Could someone tell me again why proponents of embryonic stem cell research
continue to push cells which are more controversial, less readily
available and seem to have the same potential as cells which aren't
controversial and are more readily available?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More controversial and less readily available?

Gee, there's a fertility clinic not two blocks from my home where embryos get thrown out DAILY. Human embryos are also thawed out and destroyed on a regular basis at the facility where the veterinary practice I work for stores really valuable bull semen.

I have YET to see you guys out front with your posters and prayers in front of either building trying to SAVE THE BABIES!

It's more than a little ironic that you guys will shriek to High Heaven if somebody destroys an embryo with RU-486, or if someone uses one to find a cure for my Mom's arthritis - but you're strangely silent when some women (a woman that your god CLEARLY has rendered barren for a lot of good reasons) destroys embryos in pursuit of a child she isn't meant to have.

Funny how you never use your voices to shut down those fertilty baby-killing death-traps, or publish the faces of those homicidal "mom wanna-be's" on your websites. It's almost as though you people have some sort of bigoted embryo double standard.

Here's one of those homicidal maniacs now!
Heck! More murders than the entire Manson Family combined!
DESTROY HER!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1178497/posts

You are absolutely correct, Laura. We should be out there. I think people are beginning, though, to realize the connection that you are making. Hopefully within the near future we will see more pro-lifers opposing fertility clinics. God love you.

Wow, that website you linked to looks pretty good, Laura.

You're not a Freeper?
You don't frequent FreeRepublic?

(Don't say that out loud. The other Conservatives will be forced to beat you...)

Yeah, I'm not sure what that is. I'm not really a conservative, though. I'm Catholic.

Bobby, I agree. Pro-lifers should stand outside of fertility clinics too, but like you said, many pro-lifers haven't been informed of what's going on there and many honestly just don't know!
That's the reason you probably don't see them out there much. But I think that eventually more pro-lifers will be coming out and standing against them as well, as they are more informed!

Here's one of those homicidal maniacs now!
Heck! More murders than the entire Manson Family combined!
DESTROY HER!

****************
Oh for crying out loud.

Bethany,

Let's connect the women entering fertility clinics with the women entering abortion clinics. Problems solved for all.

Amen, Bethany. The thing is, it's a fairly recent development, and only since methods of isolating embryonic stem cells was invented in 1998 has it really started to come more into the limelight. Now more people are beginning to hear about "leftover" embryos, and so hopefully they'll begin to consider where they are coming from...

"Let's connect the women entering fertility clinics with the women entering abortion clinics. Problems solved for all."

That is not a bad idea at ALL Janet...

I agree, not a bad idea at all. That would be so nice if it could work out that way!

Oh for crying out loud.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 9:50 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, TexasRed.
Brooke Shields is Andrea Yates x 28!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, the humanity...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1178497/posts

I had just posted an observation about Adam Hamilton's Newsweek article posted up on ThruFire. (As a response to Steve Wagner at STR).

It has to do with abortion, color theory...and how we see what we do.

Let me know what you think.

Society pressures women to wait to have kids and thereby creates and industry to sell them a solution.

Why can't we appreciate the beauty of the natural condition?

There is nothing wrong (and much right) in having kids when you are young.

Why is society so against it?

Is it the stereotype of the stupid young woman who is too flighty and silly to be a good mom?

There is nothing wrong (and much right) in having kids when you are young.

Why is society so against it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, I dunno...

"Babies of teen mothers have 21% higher probability of low birth weight, increasing possibilities for infant death, blindness, deafness, chronic respiratory problems, mental retardation, mental illness, and cerebral palsy. It doubles chances for dyslexia, hyperactivity, and other disabilities.1

Teen mothers are often victims of abuse. As Kathleen Sylvester, vice president for domestic policy of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote: “Some studies show… as many as two-thirds were victims of rape or sexual abuse at an early age – crimes often committed by males living in the same household. ... They are easy prey for older men: young…victims of early sexual abuse often develop emotional patterns that make them vulnerable to the attentions of older men.”2 A 1995 Guttmacher Institute study suggests that almost two-thirds of the fathers of the babies are 20 or older.

The younger the girl, the more likely sex was forced. Four in 10 girls whose first intercourse was at 13 to 14 report sex was unwanted.1

Teen mothers start parenthood with few viable economic skills. Forty-one percent of mothers under 18 finish high school, compared to 61% of 20- to 21-year-old first mothers. A scant 1.5% of teen mothers earn a college degree by age 30.1

Making matters worse, in the past 25 years, the median income for college graduates increased 13%, while the median income for high school dropouts decreased 30%.1

Frighteningly, babies of high school dropouts have an eight times higher risk of being killed than those of college graduates.3

Teen mothers are mostly single parents. Eighty percent of fathers do not marry mothers and pay less than $800 annually in child support, important income for poor children.

Children living apart from fathers are five times more likely to be poor than children from two-parent homes. Children of uninvolved fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, abuse alcohol or drugs or go to jail, and four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.1

So, if teen mothers have no functional family of origin, no “village” to rely on, all parenting responsibilities fall on young girls who received little nurturing themselves. It’s no surprise they turn to welfare. One-half of all teen mothers and more than three-quarters of unmarried teen mothers receive welfare within five years of their first child’s birth.1

While on paper, married, two-parent families sound like stabilizing alternatives, chances of marital success are slim. Only 30% of married teen mothers stay married. Teen marriages are twice as likely to fail as marriages in which the woman is at least 25 years old.1 Plus, studies of welfare mothers suggest some teen moms may be better off unmarried for safety reasons. According to Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, “Studies consistently show that at least 50% to 60% of women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner…compared to 22% of the general population… A significant number of women receiving welfare also report a history of physical and sexual abuse in childhood.” In a California study, some recipients report lifetime abuse rates of 80% to 83%.4

While the absence of a caring father has profound consequences for children, the presence of an abusive one may be a matter of life or death. All of these factors take a toll on children. Teen parents are twice as likely as older parents to abuse or neglect their children.5 In reported incidents of abuse and neglect, 100 per 1,000 were families headed by teen mothers. The rate is less than half in families with new mothers in their 20s: 51 incidents per 1,000 families.1 Foster care placement is also significantly higher for children of teen mothers.1

Children of teenagers, then, come to school with baggage and consequently perform poorly. They are 50% more likely to repeat a grade, do worse on standardized tests, and are less likely to complete high school than if their mothers had delayed childbearing. Sons of teen mothers are 13% more likely to end up in prison; daughters, 22% more likely to also become teen mothers.1

But dismal statistics do not account for intangibles: persistent mother love, “villages” of grandmothers, caring teachers and teen moms in school, trying to graduate. If we as educators can help keep the mothers strong, I have better hopes that their children may thrive.

Sources:

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. www.teenpregnancy.org

“What to Do with Those Teenage Mothers,” Kathleen Sylvester. www.ppionline.org

“A Horror Called 'Neonaticide'," Charles Downey. http://sks.sirs.com

Testimony, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Esta Soler. http://endabuse.org

University of Georgia. www.county.ces.uga.edu

Laura, I find it amusing that at one moment you're criticizing pro-lifers for not taking a stand against fertility clinics...

...then, the next moment you're criticizing pro-lifers for taking a stand against fertility clinics.

Gee Laura, should I trust your obviously BIASED sources?

Society pressures women to wait to have kids and thereby creates and industry to sell them a solution.

Why can't we appreciate the beauty of the natural condition?

hippie 11:02: There is nothing wrong (and much right) in having kids when you are young.

Why is society so against it?

Is it the stereotype of the stupid young woman who is too flighty and silly to be a good mom?

I agree with you. The ideal childbearing age, looking at the Mom's physical well being and emotional development is on the younger side, probably mid to late 20's, in my opinion. I'm an older mom, and I'm tired a lot! That said, I do think that older moms probably don't take children for granted as much as some younger moms, because they know that their fertile days are dwindling.

Oops, the first half of my post @11:23 should be all italics.

JivinJ said

The article doesn't note if the child who wasn't aborted was Hamilton or one of his siblings.

If you read the chapter excerpt from his book - yes, it's about him.

I have a question. Is Laura the same Laura who used to call herself FetusFascist?

Bobby, yes

Its always nice to see that there are other anti-abortion atheists out there :)

Excellent, U...P.L.A. We need people to realize that pro-life is not a religious issue, yet a human rights issue.

Pro-life atheist, you're definitely not alone on this blog. I think besides Raving atheist, there are two or three other atheists here, who are pro-life! :)

I know Jen R is.

"Could someone tell me again why proponents of embryonic stem cell research continue to push cells which are more controversial, less readily available and seem to have the same potential as cells which aren't controversial and are more readily available?"

I'll give it a try:

1. They are the very, very new kids on the block. We don't know that induced pluripotent stem cells (or as I call them, I Can't Believe They're Not Stem Cells) have "identical" potential to regular embryonic stem cells (ES). It looks like they do, but they were only successfully created a few months ago and we need to run more tests to be sure. They may differ from ES in ways that we have not anticipated. This might not be a bad thing. It is my belief that iPS will become the preferred research model very soon, but not until we can be confident that they are as good or better than what we've got.

2. iPS aren't all that readily available. They're pretty hard to make. Stem cells from human embryos might be controversial, but there are many of them tossed out of fertility clinics daily.

3. iPS might be dangerous. The way they're made is by taking a skin cell from an adult or child and reprogramming its DNA so that it acts like an embryonic stem cell. But how do we reprogram the DNA? We send in a VIRUS capable of penetrating the cell nucleus. Now, there are safeguards in place to make sure that the viruses don't mutate and escape, but I think you can imagine how bad things could get if they go wrong.

So that's three reasons: 1. we don't know that they have "identical" potential, 2. they're hard to make, and 3. they might be dangerous.

Still, we're ten years into embryonic stem cells (first isolated in 1998). Who knows where we'll be ten years into iPS?

Those are fair points, Flynn.

No, TexasRed.
Brooke Shields is Andrea Yates x 28!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, the humanity...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1178497/posts

Posted by: Laura at April 9, 2008 10:37 AM
*******************
heheh

This post is between me and PIP so if others could let us just have our little conversation I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Hi, PIP.

I have started to read the book you recommended, "Finding Darwin's God" and I have a few question for you and please understand that I will be asking these questions as I read and not after I am finished reading the book. So the nature of the questions will change as I read more and actually get much more complicated.

1. Do you agree that the theory of evolution assumes abiogeneisis, i.e., that life began from non-living matter as a result of about 10 billion years of the random and chaotic intersections of molecules?

2. Do you agree that for evolution to be a valid theory that the earth MUST be about 13,000,000 years old?

3. Do you understand the methods of estimating the earth's/universe's age, i.e., the parallax method, the luminosity method and the Cepheid variable star method? Do you understand the carbon dating method? Do you understand the assumptions these methods of measurement make and how if any one single assumption is false it invalidates the measurements?

4. Do you agree that the theory of evolution uses the same methods of evaluation and observation that let's say forensic criminologists use to solve crimes, i.e., the observation of events and evidence that occurred in the past? Do you think it unwise if said criminologist were to ignore a tiny or a mountain of evidence simply because their prejudicial thinking required them to do so? Do you think that most evolutionary scientists are prejudiced and exclusionary towards believers?

5. Do you agree that the Bible is the mountain of evidence for how life began and that this evidence is largely ignored by "evolutionary forensic scientists"?

6. Do you understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

7. Has it ever been shown by evolutionary science that a dog became a cat or a cat a bird or that any other species became an entirely new species? If so, chapter and verse, authors, dates, and publications, please.

8. Do evolutionary scientists ignore "the Fall", i.e., when even the natural world was affected by the sins of one couple possibly ushering in an age where the "survival of the fittest" was introduced into the natural realm?

9. Do evolutionary scientists ignore the "Flood" account? Do they even understand the catastrophic and cataclysmic affects the "Flood" had on the earth and all living creatures?

10. Do you agree that if abiogenesis is not possible that evolutionary theory falls?

11. Do you agree that if the earth is not 13,000,000 years old that evolutionary theory falls?

12. If you accept evolutionary theory as God's way of creating life and it is an ongoing, automatic process, then why does the Bible state that on the 7th day God rested? Do you think this meant that He finished what He set out to create or that He really wasn't finished yet and evolution continues?

13. Is evolution a theory, or a fact? If it is a theory wouldn't you agree that it takes some degree of faith for scientists that adhere to its doctrines to make the jump that it is indeed fact and are risking their eternal souls on its conclusions, especailly if they choose, based on this theory to be practicing atheists or should I say believers in Charles Darwin's gospel? Do you think that in effect, that evolutionary science is "another gospel" or other good news? Do you know what Paul said about listening to "other gospels"? Are you aware of the severity of that warning? Why do you think that nearly 1800 years before evolutionay theory was developed did Paul give this warning?

Speaking of atheists ... I think it's an incredibly atheist viewpoint to find life precious, including those in the womb. When you're an atheist, you don't necessarily believe in life after death, so killing someone off early is pretty sad.

Unfortunately, I can't stay with the pro-life atheist position because I think many principles of the pro-life position are inherently misogynistic, which conflicts with my feminist viewpoints of equality among the sexes.

HisMan, if you want a post to remain personal between you and another person, maybe you should think twice about posting it on a public message board?

Because in answer to #1: No, evolutionary theory assumes NOTHING about the origins of life. Evolutionary theory addresses the origins of biological diversity.

#2: Yes, the earth has to be pretty darn old. I think you need to add a few more zeros though. I think it's estimated to be somewhere around 4 billion years.

#3: They don't use carbon dating to judge the age of the earth. I think they mostly use radiometric dating for objects found on earth, and isochronic measurements for comparison between meteorite samples and earth samples.

#4: To the extent that you're implying that scientists of all stripes use the scientific method, then yes.

#5: The Bible is not a science text.

#6: There is no difference. Those are fake labels made up by creationists to try and draw false distinctions.

#7: That is a remarkably stupid question that demonstrates a vast ignorance of biology and evolutionary theory. There are such things as stupid questions you know.

#8: Religious explanations for alleged spiritual events have nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

#9: There is no reliable scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. You're really stretching here.

#10: No. Evolutionary theory doesn't rest on abiogenesis, and in fact, has nothing to do with explanations for the origins of life.

#11: Your figure is wrong.

#12: Evolutionary theory doesn't talk about the origins or "creation" of life. However, if we assume that there is a God who set it all in motion, then why shouldn't he rest after he got the process started?

#13: Evolution is both a theory and a fact. No, it takes no "faith" to "believe" in it. It is a scientific theory based upon evidence that is the best explanation we have for biological diversity on our planet.

Why is it when believers want to insult the theory of evolution, they always refer to it as a religion? Or as "Charles Darwin's Gospel"? I thought religion was a good thing? You seem to be implying that it isn't. Fascinating.

Also, I don't think that Paul was warning Christians to be deliberately ignorant. Does God really want us to be ignorant?

Look Hiero:

These were questions not assertions, so bud out.

HisMan, I was just noticing your last few comments and I know you asked not to have a response to this, but I'm really into science and think an explanation is in order for your questions about theory.

In science, a theory is not just an idea or a guess, like it is in common usage. A theory is something that has been tested and proven to near accuracy. However, theories are still open to correction, which means they are not quite fact yet. To be a "fact" in science is to be a law, such as the four laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and so on.

In fact, compared to all of our scientific discoveries, we have very few laws to represent them! Most of our proven science falls under the category of "theory" because we're not yet sure it cannot be proven false.

For example, gravity is one of the popular theories, even though it can be measured and tested and felt. But we haven't measured gravity on other planets or stars, so we don't know if gravity is truly universal! It seems to be... but since we don't know for sure, it's still just a theory. Evolution should be looked at in the same way. It's been tested and observed and to the best of our ability it has proven itself, but we cannot be sure of its universality so we cannot make it law.

The only things in the universe that are truly, without a doubt, fact... are scientific laws. Everything else is pretty dubious!

Look Hiero:

These were questions not assertions, so bud out.

Posted by: HisMan at April 9, 2008 1:29 PM

That might be hard for me to do, seeing as I'm not a plant. I think the phrase you're looking for is "butt out"...

But again, dude, if you don't want responses from anyone else, try taking it private, like to IM, or email. Otherwise, you're taking your chances.

"The only things in the universe that are truly, without a doubt, fact... are scientific laws. Everything else is pretty dubious!"

If that statement is indeed true, Edyt, then it must be based on scientific laws. What scientific laws make your statement true?

This is a conversation between myself and PIP. I politely asked that it be left alone for now. Contrary to that request, Heiro demonstated a complete lack of respect for my request, made assumptions about my questions, and called me names. Don't you dare disrepect me again.

My post was a series of questions and not assertions of any type based on my reading of the book she recommended that I read.

Post all you want but I will not respond to them as they will be considered a distraction.

And yes, I was speaking in terms of billions, not millions. My mistake.

Where did I call you names? I referred to you as "dude" in my last post, but that isn't really name-calling...unless you're offended by surfer-slang.

I did say that one of your questions was stupid, but that was only a statement of fact. It was a stupid question, get over it. We all ask them sometimes.

And I did see that those were questions, which is why I answered them on this here PUBLIC message board. You want a private conversation? That's what the telephone, email, and IM are for. I'm pretty sure that PIP's link leads directly to a method for contacting her in a private forum. Isn't it to her facebook or livejournal page?

I just wish people understood more about the scientific method before they start criticizing scientists and saying things like theories are worthless, that's all.

I mean, it would take at least 4 years of college science classes just to get a VERY BASIC understanding of the way the world works (not counting the universe). Don't discredit what these people do for a living. It's a lot more complicated than you think.

"I mean, it would take at least 4 years of college science classes just to get a VERY BASIC understanding of the way the world works (not counting the universe)."

Edyt, you hit the nail on the head. This is something that I have been realizing lately. Just to be able to understand Darwinian evolution, one needs to understand geology, genetics, biochemirty, and so much else. One has to be up on current research and papers in journals as well. And thats just one area! I'm not preaching post-modernism here, but it is just so difficult for the average person to have access and understanding to all the info needed to make informed scientific decisions for themselves. I mean, I'm a professional mathematician and I can't even begin to describe to you how little mathematics I know. I can't imagine how vast other areas are. It is pretty crazy. I don't know what my point is, I just wanted to show agreement.

Haha, thanks.

It's true though, science and mathematics are such vast fields of research that it's near impossible for the layman to really "get" what's going on. I'm no scientist, but I took a few advanced classes and was a TA/tutor for some science professors and wow... I have nothing but the utmost respect for their knowledge and field of study.

I think that's actually one of the problems with journalism today. Journalists who don't know that much about how a study is conducted or what the results mean will attempt to answer questions about human behavior or genetics or whatever else, even if the study doesn't draw that conclusion at all. So it breeds more ignorance about science because the person reporting on the study doesn't quite get it either. :(

Unfortunately, I can't stay with the pro-life atheist position because I think many principles of the pro-life position are inherently misogynistic, which conflicts with my feminist viewpoints of equality among the sexes.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 1:18 PM

Edyt, there is not equality among the sexes, it's impossible. Women have children, men don't. Men are physically stronger, women weaker - comparisons equal anyway - don't compare a woman body builder with the average male, compare them with a male body builder. Women more emotional, men not. And on and on and on...

I can't stand when women say they want equality, because 99% of the time that just means they want what women have AND what men have, then proceed to act in a way and say things that are horribly offensive to men. The sooner "feminists" realize they can't grow a penis the better off we'll all be.

Go Kristen!

Speaking of atheists ... I think it's an incredibly atheist viewpoint to find life precious, including those in the womb. When you're an atheist, you don't necessarily believe in life after death, so killing someone off early is pretty sad.

As do I ;)

Unfortunately, I can't stay with the pro-life atheist position because I think many principles of the pro-life position are inherently misogynistic, which conflicts with my feminist viewpoints of equality among the sexes.

The views of some people who oppose pre-birth killing do not automatically correspond to the entire body of people who hold those views. I too support equality among the sexes (and the orientations, etc), but do not view all "rights" as equal. Even in an anti-authoritarian community, there are communally agreed-upon standards that are in place to protect and care for the people living in the community.

Kristen, it's not about growing a penis, it's about being treated like an equal member of society.

Women incubate children, true, but both men and women have children. Unfortunately, women take both the blame and the responsibility. They're the ones who are called sluts and whores and made to feel bad for getting pregnant. That's not right. I really believe that if there wasn't so much "slut-shaming" and men took more responsibility for creating the child, we would have less abortions.

I know there are a lot of so-called feminists out there who say they want equality and go on to try to be more powerful than men, but that's not really what feminists stand for.

I want the right to receive equal pay, to be valued for my actions and abilities rather than my body, to not be objectified or valued only for my virginity, and to be given the same amount of respect that would be given to a man. It's not about getting more power, it's about being perceived as a human being rather than a vagina with legs. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all.

I don't expect to be able to lift weights and do jobs my body type is not suited for. But I shouldn't have to walk down the street by myself with mace in hand because I'm afraid of getting raped.

And I believe that misogyny also hurts men -- it holds them to this ideal of having to always be "strong" and "unemotional" and "leaders" and other attributes that aren't necessarily linked to gender, but personality instead.

In the pro-life argument... the fact that women are made to feel bad for getting pregnant and then are forced to give birth and raise the child make the woman transparent and meaningless. That's why it's inherently misogynistic, because it ignores how the woman thinks and feels and what she wants for her body and her life. Before you go off trying to change laws about fetal rights, you also need to address how you're going to take care of the woman and treat her like a human being and not an incubator with legs.

I can't stand when women say they want equality, because 99% of the time that just means they want what women have AND what men have, then proceed to act in a way and say things that are horribly offensive to men. The sooner "feminists" realize they can't grow a penis the better off we'll all be.

Posted by: Kristen at April 9, 2008 2:33 PM

I can't stand it when people create straw-feminists that don't represent actual feminism at all.

Yeah, doesn't it suck when women want to be treated like they're actual humans with equal rights and all that. And doesn't it suck when women want to be value as persons to rest on qualities other than their sexuality. Darn those feminists anyway.

Bleah, what an ugly post, Kristen.

Crap, stupid typos. Second sentence, second paragraph should read "and doesn't it suck when women want THEIR value as persons...etc."

In the pro-life argument... the fact that women are made to feel bad for getting pregnant and then are forced to give birth and raise the child make the woman transparent and meaningless.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 3:00 PM

HELLO, anyone there? The PRO-LIFE argument isn't what you stated. We feel that it's an honor and privilege to bear and raise a child, NO MATTER HOW YOU GOT PREGNANT. What YOU said is the PRO-ABORT argument.

Marie Curie had two daughters, but when you think of her I'm sure the role of mother doesn't come to mind first. She was a Scientist AND a mother long before "feminism" (as we see it today) came about. Her children didn't stop her from becoming one of the most known scientists of her time and beyond. THAT is what is laudable. I want nothing to do with "feminism" today. It's appalling and doesn't nothing to help the cause of women.

Hier -

Hardly worth a response but right, tell me Gloria Steinem doesn't act like my description. You must be living under a rock, try to crawl out and get some fresh air.

Kristen, what do you believe feminism is today?

Edyt:

I'm not going to patronize you so, where did I question the value of scientific theory or express or imply a lack of understanding of scientific theory. Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

I base my whole livehood on science. I made decisions on spacecraft and aircraft systems on the very airplanes you and military pilots trust your and their lives to like the MD-80, F-16, F-15, F-22, 737, etc. I currently make life impacting decisions on building systems everyday based on physics, mathematics, strength of materials, thermodynamics, heat transfer, dynamics, etc.

I have a Bachelor of "Science" degree in Mechanical Engineering and am a Registered Engineer who has practiced for over 32 years. I have a Masters Degree in Theology. Ever heard of the Twin Towers and how many people were killed when they collapsed? Obvioulsy the science trained engineers that designed these buildings overlooked something, perhaps in not realizing that larger airplanes carrying much more fuel than anticipated would be designed and upon impact create such an intense heat that would melt the steel floor truss that held the building in reactionary force equilibrium.

My son recently received 1st prize in a science fair on a project I mentored him on. (I know, no big deal). I think I know just a little bit about the scientific method without having to be questioned about my understanding of it by someone who probably hasn't practiced the application of scientific principles very much if at all. In other words I am not a Bible thumping neanderthal who you guys like to portray us as and feel sorry for. Inherently, I am a gambler. If I had my way and didn't think it wrong, I would love living in a Casino counting cards. I am not that ignorant so as to take a risk of eternal consequences when the practice of scientific theory usually leads to more questions than it answers (and I think this was intended as such as God will not have His existence proven by anyone). God is not that insecure or beholding to any man or woman.

But let me ask you a question Edyt:

1. Is the theory of evolution a theory or scientific law? (I know, that's a redundant and stupid question).

2. The Bible makes some outrageous claims like, "the word of God endures forever" and "before you were, I am". I know you don't believe these statements so, being a student of science and adherent to the scientific method, what absolute facts did you discover that were able to refute such claims since in doing so you risk your eternal soul? If you do not possess such facts that could disprove such claims, do you think, as perhaps a scientifically trained statistician would, that taking such a risk would be extremely, well, stupid?

3. You made this statement: "The only things in the universe that are truly, without a doubt, fact... are scientific laws. Everything else is pretty dubious!" If I assume what you said is true then does the existence of the laws of nature and science imply that there is a lawmaker?

Now, just view these as questions because really I want to know your answer.

Edyt, in a nutshell not what it should be. I've been with my company 5 years and I've seen on man, in particular, get past over for a promotion he deserved and was VASTLY more qualified for, in favor of a woman who made a not so veiled threat that she'd make a complaint to the EEOC if she didn't receive the promotion. To put it lightly she sucks and is possibly the WORST manager the company has ever had.

This is what feminism has brought us. Women still don't get equal pay, most men don't get paternity leave, and my company doesn't have to pay me for maternity leave. You honestly think that companies, government, etc. help women in this way? I'd stop fighting for EQUAL rights (i.e. men don't get maternity leave so we don't have to give it to women - "equal" right?) And START fighting for something that will actually HELP women.

Have you ever looked at and researched the ERA? I'm STILL thankful that it wasn't passed because according to that husbands would not have to pay their ex-wives ANY alimony after a divorce. So a woman could have married a man right out of high school stayed home with their children for 25 years and he decides he's tired of her and gets a "cookie on the side" and divorces his wife and marries the trash. Wife number 2 is now entitled to his retirement, social security benefits, insurance, etc. And now the kids are grown and he doesn't even have to pay child support. WOW! What a GREAT deal, for HIM! And the FEMINISTS were killing themselves to GET IT PASSED!

I'd like to know your thoughts on my post about Marie Curie; I noticed the absence of a comment.

Jill, good to have you back!

Women incubate children, true,

How insulting to refer to it as mere "incubation". I notice that the only people who refer to pregnancy in such derogatory ways are "feminists".

It very much shows me how important and equal women like me are viewed. People like me, who actually embrace their femininity, are viewed by so called feminists as "incubators", "breeders", etc. How sad.

And then, the ironic part of this, is that you go on to say:

" Before you go off trying to change laws about fetal rights, you also need to address how you're going to take care of the woman and treat her like a human being and not an incubator with legs."

We're not the ones treating women like incubators. We know the difference between "incubation" and "motherhood". Obviously, you people do not.

Go Bethany! :)

HisMan:

1. Is the theory of evolution a theory or scientific law? (I know, that's a redundant and stupid question).

It's a scientific theory.

2. The Bible makes some outrageous claims like, "the word of God endures forever" and "before you were, I am". I know you don't believe these statements so, being a student of science and adherent to the scientific method, what absolute facts did you discover that were able to refute such claims since in doing so you risk your eternal soul? If you do not possess such facts that could disprove such claims, do you think, as perhaps a scientifically trained statistician would, that taking such a risk would be extremely, well, stupid?

Well, thing is, none of us know what's going to happen after death. There hasn't been any proven existence of a soul either. For me, becoming an atheist was rather progressive. I stopped practicing because I thought I was not "worthy" of going to heaven and wanted to become a better person before I started calling myself a Christian. Well, in my personal journey, I found a lot of things I disliked about religion... and I have to clarify: I disliked religion, but I had no qualms with spirituality. Over time, the existence of a supreme being just seemed impractical and illogical, particularly because we humans ascribed our own flaws and characteristics to this "God" and the characteristics differed so much between various faiths. I thought to myself, "Why is one religion better than another? What makes one person more right about their faith than another?"

Overall, it just didn't make sense to me. Each major religion of the world today got there mainly through dominating and forcing other cultures to believe it. Each person's religion is mainly developed based on their physical location and what was passed down through their parents. That doesn't make it more right.

I admit I cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. But I can't disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny or unicorns or any other fantastical creature, so why should one be made to exist and not all others?

Sure, I'm gambling with my fate in the afterlife (if there is one), but in my opinion, if there is a god, it won't be petty enough to believe that one person's religion is better than another's.

3. You made this statement: "The only things in the universe that are truly, without a doubt, fact... are scientific laws. Everything else is pretty dubious!" If I assume what you said is true then does the existence of the laws of nature and science imply that there is a lawmaker?

Yes and no. We, the writers of the law, are the lawmakers. But there doesn't necessarily have to be a greater power that puts those laws into place. We, as mortal beings, are unable to grasp eternity or the true way the universe functions for the billions of years beyond our time. Perhaps these laws are always there, perhaps the Earth is a unique case. I don't really know. But because we cannot comprehend things existing without a predecessor, we have trouble imagining the universe without a creator. That doesn't necessarily mean there is one, though.

"Don't you dare disrepect me again."

or what?

Kristen, you didn't actually address my question.

I'm sure if feminism had existed in the time of Marie Curie, she would have been one. She was denied admission to a regular university for being female and helped her sister go to school in Paris, where Marie could later follow her to gain an education.(She became the first woman in France to get a doctorate).

Unfortunately, she was not recognized for many years. While her husband became a member of L'Academie Francaise, she was not allowed to because she was a woman.

Of course, several years later she won the Nobel Prize, though I wonder if she would have gotten it if Pierre hadn't died in a car accident before then.

And I didn't respond because I'm not all too sure what your point was about bringing up Marie Curie.

How insulting to refer to it as mere "incubation". I notice that the only people who refer to pregnancy in such derogatory ways are "feminists".

I did not mean to insult. Should I have said "women have pregnancies"? I'm sorry, I thought incubate was synonymous, and I don't mean it to sound insulting.

It very much shows me how important and equal women like me are viewed. People like me, who actually embrace their femininity, are viewed by so called feminists as "incubators", "breeders", etc. How sad.

Not at all! I think women who give birth and raise children are brave and quite admirable. I think you should be treated equally, whether you choose to stay home and have children, go to work and have a career, or do both. I don't mean to imply any of those choices are poor choices.

We're not the ones treating women like incubators. We know the difference between "incubation" and "motherhood". Obviously, you people do not.

I do, but I don't believe motherhood is something that should be forced upon anyone.

Edyt

I doubt Marie would have been a feminist; she was too busy being a scientist.

She "helped her sister go to school." So her sister got into school but Marie couldn't because she was a woman? You contradicted yourself, but whatever.

Yes, I'm sure that she only became notable because her husband died in 1906 even though she discovered Polonium in July of 1898 and then Radium in December of the same year.

Oh, and she won her FIRST Nobel prize in 1903 - three years before the death of her husband and the SECOND in 1911, but again, whatever.

Anyway, since it escaped you the first time, my point is that Marie Curie was a woman who succeed WHILE being a mother. Or, as you so eloquently put it, an "incubator with legs."

Kristen, she was Polish, not French, and in Poland she couldn't go to school for being a woman.

She was the youngest in her family, so her sister was already in France studying. Marie Curie helped her finance her education and later joined her so that she too, could receive an education.

She discovered them with Pierre, and he got the recognition from the French Academy of Sciences and she did not.

Where did I say a woman couldn't be successful and a mother?

Oh, and by the way, you don't have to do anything to be a feminist. You just have to believe women have equal rights.

Edyt:

I respect your answers.

When you become a Christian (enter into a relationship with Christ and not join a church), and I believe you will because you seem like a very kind person of integrity and a seeker, I think God will reveal Himself to you in time.

Just one interrogative: We are not the lawmakers, we are the law discoverers, right?

And I would tend to agree with you to some extent about religious practice. However, the essence of Christianity is not about religion or the practice thereof, it's about the person of Christ. Please don't confuse the two.

And I agree with you on the motherhood comment with a caveat. God says that we shouldn't get married since it is easier to serve Christ being single. However, He also says that if we cannot control our passion it is better to be married. Therefore, God does not demand motherhood, however, if motherhood happens as a result of a marriage relationship, then the choice is no longer hers.

Hal:

Or what? I'll pray him into heaven. How's that for a threat? Watch it Hal, maybe the same fate for you.

PIP: You must be busy?

Edyt -

Yes, I know she was Polish. Her sister was studying medicine in France. The fact that she couldn't go to school in Poland had way more to do with the Russians than anything else. There were plenty of men that couldn't go either; do you know anything about that time period in Poland?

I do realize that she was denied membership to the FAS, but I highly doubt that their ignorance made much of a difference. Had she been accepted would she be any more famous than she is now? No, and that's what feminists waste their time doing.

As far as you saying anything about success and motherhood you didn't say that per se but you implied that motherhood was not success. I took your post to mean that as, obviously, Bethany did as well.

No, you don't have to do anything to be a feminist but I'd say it's pretty silly to believe in it and NOT do anything.

Yeah, I actually know a lot about European history. I'm no expert but I tend to read a lot and took several classes on the subject, one specifically on Russian history. Thanks for trying to undermine my knowledge, but it's pretty obvious that she was denied on the basis of her sex. Regardless... Why is it a waste of time to say that women should be allowed membership into the same societies as men?

I've said numerous times here before that I thought motherhood was admirable, and I didn't think I needed to restate it.

You still haven't answered my question as to what you think modern feminism is. Instead, you've put up a bunch of personal examples you think justifies an argument against feminism. I could show you a bunch of examples of how positive feminism is, but that wouldn't do anything for the argument unless you, personally, can explain why exactly you have a problem with it.

Or what? I'll pray him into heaven. How's that for a threat?

Pssst, Hisman! I'm a her, not a him.

My problem with it is that they WASTE TIME on stupid nonsense. Yes, I think it's nonsense to waste time trying to get women into the same societies as men. Start your own society and don't let me in. Problem solved. But hey, if you want to waste your life getting into a society run by men, who you can't stand anyway, rather than doing something productive with your life, more power to you.

If they actually HELPED women, i.e. in matters of divorce, child rearing, child care, education, etc. I'd be all for it, but that is NOT what they do. That's what feminism SHOULD be, instead it's a bunch of self-absorbed women trying desperately to be remembered in history no matter what the cost.

I'm not undermining your knowledge, you are lacking. The Russians took over the Warsaw University and all instructors and administrators were Russian, instruction was in Russian. Even Polish MEN were denied acceptance. I'm not saying there wasn't a prejudice I'm just saying it didn't ONLY include women. Women were being accepted into American Universities, French Universities, and others at the time. Poland had political issues. But she was a woman so it MUST have been that, okay whatever.

Should read:

Start your own society and don't let "men" in.

But I wouldn't want in anyway... ;)

Heiro:

These days, it's hard to tell.

Heaven accepts even women though, darn!

The problem with the Newsweek article is that it leaves a number of incorrect impressions. The real bottom line is that Adam is pro-life. Newsweek doesn't care that Adam is pro life because it doesn't fit the point they were trying to make. I would encourage you to listen to the sermon you linked. If after listening you still have a problem with Adam's position, that's fair.

Also, Adam has attempted to clarify the Newsweek article in the following blog post, which includes a link to the chapter in his new book that deals with the full complexity of this issue:
http://adamhamilton.cor.org/2008/04/08/newsweek-and-why-im-pro-life-with-a-heavy-heart/

Edyt, in a nutshell not what it should be. I've been with my company 5 years and I've seen on man, in particular, get past over for a promotion he deserved and was VASTLY more qualified for, in favor of a woman who made a not so veiled threat that she'd make a complaint to the EEOC if she didn't receive the promotion. To put it lightly she sucks and is possibly the WORST manager the company has ever had.

This is what feminism has brought us. Women still don't get equal pay, most men don't get paternity leave, and my company doesn't have to pay me for maternity leave. You honestly think that companies, government, etc. help women in this way? I'd stop fighting for EQUAL rights (i.e. men don't get maternity leave so we don't have to give it to women - "equal" right?) And START fighting for something that will actually HELP women.

Have you ever looked at and researched the ERA? I'm STILL thankful that it wasn't passed because according to that husbands would not have to pay their ex-wives ANY alimony after a divorce. So a woman could have married a man right out of high school stayed home with their children for 25 years and he decides he's tired of her and gets a "cookie on the side" and divorces his wife and marries the trash. Wife number 2 is now entitled to his retirement, social security benefits, insurance, etc. And now the kids are grown and he doesn't even have to pay child support. WOW! What a GREAT deal, for HIM! And the FEMINISTS were killing themselves to GET IT PASSED!

I'd like to know your thoughts on my post about Marie Curie; I noticed the absence of a comment.
Posted by: Kristen at April 9, 2008 3:34 PM
..................................................

I don't know where you live but there is no such thing as alimony in my state. So when my ex decided that the kids and I were holding him back with what he wanted to do with his life I was SOL. Entitled to his retirement? What planet do you live on?

Having married out of high school I was left with few work options. I worked for Wal-Mart for 15 years. When I left I had the 2nd most important position next to the store manager and was the district auditor. I was making $12.50 an hour. Do you understand $12.50 an hour? Male department managers with a fraction of the experience or responsibility were making much more. This was 2000. We aren't talking ancient history here.

What are you fighting for that will make a difference in women's lives?

Edyt -

Yes, I know she was Polish. Her sister was studying medicine in France. The fact that she couldn't go to school in Poland had way more to do with the Russians than anything else. There were plenty of men that couldn't go either; do you know anything about that time period in Poland?

I do realize that she was denied membership to the FAS, but I highly doubt that their ignorance made much of a difference. Had she been accepted would she be any more famous than she is now? No, and that's what feminists waste their time doing.

As far as you saying anything about success and motherhood you didn't say that per se but you implied that motherhood was not success. I took your post to mean that as, obviously, Bethany did as well.

No, you don't have to do anything to be a feminist but I'd say it's pretty silly to believe in it and NOT do anything.
Posted by: Kristen at April 9, 2008 4:40 PM
...................................................................

What do you mean by 'believing in feminism'? Do you find the concept of treating women like human beings to be counter to Christian teaching and therefore yet another religion?

What do you mean by 'believing in feminism'? Do you find the concept of treating women like human beings to be counter to Christian teaching and therefore yet another religion?

Believing men and women are different is somehow the same as saying women are non-human? What a wild conclusion to come to. Wow.

True feminism embraces femininity and holds women as having much value BECAUSE of their femininity and not DESPITE it.

Sally, I live in Illinois and my mother received "maintenance" (alimony) for years to get an education. An Aunt of mine in Michigan receives it now. If you didn't get it I'd say your lawyer sucked.

Because my father didn't remarry my mother gets his social security benefits - had he remarried his new wife would have. She (and the Aunt I mentioned) both received half the worth of their husband’s retirement investments at the time of their divorces. Again, your lawyer must have sucked.

As far as the male managers go, I've got news for you. Women STILL don't get equal pay, there are cases brought before the courts everyday. Women do win and, of course, that's good. Unfortunately it takes years to go through the courts.

NOW seems much more interested in getting women admitted to Augusta than anything that REALLY matters.

Anon -

I have no idea what your post is about. Edyt was saying you don't have to do anything to BE a feminist. You aren't born a feminist you become one and that automatically means believing in it. I'm Catholic, I believe in the Catholic faith. Atheists believe there is no God. Animal rights activists believe in the humane treatment of animals. Should I say I'm pro-life yet do nothing to save the lives of the innocent? As I said; believing in something and not doing anything about it is silly. Savvy?

1. Do you agree that the theory of evolution assumes abiogeneisis, i.e., that life began from non-living matter as a result of about 10 billion years of the random and chaotic intersections of molecules?

It does not at all, and abiogenesis itself is not a theory but a series of hypotheses.

2. Do you agree that for evolution to be a valid theory that the earth MUST be about 13,000,000 years old?

Well the earth is quite a bit older than that, more in the billions range, but evolution did need to take quite a bit of time to produce the wide variety of species we see today.

3. Do you understand the methods of estimating the earth's/universe's age, i.e., the parallax method, the luminosity method and the Cepheid variable star method? Do you understand the carbon dating method? Do you understand the assumptions these methods of measurement make and how if any one single assumption is false it invalidates the measurements?

The carbon dating method is only used for recent carbon based forms, and i think the limit is 30,000 years, so that is not used for aging the earth. In terms of universe age, that is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

4. Do you agree that the theory of evolution uses the same methods of evaluation and observation that let's say forensic criminologists use to solve crimes, i.e., the observation of events and evidence that occurred in the past?
Yes that is quite right.

Do you think it unwise if said criminologist were to ignore a tiny or a mountain of evidence simply because their prejudicial thinking required them to do so?
Yes, but again that would require evidence. (As of now, the ID movement has produced no original evidence or valid research- the existence of complexity is not in of itself evidence against evolution or for special creation)

Do you think that most evolutionary scientists are prejudiced and exclusionary towards believers?

No, I think there are many established religious scientists- hey the person who came up with the big bang theory was a priest- but often the most vocal scientists are also atheists. But these again are personal preferences, and say nothing about the theory itself. Miller does have a point that ontological naturalists are more common in science than in other professions, but he also makes a point to say he is not alone.

5. Do you agree that the Bible is the mountain of evidence for how life began and that this evidence is largely ignored by "evolutionary forensic scientists"?

The Bible is not scientific evidence- it isn't a textbook or research paper with no intent in being so; there would be no reason to assume any scientific interpretation without independent research.

6. Do you understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

There really isn't a difference, one just refers to a longer time span.

7. Has it ever been shown by evolutionary science that a dog became a cat or a cat a bird or that any other species became an entirely new species? If so, chapter and verse, authors, dates, and publications, please.

Well if a dog became a cat then evolution would have serious problems.
Speciation is observed all the time and there is plenty of fossil evidence to confirm that it happens over long periods of time producing big changes. Miller explains that in his book; the citations are there.

8. Do evolutionary scientists ignore "the Fall", i.e., when even the natural world was affected by the sins of one couple possibly ushering in an age where the "survival of the fittest" was introduced into the natural realm?

You mean, do scientists that are christians ignore the fall? No, many believe in the philosophy of theistic evolution, which is sorta what Miller's book is about.

9. Do evolutionary scientists ignore the "Flood" account? Do they even understand the catastrophic and cataclysmic affects the "Flood" had on the earth and all living creatures?

If the flood account happened as it literally did in the bible, it would be practically impossible to have the world we have today, under scientific law of uniformitarianism. Most likely the flood talked about in the bible was a local flood.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RpRjN5kagoQ

10. Do you agree that if abiogenesis is not possible that evolutionary theory falls?

No, I do not agree.

11. Do you agree that if the earth is not 13,000,000 years old that evolutionary theory falls?

I'm not sure where you get the 13.000,000 from, I heard it is somewhere between 3 and 4 billion. These are ages that have been determined independently. Regardless, I do not agree. For evolutionary history as we know it, 10,000 years would be impossible at the observed evolutionary rate to have the diversification that we have. But, age discrepancies don't mean that the theory ITSELF fails, because the theory is based on simple observation and logic.

12. If you accept evolutionary theory as God's way of creating life and it is an ongoing, automatic process, then why does the Bible state that on the 7th day God rested?
This is just a personal opinion here, I'm only speaking for myself, but I don't see God getting "tired." He isn't a carbon copy of us, he doesn't have the same imperfections that make us needing resting. But it is said because he wants us to set aside time to just rest and be with Him personally. I think the idea he had "stopped" was not because he was "tired" but that he especially guided evolution to the creation of humans.

Do you think this meant that He finished what He set out to create or that He really wasn't finished yet and evolution continues?

He had set everything in motion by a brilliant mechanism we have labeled evolution.

13. Is evolution a theory, or a fact?

Both.

If it is a theory wouldn't you agree that it takes some degree of faith for scientists that adhere to its doctrines to make the jump that it is indeed fact

What? No, the theory is to explain the fact. A theory explains a series of facts. It is a fact that:
1. Individuals within populations are variable
2. The variations among individuals are passed (at least in part) from parents to offspring
3. In every generation, some individuals are more successful at surviving and reproducing than others

The theory:
The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random; instead they are tied to the variation among individuals. The individuals with the most favorable variations, those who are better at surviving and reproducing, are naturally selected. The population changes from one generation to the next.

"and are risking their eternal souls on its conclusions, especailly if they choose, based on this theory to be practicing atheists or should I say believers in Charles Darwin's gospel?"

This theory doesn't "make" anyone become an atheist. The whole book is how to reconcile Christianity with evolution.

"Do you think that in effect, that evolutionary science is "another gospel" or other good news?"

Nope, just science. Not anymore than any other theory.

"Do you know what Paul said about listening to "other gospels"?"

Well, I don't think science is a gospel. I think its an explanation of God's creation.

"Are you aware of the severity of that warning? Why do you think that nearly 1800 years before evolutionay theory was developed did Paul give this warning?"

I don't think he was warning against science, and I think interpreting as such is taking it out of context. Look at the "other gospels" present around their geographic region.

Thanks PIP:

I'll continue reading.

So wait...if The Flood was meant to wipe out all of creation except for Noah, his family, and two of each animal...what about ducks, swans, whales, fish and sharks? How can they be wiped out by a flood when they...live in the water or the air?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LtiyefHCe4
(Warning: Occasional swear words)

Weve been over this. There is NO such thing as a Christian who would choose abortion.

Kristen, I didn't ask what your problem with it was. I asked what you understood modern feminism to be.

Sally, I live in Illinois and my mother received "maintenance" (alimony) for years to get an education. An Aunt of mine in Michigan receives it now. If you didn't get it I'd say your lawyer sucked.
.................

I was born and raised in Illinois. Probably left before you were born.
You obviously know nothing about divorce law. Let alone what life is like beyond your little compound.
Are you one of those women recently recovered from the hounds of hell/religious perverts? You have an obvious lack of knowledge in basic human rights and who would like to make them go away.

Anon:

IMO: "To believe in" can also mean "to hold near to your heart", "cherish", (as in ...animal rights...your country....) It's not always religious in meaning, although I can see how one might come to that conclusion.

Rae,

Check out my video, kind of long, but I love the dude that makes these videos, they are very awesome.

Kristen, I didn't ask what your problem with it was. I asked what you understood modern feminism to be.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 11:39 PM

Uh, yes you did. Right here...

"...unless you, personally, can explain why exactly you have a problem with it.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 4:46 PM

And I explained what I understand "modern feminism" is; a bunch of self-absorbed women trying to make it into the history books without doing any real good for women. Think Augusta National.

Sally -

Your rant, as usual, makes no sense. No I am not divorced but my mother was and my brother and sisters (5 in all) lived through it. My mother got "maintenance" and went to school. During, and even for quite awhile after, her schooling times were lean to say the least.

My father had to pay our private school tuition but my mother had no money to pay for our uniforms, books, etc, and could barely make the bills. We ALL had jobs; I started two paper routes in 5th grade and paid for all my books, uniform, dances, extra-curricular activities, etc. Books alone were upwards of $250 a year - a lot to lay on a 14 yr. old freshman. I'm not complaining, we all had to do it. It’s just the way it was.

You're right; I know nothing about divorce law. I do, however, know several people who are divorced and not one of the women who stayed home with their children DIDN'T get maintenance. It sounds like your lawyer knows nothing about divorce law either.

Your last paragraph is a rant but I'll try to address. I DO have knowledge of basic human rights and that's why I'm so against anything like the ERA, which would lead countless women down the path you apparently had to take after your divorce. Personally I think women deserve better.

So, Kristen, your problem with modern feminism appears to center around the "what does feminism actually do for women" question, and you assume that all it does is help one woman who wanted to play in a men's golf league?

Nice grasp of history there. Nice grasp of your modern world too.

Historically, first wave feminism achieved the right to contract, own property, vote, and to not be considered the property of one's family or husband for women. Gee, doesn't feminism suck!

Second-wave feminism achieved social acceptance for women who wanted to have educational and career options outside of the traditional homemaker role, as well as shining a little light on the discriminatory structures that allowed organizations to pay inequitable wages to or exclude women from educational and career options just for being women. Gee, doesn't feminism suck!

Currently, feminism still tries to address discrimination and inequalities in opportunity for women, and is trying to do so on a more global basis. Modern feminism is also concerned with prevalent crimes against women, like domestic violence and rape. Modern feminism is also addressing problematic areas in earlier feminisms, such as separatism and ethocentricity. Modern feminism most certainly does NOT want for women to be men. Modern feminism hopes for women to reach and achieve their full potential as women, and for the definition of what a woman is to belong to each individual woman, rather than being a social construction handed down from men or some other authoritarian source.

Since you elected Gloria Steinem to be your straw-feminist representative, claiming that modern feminists don't really do anything for women, here are a few things that she and Ms. magazine (which she founded) and the Ms. Foundation for Women, has done, and does, for women:

- In 1976, Ms. magazine was the first national publication to address the issue of domestic violence.

- In the March 1979 issue of Ms. magazine, Steinem authored the first widely read expose in the U.S. on the crime of female genital mutilation, thus bringing it to the public conscious.

- the Ms. Foundation advocates and assists with economic opportunities for low-income women, since they are often the hardest hit by economic fluctuations. The Foundation has a Collaborative Fund that provides grant money to women entrepreneurs, and the Fairy Godmother fund that provides grant money to women-owned business in low-income communities.

- The Ms. Foundation also organizes for women's health and safety, providing grant funding to organizations that are working to reduce and end gender-based violence. The foundation also provides funding to organizations that advocate for and improve the lives of women either affected by or living with AIDS. And of course, the foundation provides funding to organizations that support reproductive rights for women.

- The Foundation also organized funding for low-income women who were affected by Katrina.

Kristen, that's just a very, very small sample of what modern feminists do for women.

You advised me to get out from under my rock. Please. How about you do the same?

Hieronymous 8:18am

The late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn(sp?) was interviewed for an article concerning sexism in medicine. Dr. Mendelsohn stated that in the US, 4 out of 5 of the fetuses aborted for being the "wrong" sex in the US were female. He also quoted Gloria Steinem as saying that if this trend continued women would have to be put into cages with signs that read "Please Do Not Feed" meaning they would have to be treated as rare animals.
By the way, this article was written in a 1982 Nursing Journal, so sex selection abortion in the US has been around a while. Ms. Steinmen has also been well aware of this for years and apparently at one time had serious concerns about it.
Have you heard Ms.Steinem speak on this issue, make any effort tho change it, or voice any concerns about it? Certainly she of all people would be leading the charge against sexism at its worst.

Mary -

I think we're veering slightly off the topic of 'what does feminism do for women' into a related, but different topic.

However, to answer your question, no, I don't know what Steinem's position on this issue is.

Are you critiquing her because you don't think she's done enough? I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but how I'm reading your post is "sure, Steinem has done a couple things, but since she hasn't addressed issue X, then all the rest of it doesn't matter." I don't agree with that, if that's what you're saying.

Also, I think the sexism that exists here is prior to and independent of whether these women are pregnant. I think the larger system that devalues girl children and women and girls in general is the real problem.

Hier -

First I admire the women of the suffrage movement. Really I'm happy about all the gains made for women. You aren't listening, the problem I have is the nonsense they waste time on, as I noted before.

As far as female genital mutilation goes; far and wide that happens in China, India, etc. What exactly has been done to stop it? Just because it's more widely known doesn't mean it's obsolete. What about the Taliban? Nothing was done to help those women until the war, but we didn't invade on the behalf of those women.

Women's health and safety? Abortion? Right.

Social acceptance in working outside the home? I've got news for you women worked long before you felt it was socially acceptable. The first U.S. female doctor graduated in 1847. First U.S. female Representative 1917. But then again, they spent their time actually working for what they wanted, not some pie in the sky dream of "acceptance" that is indefinable and therefore unattainable, meaning something different to each woman.

Heir -

I agree completely with Mary. The "modern" feminists bring to light concerns for women, some very grave, but in the end are a mouth-piece for the cause and do nothing to right the wrong. As evident in Steinem's concern about aborted females.

Fine, Kristen. Pick a thing or two with which you have personal disagreement, and handwave the rest away. Pretend that institutionalized discrimination against women never really existed, while kind of admitting that it did. Pretend that none of these women are actually working for what they want (even though it's obvious that feminists actually do work for what they want) so that you can keep feeling superior to those silly feminists, and keep burying your head in the sand.

Oh. my. gosh.

Discrimination did exist, I'm not "kind of" admitting it did. Don't you think that the women I noted did much more for the "cause" than a bunch of women sitting around b****ing about how things "should" be? Get the point? Obviously not.

Talk about handwaving things away; what about the Taliban? And has female gential mutilation stopped? For cry-ey!

Edited by Moderator Bethany at 9:25 AM

Mods - sorry about the "B" word. Can you **** it out but leave the rest?

Kristen - women's advocates are working on those issues. Try looking it up and educating yourself.

FGM has been criminalized in almost every country in the world, largely due to a widespread publication by feminists of what the procedure actually is and the harm it does to women, and the resulting lobbying of those governments to ban the practice. No, the practice hasn't stopped yet, because of crazy fundamentalist traditionalists, but it is in the process.

And did you totally miss the points where I gave you examples of a women's foundation actually DOING things? I guess you did. Talk about missing the point.

Hieronymous 8:34am

Veering off the topic? We were discussing gains against sexism were we not? This is sexism at its worst and most primitive, it ranks right up there with tossing female babies into raging rivers or leaving them for wild animals. Its a means by which women remain relegated to a second choice second class status. I would think Ms. Steinem would have a very serious issue with this.

What good are all the successes if females are destroyed simply for being female and denied the right to exist and benefit from them?

Mary -

Like I said, I think that the pressure some women are under to have boy babies is a problem that exists independently of whether sex-selection abortion is available to them. If these women want a child, want to be pregnant, and want to have families, and yet feel obligated to produce boys because boys are more highly valued, that is a serious problem in worldview, and banning abortion for sex-selection will do nothing to address the root.

Kristen 8:42am

Good points about women working outside the home. I understand the first surgeon to seperate conjoined twins was female and she performed the surgery in 1950!
I lived near a landmark woman's college which was opened in 1910.
Throughout history women were writers, artists, and rulers, they ran businesses, fought in wars, were police officers, and led social movements.
Contrary to popular misconception women were going to college long before anyone ever heard of Betty Friedan.

H -

You act like those foundations are the ONLY ones helping women in areas like the Gulf Coast, where Katrina hit. Again, yes its good they are helping but so are other agencies. The men were hit just as hard as women and there are single fathers trying to raise kids that aren't getting the benefit of those agencies. Are only those men being punished? No, it's their children as well - I thought you wanted equality. Equality would be helping BOTH sexes. Not one over the other.

Why do you expect to be treated equally and fairly while continuing to discriminate against the opposite sex? Should we "stoop to their level" or be the bigger person and create harmony? Obviously you believe in the former and I in the latter.

Right on Mary! And I think you and I agree that those women are the reason we have access to education like we do today. Not because of Betty or Gloria, et al..

Go Women!

You act like those foundations are the ONLY ones helping women in areas like the Gulf Coast, where Katrina hit.

Uh, no, you're imagining that I said that or acted like that, because I didn't. You made a claim that modern feminists do nothing but complain and insult women, and don't actually help women. I provided a SMALL SAMPLE of the ways in which modern feminists actually help women, and you just can't face it.

Why do you expect to be treated equally and fairly while continuing to discriminate against the opposite sex? Should we "stoop to their level" or be the bigger person and create harmony? Obviously you believe in the former and I in the latter.

Yeah, that's totally it Kristen. *eyeroll* Could you please construct another straw-feminist or two?

Meanwhile, have you noticed that your complaints about modern feminists have switched from "modern feminists don't do anything for women" to "modern feminists do stuff for women, and that's not fair to the men!" Wah, wah wah...so which is it?

Hieronymous 9:07am

However, sex selection abortion will only enable this second class treatment of females and it sure beats making any effort to truly better the lives and status of women. Its just easier to get rid of them.

Hier 9:00am

You talk of women's foundations actually doing something to end FGM. I applaude their every effort. Yet you and other PCs use the excuse that we must understand and change cultural beliefs before changing laws on abortion. Really? So why don't the feminist organizations understand and try to change cultural beliefs before outlawing the practice of FGM?

Yet you and other PCs use the excuse that we must understand and change cultural beliefs before changing laws on abortion.

Actually, I don't say that. I don't think that laws on abortion need to be changed. For the most part, I'm fine with the way things are, and think that abortion should remain legal and accessible.

Ok, got to work now. Back later, although I really think this discussion has long since ceased to be productive, if it ever was.

Kristen,

In the city I lived required female police officers to have college educations. Male officers were not. I think the men were viewed as the brawn while the women were seen as doing jobs that required brains. NO offense to anyone, my grandfather and brother were police officers in this city. This was the mid 1950's. Our female neighbor was a police lieutenant. I remember she had the worst kid in the neighborhood!
Also the doctor I mentioned who seperated conjoined twins. She went on to categorize the types of conjoined twinning and her categorizations are still used today. She also wrote numerous textbooks.
Oh, and thank Dr.Virginia Apgar, OB/GYN who in the early 1950's developed the Apgar score as a method of determining the status of newborns.
Then there's prominent pro-life leader Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School in 1951.

H -

Oh, you got me *eyeroll* Yes, feminists do some things for women, the same as a million other organizations. The Red Cross for one, the Small Business Association for another, I could go on. The SBA even has special loans for minorities in place.

You really don't want equality, you just want what you want without knowing exactly what that is.

Hier,

So you have no issue with sex selection abortion and it being used as a method to maintain the second choice second class status of women?

Hier, 9:22am

On the contrary. I have found this discussion very informative and productive. For all of us.

Mary -

I think stories like that are great! I mean when you ask someone about Marie Curie what to people say? Same with Kate Gleason and Elizabeth Blackwell. Ask someone about Gloria Steinem and what do you get? "She a feminist." What the heck does that mean? What has she done? Bra burnings?

Just her quote about Geraldine Ferraro's vice-presidential candidacy was enough to realize she hates women - and men.

Posted by: Mary at April 10, 2008 9:35 AM

Me too! It refreshed my memory and my beliefs. Unfortunately Heir missed the points.

You talk of women's foundations actually doing something to end FGM. I applaude their every effort. Yet you and other PCs use the excuse that we must understand and change cultural beliefs before changing laws on abortion. Really? So why don't the feminist organizations understand and try to change cultural beliefs before outlawing the practice of FGM?

Mary, I would be interested to see Edyt's response to this question.

Kristen,

As well as female military leaders such as Joan of Arc and Queen Boudica, who led Celts in England in a rebellion against Rome.
There were also rulers such as Catherine the Great of Russia and Elizabeth I of England, neither of whom were noted for their timidity.
There were societies the world over where women were raised to be warriors along with men, and were just as ferocious as any male warrior.
The history of women is fascinating.

Mary -

Elizabeth I is one of my favorite women in history. Her defeat of the Spanish Armada decimated Spain's power. She definitely had faults but an amazing woman none-the-less.

Kristen,

Another famous queen was Cleopatra, who was portrayed as a bedhopper by the Romans in order to discredit her. Some things never change!
Contrary to her portrayal throughout history, she was in fact a very effective queen, she spoke several languages, and was well educated and brilliant.
I had to laugh when in the movie "Cleopatra",
Julius Cesaer commented that if she was't a woman you would think she was an intellectual!

Its always nice to see that there are other anti-abortion atheists out there :)

Posted by: Um...pro-life atheist at April 9, 2008 11:37 AM

w00t!

huh, that's weird. My zeroes in w00t got changed to o's. Is there an anti-l33tsp34k filter here? ;-)

Okay, let me try to explain this:

FGM is a direct result of women as subordinate beings. If women were seen as equal beings, people would not feel okay mutilating them. Furthermore, this goes into the whole virginity debate, which prizes women on their purity rather than who they are and what they're capable of. This directly affects women. In order to change it, we are working on BOTH changing cultural ideas and changing the laws regarding FGM. We understand that just changing a law doesn't mean the practice will end.

Similarly, if abortion were made illegal, the practice would continue on because we have not addressed the fact that sex is wrong for women and other such harmful ideas that keep getting pusehd down through the generations. I don't think abortion should be made illegal, but it certainly shouldn't be illegal in the society we live in today.

Edyt, don't you think that is just a tad contradictory?

You say that for FGM, you are working on BOTH changing cultural ideas AND working on changing the laws.

Yet for abortion, you're only working on the culture. Why is this?

Easy! Because I don't think abortion should be illegal.

Edyt,

Both FGM and sex selection abortion of females results from viewing women as subordinate human beings and neither would occur if women were viewed as equals.
You don't like FGM so you believe it should be outlawed and cultural ideas changed.
You support abortion so you think the laws should remain as is. How does disposing of unborn females promote value and respect for women? It only maintains their second choice second class status.

How does outlawing abortion promote value and respect for women?

Edyt,

I asked how sex selection abortion of females promotes value and respect for women.

It doesn't. Your turn.

Edyt, 6:10PM

So how can you support legal abortion when it is being used to maintain the second choice second class status of women?

Not yet, Mary. I answered your question, so now you must answer mine, and we'll proceed from there.

Edyt,

The year before Roe v Wade, the death rate from illegal abortion was at an all time low. Most illegal abortions were done in doctor's offices and very carefully, since any mistake meant a prison sentence. They certainly weren't done on an assembly line basis.
The early abortion movement deliberately lied, distorted facts and statistics, and promoted bigotry by targetting the Catholic Church as a common enemy against which abortion advocates could rally. Just ask the klan or the Nazis how effective a common enemy is in uniting your supporters. This was necessary to make abortion on demand palatable to the American public, who likely would not have supported it if they knew many of these "statistics" were fabricated, that women were no where near dying by the thousands as abortion advocates claimed, and that abortion leaders were deliberately deceiving them.

How has legal abortion enhanced respect for women?
I see women and children abandoned to lives of poverty and welfare dependency because a man felt his responsiblity to a woman began and ended with an offer to pay for an abortion. If a woman doesn't abort, then its "her" problem. Maybe he would be a little more careful if he was held financially or morally responsible.

The criminal element was never put out of business, they only hung shingles and conducted their business legally and openly. One drug addicted abortionist in Detroit even permitted his dog to walk around the operating area and referred to his patients as "dogs". He conducted his business openly and legally.

The most barbaric forms of abortion have been developed and openly practiced, including saline injection and partial birth abortion. There is no medical justification for any of them.

Tiller's staff were not medically trained or licensed but were allowed to supervise aborting patients in hotel rooms and to give women medications as they saw fit.

Oh, then there is that issue of the deliberate destruction of females through sex selection abortion to maintain their second choice second class status. Certainly not something feminists anticipated.

Yes Edyt I think women were and would be better off with illegal abortion.

The year before Roe v Wade, the death rate from illegal abortion was at an all time low. Most illegal abortions were done in doctor's offices and very carefully, since any mistake meant a prison sentence. They certainly weren't done on an assembly line basis.

We don't really have statistics on illegal abortion.

The early abortion movement deliberately lied, distorted facts and statistics, and promoted bigotry by targetting the Catholic Church as a common enemy against which abortion advocates could rally. Just ask the klan or the Nazis how effective a common enemy is in uniting your supporters. This was necessary to make abortion on demand palatable to the American public, who likely would not have supported it if they knew many of these "statistics" were fabricated, that women were no where near dying by the thousands as abortion advocates claimed, and that abortion leaders were deliberately deceiving them.

Perhaps they did. But at the moment, many pro-lifers are distorting facts about sex, birth control, and abortion, particularly at CPCs, so how is that any different?

Both sides are wrong when they use lies to push their point. I won't defend any of the old actions that were taken to give women the right to abortion.

How has legal abortion enhanced respect for women?
I see women and children abandoned to lives of poverty and welfare dependency because a man felt his responsiblity to a woman began and ended with an offer to pay for an abortion. If a woman doesn't abort, then its "her" problem. Maybe he would be a little more careful if he was held financially or morally responsible.

Surely you can't assume every man would be held financially and morally responsible for his offspring! (In an ideal world...) And what if the mother has deemed him unfit and does not want him a part of her life? What of the man that abandons her, or the man that rapes her?

Legal abortion has enhanced the idea that women are more than just their reproductive organs, that their rights are valued too and protected by the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately, when you make abortion illegal, you take away a woman's Constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. That makes her a second-class citizen... not abortion.

Oh, then there is that issue of the deliberate destruction of females through sex selection abortion to maintain their second choice second class status. Certainly not something feminists anticipated.

I don't agree with sex-selective abortion at all. However, it does not exist because of abortion. It exists because of misogyny and the idea that men are better than women. If you make abortions illegal, you don't fix the problem of misogyny, you just open more female children up to infanticide, abandonment, and abuse, or set them up to be adopted. In a misogynist culture, a female child is seen as defective and less wanted than a male child.

I understand that doesn't make the abortion look any better, but illegalizing abortion won't fix the problem any more than illegalizing Corvettes to stop car crashes.

What we need are better clinics and more qualified doctors. I am pro-choice, but I do not defend poor medical practices.

Oh, and you still didn't answer my question about how making abortion illegal will promote value and respect for women (unless you think making a man pay for his sperm and good doctors = value and respect).

I think this article and this article are good examples of what happens in countries where abortions are illegal.

Furthermore, the pro-life agenda attempts to prevent the sale of contraceptives and comprehensive sex education. How does taking away reproductive rights and misinforming young people help promote value and respect for women?

Do you think young men won't see us taking away a woman's desire to have contraceptives and think someone else has the right to control her body?

Do you think teaching abstinence-only education where women take the burden of the consequences will make men value women for more than just their reproductive organs?

Edyt,

We do not know for certain the number of illegal abortions but we do know the death rate the year before Roe v Wade was 39. It had been steadily decreasing for years. However NARAL, then known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, deliberately inflated the number of illegal abortions, which no one knew for certain, as well as the death rate.

No every man couldn't be held morally, legally, or financially responsible, but abortion sure helped get a lot of them off the hook. It also better enabled them to walk away since the woman had the "choice" and didn't use it. Hell, its her problem! I remember the days when men could be and were held responsible. They were more inclined to keep their pants zipped if they didn't want a long time commitment of any kind.
Certainly I don't condone a woman keeping an unfit man of any kind in her life, and that includes her husband. But I don't condone men better able to walk away from their responsiblities either.

The 14th Amendment involved the abolition of slavery, overturning of Dred Scott, and required states to provide equal protection to all citizens. The Supreme Court found a "right" to abortion by referring to it as "emanations" arising from a "penumbra" cast by the 14th Amendment. The judges found this "right" in steam or vapors arising from a shadow cast by the 14th Amendment. It sounds like the justices were reading tea leaves.

How does illegal abortion deprive a woman of life, liberty, and property? Women enjoyed these rights long before Roe v Wade.

Edyt please. Sex selection abortion does not exist because of abortion? It exists precisely because abortion is legal and available and provides a means to dispose of unwanted and undesirable females. Yes second class treatment of women exists in these countries and yes abortion is a means of disposing of women since its easier to dispose of them than to better their lives. It maintains the second choice second class status quo.
Making abortion illegal won't change the culture, well neither will laws against FGM. Do you oppose those? If you outlaw FGM you may leave women unmarriagable, undesirable, and abandoned to lives alone. So we shouldn't make an effort to outlaw FGM, right?

Women were promised high standards, safety, and medically professional abortion once it became legal. Why hasn't this been the case? I'll let you in on a dirty little secret Edyt. Legal abortion did nothing to enhance abortionists in the medical community. They are still viewed as dregs. Yes they are tolerated, a pregnant mistress or two will be sent to them, but they are looked down on as well. Doctors will support abortion but in no way will dirty their own hands. That might explain why you have people like Hodari, who admits he doesn't always wash his hands between patients and feels justified in lying to patients.

Yes I did answer you question. I told you at the end of my post I think women were and would be better off if abortion would be illegal and why.
I think the examples I gave point out why I feel legal abortion has done nothing to promote respect and value for women.

Edyt, 7:58PM

These are also countries where women die of malnutrition, abuse, lack of medical care, and live in horrendous poverty we cannot even comprehend. How many hundreds of thousands of women die because of these circumstances every year? Why is no one as upset about this as they are illegal abortion?
The serious social problems have to be addressed and until they are she will remain in her desperate situation, and yes will seek illegal abortion as well as steal food to feed her children or prostitute herself to survive.
You abort the woman and send her back to a life of poverty, ignorance, and abuse. You haven't solved her problems, but you've sure made yourself feel good.

As far as I know contraceptives are legal and being sold. Who's stopping them? Women have lost their desire for contraceptives? There is comprehensive sex ed. I don't see greatly enhanced respect for women. I also see young women and teens deliberately becoming pregnant and have for years. Yes, you read that right.

Abstinence only education should be to both boys and girls and teach respect for women, that they are not playthings and that both men and women are responsible for their actions. Being that comprehensive sex-ed has not been an overwhelming success, it can't hurt to try it.

Mary, excellent posts!

Bethany,

Thank you.

We do not know for certain the number of illegal abortions but we do know the death rate the year before Roe v Wade was 39. It had been steadily decreasing for years. However NARAL, then known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, deliberately inflated the number of illegal abortions, which no one knew for certain, as well as the death rate.

'Kay. Great? Like I said, I'm not going to defend something that happened over 30 years ago. We're talking about abortion today. And in many countries where abortion is illegal, women are DYING. It is a fact. It has been noted that abortion rates are relatively the same in countries where it is illegal and legal, and that in some countries where it is legal (and contraceptives are widely available), abortion rates have actually gone down.

No every man couldn't be held morally, legally, or financially responsible, but abortion sure helped get a lot of them off the hook. It also better enabled them to walk away since the woman had the "choice" and didn't use it. Hell, its her problem! I remember the days when men could be and were held responsible. They were more inclined to keep their pants zipped if they didn't want a long time commitment of any kind.

If a woman chooses to have a baby today, can she not hold the man responsible for child support?

The 14th Amendment involved the abolition of slavery, overturning of Dred Scott, and required states to provide equal protection to all citizens. The Supreme Court found a "right" to abortion by referring to it as "emanations" arising from a "penumbra" cast by the 14th Amendment. The judges found this "right" in steam or vapors arising from a shadow cast by the 14th Amendment. It sounds like the justices were reading tea leaves.

Oh, you mean the part where it says rights are granted to persons born or naturalised? Nope, I think that was pretty clear.

How does illegal abortion deprive a woman of life, liberty, and property? Women enjoyed these rights long before Roe v Wade.

I've stated it in this post, 1:43 p.m.

Edyt please. Sex selection abortion does not exist because of abortion? It exists precisely because abortion is legal and available and provides a means to dispose of unwanted and undesirable females. Yes second class treatment of women exists in these countries and yes abortion is a means of disposing of women since its easier to dispose of them than to better their lives. It maintains the second choice second class status quo.

Careful, now. You're stretching with the sex-selective abortion argument since it does not really happen in the States and as such we have no power over what other cultures do or do not do... however, I will restate my point in a clearer fashion. If we did not have abortion, parents who really did not want a specific gender of child would give him or her up for adoption, abandon or commit infanticide upon the child. While I can agree that abortion has allowed parents to be sex-selective, I do not think sex-selective abortions would take place if it were not for existing misogyny.

Making abortion illegal won't change the culture, well neither will laws against FGM. Do you oppose those? If you outlaw FGM you may leave women unmarriagable, undesirable, and abandoned to lives alone. So we shouldn't make an effort to outlaw FGM, right?

FGM is another example of how misogyny has led to abuses against women. No, I do not think outlawing it would solve the problem alone, nor do I think it will make it go away, but there are specific reasons for outlawing something like FGM and not abortion.

FGM is done without the woman's consent. It is an abuse against her body. She has the right to her body, therefore any mutilation or changes must be done with her consent. Pregnancy, in a similar vein, can mutilate and change a woman's body without her consent. In both cases, this is a harmful action being done against a woman without her consent. It's okay if a woman wants FGM or to give birth to a child, but it's not okay for someone else to force her into it.

Women were promised high standards, safety, and medically professional abortion once it became legal. Why hasn't this been the case? I'll let you in on a dirty little secret Edyt. Legal abortion did nothing to enhance abortionists in the medical community. They are still viewed as dregs. Yes they are tolerated, a pregnant mistress or two will be sent to them, but they are looked down on as well. Doctors will support abortion but in no way will dirty their own hands. That might explain why you have people like Hodari, who admits he doesn't always wash his hands between patients and feels justified in lying to patients.

Then perhaps the problem, as you suggest, is not the abortion, but the stigma attached. If they were not viewed as dregs, perhaps we could have better doctors doing abortions. We should provide high medical standards for abortion. I completely agree! I think doctors of all practices who do not commit to a high standard should have their licenses taken away. And if you look at the statistics, abortion is now much safer than giving birth.

Yes I did answer you question. I told you at the end of my post I think women were and would be better off if abortion would be illegal and why. I think the examples I gave point out why I feel legal abortion has done nothing to promote respect and value for women.

But I really want to know how you feel outlawing abortion WILL promote respect and value for women.

These are also countries where women die of malnutrition, abuse, lack of medical care, and live in horrendous poverty we cannot even comprehend. How many hundreds of thousands of women die because of these circumstances every year? Why is no one as upset about this as they are illegal abortion?

They are. This is a site about abortion, we're debating abortion, I'm bringing up statistics about abortion in a country where abortion is illegal. Yes, I'm still upset about the fact that those women and children (and men too!) are dying from poor health care and malnutrution, but we're discussing abortion. People are trying to help out these countries with their other problems.

The serious social problems have to be addressed and until they are she will remain in her desperate situation, and yes will seek illegal abortion as well as steal food to feed her children or prostitute herself to survive. You abort the woman and send her back to a life of poverty, ignorance, and abuse. You haven't solved her problems, but you've sure made yourself feel good.

If another woman gets an abortion, I haven't "made myself feel good." The example I provided proves that women who are desperate will do anything to get an abortion, even if it kills them. Yes, these women need better resources and medical care.

As far as I know contraceptives are legal and being sold. Who's stopping them? Women have lost their desire for contraceptives? There is comprehensive sex ed. I don't see greatly enhanced respect for women. I also see young women and teens deliberately becoming pregnant and have for years. Yes, you read that right.

Abstinence only education should be to both boys and girls and teach respect for women, that they are not playthings and that both men and women are responsible for their actions. Being that comprehensive sex-ed has not been an overwhelming success, it can't hurt to try it.

First of all, funding has been cut for contraceptives, so many women (particularly those in college) found their BC going from $15 a month to $50 or more. And with pharmacists refusing to dish out meds they don't feel falls within their religion, you'd be surprised how difficult it can be for a woman to get BC. Yes, condoms can be bought, but if a girl doesn't feel comfortable DEMANDING her man use one, it's good to have back-up. In fact, it's good to use both condoms and chemical BC, just in case. Both methods need to be readily available and inexpensive.

Secondly, I don't know how much you pay attention to the news, but abstinence-only education has been the big thing for like... the past 8 years. It's only been recently that schools have been rejecting abstinence-only sex ed, and that's because it has been producing terrible results (such as the spike in teen birth rates). With one in four teenage girls with an STD, we can't afford to teach abstinence-only. They need to hear the truth and be provided with comprehensive information.

Guess what, abstinence-only doesn't teach respect or responsibility. It simply teaches doing nothing until marriage. What of homosexual teens? What of teens who don't want to get married? What of teens who don't see sex as something that must be waited for? I think abstinence is an option we should teach, but not by itself.

And sure, there are young women & teens who will deliberately get pregnant, but there are those who get their by ignorance, and that's what we're trying to prevent.

With one in four teenage girls with an STD, we can't afford to teach abstinence-only. They need to hear the truth and be provided with comprehensive information.

Ever heard of chastity? It teaches morals (a dirty word I know, but hey, teaching morals work when you don't tell the kids that they are optional!).

Read "A Return to Modesty" By Wendy Shalit - Excellent book about going back to the "Good 'ole days.

Great idea! Hasn't worked yet.

Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities.

"The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior," said lead author Peter S. Bearman, a professor at Columbia's Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. "From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs."

I remember hearing the anal sex myth when I was in high school. A bunch of teens were doing that and oral because they thought it preserved their virginity.

Oops, that's from this Washington Post article.

Edyt,

In these countries you are referring to women are also dying of abuse, malnutrition, preventable disease and live in poverty we cannot comprehend. We are doing nothing to truly better their lives by legalizing abortion and many of these women seek abortion because of very desperate circumstances. Why are we not addressing these desperate circumstances that drive women to seek illegal abortion? Why isn't the time and effort spent on truly bettering women's lives, instead of sending them from the abortionist back to the same desperate circumstances that drove them to seek abortion in the first place?

Yes the woman can hold a man responsible for child support, but good luck. I've met young women in a mentoring group who were expecting by the same man. Apparently he wasn't going broke supporting these kids. His generosity began and ended by offering to pay for their abortions before moving on to the next woman. Its easier for them to apply for welfare. Not to metion the 22y/o "man" who brings his 14y/o "girlfriend" to the abortion clinic to escape a rape charge. One 15y/o I know was brought to the abortion clinic by her stepfather to cover his molestation of her. He began molesting her in the car on the way home. The slime couldn't even wait to get her home.

Concerning the 14th Amendment. Born or naturalized into the US. So you would agree that a 9 month fetus, the day before birth can be killed in the womb? Also, the justices seemed to have some trouble here. I mean, a "right" founded vapors arising from a shadow?

Edyt, kindly humor me. Please, some specific examples of how women were deprived of life, liberty, and property prior to Roe v Wade.

On the subject of sex selection abortion, YOU be careful. In a 1982 Nursing journal article, the late Dr.Robert Mendolsohn charged that 4 out of 5 of the fetuses aborted in the UNITED STATES were female. He also stated that feminist leader Gloria Steinem had expressed serious concern about this situation. With knowledge of the gender of an unborn child now being commonplace, we cannot possibly know the extent of sex selection abortion in this country.
Sex selection abortions take place because legal abortion provides a legal and socially acceptable way to dispose of unwanted and undesirable females, and yes that includes here in the United States.

FGM is not always done without consent. In some countries it is ceremonial and women in different cultures have expressed their resentment over us Western folk presuming we know what is best or judging their customs.

Edyt, why is stigma attached to abortion? Its been legal 35 years. Why don't doctors want to be called abortionists? Sorry, but putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it any more attractive. Abortionists always have been and are still looked down on.

The point is contraception is legal and available. $50.00 a month? I wish that was all I spent on groceries. Even gas! That comes out to little more than a dollar a day. How about getting a weekend job? Maybe her partner can share some of the expense, especially if he doesn't want to wear a condom.

If these teens are becoming pregnant because of ignornace, than obviously comprehensive sex ed isn't working either. Maybe what we really need is less glamorizing of illegitimacy and promotion of sex every where these kids look. It never ceased to amaze me the teens and young women who seemed determined to be impregnated time and again by one loser after another, or by the same loser time and again. Sorry, but when I see the 18y/o having her third baby, you can't convince me ignorance is at work here.
I wish there was an easy answer to why so many of these young women deliberately throw their futures down the toilet.

we found great deals on cheap hotel rates online!

Is it easy to find cheap airline tickets now that gas is so cheap?

Do you think that car rentals will continue to get cheaper?

What is that guy talking about?

That's a smart point...for sure

Thank you. I read herelots of valuable sentences. Greetings from Poland.

Hello to all ! Greetings From Poland. Great and vaulable site. KBGKBG