Thankfully they redefined health, otherwise this would be a whole waste of time.

It will be interesting to see how the purist groups react to this, considering it has such a good chance of passing. How ironic it would be if it didn't pass because of people who are pro-life.

I am on the fence on this one. To me, what's the point if it just gets overturned and further cements Roe? Not much, I'm afraid. Still, I will await the outcome anxiously.

SDRTL President George Dummann told LifeNews.com the ban's "rape and incest and health-of-the-mother exceptions imply that some babies can be killed."

No, George, this law says that some/most babies can't be killed. It's the current absence laws like this one you oppose that allow for all babies to be killed. Opposing this bill won't save babies concieved by rape/incest, it just ensures that all other babies die with them.

Letting 99% of babies be butchered is inexclusable. Thousands of babies who were butchered since Ref 6 failed last time who would have lived with this exception disagree with South Dakota Right to Life.

I am on the fence on this one. To me, what's the point if it just gets overturned and further cements Roe? Not much, I'm afraid. Still, I will await the outcome anxiously

You can't further cement Roe. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is as reaffirming as they come.

What this does is allow for a straight shot to SCOTUS, rather than Norma McCorvey's re-filing of Roe an attempts to slowly climb the court chain. With new justices, laws like this could overturn Roe, and at the least, bring to light questions of state sovereignty.

Bingo, Jacqueline!

The only thing the "purist" position does is to ensure more and more babies are killed.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

I'm glad they have such a rigorous and clear definition for the health exception. Excellent.

Is this "purist" movement really that large a group of people that it could make a difference?

It boggles my mind that there are more than a handful of crazies out there who would really rather see abortion remain legal on demand indefintely than allow a woman to choose to save her own life, or choose not to give birth when she never consented to be pregnant.

I remember that lunatic who came on here raving about how Jill was a closet pro abort because she thinks abortion of an ectopic pregnancy is okay, and that its better for the mother and fetus to both die than to abort. Those people are not "pro life" at all... they're just ...well... insane.

a handful of crazies out there who would really rather see abortion remain legal on demand indefintely than allow a woman to choose...not to give birth when she never consented to be pregnant.

And what is "choosing not to give birth when she never consented to be pregnant" but dismembering an innocent child? My sympathies go out to a raped woman, but no child should be dismembered because his father raped his mother. It's not the baby's fault and killing the child doesn't undo the rape or make anything right- it just makes everything even more wrong.

"All that aside, it will be interesting to see the other side's arguments this time. "

Jill, Here are a few things on my list of ten - some I won't share because I don't want them to give PP any ideas they aren't already espousing. First, on the rape/incest issue they are saying we are revictimizing the gal all over again by making her report a crime. As you know, unlike any other legit helping profession, PP doesn't report sex crimes against minors. Second, they will continue to exploit SD's libertarian population and seek to convince people who are opposed to abortion to vote no so the government isn't more involved. They'll say, "no one wants abortion, but is the decision the governments to make?" Third, we expect them to really press the fetal anomaly cases - this may tug on hearts more than rape did in 06. Fourth, they are already spreading great fears about the cost to SD'n tax payers to fight this for three years in court. If you want to help us in SD, send money to voteyesforlife.com not dead baby pictures. As effective as those are elsewhere, they have proven to work against our momentum here. Thanks

How surprising to hear Leslee Unruh say that the trash trucks and poster-waving nuts hurt the cause. I wonder when the rest of the anti-choice movement will realize that.

"And what is "choosing not to give birth when she never consented to be pregnant" but dismembering an innocent child? My sympathies go out to a raped woman, but no child should be dismembered because his father raped his mother. It's not the baby's fault and killing the child doesn't undo the rape or make anything right- it just makes everything even more wrong."

First of all, over 90% of abortions are done early enough that no "dismembering" occurs.

Second of all, if your sympathies truly went out to a raped woman, you'd be asking what is best for HER, and no one else.

No, its not the baby's fault. It's not the mother's fault either.

And no, killing the baby doesn't un do the rape, but neither does having it.

And it only makes everything "more wrong" if you believe that. If someone believes its best for them, its not wrong at all.

So you'd really rather see 1.3 million abortions per year than probably under 200,000 abortions provided to women who are victims? Awesome.

I wonder when the rest of the anti-choice movement will realize that.

I'm sorry that you want to keep your head in the sand and not have to face the truth about the horror you support.

However, minds have been changed. Women who have feelings and consciences have looked at those poor babies and said, "I can't do that to my child."

good for south Dakota hopefully this law will pass and other states will heed South Dakota.

http://adlynmorrison.blogspot.com/

So you'd really rather see 1.3 million abortions per year than probably under 200,000 abortions provided to women who are victims? Awesome.

I never said that. Did you not read what I actually said?

First of all, over 90% of abortions are done early enough that no "dismembering" occurs.

That's not true, but I'll concede. Okay- strike "dismember" and insert "kill". Does it matter how the killing is done- poisoning via chemicals, being sucked whole through a suction tube...the end is the same. An innocent, dead baby who had his/her whole life stolen.

Second of all, if your sympathies truly went out to a raped woman, you'd be asking what is best for HER, and no one else.

Not true- My sympathies go out to people all the time, like mothers that are so poor that they feel like they must choose between eating themselves or going hungry to feed her child. My sympathy goes out to her, but I wouldn't let her kill her child so she could be nourished- I'd find a way to feed her, and to help them both.

A victim doesn't supersede all other human life. Because someone burns my house to the ground doesn't mean I can go kill someone and take theres to even things out. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm sorry for the victimized- but that's doesn't justify creating more victims. The baby concieved by rape is an innocent, too. Why turn him/her into a murder victim?

Furthermore, abortion does nothing but revictimize a woman. How is that best for her?

No, its not the baby's fault. It's not the mother's fault either.

That's true. But I don't suggest killing the innocent woman like you suggest killing the innocent baby.

And no, killing the baby doesn't un do the rape, but neither does having it.

You're right. I never suggested that having the baby rights the wrong of the rape, but you suggest that killing the baby could help, when it does nothing but create and even deeper wrong. We'd agree that rape and murder is worse than just rape. This makes a rape into a rape and murder, and makes a victim into a perpetrator.

And it only makes everything "more wrong" if you believe that.

Not killing a baby doesn't create more wrong. If anything, a baby could be the only good thing to come out of a rape. If not for the mother, for an adoptive family.

If someone believes its best for them, its not wrong at all.

So if I believe it's best for me to take your kidney, that's not wrong at all? Several things are wrong that could better my life, like robbing a bank. Just because something betters someone at another's expense doesn't justify hurting another. If a women thinks it's best for her to kill her baby, that doesn't justify hurting the baby.

Excellent post, Jacqueline!!

Thank you, Carla!

I'm sorry that you want to keep your head in the sand and not have to face the truth about the horror you support.

Leslee Unruh is the one who was complaining that these images hurt the pro-life cause. Are you saying that she just doesn't want to "face the truth about the horror she supports?"

. Are you saying that she just doesn't want to "face the truth about the horror she supports?"

No. I'm saying you oppose them because you don't want to face the truth. You say they hurt the cause, but they shake people like yourself up, which is a good thing.

Amanda said

It boggles my mind that there are more than a handful of crazies out there who would really rather see abortion remain legal on demand indefintely than allow a woman to choose to save her own life, or choose not to give birth when she never consented to be pregnant.

Amanda - "choosing to save her own life"? There are some who don't make an exception for the life of the mother, however most people know that it is better to save one than let two die. The hard cases are genuinely hard. I don't discount that there are circumstances when it's very touch and go as far as conditions are concerned, however, I believe at that point the decision is hardly an "elective" one, nor is it a "choice" in the way "choice" is normally described.

Equivocating the two is the fallacy - because the terms have changed. This is little choice when medically two lives are on the line, and there's a complication that's degenerating.

Be intellectually honest - don't conjoin the "consent to pregancy" arguments with the medically hard cases. Thanks.

But if the referendum passes, the abortionist must report rape/incest to the police before aborting. In the event of incest, there will be legal intervention. The abortionist also must get dna samples from mother and child. False reports will net the abortionist 10 years in prison.

How does one determine whether a report is "false" or not? And why should the abortion provider be charged with this duty, of sorting out "false" reports from true reports, lest he go to prison for 10 years? Isn't that the police's job? Why should the abortion provider be punished for a woman's false report to police?

The referendum also requires the abortionist to try to save the child's life in cases of abortion for life/health of the mother. Noncompliance will net the abortionist 10 years in prison.

How does a doctor "try to save the life" of a nonviable fetus? If it is not viable, nothing short of not performing the abortion will save it's life.

The referendum defines health as a "...serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system of the pregnant women should the pregnancy be continued and which risk could be prevented through an abortion."

What is a "serious" risk? What is a "major bodily organ or system?" This is all very vague. How is a doctor to know what counts as a "major" bodily organ? How is she supposed to know what counts as a "serious" risk? 50/50? 60/40? 70/30? What?

What this law really says to doctors is "best to err on the side of letting the woman be disabled or killed, because if you err on the side of saving the woman's life, you could wind up in prison for 10 years." And that's really sick.

If aborting for health reasons, the abortionist will be required to submit a detailed report to the SD Dept of Health, providing info our side needs to battle the nebulous "health" exception pro-aborts constantly evoke. SD legislators already have an abortionist on record via deposition stating she never had to abort for health of the mother.

So if SD legislators have a doctor willing to say that no abortion is ever performed for health reasons, how can any other doctor legally perform one without being prosecuted?

Jaqueline --

I'm saying you oppose them because you don't want to face the truth.

Where did I say that?

You say they hurt the cause,

Leslee Unruh says that.

but they shake people like yourself up, which is a good thing.

So far, they haven't got me to vote anti-choice. And they aren't convincing anyone else to vote anti-choice. According to Leslee Unruh, they're repelling people who might otherwise vote anti-choice, and you think that's a good thing?

(Obviously I think that's a good thing, but I didn't think you'd agree with me.) ;D

So far, they haven't got me to vote anti-choice.

Yeah, but you don't like to be confronted with them.

And they aren't convincing anyone else to vote anti-choice.

That's not true. Many have seen the horro of abortion through photos and voted pro-life.

Honestly, how can you look at babies in pieces and think that's a good thing?

Yeah, but you don't like to be confronted with them.

Where did I say that? You are imagining things.

I think they make anti-choicers look crazy. That is all. You should be embarrassed.

Have you ever seen, like, a PETA protest, where they hold up gory signs of dead cows and chickens and run around naked or in costumes to get attention? Yeah. Same deal. It's not endearing. It just looks nuts.

That's not true. Many have seen the horro of abortion through photos and voted pro-life.

Not according to Leslee Unruh.

Honestly, how can you look at babies in pieces and think that's a good thing?

I love my freedom.

How can you look at photos of dead Iraqis and think that's a good thing?

Jacqueline-

The pictures do nothing really. Yes, they're disgusting, but so are most medical procedures, or (unfortunately) sometimes the result thereof.

The pictures do nothing for me, they just make me think people are digging through medical waste, risking themselves, and showing bloody pictures, and perhaps even doing some exploiting of their own. On top of that it seems that everytime they're posted I become more and more desensitized and they almost fade into the background, almost like how the news stories about murders, shootings, etc cause concern at first, but eventually they are so common place people shrug them off until they see numbers or have it effect them personally. Using those pictures in all honesty isnt the way to go.

I love my freedom.

At the expense of your own children? You love your freedom to have sex with whoever, whenever, whyever because you can just kill your children that you conceive? And you don't see how this makes you a sick, depraved selfish, evil shit of a human being?

How can you look at photos of dead Iraqis and think that's a good thing?

I don't. It's a horrible thing. It's certainly not a "choice" I would make a pay hundreds of dollars for.

Nice try attempting to equate a mother forking over hundred of dollars to have some med school wash-out kill her own baby with unintended war casualties. Talk about apples and oranges.

This just proves that abortion is indefensible, and that's why you are always trying to change the subject.

Reality, I don't want o embarrass you, however, I think you asked this question, however, it's hard for me to believe you asked it:

"What is a "serious" risk? What is a "major bodily organ or system?" This is all very vague. How is a doctor to know what counts as a "major" bodily organ? How is she supposed to know what counts as a "serious" risk? 50/50? 60/40? 70/30? What?"

Because doctors go to medical school?

Let's see, I am an engineer and I know that the brain, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, stomach and intestines are all considered major or "vital" bodily organs. I think we can survive without eyes, without an appendix, with only one kidney, etc. So, I would say that a serious risk would be the inability of any one of those "vital" organs to function. Kind of like what happens when the wing of an airplane falls off, not when the earphones don't work at your seat.

And you do know that when a baby is viciously sucked, shredded, diced, dismembered, sliced, and poisoned it pretty much kills the whole baby, don't you? And you also know that abortion is a 100% negative risk factor for an innocent, defenseless baby in the womb who depends on his parents of otherwise sane people for his continued existence, don't you? Or does the mathematical side of your brain dissappear when it is taken over by the dark side of your brain?

In reality, Reality, it'a all pretty quantfiable, but, of course, you don't want to hear that do you? You have heard of actuarial tables and anatomy courses haven't you? Or is that liberal institution of lower learning you attend more concerned about brainwashing you with moral relativism?

What, are you telling me that you only trust a doctor's opinion when it agrees with your preconcieved notion of right and wrong? How convenient.

Well it's just that sort of twisted thinking that results in the chaos and mayhem and utter evil of abortion.

""What is a "serious" risk? What is a "major bodily organ or system?" This is all very vague. How is a doctor to know what counts as a "major" bodily organ? How is she supposed to know what counts as a "serious" risk? 50/50? 60/40? 70/30? What?"

Because doctors go to medical school?"

HisMan - So just a few weeks ago in the Terri Shaivo threads, you were commenting on how often doctors are flat our wrong when making a prognosis about a patient's chances of death and/or recovery.

If doctors are infallible when determining these things, as you are now saying, then what about all of the doctors who said Terri Shaivo's brain was mush and that she had no real brain activity?

Doctors are only always right when it fits your purpose then?

then what about all of the doctors who said Terri Shaivo's brain was mush and that she had no real brain activity?

What about all of the doctors who said that Terri was brain-injured only, and with rehab (which she was denied), she could recover? One of those doctors is a Nobel-nominated neurologist who offered to work with Terri for free, but was denied by Terri's "husband."

Doctors are only always right when it fits your purpose then?

Are people only deserving of life when you say they are? Like Terri was not deserving of life (or food or water) and children concieved in rape are not deserving of life?

Way to oppress the most vulnerable!

I just don't get it.Why do you anti-choicers
continue to support heartless republican
regimes which cut back on services to the poor,
which only leads to MORE abortions?
And why do you support the Bush adminis-
tration,which has denied funding for contracep-
tion in poor countries,also leading to an
enormous number of abortions and dead poor
women? The logic escapes me.

How can you look at photos of dead Iraqis and think that's a good thing?

Theres a difference between the aborted unborn babies and the dead Iraqis, the dead Iraqis mother didnt murder them, over 90% abortions for convenince.

"Just because something betters someone at another's expense doesn't justify hurting another."

Yeah. Exactly. What if it hurts the mother, emotionally and physically to have a baby that is the result of rape? That's irrelevent?

"So if I believe it's best for me to take your kidney, that's not wrong at all? "

Nope. My kidney is in MY body. Not yours. If I believe its best for me to GIVE you my kindey, that's a different story. A woman should be able to CHOOSE to give life, not be forced to do it out of circumstances she had absolutely no control over.

By the way, reality, it's one thing to be ignorant and suppose the whole 'blob' of tissue argument, it's another to look at little arms and legs and declare that it is good because "I love my freedom."

There is a difference between being ignorant and being evil.

Jackie -

Thank you for furthering my point.

Doctors are wrong... a lot. They disagree... a lot.

That was exactly my point.

So there is absolutely no way to accurately quantify the amount of risk a pregnancy could cause a woman and/or her organs and determine whether or not she gets to have an abortion or just take her chances.

Jacqueline, you are on a roll today. :D

Great posting.

Yeah. Exactly. What if it hurts the mother, emotionally and physically to have a baby that is the result of rape? That's irrelevent?

No, it's not irrelevant, but it's a sad consequence of an act that already taken place. The rape can't be undone, and a pregnancy can't be ended without killing a baby. If in order to help the mother emotional and physically, a baby must be killed, this is unacceptable. We wouldn't allow the woman to dismember her rapist to ease emotional or physical pain, and he is guilty. Why do we allow her to kill her baby who is innocent?

A woman should be able to CHOOSE to give life, not be forced to do it out of circumstances she had absolutely no control over.

I agree! She didn't choose to give life, but life already exists. This is unacceptable- Rape is unacceptable. But the rape has occured and that the question is no longer whether or not she chooses to give life but whether or not she chooses to kill a life that already exists. That choice to create the life was taken from her, but that doesn't give her the right to take the life of her innocent child.

Nope. My kidney is in MY body. Not yours. If I believe its best for me to GIVE you my kindey, that's a different story.

I would presuppose your body (like a rapist does) but you'd presuppose to destroy the child's body. Her body, not yours.

By the way, if you want to stay on the kidney analogy, it'd have to go this way:

Someone steals your kidney and gives it to a dying person, your own child, who now lives.
Now, that person had no right to rape your body and give life to your child, but your child is living nonetheless.

You think you have the right to take the kidney back, although it wouldn't help you at all (it can't be re-implanted, but it would simply kill your innocent child). You are no better off, but your child is dead.

So there is absolutely no way to accurately quantify the amount of risk a pregnancy could cause a woman and/or her organs and determine whether or not she gets to have an abortion or just take her chances.

Moreover, I contend that it doesn't matter. Only half of the patients that enter an abortion clinic come out alive, so whether or not the woman incurs a risk with an elective surgery with the purpose of killing babies, which succeeds nearly 100% of the time, risks become an afterthought.

"risks become an afterthought."

So if the Mom dies in childbirth because some doctor arbitrarily decides the risk to her health isn't great enough, its just par for the course? Oh well?

Thanks, Kel. I should be writing a paper. 3 papers, actually.

So if the Mom dies in childbirth because some doctor arbitrarily decides the risk to her health isn't great enough, its just par for the course? Oh well?

Cut the BS for just a second: What does an abortion solve that a C-section can not? If a woman might die birthing a baby, birth can be circumvented- so killing a baby isn't necessary.

Besides, Amanda- that wasn't my point.

If I incur some health risk by attempting to murder someone unnecessarily, how daft is it to compare that with health risks I have in not murdering someone? It's not acceptable to murder anyone, therefore the risks associated with not murdering people are a non-issue.

The logic escapes me.

Apparently, Robert. You acknowledge abortions are a bad thing and high numbers of abortions and the death they cause are unacceptable- yet you SUPPORT abortion. This isn't logical.

Alas, I enter paper-writing hell.

Bye, everyone.

Awesome reading you today Jacqueline. Really! Good luck on the papers!

"Cut the BS for just a second: What does an abortion solve that a C-section can not? "

Umm... if the fetus isn't viable, its cutting open a woman's uterus to take out a baby that will die instantly... so what would be the point?

"therefore the risks associated with not murdering people are a non-issue."

You really see no difference between a "murder" and a woman having an abortion because her pregnancy could kill her??

SDRTL President George Dummann told LifeNews.com the ban's "rape and incest and health-of-the-mother exceptions imply that some babies can be killed."

********************
He admits he couldnt possibly care less about the thinking feeling reasoning woman who is pregnant and that an oblivious collection of nonviable tissue and cell structure has more value to him than does that thinking feeling reasoning woman.

To those pro-lifers who support this new, compromised SD proposal: STOP! THINK!

To explain why you should have excellent moral reasons to pause, before supporting this measure, let me take you back to another time, and another evil...

A young former Congresman once proposed this as an amendment to the US Constitution:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

What does this effectively do? Well, it guarantees the "right" of slavery in slave states, and promises that the United States government will NEVER compel any state to give up slavery -- they would have to voluntarily give it up (which could have been decades later - maybe even into the 20th Century).

But he had a moral purpose. It would also have prohibited slavery from EVER being practiced outside of the South. He would have protected tens of thousands of Black men and women from slavery in places like the American southwest, etc.

He would also have avoided the Civil War.

The question is: Would it have been moral, or beneficial in the long run either to the country or to Black people, to save some Blacks from slavery, while condemning others to slavery, potentially and very likely for the rest of their lives?

The young former Congressman, by the way, was President-elect Lincoln, who was desperately trying to avoid the Civil War.

Please, MAKE NO MISTAKE! When and if we ban all abortions except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother (the traditional Republican exceptions, which are how we got the first pro-abortion laws in the first place), you have just given up all momentum on ending abortion, allowed it to become a quiet and confusing moral ambiguity again, rather than the premier moral evil of our time, and you WILL be condemning all babies (one of our pro-aborts cited, probably accurately, 200,000 rape/incest/life abortions) who are the product of rape, or incest, or to supposed life-threatening complications... TO DEATH! FOREVER! FORGET CHANGING IT!

That's 200,000 babies every year who will not see their first birthday because we were in a hurry and wanted a compromised, morally ambiguous half-step in law, rather than a clear moral illustration of the Right to Life!

And for all you people who think "we have to do this, because a total ban is unrealistic"... Go back and re-read the second paragraph of Jill's article.

In 2006, 44% of South Dakota voters voted to end ALL abortions, with NO EXCEPTIONS!

That's NOT a defeat! In political terms, that's a virtual victory. In any case, that's just 6% away from PASSING A TOTAL BAN ON ABORTIONS!

Who's the wit who decided to give up, having come within 6% of passing a total ban, and decided to try to regulate abortion again, as if they're agreeing with pro-aborts that it's a legislative matter of choice to be made between the mother and her "physician", rather than a moral issue like slavery which must never be compromised?!!!

I have work to do...

Someone take over!!!!

Robert... so you're agreeing with me that there would probably be about 200,000 legal abortions per year if the ban proposed in SD passed and became a national ban.

With current laws, there are about 1 million legal abortions per year.

You'd really be settled with 800,000 more abortions per year than would occur otherwise, just because of some foolishness about not compromising?

You, my friend, are pro-death. End of story.

It's not that I WANT abortions to happen,
but I recognize the fact that making abortion illegal only makes a bad situation worse.
When will you anti-choice people realize that there is absolutely no way to stop abortion
altogether.Abortion is a necessary evil.
The only way to prevent it is to prevent
unwanted pregnancies,and that is more easily said than done.Even if abortion becomes illegal in America,it will still be common,and possibly INCREASE.How are we going to stop women from
going to back-alley abortionists? You tell
me,please.How are we going to stop women who
can afford it from going abroad for abortions?
How will we stop desperately poor women
from trying to abort themselves? If you can
think of a way to do this,propose it to the government.The fact is that a woman who has the means to take good care of a child is much
less likely to seek an abortion.If we can
reduce poverty in the US,there will be far fewer abortions.Just look at the prosperous countries
parts of Europe;Scandinavia,Germany,Austria,
the Netherlands,etc.Here you find the LOWEST
abortion rates in the world.
Do you realize that abortion has gone UP
under Bush from what it was under Clinton?
Get my point? If there were a way to prevent
all unwanted pregnancies,and no woman would
feel the need for an abortion,pro-choicers would be all for it,including me.But forget it.

"How will we stop desperately poor women
from trying to abort themselves?"

They wont. And they won't care all that much either. As long as the women can get punished if she does it...

Thats all that matters to these "purist" types.

Better to have 1 million abortions a year until they get THEIR way, than to let a fraction of women who are ill or victims get theirs.

I've dealt with people like that. One told me she hopes I get raped.

There is an important distinction between them and what I sincerely hope is the majority of pro-lifers.

You, my friend, are pro-death. End of story.

No, he's not. He believes that 1 abortion is too many, 200,000 is 200,000 too many. I agree wholeheartedly. I don't intend to only save some babies and leave it at that. I also refuse to make permanent compromises, but only those which will do good as we continue to do good.

Robert, you are using an incorrect comparison.

Compromise on slavery would have solidified at least some slavery in that the compromise would have been made constitutional. But Robert, abortion has already been declared constitutional, so unlike your analogy which surrenders ground, we are recovering ground.

Lincoln's attempt to diplomatically halt the spread of slavery did not equal conceeding to let it be legal indefinitely anymore than turning off the faucet before fixing a leaky pipe is concession to let the pipe continue to leak. Wisdom says that we stop the tide of existing evil.

Someone must bail water out of the sinking boat while others attempt to fix the hole that's causing the boat to sink. I beleive that these are conducive ends, and that my bailing water doesn't inhibit your ability to repair the hole, but increases that ability. You some how see this as counter-productive, like I am contributing to the hole in the boat by limiting the damage it does. That's not true. You want me to stop bailing and focus on fixing the hole, but I know if we do that, some of us will drown in the meantime. I can't do that. Of course I want this hole repaired and the problem completely solved, but I can't compromise human lives to do that.

This isn't water I'm bailing out of the boat- it's priceless human lives. No, I can't get all the water, or even most of the water as I franticly bail with a whatever I have, a cup, a bucket, my hands, but I don't condemn those priceless lives to death because I know I can't save all of them. I save who I can and go back for the rest.

I support wholeheartedly your attempts at complete prohibition, but you would sabotage my attempts to save the lives we can by not supporting my efforts at least in word, not even in deed. It's one thing to have a different strategy to save lives, its quite another to sabotage other's efforts when those efforts won't kill anyone, but at least save some of the already condemned.

I've dealt with people like that. One told me she hopes I get raped.

How evil! I rebuke that in Jesus' name and pray that you never, ever get harmed like that or any way.

Robert- NO evil is necessary. Once you understand that, you'll be a much happier person.

Robert- Here's a question for you:

Why is abortion evil to begin with?

So if I believe it's best for me to take your kidney, that's not wrong at all? Several things are wrong that could better my life, like robbing a bank. Just because something betters someone at another's expense doesn't justify hurting another. If a women thinks it's best for her to kill her baby, that doesn't justify hurting the baby.

Awesome point, Jacqueline!

I've dealt with people like that. One told me she hopes I get raped.
There is an important distinction between them and what I sincerely hope is the majority of pro-lifers.

Good grief, that is terrible!!
I would not consider someone like that pro-life, or if they are, they are terribly mislead and very vindictive and spiteful!

No matter what the case, there is no excuse for that type of remark, none whatsoever and I would certainly speak out against anyone who said something like that on my side.

I am sorry someone said that to you, Amanda, and I certainly hope that nothing like that EVER happens to you.

Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts.

I know...the wise men blew it! Those darn purists. The wise men purists thought it was never okay to kill one baby, even if it would in turn save millions, so they lied. Those darn purists. Because they lied, Herod killed thousands, if not millions. Shouldn't the purist wise men have allowed the killing of one save many? Isn't that the incrementalist stand?

When will the pro-life movement realize that the pro-abortion tactic for legalizing abortion in this country was to start by only allowing it for rape, incest and life/health of the mother?

(And how in the world is it a MOTHER?!)

Allowing abortion for any reason further entrenches the idea that the unborn are not persons and will eventually go to destroy returning personhood to the unborn.

When will you anti-choice people realize that there is absolutely no way to stop abortion
altogether.

Robert Berger, when will you understand that we pro-lifers DO realize that. Just like we realize that keeping murder illegal hasn't stopped people from murdering, and keeping rape illegal hasnt stopped people from raping. But we keep the laws in place to protect the innocent as much as is possible.

How will we stop desperately poor women
from trying to abort themselves?

Desperately poor women are still aborting themselves today. Making abortion legal didn't change that.

Does abortion because of rape or incest stop a beating heart, or just the other ones?

You don't kill a mother to save the baby and you don't kill a baby to save its mother.

I know...the wise men blew it! Those darn purists. The wise men purists thought it was never okay to kill one baby, even if it would in turn save millions, so they lied. Those darn purists. Because they lied, Herod killed thousands, if not millions. Shouldn't the purist wise men have allowed the killing of one save many? Isn't that the incrementalist stand?

No, it's not the incrementalist stand. And this is a ridiculous analogy. Incrementalists don't sacrifice one to save many- they save those ALREADY condemned. We don't sacrifice anyone. You, however, sacrifice everyone because you refuse to save what children you can.

We never say that they can legalize abortion is one instance in exhange for criminalizing it in another instance- it's already legal. All we do is save those babies already legally killable.

If a law said that we could start disabled infants (which is currently illegal) in exchange for outlawing killing babies during the womb, I don't care if legalizing the killing of those disabled children would save over a million babies a year- I can't sacrifice human lives. That's not my choice to make! I would never pass a law that legalized killing anyone.

However, if disabled infants are already condemned and a compromise is struck to save unborn babies, I'll take it, while still fighting for those other children. What I have done in that instance is kill no one, but save many.

Allowing abortion for any reason further entrenches the idea that the unborn are not persons and will eventually go to destroy returning personhood to the unborn.

We don't allow abortion for any reason. We stop abortion whereever we can.

We are reversing the tide, reclaiming surrendered ground, not surrendering ground when we save those already condemned.

Thousands of condemned babies in South Dakota could be learning their first words now, but were instead dismembered because pro-lifers refused to save them out of principle. Children concieved out of rape and incest still were killed, only the other babies which we could have saved were killed, too. A whole lot of good not compromising did for all of those children.

Jacqueline, you are on fire today!

Thanks, Bethany- If I could only channel that energy towards the untold hours of work I have to do before Friday...

Pray for me?

You can do it, Jacque! I'll pray for you. :)

Jacqueline, you are very confused...

Jacqueline said: "No, it's not the incrementalist stand. And this is a ridiculous analogy. Incrementalists don't sacrifice one to save many- they save those ALREADY condemned. We don't sacrifice anyone."

Who said anything about sacrifice? If the wise men knew they could save millions of kids from being killed by passing a law that ended with, "and then you can kill this baby", should they have done it?

Jacqueline said: "You, however, sacrifice everyone because you refuse to save what children you can."

This is about the most unloving thing you could say. How do you know anything about me? You're refusing to save the babies who will be aborted because of rape, incest, life/health of the mother. The Colorado personhood amendment that I'm involved with could end all abortion, not only in the state, but in the whole country.

Jacqueline said: "We never say that they can legalize abortion is one instance in exhange for criminalizing it in another instance- it's already legal. All we do is save those babies already legally killable."

You're wrong. The SD ban says it's okay to kill some unborn babies. Why can't you see that?

Jacqueline said: "I would never pass a law that legalized killing anyone."

You're wrong Jacqueline. Would you pass the SD law? The SD would legalize abortion for rape, incest, life/health of the mother if Roe was overturned and sent back to the states. You NEED to realize this.

Jacqueline said: "We don't allow abortion for any reason. We stop abortion whereever we can."

You simply don't get it. If Christians and pro-lifers support legislation that says abortion is okay in some circumstances, they have just undermined the idea that the unborn are persons. If the unborn are persons, then abortion is never okay. Support this now Jacqueline and it will come back to haunt you later.

Jill, the pro-life movement needs new abortion signs. You know the famous pro-life stop signs that read STOP ABORTION NOW? I'll keep that sign, but we need 2 new ones:

National Right to Life's should say: STOP ABORTION LATER

Jacqueline, Leslee Unruh and Co.'s should say: STOP SOME ABORTION NOW

So if the Mom dies in childbirth because some doctor arbitrarily decides the risk to her health isn't great enough, its just par for the course? Oh well?

Cut the BS for just a second: What does an abortion solve that a C-section can not? If a woman might die birthing a baby, birth can be circumvented- so killing a baby isn't necessary.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 2:48 PM
................................

You clearly are not a med student. A c-section is major surgery and can kill the woman a well as render further pregnancy impossible. It would be irresponsible medicine to inflict possible death or disability upon a woman to pander to your imaginings over what a conceptus might have become. You couldn't make it any clearer how unqualified you are to even address this subject.

Jacqueline, Leslee Unruh and Co.'s should say: STOP SOME ABORTION NOW

Do you really think that our fight for unborn life would end once those laws were passed? Of course not. We will continue fighting until abortion is illegal period!

Sally-

Are you a doctor?

Good try Amanda:

I never said doctors are infallible. You apparently think you are infallible as you are willing to kill any and all future human beings based on the assumption that they are just blobs of tissue, there is no God, and there are no consequences for doing such. Are you willing to bear the consequences of all this if you are wrong?

The Terri Schiavo case was about the termination of a live person, the parents of whom were contesting the spouse's desire to have her starved to death. Ever heard of liar for hire.

I think most doctors can make a decision as to whether or not a pregnancy is a grave risk to a mother's health.

Give me a break.

Who said anything about sacrifice? If the wise men knew they could save millions of kids from being killed by passing a law that ended with, "and then you can kill this baby", should they have done it?

You frustrate the crap out of me, Will. No incrementali law LEGALIZES abortion. Instead, it CRIMINALIZES already legal abortions. Current laws say, "you can kill this baby." Incremental laws say, "no, you can't kill at least this baby", or we're making it harder to kill that baby.

This is about the most unloving thing you could say. How do you know anything about me?

I know you refuse to help some kids because you can't help them all.

You're refusing to save the babies who will be aborted because of rape, incest, life/health of the mother.

No, I'm not. I'm still trying to save them.

The Colorado personhood amendment that I'm involved with could end all abortion, not only in the state, but in the whole country.

And I support that. But your odds of it passing without an exception are virtually nil. So in the meantime, it doesn't do any good for other babies, and you sabotage our incremental efforts to save those babies.

You're wrong. The SD ban says it's okay to kill some unborn babies. Why can't you see that?

No, it doesn't. The SD ban says it's illegal to kill most babies, not that it's okay to kill some. It's already okay to kill all babies in SD, the bill just save 99% of them.

The SD would legalize abortion for rape, incest, life/health of the mother if Roe was overturned and sent back to the states. You NEED to realize this.

Have you never heard of a trigger ban?

About your signs, Purist signs should read: STOP NO ABORTIONS NOW UNLESS WE CAN STOP ALL ABORTIONS NOW

My sign reads, "STOP AS MANY ABORTIONS AS I CAN NOW."

Bethany said: "Do you really think that our fight for unborn life would end once those laws were passed? Of course not. We will continue fighting until abortion is illegal period!"

No I don't, it will just be harder. Passing a law that says it's okay to kill babies for rape, incest, life/health of the mother doesn't get you any closer to passing a law that ends abortion for rape, incest, life, health of the mother for 2 reasons.

1. That's a little schizophrenic wouldn't you say? Supporting a law that says it's perfectly okay to kill such and such babies and then after it passes, trying to pass a law to save such and such babies. Huh?!

2. Legally, the baby is not a person and therefore doesn't have a legal right to life. When they were arguing Gonzales v. Carhart, the lawyer had a hard time giving Ginsburg any good reason for ending D&X that wouldn't also justify ending D&E. Duh. Ginsburg is smarter than our own pro-life lawyers. The only reason I can think of ending abortion in cases besides rape, incest, life/health of the mother is because the unborn baby has a right to life. Supporting this law is, I believe, evil in God's sight. Supporting this law implies that the babies conceived in rape or incest, or the ones that will end their mothers lives don't have a right to life, while the others do. That undermines personhood and could potentially be responsible for legalizing abortion in SD if Roe is overturned and sent back to the states.

Luv ya Bethany! Hope all is well.

I'm switching to "Bob" since there's another Robert in the mix...

Jacqueline, I appreciate that you think you're not doing harm to the pro-life effort through this.

But I agree with Will -- you're blind to recognition of the harm you're doing to our efforts to stop all abortion now.

Incrementalists undermine us every day because they say "we can't stop them all now -- let's settle for what we can do". You make it less possible for us to accomplish everything by giving us so many things to distract us -- incremental laws which must be accomplished in small steps, over many, many years, like the 15 years we spent trying to end Partial Birth Abortion. What did we accomplish? Nothing -- Partial Birth Abortion is still legal today, the abortionist just has to do it a little differently.

Our battle isn't fixing deals and compromising with those who aren't entirely on our side but will come part way. Our battle is changing the minds of those who aren't entirely on our side, and convincing them until they ARE!

We can't accomplish that while, in the background, people are cutting deals that say 2nd trimester babies are less valuable than 3rd trimester babies, and maybe 50 years from now we'll attempt to ban chemical abortion of embryonic babies by starting our argument anew, and for the first time trying to pass a law that says Abortion Is Always Wrong.

Principle -- the concept of principle -- is the most powerful tool in politics. Politicians and public movements have changed the world, not by compromising, but by proclaiming a principle, and repeating it, loudly, until more and more people believed it.

If you ask a high school student if he believes in absolute truth, he'll tell you no. If you ask him if he believes in absolute right and wrong, he'll tell you no. If you ask him if abortion is okay sometimes, he'll say yeah. If you ask him if abortion is wrong sometimes, he'll say yeah. He's been trained to think there are no principles, and no absolutes.

But if you ask him if it's okay to enslave another human being, he'll tell you No. Why, you ask? Because that's a human being - you can't enslave another Person.

Someone taught him a principle, and it stuck. Even relativistic liberals think slavery is wrong, because it's an acknowledged wrong in history -- a dark stain on American History. Partly, it's a hatred of America that makes teachers bring up slavery all the time, but their insistence that slavery is absolutely wrong mocks their presumption that absolutes don't exist.

We must use this same tactic to prove in the minds of the public a principle -- that Abortion is Always Wrong, and that an unborn child is a Human Being -- a Person!

But you know what? If there's a pro-lifer out there saying let's protect all babies who are 5 months old or older (let's save SOME babies, because we can't save them ALL!), then it's harder for me to convey this simple truth that Abortion is Always Wrong. It confuses people. It sets them back in the mindset of finding a middle ground between two extremes, which is how Americans are trained to think.

Establishing Personhood for the unborn child is an achievable goal! In Colorado, I'm also circulating petitions, and there are people who have signed the Personhood petition (an absolute!) who I am very sure would not have signed a lesser measure. Why? Because a principle is simple, and easy to understand.

And if you want more evidence that principle works better than compromise and half-measures, like the incrementalists have been trying for 30 years, look at California.

In California, you couldn't pass a 100% ban on abortion 10 years ago. In fact, you couldn't pass one today! Ultrasound bill? No. Partial Birth Abortion "Ban"? Maybe, but not one which actually saves any babies. A ban on 3rd trimester abortions? Probably not.

But watch! In California, it is now law that the murderer of a pregnant woman is tried for TWO murders! Because people know that developing baby is a living human, and the murder of a pregnant woman counts as worse than the murder of a non-pregnant one, because they recognize that's TWO PEOPLE!

Personhood is humanizing -- it makes people realize the principle that all Human Life is sacred and valuable.

Incrementalism is dehumanizing -- it allows people to think there are differences to be split, and deals to be brokered, not moral issues to be considered.

It's all about what we can do with the Mind of the Public! If we act like kids are poker chips, to be gambled with, we lose. If we act like there's a principle here which cannot be compromised on, then we win -- because people understand that better if it's properly put to them.

I'm sorry, Jacqueline, but you DO make it harder for us to make our case. You ARE sabotaging our efforts.

And we're not trying to sabotage yours. We're trying to get you to recognize how a law saying some abortions are more evil than others reinforces the idea that some abortions are BETTER than others!

Luv ya Bethany! Hope all is well.

Same to you, Will! It's really good to see you again! :)

No I don't, it will just be harder. Passing a law that says it's okay to kill babies for rape, incest, life/health of the mother doesn't get you any closer to passing a law that ends abortion for rape, incest, life, health of the mother for 2 reasons.
1. That's a little schizophrenic wouldn't you say? Supporting a law that says it's perfectly okay to kill such and such babies and then after it passes, trying to pass a law to save such and such babies. Huh?!
2. Legally, the baby is not a person and therefore doesn't have a legal right to life. When they were arguing Gonzales v. Carhart, the lawyer had a hard time giving Ginsburg any good reason for ending D&X that wouldn't also justify ending D&E. Duh. Ginsburg is smarter than our own pro-life lawyers. The only reason I can think of ending abortion in cases besides rape, incest, life/health of the mother is because the unborn baby has a right to life. Supporting this law is, I believe, evil in God's sight. Supporting this law implies that the babies conceived in rape or incest, or the ones that will end their mothers lives don't have a right to life, while the others do. That undermines personhood and could potentially be responsible for legalizing abortion in SD if Roe is overturned and sent back to the states.

Believe me, I totally understand your position. I keep going back and forth wondering what is the best solution. Honestly, when I read your arguments, I start thinking, "maybe Will's (and other purists) right". then I listen to Jacqueline's arguments and I think, "no, she's right" (and other incrementalists).

To be completely honest, I am just not totally sure which way will work better. Each side presents such good thoughts and arguments, and they are so persuasive.

I just want abortion illegal. I don't know exactly what it'll take to get that done, and I will do whatever I can to stop it.

Robert:

What about a Bush administration that has spent more than any other administration on HIV/AIDS? And I believe all your other statements are patently false as well.

Have you ever sought help for this compulsive liar conditon you suffer from or are you just plain gullible or dumb? I mean you diss Bush as a spendthrift and then you say he's cut back on all this other stuff for the poor, etc. It's all a crock.

It's very clear that you and most other liberals hate him simply because he's a professing Christian and demonstrates his faith. This is a man who sees evil and is willing to confront it and you can't understand that?

This is not hate for Bush, this is hate for Christ. It's evident by your other posts, dissing the virgin birth and questioning Christianity's validity by some inane seafood analogy. Do you realize what class the dissing of the version birth puts you in? It's called blasphemy and since it's direclty countering the work of teh Holy Spirit well it's close to being an unforgivable sin. You are basically denying the fact that the God man Christ Jesus came in the flesh which the Bible assert that all such statements are from the spirit of the anti-Christ.

In these parts, we call what you do towards Christians persecution, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance, and that from someone like you who claims to be a Jew.

And regarding your other impotent comments: Your argument regarding the repeal of legal abortion is a rant as it is totally illogical.

Using your logic, even though we don't want murders to occur we should legalize murder because, well, making murder illegal won't stop murder.

And you said it here Berger, you don't want abortion.

You know, having an open mind is being willing to change that mind when confronted with the truth

You clearly are not a med student. A c-section is major surgery and can kill the woman a well as render further pregnancy impossible. It would be irresponsible medicine to inflict possible death or disability upon a woman to pander to your imaginings over what a conceptus might have become. You couldn't make it any clearer how unqualified you are to even address this subject.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 6:00 PM

Jaque,
No. Sally is not a Dr. she just likes to play one on Jill's site.

Sally,
You are such a dramatist. Please.

Quoting Jacqueline: "You frustrate the crap out of me, Will. No incrementali law LEGALIZES abortion. Instead, it CRIMINALIZES already legal abortions. Current laws say, "you can kill this baby." Incremental laws say, "no, you can't kill at least this baby", or we're making it harder to kill that baby."

Actually, I think you're misunderstanding how laws are worded.

A typical (almost universally so) incremental law reads, "Abortion shall be illegal if... x condition is met..." There is a legal corrollary to this, which is universally understood among legislators and lawyers: "Abortion SHALL BE LEGAL IF... X Condition is met..."

Abortion is illegal if the mother doesn't see papers first. Abortion is illegal if it's the third trimester. Abortion is illegal if the parents are not notified... Each of these laws mean ABORTION IS LEGAL if the condition is met.

So Will is right (ask Dr. Rice from Notre Dame Law - he's written books on this subject) -- if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, these laws, which pro-lifers have passed, would become the ENABLING legislation which tell the courts that Abortion is legal in this state because here's the law which says it is!

In other words, you HAVE just condemned those babies to die. I'm sorry -- but that's the legal truth of it.

Sorry -- got my terms mixed.

If you have a law which says "Abortion shall be illegal if it's the third trimester," then the universal corollary is that "Abortion shall be legal if it's NOT the third trimester." In other words, this prohibition of 3rd trimester abortion becomes an abortionist's legal defense for all abortions prior to the 3rd trimester. It's actually an abortion-affirming law!

The Republican Party Platform's right-to-life platform logically implies that women who have abortions should be executed for first-degree murder.

I hear ya, Bethany. I too find it difficult to figure out which way would be the best to end abortion, as far as the options being presented on this post goes. It is true that you don't want a support a law that says "Do this and this and this... and then you can kill the baby." On the other hand, a law like that could save a babies life. I don't know... I just want it to be gone...

Sally said,"You clearly are not a med student. A c-section is major surgery and can kill the woman a well as render further pregnancy impossible. It would be irresponsible medicine to inflict possible death or disability upon a woman to pander to your imaginings over what a conceptus might have become. You couldn't make it any clearer how unqualified you are to even address this subject."

As a long time nurse and nurse practitioner, there are plenty of articles that can be found that demonstrate that for years starting in the 90's to the present that C-sections (you claim are so dangerous) were and continue to be done for convenience. Doctor is going on vacation, want a certain birthday for the baby,doc wants higher reimbursement etc... There was a push by women to review policies regarding c-sections a few years ago because they were being performed too frequently. Abortion also has risks and is a surgical procedure so don't act like it can't possible harm a woman by death, disability and/or sterility. Mark Crutcher prosecuted many cases that involved harm to women from abortion.

Medicine advocates many procedures that harm patients. The Institute of Medicine in 1994 cited medicine as the third leading cause of death. I am sure it has surpassed its third place position by now. Wrong medication, wrong surgery, wrong site, medication reaction, medication side effects,medication interactions, hospital acquired infections (which are now community based), and I could go on and on. Don't pretend that medicine is harmless. People are harmed daily in hospitals, clinics, doctor's offices and at home by medical intervention.

Babies are not potential conceptus, they are human beings. Please find a woman who is pregnant that will give birth to a dog or cat and we will all be amazed. People give birth to new people. Sperm and egg fuse creating a new person with their own DNA and blood type as well as fingerprints.

Also, how is it safe to stop caring for a Mom who is in trouble, dying, and spend anywhere from 12-36 hours to perform a late term abortion? A trained, compassionate medical person tries to save both, you don't kill one to save another because it is wrong to kill human beings. Period.

It is wrong to pass a law that says some babies can be punished for the crimes of their fathers. Period. If they are people, and they are, they cannot be killed under any circumstances. People don't have to be trained in science and/or medicine to discuss moral issues.

Tell us what laws of science tell us what is right and what is wrong?

Sally said,"You clearly are not a med student. A c-section is major surgery and can kill the woman a well as render further pregnancy impossible. It would be irresponsible medicine to inflict possible death or disability upon a woman to pander to your imaginings over what a conceptus might have become. You couldn't make it any clearer how unqualified you are to even address this subject."

As a long time nurse and nurse practitioner, there are plenty of articles that can be found that demonstrate that for years starting in the 90's to the present that C-sections (you claim are so dangerous) were and continue to be done for convenience. Doctor is going on vacation, want a certain birthday for the baby, doc wants higher reimbursement etc... There was a push by women to review policies regarding c-sections a few years ago because they were being performed too frequently.

Abortion also has risks and is a surgical procedure so don't act like it can't possible harm a woman by death, disability and/or sterility. Mark Crutcher has prosecuted many cases involving harm from abortion procedures. Now women are being told that taking a female steroid, 40x stronger than a normal birth control pill will have no long term consequences, of course that has not been studied. Hormone therapy was not studied at all before it was foisted upon women in America.

Medicine in 1994 was instigated as the third leading cause of death in America by a study authored by The Institute of Medicine. Wrong site, wrong surgery, wrong patient, wrong medicine, medication reaction, interaction, side effects, chemotherapy is harmful in and of itself, etc.. Medicine could probably be moved up to 2nd or 1st position since that study was published. Don't pretend that medicine does not harm people and is not risky. People are harmed by medicine in their own home, in clinics, and in hospitals. Hospital acquired infections kill people every day and now are community based.

Babies are not potential conceptus, they are human beings. Please find a woman who is pregnant that will give birth to a dog or cat and we will all be amazed. People give birth to new people. Sperm and egg fuse creating a new person with their own DNA and blood type as well as fingerprints.

Also, how is it safe to stop caring for a Mom who is in trouble, dying, and spend anywhere from 12-36 hours to perform a late term abortion? A trained, compassionate medical person tries to save both, you don't kill one to save another because it is wrong to kill human beings. Period.

It is wrong to pass a law that says some babies can be punished for the crimes of their fathers. Period. If they are people, and they are, they cannot be killed under any circumstances. People don't have to be trained in science and/or medicine to discuss moral issues.

Tell us what laws of science tell us what is right and what is wrong?

Any law which says there are differences to be split on which babies can or cannot be killed (i.e. ANY incrementalist legislation) DENIES the possibility of Personhood for the unborn child (which is the essence of the Right to Life).

If you're drafting a law which says "You can kill Jews if they're over age 60, but you may not kill Jews who are younger than that," you've not just "saved" millions of Jews, you've condemned another million older Jews to die, and you've undermined any argument that Jews can't be killed, ever, because they're Human Beings.

If you're passing a law to say you can't hold slaves north of this line, you've "saved" thousands of Black men and women from slavery, but you've also said slavery south of that line is okay AND you've undermined the argument that NO slaves should ever be legally held because those are Persons and one person can NEVER own another Person!

Jacqueline, did you really write: "What does an abortion solve that a C-section can not? "

You are clearly very ignorant--so ignorant that you have no business having an opinion on any issue related to birth. Sorry to insult you but you have made this self-evident.

C-section is major surgery. Requires recovery time in the hospital. Recovery is extremely painful. The surgery requires general anaesthesia. Has a many-times higher risk of killing the patient than abortion. Has a many-times higher risk of sterilizing the patient than abortion. Makes it necessary for all subsequent births also to be done by C-section. Is VERY expensive.

How dare you suggest inflicting this on a woman against her will? Not even an unborn baby should be entitled to do that.

Hi Bob,

Here's one thing I've been thinking about that is related to what you just wrote. Let me know what you think, cause I'm trying to figure this whole thing out.

You and I both want abortion to be illegal. Period. In particular, you and I want D & X to be illegal, suction curettage to be illegal, saline injection to be illegal, etc. and that is a consequence of wanting any and all forms of abortion to be illegal. OK, so it seems that a law that says "D & X is illegal" is good. It's part of a bigger puzzle, granted. It needs to also have the pieces that say all these other forms of abortion are illegal, but we do want D & X to be illegal. This seems to me to be on a different level than the "look at an ultrasound, then you can kill your baby" laws. My point is that for this reason, I tend to support the ban on D & X. What do you think? God love you.

Lolita, you wrote: "People don't have to be trained in science and/or medicine to discuss moral issues. "

If you do not have the background necessary to understand the facts surrounding the moral issue, how can you discuss the moral issue?

Lolita, you wrote: "C-sections (you claim are so dangerous) were and continue to be done for convenience."

That's because natural childbirth is also dangerous.

Abortion kills fewer than one patient per hundred thousand abortions. That's MORE THAN TEN TIMES less dangerous than childbirth.

Bob Kyffin, even personhood would not morally protect the unborn. Persons are not entitled to live inside other persons' bodies without the continuing concent of the other persons.

Abortion kills fewer than one patient per hundred thousand abortions. That's MORE THAN TEN TIMES less dangerous than childbirth.

Somg (and anyone else reading this claim), please refer to:

http://www.2secondsfaster.com/archives/176

Bethany, you wrote: "Desperately poor women are still aborting themselves today. Making abortion legal didn't change that. "

Yes it did--FEWER women are self-aborting. That's a change.

Bethany, I read your link, sure, reporting is imperfect. Not all states report. So what?

Does it SURPRISE you that abortion is more than ten times less dangerous for the patient than childbirth? Does it seem IMPLAUSIBLE to you? It seems very plausible to me--the cervix has to open ten times wider in childbirth than in abortion.

Have you ever seen, like, a PETA protest, where they hold up gory signs of dead cows and chickens and run around naked or in costumes to get attention? Yeah. Same deal. It's not endearing. It just looks nuts.

I saw the pictures of them fork lifting cows and that's the first time I really "got it". Up til then it was just an "idea"...those pictures made me read what was going on and I'm really horrified. Wouldn't have known if the picture hadn't caught my eye.

Don't know what I can do about it, but if I had a chance to vote for someone or something that would put a stop to it, I would.

And all because of a picture.

I've also heard of DU (Depleted Uranium) but it wasn't until I saw photos of kids playing with the tanks, and the babies born deformed that I really "Understood" it.

Pictures, used in the right place at the right time, can be very effective. SD is just not the right time or place...

Does it SURPRISE you that abortion is more than ten times less dangerous for the patient than childbirth? Does it seem IMPLAUSIBLE to you? It seems very plausible to me--the cervix has to open ten times wider in childbirth than in abortion.

Your body is designed for childbirth. The cervix becomes ripe naturally, and the baby is delivered naturally, and the cervix is able to go back to it's original shape and size naturally (maintaining elasticity).
With abortion, the cervix is forced open unnaturally, which reduces the elasticity, and increases the risk for premature birth in subsequent pregnancies, not to mention miscarriage also. And it isn't healthy for the mother either. The cervix can easily be damaged by a sharp tool forcing it open, which is precisely what happens in abortion.

Amanda,

You really see no difference between a "murder" and a woman having an abortion because her pregnancy could kill her??

I believe it's the word "could" that's tripping us up here. Could kill her is very different that "WILL" kill her.

Any pregnancy "could" kill a woman. As Jackie said, you can go as long as you can and deliver a live baby, hope for the best and do what you can.

But to kill the child, because the mother "might" die is jumping the gun. There will come a moment in the pregnancy where carrying the child even one more day would mean the death of the mother, at which point you take the child and try to save them both.

At that point, it's up to God.

Ah, the wisdom of SoMG presented again in all it's demonic majesty. He tries to make pregnancy sound like a disease. He hasn't learned the lesson that any blessing in life may require sacrifice and suffering and risk. He is a man without faith and I pity him.

Lolita: Don't listen to this puke. He is the resident pro-abort blog devil who hates children with a vengeance. He presents himself as a medical professional but he is simply a coward abortion hack.

He tries to justify the murder of children in all sorts of numerous ways, so, just ignore the jerk. My guess is that he's a janitor in a hospital who spends a lot of time alone in the janitor's closet getting his knowlege from magazines. If he's really a nurse or doctor or lab technician or hosptial administrator I dare him to post his credentials so we can then report him to his employer. I wouldn't be surprised if he works in a Catholic hospital that would fire him if they really knew his heinous views.

As far as intelligence goes, it's extremely stupid to think that kiliing an innocent baby in the womb of it's mother is somehow OK. Why is it stupid you may ask? Well, because it really takes an act of the will and a clear decison in one's heart that directly opposes the innate sense built into each one of us that all life is precious and therefore, wrong to terminate. So keep posting and don't let this mouse insult you.

Bobby, thank you for your question -- and thanks for engaging in such a manner...

You ask: "You and I both want abortion to be illegal. Period. In particular, you and I want D & X to be illegal, suction curettage to be illegal, saline injection to be illegal, etc. and that is a consequence of wanting any and all forms of abortion to be illegal. OK, so it seems that a law that says "D & X is illegal" is good. It's part of a bigger puzzle, granted. It needs to also have the pieces that say all these other forms of abortion are illegal, but we do want D & X to be illegal. This seems to me to be on a different level than the "look at an ultrasound, then you can kill your baby" laws. My point is that for this reason, I tend to support the ban on D & X. What do you think? God love you."

First off, let me say I come from an incrementalist background. In fact, almost all of the Personhood wing of the pro-life movement used to support incremental measures.

I actually was very angry when people tried to convince me that incrementalism was a losing battle, and that the way we'd always done things wasn't working, and had no hope. But facts, clearly stated principles, and observation incrementally :) brought me to face it...

The main problem is that each of these steps takes a long, long time. National Right to Life spent 15 years of our effort, and $250 million of our money fighting to get the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. And do you know what it did? Nothing. It prohibited not a single abortion -- every scheduled abortion went ahead on schedule, performed a little differently, and not a single case of a wronged pro-abort has caused a court case, because it never stopped anybody from having an abortion! Do you realize the PBA "Ban" doesn't even prohibit Partial Birth Abortion? The justices specifically point out that, under the law as written, it's perfectly legal for an abortionist to deliver a baby part way (not as far, but still), and then suck its brains out. The Supreme Court "justices" even RECOMMENDED this as a new method for abortions which would remain legal.

The second reason I oppose accomplishing each "victory" separately is that with each step, we lose our gross-out value.

Why was the PBA Ban our first step, out of a dozen (or more?) methods of abortion? Because it's the most disgusting. It's the most clearly illustrable example of how horrific abortion is. AND they advertised it as if it would ban ALL late-term abortions (it wouldn't, and was never meant to).

There are millions of pro-choice Americans who were okay with banning this disgusting procedure. Now, what do they think? "Well, the worst abortions are illegal now, so what's left are the NICER abortions. Now the NECESSARY abortions are still legal, but the WORST aren't." These people, whether they considered themselves pro-choice or pro-life, aren't on our side anymore, because their battle is done. They saved the babies they wanted to save, and now they're more resistant than ever to "saving" more babies, because what's left are more defensible, in the public mind, to PBA.

It's as if we're going around, trying to pass laws which say, "You can't murder a person by chopping off his head. If you murder another way, then it's okay for now. Until next year, when we bring forward a law that will prohibit killing a person by dismemberment. Then, later, we'll prohibit murder by poison. Eventually, we'll reach our goal of making murder illegal entirely."

"Why, exactly, is murder always wrong?"

"Well, because it's absolutely wrong to murder someone -- to take their life. It's not your life to take."

"But, so if that's your position, why, four years ago, did you only try to prohibit murder by beheading?"

This is the problem. Incremental laws, trying to reach the totality of our solution one step at a time, deny the absolute truth we're all going for!

I know none of us wants our laws to say "abortion is okay if..." but that is the practical result in the public's mind, especially as seen through the filter of teachers, professors, the media, etc.

They think, doing an abortion this way is wrong, because it's the worst way to do it. I'd prefer it were done more humanely.

And that's what our incremental laws are accomplishing -- making abortion more humane, more palatable to a relativistic society. It's exactly this reason why the pro-aborts started by tugging on our heartstrings about the rape victims -- because that, at least, seems to be a "good" reason to do an otherwise unthinkable thing. An "understandable" defense for dismemberment of a child.

And when we fight on those terms, we play right into the hands of the pro-aborts, who now probably realize that they can't keep all their abortions. But, by retreating to defensible ground, they know that if the public is willing to split the difference -- if the public is willing to find a middle ground between two extremes, which is a natural tendency -- that they can keep some abortion legal.

And by fighting on their terms, we'll make it happen. Because, unless Personhood is fixed in the public mind -- the Right to Life, not just a legislatively adjustable Privilege to Life -- the eventual result will be a stalemate at some middle ground.

Do you know World War II history? Franklin Roosevelt, and the other allies, agreed that they would accept nothing less than "unconditional surrender" from Germany and Japan. Why did they make that clear, early on? Because they knew that if the public had it in their mind that they could fight to a certain point, and then reach a negotiated peace, they would be counting on that. That's human nature.

FDR and Churchill set an absolute, irrevokable, and unassailable position of principle -- Absolute Victory.

To continue the analogy, settling for a negotiated peace would have "saved tens of thousands of lives". The hardest fighting of the whole war -- the most deaths -- was near the end.

FDR and Churchill knew that if they settled for anything less than total victory, they would have accomplished, in many respects, a partial loss.

What if they had started off saying "We're going to fight Germany out of France, but they can keep Russia." or "We're going to fight Japan out of the Pacific, but she can keep China." That negotiated, conditional peace would have been a "victory". But if their real goal was to free China as well -- total victory as a final goal, after the incremental step of saving everything but China -- can you imagine how hard it would be to convince the public to go to war again to save China?

When you keep moving the goal line, people start getting frustrated and upset. They start thinking you lied to them when you told them "We want to end Partial Birth Abortion because it's the most inhumane form of abortion", and now that they're hearing you say you want to go another step, they start thinking "No, I'm not going any further with you -- be satisfied with what I've given you!"

Remember, pro-abortion legislation wasn't fought incrementally. It started with rape/incest laws, but then they jumped straight to "legal through 9 months" with Roe v. Wade. Frankly, they would never have achieved 9 months if they'd tried to pass laws to do it.

Likewise, we will never reach our goal if we use the incremental path. We need to declare a principle for unconditional surrender -- Abortion is Always Wrong! Once that's set in the public mind, it will remain there. We may not get everybody to agree at once. But, we'll keep working on them!

Ultimately, South Dakota's 44% for a total ban will build to 48% and then 52%, and it will be banned! I predict that they'll do worse than 44% this year, with a lesser goal, no matter what the 2006 polls said, because they don't have a clear, fixed and ethically powerful principle to fight for.

Bobby, thank you for your question -- and thanks for engaging in such a manner...

You ask: "You and I both want abortion to be illegal. Period. In particular, you and I want D & X to be illegal, suction curettage to be illegal, saline injection to be illegal, etc. and that is a consequence of wanting any and all forms of abortion to be illegal. OK, so it seems that a law that says "D & X is illegal" is good. It's part of a bigger puzzle, granted. It needs to also have the pieces that say all these other forms of abortion are illegal, but we do want D & X to be illegal. This seems to me to be on a different level than the "look at an ultrasound, then you can kill your baby" laws. My point is that for this reason, I tend to support the ban on D & X. What do you think? God love you."

First off, let me say I come from an incrementalist background. In fact, almost all of the Personhood wing of the pro-life movement used to support incremental measures.

I actually was very angry when people tried to convince me that incrementalism was a losing battle, and that the way we'd always done things wasn't working, and had no hope. But facts, clearly stated principles, and observation incrementally :) brought me to face it...

The main problem is that each of these steps takes a long, long time. National Right to Life spent 15 years of our effort, and $250 million of our money fighting to get the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. And do you know what it did? Nothing. It prohibited not a single abortion -- every scheduled abortion went ahead on schedule, performed a little differently, and not a single case of a wronged pro-abort has caused a court case, because it never stopped anybody from having an abortion! Do you realize the PBA "Ban" doesn't even prohibit Partial Birth Abortion? The justices specifically point out that, under the law as written, it's perfectly legal for an abortionist to deliver a baby part way (not as far, but still), and then suck its brains out. The Supreme Court "justices" even RECOMMENDED this as a new method for abortions which would remain legal.

The second reason I oppose accomplishing each "victory" separately is that with each step, we lose our gross-out value.

Why was the PBA Ban our first step, out of a dozen (or more?) methods of abortion? Because it's the most disgusting. It's the most clearly illustrable example of how horrific abortion is. AND they advertised it as if it would ban ALL late-term abortions (it wouldn't, and was never meant to).

There are millions of pro-choice Americans who were okay with banning this disgusting procedure. Now, what do they think? "Well, the worst abortions are illegal now, so what's left are the NICER abortions. Now the NECESSARY abortions are still legal, but the WORST aren't." These people, whether they considered themselves pro-choice or pro-life, aren't on our side anymore, because their battle is done. They saved the babies they wanted to save, and now they're more resistant than ever to "saving" more babies, because what's left are more defensible, in the public mind, to PBA.

It's as if we're going around, trying to pass laws which say, "You can't murder a person by chopping off his head. If you murder another way, then it's okay for now. Until next year, when we bring forward a law that will prohibit killing a person by dismemberment. Then, later, we'll prohibit murder by poison. Eventually, we'll reach our goal of making murder illegal entirely."

"Why, exactly, is murder always wrong?"

"Well, because it's absolutely wrong to murder someone -- to take their life. It's not your life to take."

"But, so if that's your position, why, four years ago, did you only try to prohibit murder by beheading?"

This is the problem. Incremental laws, trying to reach the totality of our solution one step at a time, deny the absolute truth we're all going for!

I know none of us wants our laws to say "abortion is okay if..." but that is the practical result in the public's mind, especially as seen through the filter of teachers, professors, the media, etc.

They think, doing an abortion this way is wrong, because it's the worst way to do it. I'd prefer it were done more humanely.

And that's what our incremental laws are accomplishing -- making abortion more humane, more palatable to a relativistic society. It's exactly this reason why the pro-aborts started by tugging on our heartstrings about the rape victims -- because that, at least, seems to be a "good" reason to do an otherwise unthinkable thing. An "understandable" defense for dismemberment of a child.

And when we fight on those terms, we play right into the hands of the pro-aborts, who now probably realize that they can't keep all their abortions. But, by retreating to defensible ground, they know that if the public is willing to split the difference -- if the public is willing to find a middle ground between two extremes, which is a natural tendency -- that they can keep some abortion legal.

And by fighting on their terms, we'll make it happen. Because, unless Personhood is fixed in the public mind -- the Right to Life, not just a legislatively adjustable Privilege to Life -- the eventual result will be a stalemate at some middle ground.

Do you know World War II history? Franklin Roosevelt, and the other allies, agreed that they would accept nothing less than "unconditional surrender" from Germany and Japan. Why did they make that clear, early on? Because they knew that if the public had it in their mind that they could fight to a certain point, and then reach a negotiated peace, they would be counting on that. That's human nature.

FDR and Churchill set an absolute, irrevokable, and unassailable position of principle -- Absolute Victory.

To continue the analogy, settling for a negotiated peace would have "saved tens of thousands of lives". The hardest fighting of the whole war -- the most deaths -- was near the end.

FDR and Churchill knew that if they settled for anything less than total victory, they would have accomplished, in many respects, a partial loss.

What if they had started off saying "We're going to fight Germany out of France, but they can keep Russia." or "We're going to fight Japan out of the Pacific, but she can keep China." That negotiated, conditional peace would have been a "victory". But if their real goal was to free China as well -- total victory as a final goal, after the incremental step of saving everything but China -- can you imagine how hard it would be to convince the public to go to war again to save China?

When you keep moving the goal line, people start getting frustrated and upset. They start thinking you lied to them when you told them "We want to end Partial Birth Abortion because it's the most inhumane form of abortion", and now that they're hearing you say you want to go another step, they start thinking "No, I'm not going any further with you -- be satisfied with what I've given you!"

Remember, pro-abortion legislation wasn't fought incrementally. It started with rape/incest laws, but then they jumped straight to "legal through 9 months" with Roe v. Wade. Frankly, they would never have achieved 9 months if they'd tried to pass laws to do it.

Likewise, we will never reach our goal if we use the incremental path. We need to declare a principle for unconditional surrender -- Abortion is Always Wrong! Once that's set in the public mind, it will remain there. We may not get everybody to agree at once. But, we'll keep working on them!

Ultimately, South Dakota's 44% for a total ban will build to 48% and then 52%, and it will be banned! I predict that they'll do worse than 44% this year, with a lesser goal, no matter what the 2006 polls said, because they don't have a clear, fixed and ethically powerful principle to fight for.

TexasRed:

This is what you said, "He admits he couldnt possibly care less about the thinking feeling reasoning woman who is pregnant and that an oblivious collection of nonviable tissue and cell structure has more value to him than does that thinking feeling reasoning woman."

You know, if all a child in the womb as you state was just an, "oblivious collection of nonviable tissue and cell structure", most of us would probably agree with your assertion.

The problem is you and all pro-aborts like you take God and the intent of His will out of the process. Why is it wrong to terminate this, "oblivious collection of nonviable tissue and cell structure"? Because you're messing with God and His property. It's a direct and intetnaional insult towards the divine.

In fact, the act is metaphorically and similary satanic as it elevates oneself above God.

Since you don't believe in God, your position will never change. You are in a moral delimma without a solution. I would call that hell.

Thanks for your response, Bob. You've given me a lot to think about, and made some really good points. I appreciate it very much. God love you.

Bethany, you wrote: "With abortion, the cervix is forced open..."

Yeah, 10-14 mm. Big whoop. The thickness of your thumb. At most.

"...unnaturally..."

"Natural" does not mean "good for you". Hookworm is natural.

"...which reduces the elasticity, "

No it doesn't.

"...and increases the risk for premature birth in subsequent pregnancies,"

Nope. That's a right-to-life myth.

"...not to mention miscarriage also".

Nope.

You wrote: "...The cervix can easily be damaged by a sharp tool forcing it open, which is precisely what happens in abortion. "

Wrong again. The dilating rods which open the cervix are not sharp. And suction curretage--which uses a plastic tube and a 50cc syringe--has replaced sharp curretage as the method of choice. No sharp edges or blades involved at all, anymore.

I must say for someone who cares about the abortion issue, you are very badly misinformed about abortion. It's not that hard to learn the facts. Aren't you embarrassed to be wrong on so many points, about an issue you care about? Or are you just deliberately lying about it?

You also wrote: "Your body is designed for childbirth. "

If that's true, then the designer either wasn't very good at his job or was a sadistic bastard. The human female pelvis could have been designed to make childbirth much less painful and much less dangerous than it is. Most animals suffer less and die less often from childbirth than humans. Including big animals with well-developed brains like