180 women's stories of regret. It is now part of Supreme Court doctrine that some women come to regret their abortions. The Supreme Court wants more testimonies. The goal is one million. http://www.operationoutcry.org

You're right, Amanda. Pregnancy isn't nine months of inconvenience. Pregnancy is more like eight months of inconvenience, since it takes awhile for a woman to know she's pregnant.

Also, the "r" key on your keyboard is brrrrrrroken.

Thanks, Jill!

Yes, Doug those are all REASONS a woman may abort. At the mill, they played on my lack of income, my singleness, my college degree that they said I would NEVER use, my piece of crap car, my lack of resources and support. They questioned over and over "How are you ever going to afford a baby??"

Doug, I could have done it. Many other women can and do. If given the resources and support to raise their babies.

The Supreme Court cited 180 women's stories of regret. It is now part of Supreme Court doctrine that some women come to regret their abortions. The Supreme Court wants more testimonies. The goal is one million. http://www.operationoutcry.org

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 6:52 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After MS. magazine published 5000 signatures from women who were grateful that they had access to abortion when they needed it, Silent No More tried to retaliate by publishing 5000 signatures of women who regretted their abortion.
It took Ms. magazine less than two weeks to reach their goal. Silent No More has been at it for over a year and isn't even CLOSE to their goal.

50,000,000 abortions and you can only find 180 women who regretted their decision?

Wow John. What a fantastic, compassionate attitude.

I'm sure you've persuaded many women in tough situations to keep their baby by telling them its all just an inconvenience.

You honestly think you're doing the pro life side any favors by calling pregnancy nothing more than 8 months of inconvenience?

Don't you think, if you ACTUALLY wanted to prevent abortions, you'd acknowledge just how difficult and challenging and scary it is for a lot of women, and look at it a little more compassionately and consider what all of her needs might be? Or is that all irrelevant to you as long as she keeps that baby?

You know I sit on the fence and sway back and forth daily when it comes to my feelings about the legality of abortion...but attitudes like yours make it impossible for me to reconcile that you actually give a damn about women, and not just your self righteous agenda.

Hieronymous, when you first found out you were pregnant, how did you feel? "oh, it's just a clump of cells" or "oh, there's a baby growing inside of me?"

Posted by: jasper at April 24, 2008 6:41 PM

Honestly Jasper? I don't really remember thinking either thing. As far as I can recall with #1, I'm pretty sure my first thoughts were along the lines of "holy s**t, I'm pregnant".

Laura,
I said give it time.

Doug,

I've emailed you...

Everyone else, totally enjoying tonights discussion...you're all on a roll...

Laura,

If you're out there, they still haven't found that priest...weird!

Carla - I'm guessing that was actually a response to what I said?

If so, I wasn't listing those as reasons to abort. I meant them as reasons why pregnany, whether you planned it or not, is a lot more than an inconvenience.

One of my co workers is pregnant with twins. She and her husband are beyond excited. However she's having a lot of complications, and admitted a few days ago she's broken down sobbing on several days because its so hard, and scary.

If someone passed that off as an inconvenience, I would really call in to question that persons' capacity to feel empathy.

Laura,

If you're out there, they still haven't found that priest...weird!

Though they did find the balloons...weirder!

Though they did find the balloons...weirder!

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:09 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

That's kinda scary.
This is one of the weirdest stories EVER!

If someone passed that off as an inconvenience, I would really call in to question that persons' capacity to feel empathy.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 7:08 PM

Amanda, I'm beginning to suspect that John has been confined in a small, dark room for many years now, with only his computer for company. It would explain a lot of things.

y'all will appreciate this:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=29222505

Doug,

Do you know anyone personally who was forced to remain pregnant?

Or anyone who gave birth and regretted it?