New Stanek WND column, "Barack Obama and the Comfort Room"

WND%20logo.gif

In March 2002, then IL state Sen. Barack Obama and I engaged in an interesting exchange during my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member.

I was speaking in favor of the IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act for the second time, which had failed the year before.

Comfort3a.jpg

The previous year, I had told Obama and the committee of my experience holding a live aborted baby until he died in my capacity as a labor and delivery nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL.

That year, I described Christ Hospital's Comfort Room, unveiled in December 2000 to counter my public statements that personnel were shelving babies to die in the department's soiled utility room next to dirty linens, bloody and biohazardous waste, and a urinal....

I did not mention the Comfort Room when I testified again in 2002. But Barack Obama
remembered....

Continue reading my column today, "Barack Obama and the Comfort Room," on WorldNetDaily.com.

See more photos of Christ Hospital's Comfort Room that I submitted to then state Sen. Obama and other members of the IL Senate Judiciary Committee on page 2.

Comfort1.jpg

Comfort2a.jpg

Comfort4.jpg

Comfort5.jpg


Comments:

Jill,

Your story meshes perfectly with the public image coming out with the constant exposure of Obama's previous experiences with people on critical issues.

The most troubling issue for me is the fact that he seems to be a pretty good liar, and yet is given a complete pass by the media because he is a "young, articulate Black man who is our hope for ending racism as a national pass-time."

You called me on my own personal feelings of "separation of powers, reluctantly pro-choice," and you changed my perspective to the point I have to consider this fetus a baby from conception. I don't remember the exact lines we crossed for me to get where I am, but you had a convincing reasoned argument, and I could not counter it with my fear of government over-reaching.

What you did with this adds another time when Obama showed himself to be a consummate liar, and one does not reach such a summit without a lifetime of practice.

There is little he has accomplished politically, so this aspect of his campaign has a greater priority than it might otherwise.

At the risk of being called racist, I say it is precisely because Obama is black that he is the contender as no similarly junior senator, political lightweight, incapable of speaking directly from the heart on issues that are fully considered beforehand would ever have withstood the first difficulties of the campaign, far less out-campaign two of the most successful campaigners in our political history.

We are on the juncture of putting the least competent senator in the senate into the Chief Executive position, and Obama has shown no capability of executing anything at all, and in fact, has shown a propensity to stop things that could be beneficial precisely because they do not meet the far left liberal position he has consistently staked out since he entered politics.

If Obama is elected president, we will have elected a defacto high schooler to make our national executive decisions, and we can expect his decisions to be equal to his professional level of expertise. I now seriously fear for my country.

Posted by: John M. at June 18, 2008 9:30 AM


Obama is a bold faced liar...I want the whole world to know about his indifferent reaction to baby's being born alive. I want the world to know what a twisted individual they are considering electing as president of our great country.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 9:32 AM


I don't really understand the unrelenting attacks on Obama, and to call him a "bold faced liar" in comparision to the crew that currently occupies the White House is pretty far-fetched. Obama is a liberal Democrat pandering to a base of his party, it's what politicians do (see McCain and drilling for oil in today's papers). As to the substance of this article, it seems to be implied here that these are elective abortions like a teenager would get in the first trimester at the local Planned Parenthood. Since the comfort room involves photos, baptismal certificates, etc., I would doubt that is the case. I would suspect these are all medically necessary abortions required to protect the life or health of the mother. If that is the case, while it is obviously sad (even for the parents or why would you need a "comfort room"?) I fail to see the moral wrong here. If they are elective, obviously this would not be morally defensible.

Posted by: JohnS at June 18, 2008 9:42 AM


"Comfort room" or not, the thing that gets me is that a place called "Christ" Hospital is even performing abortions in the first place.

Interesting how the "body bag" in the photo says "remains of BABY"...

Also, what religion believes in baptizing corpses??? (Or are they referring to baptizing these aborted babies as they slowly die???)

Like Jill said, pretty wallpaper, rocking chairs, and all the other decorations will do nothing to "comfort" a baby that is desperately trying to survive.

You can put lipstick and a hat on a pig, and it's STILL a PIG.

God help us.

Posted by: Mike at June 18, 2008 9:52 AM


An absolutely fascinating study...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html?cnn=yes

So let me guess what the responses to this will be:

1. the study MUST have a liberal bias!
or
2. those damn gays CHOOSE to make parts of their brain different! God obviously didn't do this on purpose!!

Posted by: Amanda at June 18, 2008 9:53 AM


Are these abortions still going on?

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 9:58 AM


Amanda: And just exactly what do "gay brains" have to do with Obama and comfort rooms???

Posted by: Mike at June 18, 2008 10:02 AM


Carla, the new CEO of Christ Hospital told me indiscriminate abortions have been cut back, but there has been no change in policy.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 18, 2008 10:05 AM


I don't really understand the unrelenting attacks on Obama, and to call him a "bold faced liar" in comparision to the crew that currently occupies the White House is pretty far-fetched. Obama is a liberal Democrat pandering to a base of his party, it's what politicians do (see McCain and drilling for oil in today's papers). As to the substance of this article, it seems to be implied here that these are elective abortions like a teenager would get in the first trimester at the local Planned Parenthood. Since the comfort room involves photos, baptismal certificates, etc., I would doubt that is the case. I would suspect these are all medically necessary abortions required to protect the life or health of the mother. If that is the case, while it is obviously sad (even for the parents or why would you need a "comfort room"?) I fail to see the moral wrong here. If they are elective, obviously this would not be morally defensible.

The baby that was aborted when Jill was working there was aborted simply for the fact that the baby had Down's Syndrome. I don't think that's medically necessary or morally defensible at all.
In fact, virtually all late term abortions are elective, not medically necessary.
Here's some stats for you, from Guttmacher:

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

* 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 10:07 AM


So a "cutting back" is fine under BAIPA?

The comfort room makes me ill.

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 10:08 AM


"A Supreme Court in Georgia ruled that high school biology teachers were permitted to continue using the term 'evolution' when teaching their classes. However as a compromise, they must now refer to dinosaurs as 'jesus horses'." -Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:15 AM


"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

Posted by: lesforlife at June 18, 2008 10:18 AM


John M., you wrote: "If Obama is elected president, we will have elected a defacto high schooler to make our national executive decisions, and we can expect his decisions to be equal to his professional level of expertise. I now seriously fear for my country."

Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? He had less experience in government than Obama has now.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:18 AM


Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:18 AM

Huh? He was governor of Texas and political strategists ALL think that governors are better practiced for the White House because they've run a state, rather than Senators who have no experience running anything. That goes for Democrats and Republicans.

Posted by: Kristen at June 18, 2008 10:25 AM


"It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Gee Barak, you got that all by yourself? Duh.

Posted by: Kristen at June 18, 2008 10:31 AM


Thank you for arming me with information that I can send out to friends and family who think Obama is the answer to America’s problems. They don’t like Sen. McCain because he is for the war.

I just ask them, how can you support a candidate who promotes abortion, and supports allowing babies who have survived being aborted to die in a dirty utility room?

There is no answer.

Posted by: Peggy at June 18, 2008 10:32 AM


SoMG:

Thanks for slandering and blaspheming my Lord for the thousandth time.

Here's a "Word of the Day" just for you:

Jude 1: "8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever."

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 10:33 AM


Kristin, the governership of Texas is mostly a symbolic office. It carries less real power and less responsibility than any other governership in the USA.

Go read SHRUB by Molly Ivins.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:33 AM


This was such a great column. Obama clearly needs notecards and a written speech wherever he goes. Does he just need Gingko or he is that stupid and empty?

Posted by: Roseanne B. at June 18, 2008 10:35 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "Thanks for slandering and blaspheming my Lord...."

Glad to do it. Any time.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:35 AM


Focus SoMG. Focus.

Is there a comfort room at your abortion clinic?

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 10:36 AM


April 02, 2008

RHETORIC:"In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion." [Washington Times, 4/2/08]

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

Posted by: Laura at June 18, 2008 10:36 AM


1987 was more that 20 years ago. Again, we are dealing with a specific issue, a comfort room in a specific hospital. What is the stats on why late-term abortions are performed there? If it's for Downs Syndrome babies that's pretty bad.

Posted by: JohnS at June 18, 2008 10:38 AM


Roseanne B, you wrote: "Obama clearly needs notecards and a written speech wherever he goes. "

First of all, that's not true, Obama extemporizes beautifully, I've heard him.

Secondly, McCain almost never makes a speech without visibly squinting in order to read his teleprompter. His handlers have talked to him about it but nothing seems to help.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:38 AM


Jill, are these babies primarily from low-income families, or are they handicapped infants like Down syndrome or spina bifida?

Posted by: Ellen at June 18, 2008 10:39 AM


Carla, no, we only do abortions early in pregnancy.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:42 AM


Ellen, when I was at Christ almost all babies aborted were handicapped. There were some “health of the mother” abortions I deemed very questionable. One was a patient of mine who had prematurely ruptured her bag of waters at 19 weeks. The resident recommended abortion only 2 hours later. There were obviously no signs of infection, and I've known at least 1 mom who carried her babies 10 weeks after premature rupture.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 18, 2008 10:42 AM


Gee, a LOT of hospitals and birthing centers have perinatal hospices these days. (Of course, some people haven't been near a hospital in years and years...)

http://www.perinatalhospice.org./

Posted by: Laura at June 18, 2008 10:45 AM


John S., what reason do you have to believe that pregnancy is more dangerous today than 20 years ago?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 10:45 AM


The amazing thing about Molly Ivin's SHRUB is how similar GWBush's presidency has turned out to the previous career she described.

What did he do as an oil executive? Gave the company's assets away to his friends, bankrupted his employer and moved on.

What did he do running the Texas Rangers? Gave the assets away to his friends, bankrupted his team, and moved on.

And what has he done as President? Same thing. As Ivins predicted.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:47 AM


REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Laura, well that's just dumb. The babies are born. Obviously, they are not "in utero" anymore once they are born alive. And it's ridiculous to try to make a distinction between the two and make it to where 1 second before birth it's not worth being protected and 1 second after, it is.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 10:48 AM


Why is it that pro-abort Liberals like Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama always have to cloud who they are? What are they afraid of?

Has anyone ever heard Barack say, as a state senator "I did not support the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act".

Has anyone heard Planned Parenthood say that, "Abortion kills a living baby"?

Why can't they call themselves "Pro-Abortion"? Why must they use terms like "Pro-Choice"?

The devil always appears as an angel of light. Who could bear his true ugly and heinous image?

You see, Planned Paretnhood id based on a lie, legalized abortion is based on lies, and Barack Obama's candidacy is based on lies.

I call on all God fearing people to get on their knees and pray earnestly to the Father of Lights that God spare us from Barack Obama. However, he may end up being the real punishment from God that this country deserves for shedding the innocent blood of 50,000,000 babies in the womb since 1973.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3722098690652929884

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 10:50 AM


HI Laura,
You have given an extensive list. Very nice.
Yet again, you miss the point.
Perinatal hospice is for babies who will die naturally, not be aborted alive.

Stay with us, please.

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 10:51 AM


REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

In other words, "I would protect some babies as long as I was able to keep the right to kill some babies."

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 10:53 AM


Laura, well that's just dumb. The babies are born. Obviously, they are not "in utero" anymore once they are born alive. Duh.


Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 10:48 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then read the Illinois version of the act. It went down in flames when MOST legislators wouldn't vote for it because the language was too vague.
The federal version passed because it made a clear distinction.
NARAL didn't even oppose the federal version:

NARAL Says It Does Not Oppose Born Alive Infants Act
[Jun 20, 2001]

Despite a report by the Washington Times that several abortion-rights organizations, including the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, oppose the recently reintroduced Born Alive Infants Protection Act (S 1050/HR 2175), NARAL has indicated in a statement that it does not oppose the bill. Introduced on Friday in the Senate by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) and in the House by Reps. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Melissa Hart (R-Penn.) and Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), the bill would "grant federal protection to newborns who are fully outside the mother, regardless of their stage of development" ( Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 6/15). The bill defines "born alive" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother ... a member of the species homo sapiens ... at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, Caesarean section or induced abortion" (S 1050/HR 2175 bill text, 6/20). In the statement, NARAL says, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose" (NARAL release, 6/13). NARAL explains in its "Congressional Record on Choice," "In response [to the Supreme Court decision striking down Nebraska's "partial-birth" abortion ban, anti-choice lawmakers launched a new attack through the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This legislation ... seeks to further mischaracterize Roe v. Wade to the American public as a decision that has recently been 'expanded' to the point that newborn infants are now at risk. Although the legislation [is] statutorily unnecessary because newborn infants already receive full legal protection (and thus NARAL did not oppose its final passage), [when introduced last year] it was openly used by its anti-choice sponsors to lure pro-choice lawmakers and advocates into the trap of defending against their preposterous mischaracterizations of the current state of abortion-rights law" (NARAL "Congressional Record on Choice 106th Congress, 2nd Session," January 2000).

For current women's health policy news, visit the National Partnership for Women & Families' website.

Posted by: Laura at June 18, 2008 10:56 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "Has anyone heard Planned Parenthood say that, "Abortion kills a living baby"?

I have no problem saying that. Or rather, since I prefer to use words correctly, "... a living PERSON." (A person is not a baby until after birth. Until birth, a person is a fetus.) Of course, I don't work for PP.

You wrote: "Why can't they call themselves "Pro-Abortion"? Why must they use terms like "Pro-Choice"? "

Because they are not pro-abortion. They work very hard to prevent abortions, with some success. Unlike Jill Stanek, who will most likely go to her grave eventually without ever having prevented even one abortion. If her anti-birth-control activity is successful, she may actually be responsible for an increase in the number of abortions done in the USA.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:58 AM


SoMG:

Adolf Hitler was a great orator too. This does not qulaify one to lead this nation or any other nation.

Besides, you endorsing and supporting any candidate is a reason enough not to.

How many abortions have you perfomred SoMG?

You know what it takes to be a great leader SoMG? It's called character. It's called basing your life on priciple. McCain demonstrated this as a 5 year Vietnam POW and the service he has since provided as a US Senator.

Barack Obama has absolutely no charater whatsoever as he has been mentored by racists and set up by the Chicago political machine.

I pray that God allow the truth about Barack Obama to be revealed, how he's just a facade behind the likes of George Soros and all the others pulling his puppet strings.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 11:01 AM


Proper use of the word "comfort":

"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God. 5 For just as the sufferings for the Christ abound in us, so the comfort we get also abounds through the Christ. 6 Now whether we are in tribulation, it is for YOUR comfort and salvation; or whether we are being comforted, it is for YOUR comfort that operates to make YOU endure the same sufferings that we also suffer. 7 And so our hope for YOU is unwavering, knowing as we do that, just as YOU are sharers of the sufferings, in the same way YOU will also share the comfort." [2 Co 1:3-7]

Posted by: Tony at June 18, 2008 11:04 AM


Unlike Jill Stanek, who will most likely go to her grave eventually without ever having prevented even one abortion.

SOMG, read the first post on this topic. Hearts are indeed changing due to Jill's persistence on the pro-life issue. I am sure that in her years of pro-life work, hundreds of babies have been saved.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 11:07 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "Adolf Hitler was a great orator too."

No, he wasn't. Have you watched videotapes of him or read his speeches? He was overblown, rambling, unappealing, and prone to shouting.

You wrote: "This does not qulaify one to lead this nation or any other nation."

Hey, I wasn't the one who started the discussion of his oratorical skills. That was Roseanne B. (10:35 AM).

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:08 AM


Laura, 10:36a, said: "REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation."

Laura, you read my posts. You know you're repeating a lie.

REALITY: Obama killed legislation that would have made the IL Born Alive bill identical to the federal bill.

Link to bill (read amendment):

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93

It was sent to committee Obama chaired:

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?GA=93&committeeID=85

Link to "Actions" docket, showing Obama refused to allow the amendment for a vote and refused to allow Born Alive to be allowed for a vote:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 18, 2008 11:10 AM


Bethany, let's ask her. Jill, can you point to a single specific case where you or your work has prevented an abortion? Respond, please.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:10 AM


Laura, like I said, They'll pretend to want to protect some babies as long as they are able to keep the right to kill babies.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 11:10 AM


I have prevented more abortions than Jill, by providing contraceptive counselling to patients after their abortions, which prevents repeat abortions. And the false argument you rtls make "providing contraception causes women to have sex and thereby causes abortions when the contraceptives fail" is not even relevent here (it's wrong anyway) because abortion patients are already sexually active.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:15 AM


SoMG,
How many babies have you killed approximately?

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 11:15 AM


SoMG:

What you fail to realize is that even Barack Obama couldn't stand to be associated with someone like you. Your posts and attitudes are repulsive to most decent people.

If you don't believe me why don't you contact his campaign and ask to be a spokeperson for the "Right to Kill" group. I mean, you have all of the credentials. You believe what he believes. C'mon SoMG, here's your chance to expose who you think you are to the world, a death messiah.

He'd dropped you like a hot potato like he dropped his own pastor.

And SoMG, I'm not sure why you just can't understand that killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing a born person. Perhaps it's not being able to face the heinous nature of your acts. Perhaps it's the same mindset of a John Wayne Gacy or Dahmer or other serial killer. You think you're going to get away with this?

You are a very, very sick person SoMG.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 11:17 AM


Wow, Carla, that's difficult to estimate.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:17 AM


Laura, 10:56a, said: "Then read the Illinois version of the act. It went down in flames when MOST legislators wouldn't vote for it because the language was too vague."

Ok, let's read the IL version of the act:

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

And now let's read the federal version:

a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘in14
dividual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 18, 2008 11:18 AM


If Obama is elected president, we will have elected a defacto high schooler to make our national executive decisions, and we can expect his decisions to be equal to his professional level of expertise. I now seriously fear for my country.
Posted by: John M. at June 18, 2008 9:30 AM

Give me a break. You are free to vote against Senator Obama if you don't like his politics, but to compare him to a high schooler is a bit over the top. Studying and teaching the constitution alone makes him more qualified then the current administration. He has earned the respect of Colin Powell, JC Watts, and even Condi Rice. Not because he's black, but because he has the intellegence, temperment, and yes experience, to lead our nation out of the current mess.

Remember McCain's campaign advisor who resigned rather than campaign against Obama:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21consult.html

Mr. McKinnon had told friends, and some journalists, that he did not want to be part of a hard-fought campaign against such a historic candidacy. In his interview with Cox, he had said of Mr. Obama: “I think he has a deep character and good judgment. I also think he’s wrong on some fundamental issues. But I believe he is honest and independent.”

Posted by: Hal at June 18, 2008 11:19 AM


I have prevented more abortions than Jill, by providing contraceptive counselling to patients after their abortions, which prevents repeat abortions. And the false argument you rtls make "providing contraception causes women to have sex and thereby causes abortions when the contraceptives fail" is not even relevent here (it's wrong anyway) because abortion patients are already sexually active.

First of all, that's not an accurate presentation of the argument we make, and I think you know that.

Secondly, Amanda (still a supporter of abortion as you probably know) used to work at a Planned Parenthood. I remember distinctly her telling me how outraged she got with "return customers" because they had counseled them, given them birth control, and yet they would come in for a second, a third, a fourth abortion. She said that it made her really angry that they would not do what they had been advised to do, even though they had all the information and all the protection they needed. Why do you think that is, SOMG? Why didn't the available birth control, and the counseling help these women not end up repeating abortions?

The idea that the women you counsel are any different than the women in the Planned Parenthood Amanda worked at doesn't seem very likely.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 11:21 AM


Jill, LOL, big difference, huh? lol

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 11:22 AM


"(A person is not a baby until after birth. Until birth, a person is a fetus.)"
--------------------------

What KIND of fetus, SoMG? An animal fetus or a HUMAN fetus?? It is HUMAN after all your rants and raves...

SoMG "delights" in the abortion process...

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 11:23 AM


HisMan, you wrote: " I'm not sure why you just can't understand that killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing a born person."

Because you are wrong. Killing a person (As I explained, it's not a "baby" while it's in the womb) in the womb at the request of the womb's owner (the pregnant woman) is VERY different from killing an already-born baby. The two cases may have something in common (in both cases a person gets killed) but they also have differences. I'm willing to consider arguments that killing a person in the womb is WRONG, or EVIL, but morally identical to murdering an already-born baby it is not. Anyone who thinks these two cases are THE SAME is not thinking clearly. I bet even you don't really believe it. I'll demonstrate:

Suppose you were given the option to do ONE of two things: either prevent a scheduled abortion (scheduled at the pregant woman's request, I'm not talking about a forced abortion like in China), or prevent the scheduled murder of an already-born infant. You can prevent whichever one of these two killings you choose, but not both. (Say one of the rules is, if you refuse to choose between the two options, then both the fetus AND the baby will be killed.) Which option would you choose? Why?

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:35 AM


SOMG, I wonder if the reason you became an abortionist was in an effort to understand your mother?

Also, do you feel that you were not aborted because you were superior to your siblings?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 11:36 AM


Suppose you were given the option to do ONE of two things: either prevent a scheduled abortion (scheduled at the pregant woman's request, I'm not talking about a forced abortion like in China), or prevent the scheduled murder of an already-born infant. You can prevent whichever one of these two killings you choose, but not both. (Say one of the rules is, if you refuse to choose between the two options, then both the fetus AND the baby will be killed.) Which option would you choose? Why?

SOMG, but that isn't a fair question. It implies that you consider one to be more important than the other, even though it isn't necessarily true.

I could ask you,
If you could prevent the death of a child with cancer, or a child who was injured in a car accident, and you could only choose one, which would you choose? If you chose the child with cancer, would that mean that you automatically thought the child injured in the car accident wasn't human and worthy of protection?

Or I could ask you, if you could prevent a 7 year old girl, or a 9 year old girl from being raped, which one would you choose if you could only choose one? You wouldn't be implying that you thought the 9 year old should not be protected from rape, if you chose the 7 year old.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 11:39 AM


"The two cases may have something in common (in both cases a person gets killed) but they also have differences."
-----------------------

What's the difference, if any?

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 11:43 AM


..aside from one is in the womb and the other is not.

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 11:45 AM


SoMG:

You fail to understand that having an abortion and committing an abortion is grave sin and strikes at the very heart of God.

Sin has power. It's why people have difficulty breaking away from all kinds of addictions.

Simply telling or couseling someone to not do this or not do that just doesn't work.

They must be changed and transformed by the living God.

I know people that were drug addicts, alcoholics, murderers, adulterers, sex addicits, prostitutes, theives, had abortions and the like that were absolutely transformed by the power and love of God. Unfortunately, many of them went through unspeakable suffering before they realized that they were on the road to eternal death before they saw the light.

The problem with you SoMG is that you think you are doing right. That's the hardest group of people to reach for they are on their way to blaspheming the Holy Spirit an unforgivable sin. What is that sin? It's the sin of so often and so consistently refusing God's will, that, in the end, it cannot be recognized.
My prayer for you SoMG is that you have one of those encounters. You'd be a powerful witness to the power of God.

And please stop saying that what Jill is doing is somehow wrong. If Jill spent a hundred years doing what she does and it saved just one life, God would see that as His will being fulfilled. You see SoMG, following God is ALWAYS the right thing to do.

Jesus would have died on the cross if it were just for you SoMG, just for you.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 11:45 AM


Jill, 11:18

What is the current significance, if any, of the Illinois statute which failed to pass in 2002, in view of subsequent federal statutes and court decisions on the subject?

Doesn't federal law now control on the "born alive" and "partial birth abortion" issues, either preempting state law on those subjects, or making state laws redundant and unnecesary?

Posted by: Bystander at June 18, 2008 11:51 AM


Amen, Hisman.

People need a change of heart..not just a change of mind.

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 11:52 AM


RSD, yes, a fetus inside a human woman is itself a human being. Every abortion kills a human being. I have no problem with that.

And it's not really accurate to say I "delight" in the abortion process. Let's say I TAKE PRIDE in it, especially insofar as my work has helped improve it.

Bethany, you wrote: "That ["providing contraception causes women to have sex and thereby causes abortions when the contraceptives fail"] 's not an accurate presentation of the argument we make, and I think you know that. "

Wrong. As far as I have read that's exactly the argument rtls make, both against the availability of contraceptives generally and against teaching adolescents about contraceptives in school. If my characterization is wrong, please correct me--how would you characterize the rtls' anti-bc argument? (At least, it's ONE of the arguments--rtls also sometimes make their real motivating argument which is "God hates contraceptives" but not so often in public because this argument causes them to lose public support.)

You wrote: "Secondly, Amanda (still a supporter of abortion as you probably know) used to work at a Planned Parenthood. I remember distinctly her telling me how outraged she got with "return customers" because they had counseled them, given them birth control, and yet they would come in for a second, a third, a fourth abortion. She said that it made her really angry that they would not do what they had been advised to do, even though they had all the information and all the protection they needed. Why do you think that is, SOMG? Why didn't the available birth control, and the counseling help these women not end up repeating abortions? "

Yes, some patients are non-compliant with their contraceptive counselling, and working with these patients can be very frustrating and sometimes I fail to be as polite with them as one is supposed to be. (Non-compliant patients are a problem for virtually all health-care providers. I bet Jill Stanek will confirm this.) A line I use is "Do you ENJOY having abortions?" Fortunately the majority of abortion patients do not return.

Repeat abortions can also be an indicator of ongoing abuse by the sexual partner. A repeat-aborter with a black eye raises a red flag.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:55 AM


"Every abortion kills a human being. I have no problem with that."
-----------------------------

Doesn't anybody else find this statement disturbing, at the very least?

SoMG, I will include you in my prayers...

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 11:58 AM


Jill, since you are evidently around and reading these posts, I will repeat my question:

Can you point to a single specific case where you or your work has prevented an abortion?

If you do not respond, I (and Bethany) will have no choice but to assume that the answer is no.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:58 AM


Bystander, 11:51a, asked: "What is the current significance, if any, of the Illinois statute which failed to pass in 2002, in view of subsequent federal statutes and court decisions on the subject? Doesn't federal law now control on the "born alive" and "partial birth abortion" issues, either preempting state law on those subjects, or making state laws redundant and unnecesary?"

The state Born Alive law eventually passed in 2005. The federal law passed in 2002.

Federal laws mostly impose civil penalties. State laws mostly impose criminal penalties. Passing identical state laws also opens the gateway for more prosecutors.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 18, 2008 12:00 PM


RSD,
Chilling and disturbing.
I join you in praying for SoMG.

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 12:00 PM


Bethany, my question to HisMan is so a fair question. It's not that hard to imagine possible real-life circumstances which would demand an answer to it.

Your questions to me about which patient to save are also legitimate questions.

HisMan, I am waiting for an answer to my question (which death you would choose to prevent: an abortion at the pregnant woman's request, or the murder of an already-born baby), unless you are afraid to give one.

You wrote: "The problem with you SoMG is that you think you are doing right. "

That's correct.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 12:03 PM


SoMG:

That's a ludicrous proposition set up by an abortionist for the sake of trying to prove his point. I would rather die myself rahter than make such a choice.

You could have well said, "there's two born children, one perfectly healthy, one not, which one would you kill?" It's ludicorus as they are both people not worthy of death. The only valid choice or offer of a solution I could make is to offer my own life for theirs.

Who in God's name would ever provide such a scenario? A sick psycho terrorist?

You need to read the story of Solomon.

In any event I would offer my life as a solution to the hypothetical dilemma that you propose. Perhaps this would satisfy the murderous lust of the one making such a heinous proposal.

You see SoMG, fom conception, a person is a person, a baby is a baby, no difference. Here's my proof:

Psalm 139

1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.

2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.

3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways.

4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,

10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.

11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,"

12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!

18 Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake, I am still with you.

19 If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!

20 They speak of you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.

21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?

22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.

24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 12:06 PM


RSD, the difference you mentioned--that in one case the person killed is in the womb (I would add, in the womb against the stated wish of the womb's owner) and in the other case not, is enough of a difference for me. (Other differences include: In one case but not the other the person killed is engaged in taking material from the patient's bloodstream against her stated wish; also, in one case but not the other the person killed is engaged in injecting metabolic waste products INTO the patient's bloodstream against her will, and finally, in one case but not the other the person killed would, if not killed, subject the patient to significant medical/surgical risk, pain, trauma, and expence, all against her will.)

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 12:10 PM


Unfortunately, SoMG's heart is one of stone...how it got there,Heaven only knows.

No amount of valid reasoning by us , ethical or moral, against his/her ingrained culture of death will ever change that.

It is not up to us to change it...it is up to SoMG to offer it up.

I only pray it happens sooner than later...

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 12:13 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "I would rather die myself rahter than make such a choice."

So then you're saying you would refuse to choose? Remember, part of the question was, if you refuse to choose then BOTH the fetus AND the baby get killed, and you have a death, which you could have prevented, on your conscience.

You wrote: "Who in God's name would ever provide such a scenario? A sick psycho terrorist?

For instance. It's a hypothetical case.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 12:14 PM


A line I use is "Do you ENJOY having abortions?" Fortunately the majority of abortion patients do not return.

Should there be any reason for a woman to be discouraged from having an abortion again, SOMG, since you have said before it is a relatively simple process, quick and painless, and not dangerous in the least?

Why would you discourage a woman from having a second or third abortion, and for what reasons would you be frustrated with her if she chose abortion as her method of birth control instead of the pill or a condom?

After all, it is her choice, correct?...and she is just exercising that free choice?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:15 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "You see SoMG, fom conception, a person is a person...."

Yes, I agree with you.


You wrote: "a baby is a baby, no difference"

Wrong. Are you able to read? For the third time, when in the womb a person is called a "fetus". A person becomes a "baby" after birth. And there is a very important difference: while in the womb, a person's right to live is ethically dependent on the willingness of the womb's owner to continue sustaining life.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 12:18 PM


Bethany, my question to HisMan is so a fair question. It's not that hard to imagine possible real-life circumstances which would demand an answer to it.
Your questions to me about which patient to save are also legitimate questions.

They are not legitimate questions because they imply an untruth, if answered the way that you're wanting your question answered.

If Hisman said he would choose the baby destined for abortion, you would say that he cared about unborn children more than born children, even though nothing could be further from the truth. (And vice versa).

It is nothing but a trick question, and it absolutely is unfair.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:19 PM


Jill 12:00 high noon.

Thank you for the clarification of IL and federal law. Are there any new statutes that have been introduced which would repeal or modify the state or federal laws you reference?

Posted by: Bystander at June 18, 2008 12:20 PM


Wrong. Are you able to read? For the third time, when in the womb a person is called a "fetus". A person becomes a "baby" after birth. And there is a very important difference: while in the womb, a person's right to live is ethically dependent on the willingness of the womb's owner to continue sustaining life.

There may be developmental difference, SOMG, but calling a fetus a baby is not improper use of the English language:

ba·by (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang A girl or young woman.
4. Informal Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.
adj. bab·i·er, bab·i·est
1. Of or having to do with a baby.
2. Infantile or childish.
3. Small in comparison with others of the same kind: baby vegetables.
tr.v. ba·bied, ba·by·ing, ba·bies
To pamper like a baby; coddle. See Synonyms at pamper.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:21 PM


Actually, Carla, I can answer your question: "How many babies have you killed approximately?"

Zero. I kill fetuses, not babies.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 12:25 PM


Before this presidential campasign is over, abortion will be the plum-line issue for us Americans.

Posted by: Larry Who at June 18, 2008 12:26 PM


Jill, since you are evidently around and reading these posts, I will repeat my question:
Can you point to a single specific case where you or your work has prevented an abortion?
If you do not respond, I (and Bethany) will have no choice but to assume that the answer is no

SOMG...just last month, Jill was able to collect from this blog alone, over 1500 dollars for Pregnancy Care Centers, which provides prenatal care and a maternity home for those women who are in crisis pregnancies. Just because Jill hasn't seen these people and talked to them doesn't mean they aren't there, and babies haven't been saved due to Jill's work.

I could donate funds to provide shelter for the homeless, I may never see or hear from those homeless people that I helped, but I would know that there were many who were helped.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:26 PM


SoMG,

Either choice is morally acceptable. Your scenario is akin to the old "fire in the fertility clinic" scenario but with much less substance. Just because someone would choose one in no way says that the other is of less value. This is poor moral reasoning.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 18, 2008 12:27 PM


Bethany, I am talking about the MEDICAL terms.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 12:27 PM


Zero. I kill fetuses, not babies.

Okay, SOMG, how many human fetuses have you killed, approximately?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:29 PM


Bethany, I am talking about the MEDICAL terms.

I know, but you were correcting Hisman, who was not talking about medical terms.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:31 PM


Man...evertime I read SoMG's post, it give's me a frightening chill down the spine...

...and he/she does counseling work??

*reminds of a Deacon in our parish who does NOT believe in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 12:33 PM


Jill says most of the abortions she saw were handicapped, which is a scandal in and of itslef and probably is more important than the "comfort room." But in this end this is really a farce on both sides. Obama fights against late term abortion bans and "born alive" legislation because he and his constituency fear they will be used to prevent women from choosing abortion. Jill and her constituency use these laws to do exactly that, since admittedly you guys see no difference morally from a first term and a third term abortion. So why kid ourselves arguing at the margins? Tt's a debate about whether abortion as a whole should be legal or not, not about comfort rooms.

Posted by: JohnS at June 18, 2008 12:46 PM


In each and every scenario, it is a debate about whether a living child gets to live or be killed legally, John S.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:52 PM


SoMG:

I don't have to answer your silly question, we lived it.

When my wife was 4 months pregnant with our now 12 year old, she was diagnosed with a mass on her ovary that the doctors said was proablaby malignant. They said that if she continued the pregnancy she'd have a high risk of death. They recommended an abortion, of course, politically correctly terming it a "complete hysterectomy". I looked the doctor in the eye and he could see what my soul was telling him. "Touch my baby and you'll have to deal with me".

Well my wife had an an operation to remove the tumor, while she was pregnant. Our wishes were that if she had cancer that they would close her up and she would deal with that after the delivery of the baby. I was in the operating room, I saw my precious child in the sac, the one that God was knitting. There's no way in hell you can tell me that baby was not a person.

You may ask why did she have the surgery. Well, the tumor was growing so fast it threatened the baby's life.

Well it turned out the tumor was not malignant, and Daniel was born. He is the most marvelous 12 year old on the planet. You know what he wants to be SoMG? A pastor, who wants to be a crusader against abortion and the likes of murderous people like you. And he will do that SoMG. He's been prophesied over by people that come up to him out of nowhere and say, "You're going to evangelize the world".

Satan wanted to kill my son, God's precious gift to the world against abortion. And what you do SoMG in playing God, is truly heinous.

What satan intended for evil, God caused great good. But we had to obey God SoMG for that good to come about.

By the way. My wife and I are one flesh. If she would have died I would have died. Can you understand that?

My wife was willing to give her life for the baby. My wife is the most courageous person on the planet for doing that.

To me SoMG, your actions are so anti-Christ, so anti- God, and so anti-life, I just can't imagine who you are. My sense is that somewhere in your youth or your family's history you or they dealt in the occult and as a result are so deceived and unable to recognize absolutely extreme evil.

Bethany:

I am so, so proud of you taking a stand against SoMG. I know he's tried to intimdate you in the past. Just remember, you and God can stand against an entire army of SoMGs.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 12:52 PM


Sorry for all the typos I did that last one too fast...

Posted by: JohnS at June 18, 2008 12:52 PM


That is an amazing story, Hisman. I know you must have been through a lot during that time, worrying about your wife and child, and how they were going to be throughout the surgery.

How amazing that you were able to see your child while they operated on her!

Thanks for the kind words, by the way.


Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:56 PM


All this fuss about trying to convert SoMG is a complete waste of time and energy. He has no desire to stop doing abortions and never will.

His mind is made up that he is doing a noble thing by killing.

He has made his "choice" and therefore will pay the consequences.

Posted by: Mike at June 18, 2008 12:56 PM


EXACTLY, Bethany. "Born Alive" legislation is just a distraction, and so to punish Obama for seeing thru the smokescreen is wrong.

Posted by: JohnS at June 18, 2008 12:56 PM


John s., don't worry about it...typos are inevitable! :)


Mike, I realize that converting SOMG is most likely a waste of time, but I have to say that part of the reason that we speak to him is not so much for his benefit, but for the benefit of the silent readers.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 12:58 PM


EXACTLY, Bethany. "Born Alive" legislation is just a distraction, and so to punish Obama for seeing thru the smokescreen is wrong.

No smokescreen, John S. The born alive infants protection act wording does not infringe on Roe Vs Wade, and Obama knows that.

It was intended to protect those infants who were being delivered prematurely, then left to die.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:02 PM


Bethany, it is not at all clear that CPCs actually prevent abortions. They CLAIM they do, but even if they didn't, they would still claim to.

If a woman walks into a CPC it means she is already uncertain about her choice.

But let's ASSUME Jill has prevented a certain number of abortions by funding CPCs and by converting readers to right-to-lifism, some of whom went on to grow pregnancies they otherwise would have aborted. The question then becomes: is the number of abortions she has prevented or will prevent greater or less than the number of abortions she has caused or will cause by her opposition to birth-control? How many women tried to use NFP because they read Jill's blog and were converted to anti-bc-ism, and then converted back to pro-choice when faced with an unwanted pregancy and aborted it (which rtl women OFTEN do)?

(I'd still be pretty sure I've prevented more abortions than Jill has. My work targets the high-risk patients--the ones who have already had at least one abortion.)

Bethany, I am waiting for your answer to my question: If my characterization of the rtl anti-birth-control argument ("providing contraception causes women to have sex and thereby causes abortions when the contraceptives fail") is as you say "not an accurate presentation of the argument we make", please post a better characterization of that argument. I am curious to know what part of my characterization you think is wrong.

What other questions did you ask me? Oh yes, "I wonder if the reason you became an abortionist was in an effort to understand your mother?"

LOL If that was the goal, it hasn't worked. I still don't understand her.

Incidently, publication rights for her latest book were just purchased in Germany. More $$ in the family vault! I have a feeling this one is going to be another big seller, and not just among feminist readers this time. We'll see.

"Also, do you feel that you were not aborted because you were superior to your siblings? "

No. It was because her pregnancy with me was a planned, desired pregnancy. The whole time--from before conception until after birth.

What else? Oh yes you wrote: "Why would you discourage a woman from having a second or third abortion, and for what reasons would you be frustrated with her if she chose abortion as her method of birth control instead of the pill or a condom? "

It's a pointless waste of human life.

HisMan, you wrote: "Jesus would have died on the cross if it were just for you SoMG, just for you."

Well you know the Gospels better than I do, but as I remember He had no choice about that. Didn't He beg God to save Him?

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:06 PM


Repeat abortions can also be an indicator of ongoing abuse by the sexual partner. A repeat-aborter with a black eye raises a red flag.

SOMG, what is your course of action when you see a repeat aborter who raises red flags in your mind?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:07 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "My wife and I are one flesh. If she would have died I would have died. "

Isn't suicide a mortal sin?

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:10 PM


"..as I remember He had no choice about that. Didn't He beg God to save Him?"
----------------------------------

You obviously don't know what happened after that... Jesus stayed and CHOSE to accept the
suffering that would redeem us all...even YOU.

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 1:14 PM


That's the smokescreen. You pick something nobody in their right minds could be against, to incrementally chip away at abortion rights, like "partial birth" bans, then it's sonogram counseling, parental notification laws, etc. The Dems then reactively oppose anything, even stuff that does make sense, because they see it as a back-door asault on Roe, like the NRA opposes any reasonable gun law because they see it as a back-door attack on the Second Amendment. Obama is pro-choice. Let the debate be joined there, the rest of this is all smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: JohnS at June 18, 2008 1:14 PM


Bethany, I ask her if she's being abused and advise her to ditch the loser who's abusing her and call the police next time she gets hit. If she's a minor I have to tell the cops myself.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:16 PM


"Jesus stayed and CHOSE to accept the
suffering that would redeem us all."

How, exactly, could He have gotten out of that mess at that point?

Posted by: Hal at June 18, 2008 1:16 PM


If a woman walks into a CPC it means she is already uncertain about her choice.

Not necessarily. She may just be interested in the free pregnancy test.

But let's ASSUME Jill has prevented a certain number of abortions by funding CPCs and by converting readers to right-to-lifism, some of whom went on to grow pregnancies they otherwise would have aborted. The question then becomes: is the number of abortions she has prevented or will prevent greater or less than the number of abortions she has caused or will cause by her opposition to birth-control? How many women tried to use NFP because they read Jill's blog and were converted to anti-bc-ism, and then converted back to pro-choice when faced with an unwanted pregancy and aborted it (which rtl women OFTEN do)?

It isn't just anti-birth control...it's anti-contraceptive mindset. If a person has read Jill's blog and has changed their mindset regarding pregnancies, even accidental ones, then they will not choose abortion if they become pregnant because their attitude and perspective has changed over completely.

(I'd still be pretty sure I've prevented more abortions than Jill has. My work targets the high-risk patients--the ones who have already had at least one abortion.)

Well, if you do abortions only on women who have already had abortions, that doesn't really make much sense to say that you have prevented abortions, SOMG. I fail to see the logic in that.

Bethany, I am waiting for your answer to my question: If my characterization of the rtl anti-birth-control argument ("providing contraception causes women to have sex and thereby causes abortions when the contraceptives fail") is as you say "not an accurate presentation of the argument we make", please post a better characterization of that argument. I am curious to know what part of my characterization you think is wrong.

Birth control pills don't "cause" people to have sex. And they don't "cause" abortions when they fail (although they do have the capability to cause abortions when they work correctly).

LOL If that was the goal, it hasn't worked. I still don't understand her.
Incidently, publication rights for her latest book were just purchased in Germany. More $$ in the family vault! I have a feeling this one is going to be another big seller, and not just among feminist readers this time. We'll see.

What kind of books does she write, SOMG?

It's a pointless waste of human life.

Do you think that human life is inherently valuable?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:18 PM


RSD: "Jesus stayed and CHOSE to accept the
suffering that would redeem us all"

If that was His choice, why did He pray to be released from the cross?

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:19 PM


SoMG:

Medical semantics and moral relativism does not change the truth.

When Hitler called Jews animals, it didn't change who they really were in God's eyes, God's chosen people, the apple of His eye.

And you calling a baby in the womb a fetus while still believing it is a person and then being able to justify its murder because you term it a "fetus" without any tinge of conscience is a gross and utterly blasphemous act of twisted self-deception.

Tell me something SoMG, is destroying a chrysalis killing a caterpillar or a butterfly?

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 1:21 PM


That's the smokescreen. You pick something nobody in their right minds could be against, to incrementally chip away at abortion rights, like "partial birth" bans, then it's sonogram counseling, parental notification laws, etc. The Dems then reactively oppose anything, even stuff that does make sense, because they see it as a back-door asault on Roe, like the NRA opposes any reasonable gun law because they see it as a back-door attack on the Second Amendment. Obama is pro-choice. Let the debate be joined there, the rest of this is all smoke and mirrors.

If nobody in their right mind would be against it, then Obama obviously isn't in his right mind.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:23 PM


Bethany: "If a person has read Jill's blog and has changed their mindset regarding pregnancies, even accidental ones, then they will not choose abortion if they become pregnant because their attitude and perspective has changed over completely."

You wish. "I'm pro-life, but I can't have a baby now!" How many times have I heard that. It's a difficult number to estimate like say the total number of m&ms I've eaten in my lifetime, or the number of abortions I have done.

You wrote: "Well, if you do abortions only on women who have already had abortions,"

I was talking about the contraceptive-counselling we do after the abortion.

You wrote: "What kind of books does she write, SOMG? "

That would be telling.

"Do you think that human life is inherently valuable? "

Yes, of course.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:26 PM


If that was His choice, why did He pray to be released from the cross?

He was showing us an example. Jesus IS God, so His prayers to God were for our benefit and to show us how to have a relationship with our Heavenly Father.

When we pray to God, we know that we may not always get a "yes" answer. Jesus prayed to God to please remove the cup from Him, but at the end He always said, "but not my will be done, but Thine".

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:27 PM


You wish. "I'm pro-life, but I can't have a baby now!" How many times have I heard that. It's a difficult number to estimate like say the total number of m&ms I've eaten in my lifetime, or the number of abortions I have done.

People who say they are pro-life and have abortions never were pro-life in the first place.

I could say I'm a feminist but that alone doesn't make me one, does it?

That would be telling.

Well, yes, but at least give me a clue. Fiction, inspirational, non-fiction, etc?

(do you think human life is valuable inherently) Yes, of course.

If you think it is valuable inherently, why, and where does this value originate from?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:31 PM


Bethany:

Unless you saw it as a Trojan Horse to try to chip away at abortion rights, which is my point.

Posted by: JohnS at June 18, 2008 1:31 PM


How many times have I heard that. It's a difficult number to estimate like say the total number of m&ms I've eaten in my lifetime, or the number of abortions I have done.

How many abortions do you do on any given day? and how many days a week do you do abortions? And how many years have you been practicing?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:32 PM


Bethany, I see, so He prayed to be released from the cross because He was actually hoping God would refuse him? So He could redeem us by His suffering?

If you pray to God for something but you're really hoping God will refuse your prayer, isn't that lying to God, telling Him you desire something when in fact you don't? Isn't lying to God blasphemy or perjury or taking His name in vain or something like that?

What a load of govno (a Russian word--look it up if you can't guess what it means).

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:33 PM


Unless you saw it as a Trojan Horse to try to chip away at abortion rights, which is my point.

I realize your point but it doesn't make any difference. Who in their right mind allows babies to die on shelves every day, just so that women don't have to be inconvenienced in the future on the slight possibility that it might happen?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:34 PM


SoMG,

"(A person is not a baby until after birth. Until birth, a person is a fetus.)"

WOW! That's pretty messed up...

Don't you mean a baby is a baby before, during and after birth. A baby is not legally a "person" until after birth, and no "person" is a fetus, just as no fetus is a person.

As we have been told ad nauseum by Doug, "person" is a legal term...

If a person is a fetus until birth, then a fetus is a person also...meaning they have personhood, meaning that have all the rights attributed to personhood, meaning abortion is unconstitutional...

Posted by: mk at June 18, 2008 1:37 PM


I thought the purpose of a Comfort Room is for a birthed and dying baby or stillbirth baby (not an aborted baby) to peacefully pass away in his mother's arms. So why was it created so soon after Jill's testimony? This seems strange, as if the process of killing failed, aborted babies was expected to become regular "service."

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 18, 2008 1:39 PM


Bethany, I see, so He prayed to be released from the cross because He was actually hoping God would refuse him? So He could redeem us by His suffering?

His human side of Him did indeed desire to be allowed to save mankind in another way. He knew what He was about to have to endure. But He was always willing, regardless of His wishes that there was another way, and He CHOSE to go to Calvary. For those of us who would accept Him.

Jesus said:
53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

54But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:41 PM


Bethany: "How many abortions do you do on any given day? and how many days a week do you do abortions?"

Both of these numbers vary a lot.

You wrote: "...give me a clue. Fiction, inspirational, non-fiction, etc"

All three, and more.

You wrote: "People who say they are pro-life and have abortions never were pro-life in the first place."

Wrong. If "pro-life" means "favoring, and voting for, the criminalization of abortion" then yes they were. Some women continue to support criminalization of abortion even after having one. As the Doors sang, people are strange.

People change their minds about things. Especially when the things suddenly acquire new relevance to their own lives (like when a rtl woman faces an undesired pregnancy.)

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:42 PM


Wrong. If "pro-life" means "favoring, and voting for, the criminalization of abortion" then yes they were. Some women continue to support criminalization of abortion even after having one. As the Doors sang, people are strange.

Then they are liars and hypocrites. Regardless of their actions, voting methods, etc (which are probably more for appearances than their core beliefs anyway), they are not truly pro-life if they have an abortion.

Oh wait, I have to edit this because I realized what you were saying. I don't consider being "pro-life" to consist only of who you vote for, or whether you support the criminalization of abortion.. Being "pro-life" means being opposed to abortion, period. If you have an abortion, obviously you weren't truly opposed to abortion. You just said you were.


Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:45 PM


MK, now you are talking about "legal persons" which is something else again.

A corporation is a legal person but not a person.

A fetus is a person but not a legal person.

I trust I make myself obscure.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:47 PM


Hal:

C'mon my friend, He was God.

He could have vaporized the earth.

Hal and SoMG:

The foundation to understanding the world in whcih we live is understanding who Jesu Christ was.

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 1:48 PM


Bethany: "If you have an abortion, obviously you weren't truly opposed to abortion. You just said you were. "

Or you changed your mind.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:49 PM


Well you know the Gospels better than I do, but as I remember He had no choice about that. Didn't He beg God to save Him?

Good Heaven SoMG! What Gospel are you reading? The Gospel according to lunatics??? Yeah, He begged His father to save Him right after He won the olympics and ate s'mores!

Posted by: mk at June 18, 2008 1:49 PM


If you changed your mind, I don't think convictions were strong in the first place, therefore you never truly were pro-life- certainly not pro-life enough to withstand the test.

I think principle isn't something you can just change your mind over. Anyone who would change their mind on being pro-life never had any principle or character, and was a liar, in my opinion.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:50 PM


Good Heaven SoMG! What Gospel are you reading? The Gospel according to lunatics??? Yeah, He begged His father to save Him right after He won the olympics and ate s'mores!

LOL

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:52 PM


This is a correction to my last post as I mean no disrepsect to my precious Lord (I'm trying to write an extensive engineering report - Jill, please place a spell checker on your site, would ya)?

Hal:

C'mon my friend, He was God.

He could have vaporized the earth.

Hal and SoMG:

The foundation to understanding the world in which we live is understanding who Jesus Christ is.

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 1:52 PM


Hal, did you have a Christian background?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:53 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "you calling a baby in the womb a fetus while still believing it is a person and then being able to justify its murder because you term it a "fetus"..."

Ummmmm--wrong. The fact that it is properly called a "fetus" is not what justifies the abortion. The abortion is justified because it is located inside the body of a woman WITHOUT HER CONTINUING CONSENT. Not by the fact that it is a fetus rather than a baby. Being a fetus is a necessary, but not sufficient, reason to justify abortion.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:53 PM


Hal,

How, exactly, could He have gotten out of that mess at that point?

He could have done exactly what you and SoMG are doing. Refused to do the will of God. Refused to accept His directives.

He rose from the dead. He healed the sick. He gave sight to the blind. He ascended into heaven. He fortetold the future. He brought the dead back to life...

I'm thinkin' if He wanted to get down off the cross and call a time out, He could have.

Which is exactly what the Romans and Jews that were there wanted Him to do. Come down, call it off and prove to the unbelievers once and for all, that He was who He said that He was.

Tell me Hal. If He HAD gotten down off the cross to prove His power, would it have made one iota of difference to you or Doug, or SoMG? Would you believe that when you don't believe anything else?

Looks like He made the right choice.

Posted by: mk at June 18, 2008 1:54 PM


Bystander, 12:20p, said: "Thank you for the clarification of IL and federal law. Are there any new statutes that have been introduced which would repeal or modify the state or federal laws you reference?"

You're welcome.

Well, Obama and gang support FOCA, although I don't think that would impact Born Alive.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 18, 2008 1:55 PM


Bethany, you wrote: "If you changed your mind, I don't think convictions were strong in the first place,"

I have done abortions for women who had previously been more active in the rtl movement than you are. I have done abortions for women who picketted my workplace.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 1:58 PM


Tell me Hal. If He HAD gotten down off the cross to prove His power, would it have made one iota of difference to you or Doug, or SoMG? Would you believe that when you don't believe anything else?


Looks like He made the right choice.


Well said, Marykay!

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:59 PM


I trust I make myself obscure.

No, actually you've made yourself perfectly clear.

It's a fetus AND a person when we're speaking medically. But it is NOT a baby.

When we are speaking in the vernacular it is a fetus, a baby AND a person.

When we are speaking in legalise, it is NOT a person, might be a baby and is referred to as a fetus.

Of course you really clear things up here:

HisMan, you wrote: "Has anyone heard Planned Parenthood say that, "Abortion kills a living baby"?
*
I have no problem saying that.

So tell me...you have no problem killing a living baby...

Is that a legal living baby, a medically living baby, or a non-legal living baby, or a living non-medical baby?

Cut the crap...the bottom line is you couldn't care less what it IS or what we CALL it...you'd kill 'em all...
Because they are using blood that doesn't belong to them...

Psychopathy.

Posted by: mk at June 18, 2008 2:02 PM



Hal, did you have a Christian background?
Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 1:53 PM

Nope. Maybe that's why it really makes no sense to me.

Posted by: Hal at June 18, 2008 2:02 PM


Jill, you wrote: "Obama and gang support FOCA, although I don't think that would impact Born Alive."

I agree. A ban on "born-alive" abortions would not interfere with anyone's right to have an abortion. Therefore such a ban would not be nullified by FOCA. In order to be nullified by FOCA, a law must interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion (or with her right to bear a child).

(Maybe if the woman lived somewhere where "born-alive" abortion was the only type of abortion available to her, it would. But it's hard to imagine how this could be.)

Jill, although you oppose FOCA now, you will be grateful for it after it becomes law, because the right to choose to keep a pregnancy and bear a child will then be federally protected, which it currently is not.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:03 PM


I have done abortions for women who had previously been more active in the rtl movement than you are. I have done abortions for women who picketted my workplace.

Like I said, all for show. No conviction.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 2:05 PM


MK, you wrote: "He could have done exactly what you and SoMG are doing. Refused to do the will of God. Refused to accept His directives."

How would this refusal have gotten Him off the cross?

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:05 PM


SoMG,

How would this refusal have gotten Him off the cross?

You're a smart man (albeit an insane one), you figure it out.

Posted by: mk at June 18, 2008 2:08 PM


Nope. Maybe that's why it really makes no sense to me.

Oh okay, the only reason I asked that is because you capitalized "He" when you were referring to God.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 2:09 PM


MK, you wrote: "the bottom line is you couldn't care less what it IS or what we CALL it...you'd kill 'em all..."

True. My only reason for correcting HisMan's misuse of the word "baby" is that I like to use medical terms correctly.

You wrote"...because they are using blood that doesn't belong to them..."

Actually, the fetus does not receive whole blood from the mother. It receives some components of her bloodstream (the components that get past the placental filter), but it makes its own blood.

Just replace the word "blood" with "blood components" and you will be right.

You wrote: "Psychopathy."

No. Freedom. Body-ownership.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:11 PM


Secondly, Amanda (still a supporter of abortion as you probably know) used to work at a Planned Parenthood. I remember distinctly her telling me how outraged she got with "return customers" because they had counseled them, given them birth control, and yet they would come in for a second, a third, a fourth abortion. She said that it made her really angry that they would not do what they had been advised to do, even though they had all the information and all the protection they needed. Why do you think that is, SOMG? Why didn't the available birth control, and the counseling help these women not end up repeating abortions?

Bethany, whatever the circumstances in their lives (drugs, alcohol, abusive partner, etc.) that have led them to such behavior, what gives you the impression that such women, who do not want children, are suitable to be good parents? Abortion is sad, but raising children in a neglectful or abusive environment is worse, if not criminal.

If nobody in their right mind would be against it, then Obama obviously isn't in his right mind.

Either that, or he very clearly sees the forest for the trees, Bethany.

Posted by: Ray at June 18, 2008 2:12 PM


Bethany, believe it or not, I did it out of respect to you guys who believe He is God/Son of God.

Althought it "makes no sense" to me, I've decided to be kinder and more understanding. Must be Obama's influence ;)

Posted by: Hal at June 18, 2008 2:13 PM


MK, I don't think it would. He'd have died on the cross no matter what He did. By the time He was nailed in it was too late to do anything except perhaps sing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life."

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:13 PM


Interesting how the "body bag" in the photo says "remains of BABY"...

SoMG's abortion clinic would NEVER say this. Somehow he thinks aborting babies earlier is different than aborting them when they are older. Another irrational and illogical position.

"The abortion is justified because it is located inside the body of a woman WITHOUT HER CONTINUING CONSENT."

Your reasoning is flawed. You cannot kill a person because of where they are located - this denies them the dignity of their person. Since they are dependent upon the body of the mother for their existence, common sense and natural law dictates that they should have the right to remain there since there is no other environment for this person to survive. The exception of course would be if a procedure to save the life of the mother indirectly results in the death of the child (that is the intent is to save the mother).
The unborn child has it's own dignity and right to life. This was always a given before the contraceptive mentality became the norm in society. To suggest otherwise merely demonstrates the callousness and lack of heart you possess which enable you to commit abortions.

Jill:When my amniotic sac prematurely ruptured, my doctor did not induce me. Although my baby was born 5 weeks early (this is the gifted musician kid who developed very severe jaundice too), he told me had patients who went 8 to 10 weeks post rupture without problems. He is a prolife doctor. It's all in your perspective.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 2:17 PM


Bethany, whatever the circumstances in their lives (drugs, alcohol, abusive partner, etc.) that have led them to such behavior, what gives you the impression that such women, who do not want children, are suitable to be good parents? Abortion is sad, but raising children in a neglectful or abusive environment is worse, if not criminal.

Okay, let's kill all abused children, Ray. That'll solve the child abuse problem. I'm sure we can find plenty of abused children in the poorer neighborhoods. Let's go on a killing spree together. Together we can rid the world of child abuse- the effective way! Because allowing children to continue living in abusive environments would be...well, criminal!


Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 2:17 PM


Bethany, believe it or not, I did it out of respect to you guys who believe He is God/Son of God.
Althought it "makes no sense" to me, I've decided to be kinder and more understanding. ;)

That was very kind of you, Hal. I really do appreciate that, and it definitely was noticed.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 2:19 PM


MK, I don't think it would. He'd have died on the cross no matter what He did. By the time He was nailed in it was too late to do anything except perhaps sing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life."

Jesus Himself said that He could have called legions of angels to protect Him, so should He choose, SOMG. Please just stop.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 2:20 PM


SoMG: what is your family's history of abortion?

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 2:20 PM


Ack my head is aching. i'll have to come back for more posting later. Thanks all for the discussion.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 2:23 PM


"He'd have died on the cross no matter what He did. "
---------------------------------

Ah, but God-the Father has the power to do anything, right...and He has power over life and death...


Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 2:24 PM


Abortion is sad, but raising children in a neglectful or abusive environment is worse, if not criminal.

This has to be ONE of THE biggest lies perpetrated by the abortion industry. It presupposes that these children cannot rise above their circumstances and have a decent life.

I will tell you of a woman I know who was sexually abused for YEARS by her father and not just by her father but he also passed her around to every man that came to their house. She was an incredibly beautiful young woman. You know what, she's married to a COP, has 3 kids and a happy life now. She went through counselling and got herself straightened out.
To kill a baby because we THINK it will be better off dead! For shame!

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 2:27 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "You cannot kill a person because of where they are located."

Wrong. If I crawled into your body, I bet you'd conclude you had the right to expel me, even if that meant killing me, pretty quickly. I'm pretty heavy.

You added: "Since they are dependent upon the body of the mother for their existence, common sense and natural law dictates that they should have the right to remain there since there is no other environment for this person to survive. "

So if I have a (hypothetical) disease that causes me to be dependent on your body for my existance, does that entitle me to crawl up your orifice without your permission, and remain inside your body against your will, in spite of your active efforts to get rid of me, until I get well?

You could save a human life today by donating a kidney. (If you are a healthy normal person, then your body has SIX times as much kidney tissue as it needs; you could donate one kidney AND half of the other one with less medical/surgical consequences than chidbirth causes.) Why do we allow patients to die rather than taking one of your kidneys by force or by law and saving human lives with it? Because your body-ownership rights supercede the patient's right to remain alive.

To answer your other question my whole family has a history of pro-choice activism since before Roe/Wade, and my mother had four abortions before she married my father. That's what Bethany was referring to with her question about understanding my mother.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:34 PM


Bethany, if, as you wrote: "He could have called legions of angels to protect Him, so should He choose," then why did He pray to God to save Him? Seems silly, if He could have done it Himself.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:37 PM


Hal:

I've always known in my heart that you are a very good person. I've definitely see that you're being a good boy. I think there's hope for you.

SoMG:

You break my heart. Such a smart and gifted person wasting his life. Satan laughs at your comlpicity with his schemes. Someday SoMG, you will be utterly terrified at your choice of masters.

You know I might be able to agree with you on the body ownership thing except for one very flawed assumption; we don't own our bodies, rather, we are steward over them.

A woman's body, a man's body, my body, your body doesn't belong to us. Last time I checked, me, MK, Bethany, you and Hal had no say in the matter of our conception or origin. Ownership is dictated by origin. Our bodies didn't originate with us, they originated with God. He owns them and we have the responibility to take care of them based on His directives. That inlcudes taking care of not only ourselves but the people he has allowed to live in our internal and external worlds, especially the least of these. A woman has absolutely no right to terminate the separate person that God has placed within her womb.

In fact, as Mary the mother of God, was chosen to bear the Savior, evry woman who conceives is given the privilege of bearing an eternal soul, a soul that has the potentail of fellowshiping eternally with the living God. To cheapen that privilege by making abortion an alternative is beyond worldly description.

Why SoMG, is abortion such a heart wrenching thing for woman if it's as seemingly natural and arbitrary as you portray it to be? Abortion is heart wrenching because it's wrong. And for those that don't agonize over it, it's because of a seared conscience baked in the oven of the practice of sin and self-deception.

The more I read your words SoMG, the more I see you as a heartless, mindless, robot programed for killing. You are like the executioner who feels he has no repsonsibility for carrying out the orders of the State; the doctor who injects the poison, the henchman who pulls the lever, the officer who throws the switch, the firing squad who pulls the trigger.

So, I understand why you feel it necessary to relegate God to the world of fantasy mockick Our Precious Lord and Savior, because your world falls apart if you don't.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 2:49 PM


"You cannot kill a person because of where they are located"


Ohhhhh yes you can.

It's called self defense. If a man locates himself on top or inside of you without your consent, it is not illegal to kill him. In fact, when a woman kills a man in the act of rape or kidnapping, usually she is percieved as strong and victorious over her assailant.

Posted by: Amanda at June 18, 2008 2:50 PM


my mother had four abortions before she married my father.

Good grief. May the Lord have mercy on your mother's soul. You are an abortion survivor. Little wonder you do what you do.

So if I have a (hypothetical) disease that causes me to be dependent on your body for my existance, does that entitle me to crawl up your orifice without your permission, and remain inside your body against your will, in spite of your active efforts to get rid of me, until I get well?

Sorry this analogy does not work. Pregnancy is NOT a disease and an unborn baby is NOT a parasite (despite what you terms you use).

As for your theology question: Jesus cried out on the cross because at this moment in his suffering he experienced the total abandonment of God and from God (despite being the second person in the Trinity). His consenting to the Father's will opened this possibility to him and probably contributed not a little to his agony in the garden. This is the pinnacle of suffering and a test for all humanity (of which Son of God was not excluded from). It is now understood that Mother Theresa of Calcutta spent a great many years in this moment of suffering.

BTW: this comment:the total number of m&ms I've eaten in my lifetime, or the number of abortions I have done. In which you show as little concern over the number of babies you've murdered as the number of m&m's you've eaten
borders on psychopathic. I trust I've made myself obscure!

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 2:50 PM


SoMG,

Jesus prays "My God my God, why have you forgotten me?" on the cross as you are referring to. These are the first lines of psalm 22 (23). As a good rabbi, Jesus had the psalms memorized and so did any other good Jew. This was apparently common in Jewish tradition; where upon reciting the beginning on a psalm, those listening would recognize it as a psalm, and understand that he was quoting the entire psalm. If one goes onto read the whole psalm, it fairly clearly messianic and it ends with a glorious praising of the Lord. Interestingly, it ends with this line

31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.

But nonetheless, the point is that Jesus was saying how in the end, all the glory is to God.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 18, 2008 2:54 PM


SoMG: also Jesus did not come down from the cross because the pharisee's hearts were so hardened not even THIS miracle would have changed their minds about him. I think you probably can relate very well to the pharisees SoMG. After all, Jesus had cured people of many kinds of illnesses, raised people newly dead to life and even the week before raised Lazarus already a week in the tomb back to life. He'd multiplied the loaves and fish, walked on water, calmed a storm and fought the devil. What more could they possibly want? God does not force anyone SoMG, but there is a good reason why he is called the Hound of heaven. Ultimately, you choose your own fate.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 2:57 PM


""You cannot kill a person because of where they are located"


Ohhhhh yes you can.

It's called self defense. If a man locates himself on top or inside of you without your consent, it is not illegal to kill him. In fact, when a woman kills a man in the act of rape or kidnapping, usually she is percieved as strong and victorious over her assailant."

Hang on a second. The location in your case is accidental to the situation. In other words, it isn't the fact that the man is on top of you (perhaps he fell) but that he is attempting to force himself upon you against your will. We don't say he was wrong because of his location; we say he is wrong because of the action that he intends to perform or actually performs. If one stumbles upon a log of plans that a man has come up with outlining how he is going to commit an act of rape that evening, I'm sure the potential rapist would be arrested. But that has nothing to do with his location. On the other hand, as I mentioned above, a man could fall onto a woman and be on top of her, changing his location. Yet he would not be arrested because he does not intend to rape nor does he rape.

So this idea of location determining morality is false. It may be accidental to the situation, but we must deal with the action in-and-of-itself, the intent, and the circumstances.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 18, 2008 3:01 PM


It's called self defense. If a man locates himself on top or inside of you without your consent, it is not illegal to kill him. In fact, when a woman kills a man in the act of rape or kidnapping, usually she is percieved as strong and victorious over her assailant.

Posted by: Amanda at June 18, 2008 2:50 PM

This analogy also doesn't work because the rapist "chooses" to attack the woman. The unborn child however comes into existence due to the actions of it's mother and father (it has no say in the choice of conception). Therefore, the duty is upon the parents to now protect and respect this life. And to nurture it. In fact, they owe this to their baby.
Also in comparison to your analogy, I don't think there are too many people that get off on feeling "strong and victorious" over aborting their unborn child unless it's in some sort of sick way.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 3:04 PM


Bobby, 3:01 p.m.

Good post!! Very insightful!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 18, 2008 3:11 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "Thanks for slandering and blaspheming my Lord...."

Glad to do it. Any time.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:35 AM

Sad. :(

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 3:11 PM


Elizabeth,

:)

Janet,

:(

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 18, 2008 3:14 PM


Bobby,
:)

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 3:15 PM


I wonder how long we can go just communicating with smiley faces.

:)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 18, 2008 3:17 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "A woman's body, a man's body, my body, your body doesn't belong to us."

Wrong. Our bodies do belong to us. It's called freedom.

Patricia, you wrote: "You are an abortion survivor."

Nope. As I posted above, I was a planned, chosen pregnancy. There was never any question of aborting me.

You wrote: "Pregnancy is NOT a disease and an unborn baby is NOT a parasite "

Nor would your condition (if I crawled inside your body and started living off your metabolism) be a disease. So what? Also I would not be a parasite because parasites are by definition different species than their hosts. Again, so what?

My example of crawling into your body is not as you called it a "metaphor". It's just a counterexample which illustrates that contrary to your assertions, a person's location CAN make it morally acceptible to kill him, and that a person's need to be inside your body does NOT entitle him to be there against your will. The facts that pregnancy is not a disease and that fetuses are not parasites make no difference to the illustrative capacity of my example.

You cannot nullify an argument just by stating that it "doesn't work". You have to explain WHY it doesn't work. And mischaracterizing my argument (claiming that it calls pregnancy a disease or a fetus a parasite, when it obviously does not do either of these things if you go back and read it) is not good argument either.

So far you get a D-minus for your logic/debate skills.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 3:18 PM


Bethany, if, as you wrote: "He could have called legions of angels to protect Him, so should He choose," then why did He pray to God to save Him? Seems silly, if He could have done it Himself.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:37 PM

Jesus realized that he was put on earth to fulfill God's will. He asked God to take the suffering away if it were God's will. He trusted His Father in the end and His last words were "Thy will be done". This is an example to Christians who are also called to do God's will and make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 3:22 PM


"Nope. As I posted above, I was a planned, chosen pregnancy. There was never any question of aborting me."

YOU DO NOT KNOW THIS FOR CERTAINTY - you know ONLY what your parents told you.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 3:24 PM


The facts that pregnancy is not a disease and that fetuses are not parasites make no difference to the illustrative capacity of my example.


Sorry but it does. It changes everything about how we act, about our intent.

As for the D-, I'm not the one with a profession based on irrationality and trying to justify it with irrational arguments. sorry.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 3:27 PM


Bobby, Carla, Elizabeth,
:) :) :)

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 3:28 PM


Patricia: :)

Bobby, Welkommen!

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 3:30 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "You are like the executioner who feels he has no repsonsibility for carrying out the orders of the State;...."

No, I do feel that I bear some responsibility for the deaths of the fetuses I kill. Not all of it, but some. It doesn't bother me because all my homicides are justifiable homicides.

You wrote: "the doctor who injects the poison, the henchman who pulls the lever, the officer who throws the switch, the firing squad who pulls the trigger."

Yes, I am the executor of the patient's will to kill.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 3:30 PM


Jesus realized that he was put on earth to fulfill God's will. He asked God to take the suffering away if it were God's will. He trusted His Father in the end and His last words were "Thy will be done". This is an example to Christians who are also called to do God's will and make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary.
Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 3:22 PM

Janet, thank you so much for that clarification. That is what I was trying to say at 1:27. You said it so much better than I did.

Also, Patricia at 2:50! Very good!

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 3:34 PM


The Our Father

Our Father, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 3:35 PM


"To answer your other question my whole family has a history of pro-choice activism since before Roe/Wade, and my mother had four abortions before she married my father.
Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:34 PM"
-------------------------------------

There you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth....Abortion begets more abortion.

I heard/read somewhere that kids who grew up
as one of the "survivors" of abortive families have this tendency to hate life or grow up with a skewed sense of right and wrong...

No use trying to argue with SoMG....trying to rationalize an irrational act to an irrational person is a practice in futility.

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 3:35 PM


Janet: :-D
Bethany: ;-D

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 3:35 PM


Bethany,
:)

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 3:37 PM


Guy with a mustache.

:|)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 18, 2008 3:39 PM


SoMg:

Your posts are that of a psychopath.

I'm going to ask Jill to ban you unless she see's an advantage in posting the rants of an utterly depraved mind.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 3:39 PM



Patricia, Janet

;-D :-P

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 3:39 PM


RSD: I think that people like SoMG grow up to have a very utilitarian view on life. Worth is based on usefulness and wantedness, not on the dignity inherent in the person.
It is a life lacking in true love.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 3:40 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "you know ONLY what your parents told you."

I doubt they'd lie to me about the circumstances of my conception. I mean, why would they? What would be their motivation for doing so? But you're right, there's always some formal uncertainty about anything someone else tells you. You could be a failed abortion, like Gianna Jessen, for all you know.

You wrote: "The facts that pregnancy is not a disease and that fetuses are not parasites make no difference to the illustrative capacity of my example. Sorry but it does. It changes everything about how we act, about our intent."

How? Remember that in my example, your condition of having me in your body is also not an illness, and even though I am located in your body and living off your metabolism I am not a parasite. In fact the whole concept of "illness" and the concept of "parasite" are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. You brought them in, not me.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 3:41 PM


Guy with a mustache.

:|)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 18, 2008 3:39 PM


:{) better guy with a mustache

but how do you do guy with a beard!

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 3:43 PM


I doubt they'd lie to me about the circumstances of my conception. I mean, why would they? What would be their motivation for doing so?

To spare your feelings.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 3:44 PM


Patricia- beard:
:

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 3:45 PM


Excellent piece and scary as hell....

This is in a nation that once prided itself on compassion. First they come for the unwanted infants, then the unwanted old and last for anyone the state deems unwanted or unuseful.

Posted by: Paul at June 18, 2008 3:48 PM


Huh, it didn't work- I bet the blog saw it as a code....Let me do that again:

:^{)>

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 3:48 PM


Another beard:
:-)##

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 3:51 PM


Hisman, why should SoMG be banned? Because he/she has a different view on the morality of abortion? And expresses it? I see no evidenc of being a psychopath other than holding a view of abortion much closer to the mainstream than yours?

Posted by: Hal at June 18, 2008 3:53 PM


"I doubt they'd lie to me about the circumstances of my conception. I mean, why would they? What would be their motivation for doing so? But you're right, there's always some formal uncertainty about anything someone else tells you."

I'm glad you can rationalize this, just like you do for the other aspects of your life SoMG. The fact is, someone who has FOUR abortions is not likely in the habit of thinking about anyone else but themselves. Unless of course, they come from a European country, in which case, communistic rule may have played a significant part in their lives. Eastern European women have a culture of abortion - in fact it is their choice method of BC. Many Russian women have had up to 10 abortions.

BTW, I DO in fact know I was very much wanted and my younger brother too. I had the same ob/gyn as my mom and he told me how my parents were so happy to have conceived after 9 years of trying. My brother was born EXACTLY a year later, much to her heart specialist chagrin. And it was my mom's ob/gyn who told her an abortion was NOT necessary that he WOULD bring her to a successful delivery. THAT baby is now a brilliant scientist working for the Canadian government!
Like I said, it's all in your perspective!

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 3:55 PM


"To answer your other question my whole family has a history of pro-choice activism since before Roe/Wade, and my mother had four abortions before she married my father.
Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 2:34 PM"

Did they have ties to the American Birth Control League?

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 3:56 PM


Bethany: yes that's very good! Like the first one!

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 3:56 PM


Patricia,

Agreed...I am very frightful for his soul when the Day of Reckoning comes.

Posted by: RSD at June 18, 2008 3:58 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "[To SoMG] worth is based on usefulness and wantedness, not on the dignity inherent in the person."

LOL--that's wrong too! Now you are getting a D-double-minus.

I believe in dignity and worth inherent in every person, including unborn persons. I just do not believe that dignity and worth entitle the person to remain inside the body of another person against her will, or to live off her metabolism against her will, or to take components of her bloodstream against her will, or to inject metabolic waste products into her bloodstream against her will, or to subject her to significant medical/surgical trauma against her will. If dignity and human worth conferred these rights, then as a human being I'd be entitled to keep myself alive by crawling into your body and remaining there regardless of your will if I needed to do so.

HisMan, you wrote: "Your posts are that [sic] of a psychopath."

What you mean by this is, you can't bear to admit that you have lost the argument, and that right-to-lifism is wrong. So you resort to calling names instead of reasoning.

"I'm going to ask Jill to ban you unless she see's [sic] an advantage in posting the rants of an utterly depraved mind."

I don't really understand why she hasn't already done so. I have called her a liar, a traitor to the values of her former profession, and a slut.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:00 PM


}:^( angry man

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 4:01 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "I DO in fact know I was very much wanted and my younger brother too. I had the same ob/gyn as my mom and he told me how my parents were so happy to have conceived after 9 years of trying. "

You don't "know" this. The ob/gyn might have been lying to you.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:05 PM


Janet, I do not know whether or not anyone in my family had ties to the American Birth Control League. Sorry.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:09 PM


Hal, Amanda, Laura:

1 Corinthians 6:19

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

And you talk about freedom SoMG? You have no idea what freedom is.

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".

"Whom the Son has set free is free indeed".

Actually SoMG, you are a prisoner in bondage to sin and death and as a dead person doesn't know he's dead so you are.


Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 4:13 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "Eastern European women have a culture of abortion - in fact it is their choice method of BC."

That used to be the case but it is not so much any more. Contraceptives have become available in parts of Eastern Europe and the abortion rates have dropped accordingly.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:14 PM


SOMG, if your mother was still young enough to be pregnant and came to you for her 5th abortion, how would you advise her, as a counselor?

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 4:20 PM


Let me add that she came to you, unsure of whether she should have the abortion or not.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 4:22 PM


"You don't "know" this. The ob/gyn might have been lying to you."


Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:05 PM

Dream on, Hon. My parents were devout Catholics and my mom risked her life to have my brother.
:-D She risked her life to have me due to her untreatable heart condition. She didn't care; She figured God would care for her and HE did.

I believe in dignity and worth inherent in every person, including unborn persons. I just do not believe that dignity and worth entitle the person to remain inside the body of another person against her will, or to live off her metabolism against her will, or to take components of her bloodstream against her will, or to inject metabolic waste products into her bloodstream against her will, or to subject her to significant medical/surgical trauma against her will. If dignity and human worth conferred these rights, then as a human being I'd be entitled to keep myself alive by crawling into your body and remaining there regardless of your will if I needed to do so.

Every statement after the first contradicts your first statement. In fact, you do NOT believe in the inherent dignity and worth of every human person. You tell yourself this to FEEL better about what you do - that you are helping women by killing their babies. In reality, you are killing babies because in your mind, unborn children have dignity and worth ONLY if the woman says so. Therefore, the baby's dignity and worth is NOT inherent and due to them according to your universe: it is dependent upon someone's else's idea or permission of worth - that of the woman. You believe that people only have worth if others believe they do.
How convenient SoMG. It is this rationalization that allows you to make bucks off of killing. Nice try.

It's really quite interesting because your siblings had no worth in your parents eyes hence the abortions. You got lucky - for some reason you did - you are a survivor of their utilitarian ethics.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 4:26 PM


Bethany, three of my mother's four abortions were due to b/c failures. If she were my patient I would advise her to use better bc methods.

When a patient is unsure whether she wants an abortion I advise her to go away, make up her mind, and come back if she decides she wants one.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:28 PM


Every statement after the first contradicts your first statement. In fact, you do NOT believe in the inherent dignity and worth of every human person. You tell yourself this to FEEL better about what you do - that you are helping women by killing their babies. In reality, you are killing babies because in your mind, unborn children have dignity and worth ONLY if the woman says so. Therefore, the baby's dignity and worth is NOT inherent and due to them according to your universe: it is dependent upon someone's else's idea or permission of worth - that of the woman. You believe that people only have worth if others believe they do.
How convenient SoMG. It is this rationalization that allows you to make bucks off of killing. Nice try.

Patricia,


Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 4:29 PM


I also calculate how much time she has before the abortion starts getting more complicated (which depends on how far along in pregnancy she is) and tell her.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:29 PM


Bethany, three of my mother's four abortions were due to b/c failures. If she were my patient I would advise her to use better bc methods.

When a patient is unsure whether she wants an abortion I advise her to go away, make up her mind, and come back if she decides she wants one.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:28 PM

Of course you would not provide her with ANY information on fetal development now would you. Because of course, that just might mean she wouldn't be partaking of your services.

In other words, abortion was your mother's method of back-up contraception. Continuing proof that BC leads to abortions.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 4:33 PM


I'm outta here now. Gotta go get groceries.

:{)>

No I'm not the bearded lady!

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 4:35 PM


In other words, abortion was your mother's method of back-up contraception. Continuing proof that BC leads to abortions.
Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 4:33 PM

That makes no sense. If there was no BC, then Abortion would be more a primary than a back-up method of birth control.

BC reduces abortions. Everyone knows that.

Posted by: Hal at June 18, 2008 4:50 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "My parents were devout Catholics and my mom risked her life to have my brother.... She risked her life to have me due to her untreatable heart condition. "

These circumstances make it UNLIKELY that your ob/gyn and your parents have lied to you about your conception, but they do not make it impossible. As long as there remains a technical possibility, you cannot say you "know" the circumstances of your conception.

Just as it is unlikely, but not impossible, that MY parents have been lying to me about MY conception.

You wrote: "Every statement after the first contradicts your first statement. In fact, you do NOT believe in the inherent dignity and worth of every human person. You tell yourself this to FEEL better about what you do - that you are helping women by killing their babies. In reality, you are killing babies because in your mind, unborn children have dignity and worth ONLY if the woman says so. Therefore, the baby's dignity and worth is NOT inherent and due to them according to your universe: it is dependent upon someone's else's idea or permission of worth - that of the woman. You believe that people only have worth if others believe they do. "

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Besides your D-double-minus in logic and argument, you now also get an F in mind-reading.

If, as you suggest, human dignity and worth entitle a person to live in another person's body against her will (and take material from her bloodstream, etc.), then they must also entitle ME to live in YOUR body against YOUR will, if some hypothetical condition makes it necessary for me to do so in order to stay alive. If you denied me entrance, or expelled me, and thereby caused me to die, you would thereby violate MY human dignity and worth. I mean, wouldn't you?

Your problem is, you are trying to argue for SPECIAL rights for the unborn, not equal rights. Rights which, as my example shows, already-born persons do not enjoy. In order to do this successfully, you would need to come up with some characteristic specific to the unborn which does NOT apply to already-born persons, and which entitles the unborn to special rights. Human dignity and worth do not fill the bill because they apply equally to already-born persons.

Keep trying.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 5:08 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "Of course you would not provide her with ANY information on fetal development now would you. "

If she asks, sure. I answer all patients' questions (provided they are relevent) as well as I can.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 5:11 PM


Hal wrote: "If there was no BC, then Abortion would be more a primary than a back-up method of birth control."

That's how it was in the Soviet Union. Where, as someone else pointed out above, it was not unusual to meet women with histories of ten or more abortions.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 5:13 PM


YOUNG women.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 5:14 PM


Every legislator that is FOR legal murder of this type should be forced to sit and hold the child until it dies. Most of them never come into contact with the stark reality of abortion, esp. late term abortion, and they should be forced to spend a week doing this. It'll never happen because we all know they are too important to actually face what they have voted YES on...

I maintain that every child that is born, should be 'innoculated' with a form of birth control (yet to be developed of course!) - similar to a microchip. When these individuals mature and decide they want to procreate, they have to prove they are responsible, decent people capable of providing a decent life for a child - capable of raising a child to be a respectable, contributing individual... nice dream, huh? In a matter of years, welfare would disappear. Unwanted babies would be a thing of the past and the babies that are born would be cherished.

The American public needs to be FORCED to view modern day China with their one-baby rule. They need to see the babies that are abandoned to die because they had the misfortune of being born female. I heard recently that China had relaxed its one child law but am not sure. All I know is these people who are passing these laws need to have a handson experience in watching a butchered infant die... all because he/she made it legal thus possible to do so. I just don't know where this country is heading. Perhaps we need a nuclear burst in America - maybe some of these legislators would wake up.

Thank you for this article.

Posted by: S. E. B. at June 18, 2008 5:22 PM


I just don't know where this country is heading. Perhaps we need a nuclear burst in America - maybe some of these legislators would wake up.

Posted by: S. E. B. at June 18, 2008 5:22 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How "pro-life" of you.

Posted by: Laura at June 18, 2008 5:30 PM


I'm going to ask Jill to ban you unless she see's an advantage in posting the rants of an utterly depraved mind.

Posted by: HisMan at June 18, 2008 3:39 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can't even remember your recent rants, can you?

Posted by: Laura at June 18, 2008 5:37 PM


In order to do this successfully, you would need to come up with some characteristic specific to the unborn which does NOT apply to already-born persons, and which entitles the unborn to special rights. Human dignity and worth do not fill the bill because they apply equally to already-born persons.

Human dignity includes dignity for the unborn at the point of fertilization until natural death. It's that simple.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 5:46 PM


Janet, you wrote: "Human dignity includes dignity for the unborn at the point of fertilization until natural death. It's that simple."

I agree with you. I support equal rights, but no special rights, for the unborn. I recognize their dignity like billy-o, but dignity does not include a free ride inside someone else's body or on someone else's body chemistry. That's something the owner of the body chooses to give you, or not, in which latter case you're still humanly dignified but your prognosis is extremely poor. Use of someone else's uterus is like a life-saving organ donation in that it's something you need but are not entitled to, even though you have human dignity.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 6:34 PM


I agree with you. I support equal rights, but no special rights, for the unborn. I recognize their dignity like billy-o, but dignity does not include a free ride inside someone else's body or on someone else's body chemistry. That's something the owner of the body chooses to give you, or not, in which latter case you're still humanly dignified but your prognosis is extremely poor. Use of someone else's uterus is like a life-saving organ donation in that it's something you need but are not entitled to, even though you have human dignity.

SOMG, the baby doesn't intentionally enter a woman, trying to get a "free ride". The woman and man who conceived the baby put it there by their actions which they knew in advance could put the child there. Do they really not bear some responsibility in your mind for that fact at all?

By the way, you have said on many occasions that you think "it is better to be conceived and be aborted than never to have existed at all".

If this is true, then why is it better for a woman to use birth control pills, rather than to conceive an abort, and (in your own words), "pointlessly waste human life"? You advise women and get frustrated with them when they do NOT prevent rather than abort, yet you say that it is better to have lived at all, and then be aborted, than to never have existed.

It doesn't seem to add up, SOMG.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 6:58 PM


These circumstances make it UNLIKELY that your ob/gyn and your parents have lied to you about your conception, but they do not make it impossible. As long as there remains a technical possibility, you cannot say you "know" the circumstances of your conception.

OH but I can and you cannot given your mother's track record.

Your problem is, you are trying to argue for SPECIAL rights for the unborn, not equal rights.

Nope. I am arguing that human beings regardless of size shape number of toes etc are human beings with dignity and worth that NO ONE can take away. As such they all have the right to life. It is you, my friend, who are arguing for special rights - the special right of the woman to say if an unborn child gets to live. NO other person in our society has that kind of control over anyone else at this point.

If she asks, sure. I answer all patients' questions (provided they are relevent) as well as I can.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 5:11 PM


I sincerely doubt you would be able to provide any woman with accurate info on fetal development since you have carte blanche, disagreed with everything ever posted on this blog about fetal development.


SEB:
Every legislator that is FOR legal murder of this type should be forced to sit and hold the child until it dies. Most of them never come into contact with the stark reality of abortion, esp. late term abortion, and they should be forced to spend a week doing this.

Actually this is an interesting idea. I think however, that many politicians have probably had mistresses whose abortions they have paid for. This was certainly the case in Canada where Trudeau's government was so enmeshed with abortion that even his own relatives were involved with abortions. However, in an imaginary world, would be excellent to actually have these men and women watch various abortions and sort through the remains. The only reason I wouldn't sanction it is because it would be morally wrong - cant' achieve a good through an evil means!

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 6:58 PM


SoMG: 6:34: Janet, you wrote: "Human dignity includes dignity for the unborn at the point of fertilization until natural death. It's that simple."

I agree with you. I support equal rights, but no special rights, for the unborn. I recognize their dignity like billy-o, but dignity does not include a free ride inside someone else's body or on someone else's body chemistry. That's something the owner of the body chooses to give you, or not, in which latter case you're still humanly dignified but your prognosis is extremely poor.

A new twist on the old "pencil in the eye" story. Did your Mother teach you this or did they teach this in medical school? Dignified but aborted? Impossible.

So a baby kangaroo or opossum shouldn't have a right to live in its mothers pouch? And a rose bud has no right to grow on its "mothers" branch? Let's just kill them all to be fair to their mothers who are so unfairly being sacrificed.

Use of someone else's uterus is like a life-saving organ donation in that it's something you need but are not entitled to, even though you have human dignity.

Hardly. Please.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 7:09 PM


Janet: you simply can't argue with someone who continues in such an irrational position.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 7:15 PM


This may be of interest to posters here including SoMG:

Ecuadorian Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FESGO)
April 17, 2008 - Enrique Sotomayor Hospital
Guyaquil, Ecuador


1. The members of the Ecuadorian Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FESGO) are not in agreement with any form of induced abortion; life is inviolable from the moment of conception. The elimination of an innocent human being is always unacceptable, ethically and medically speaking.

2. We are against induced abortion because it is not only an illegal act, but a criminal one, as is established in the Ecuadorian Penal Code in Chapter VI entitled "Crimes Against Life", articles 441 through 446. Under no circumstances should abortion be decriminalized in Ecuador. To the contrary, policies and strategies must be established to strengthen moral values and defend the basic principles of universal bioethics pronounced by FESGO.

3. Science teaches that human life begins at conception. If it is also true that it is affirmed by religion, it does not for that reason cease to be a strictly scientific truth, to be transformed into a religious opinion. He who denies that human life begins with conception does not need to contend with religion, but science. To deny this certainty of biology is not to express a lack of faith, but a lack of basic knowledge of human genetics, something that is even known by the general public.

4. From the moment that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun that is not part of the father, nor of the mother, but rather a new human being that develops autonomously. Further, something so important is at stake that, from the point of view of moral obligation, the mere probability of the existence of a person is sufficient to justify the absolute prohibition of any intervention made for the purpose of eliminating a human embryo. Human beings must be respected and treated as a person from the instant of their conception and, for that reason, from that same moment the rights of the person must be respected, principally the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. Human life must be respected from its conception, without exceptions.

To affirm that the woman can do with her body whatever she wishes, besides being a conceited claim, has absolutely no basis in science: the embryo is not part of the body of the mother, nor is the fetus an internal organ of her body: the DNA of the embryo is distinct from that of its parents.

5. Human life must be respected from the instant of conception, during all of the stages through which the human person passes, until its natural death, no matter what name is given to the new human person: zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, adolescent, adult, elderly, terminally ill...all are only names for the same, unique human person in the distinct stages of development through which he is passing.

6. The inviolable ethical principle, universally valid (in time and in space), according to which "the ends do not justify the means", is also valid in medicine, even when serious problems arise, be they surgical, economic/social, familial, or generally human ones. It is not possible to prevent so-called "unsafe abortion" by promoting "safe abortion". Causing abortions in order to avoid abortions is as contradictory as combating death by causing death, or eliminating illness by killing those who are ill. Let us never forget that the doctor who is faced with a pregnant woman is in the presence of two patients.

7. Because doctors are also human, there are moments in medical practice in which health professionals might not know how to resolve the problems of a particular pregnancy, but we do know what not to do: to directly kill the child, making ourselves the owners and lords of life and death. Physicians are agents of life and not ambassadors of death.

8. The most effective strategy for preventing and avoiding abortion is moral and ethical education, above all among adolescents and young people, and support for women. Particularly, this instruction must be imparted in classes related to the value of life, sexuality, love, marriage, and family. It is not sufficient to give biological, physiological, and anatomical information regarding the human body, if instruction is not also given in values, in such a way that new generations adopt a responsible, orderly, and proper attitude to sexuality and procreative functions.

9. To prevent and avoid all types of abortion, with its terrible physical, psychological, and moral consequences, as well as those relating to conscience, it is essential that the pregnant woman does not feel alone, but rather that she feels supported with regard to the new life that lives within her. This support should come from the father of the child, her family, her social and work environments, religious institutions, and health professionals. Abortion is often a problem of isolation and, what is worse, of harmful influences.

10. Let us not forget that the second victim of the crime of abortion is the mother who obtains the abortion. Modern psychiatry and psychology have created the term Post-Abortion Syndrome. It is important to understand that it is easier for a woman to remove her child from her womb than from her mind and her heart.

11. Regarding abortion in cases of rape, the rapist should be punished, not the innocent child, fruit of the criminal act. If the woman who is raped obtains an abortion, in the first place, she causes irreparable damage to herself, because she is deprived of the best "psychological treatment" available to her, which is to live out her maternal instinct, caring for her child with love. It may be said that the psychological well-being of a woman who has been raped is being carried in her own womb. In the second place, if she has an abortion, not only will she not be freed from the trauma caused by the rape (it is one thing to eliminate the fruit of the rape and another to eliminate the trauma of the rape) but instead a new and more devastating trauma is created, that of having killed her own child. Adoption by a third party is a humanitarian strategy of unquestionable value.

12. Sometimes, doctors find themselves in a conflict between the life of the mother and the life of her child. In such situations the expression "therapeutic abortion" has been devised to refer to the interruption of the life of the child to save the life of the mother. However, the phrase "therapeutic abortion" as a simple expression, is unfortunate, because if we stop at the meaning of "therapeutic" it is synonymous with "cure", which implies that the surgeon may kill the child with the purpose of saving the mother, when in fact neither the life of the mother nor that of her child can be directly ended. Doctors may never kill.

13. In such cases the doctor may act according to the principle of the "double effect", which establishes the following. Surgical interventions from which follow two effects, one good (saving the life of the child or that of the mother) and another bad (the death of one of them) are ethical providing that the following five conditions are met:

1. That the purpose of the surgeon is to obtain a good effect (to save the life of mother or child) and is limited to permitting or tolerating the bad (the death of one of the two).
2. That the death is not intended, whether as a goal or as a means, even if it is foreseen as an inevitable consequence.
3. That the first and immediate effect being sought by the surgeon is to save one of the two lives and the
death of one of them is tolerated with disgust or displeasure, and never desired.
4. That there exists a proportionately gave reason to act (the urgency of the operation).
5. That, under the circumstances, there exist no other effective means to save both lives.

14. In the case of a rape of a mentally disabled woman, the solution is not to kill the child, but to help the woman to continue the pregnancy to term, and once the baby has been born, he can given up for adoption. In a complementary fashion, we request that the authority in charge of adoptions facilitate them, avoiding by every means the corrupt management of adoption processes in which business and the enrichment of the parties involved take first place.

15. It is important to emphasize that the result of this workshop, given the scientific and moral quality of the Ecuadorian Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FESGO) and of the content of the presentations and of these conclusions, should serve to instruct the whole country and will be a very important point of reference for every agency, including the highest levels of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government constituted in Ecuador.


Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 7:26 PM


If a person is a fetus until birth, then a fetus is a person also...meaning they have personhood, meaning that have all the rights attributed to personhood, meaning abortion is unconstitutional...

MK, SoMG wasn't using it like that.

Posted by: Doug at June 18, 2008 7:28 PM


Patricia:7:26:
Brillante!
Can we bring FESGO to Washington on the next plane from Ecuador?

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 7:37 PM


Better still Janet:
Lets hire the whole lot to take over ACOG !(American College of Obstetricians and Gyn's)

We could use a few of these "real" doctors here in Canada too!

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 7:49 PM


A link to Patricia's 7:26: post. Available In Spanish also.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061714.html

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 7:52 PM


Patricia and Janet,
I adore you both!! I applaud your efforts to hang in there with SoMG. It has exhausted me just reading the comments!

Bravo Ecuador!!! Or maybe it's Brava?

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 8:22 PM


I appreciate the Life of Brian reference, SoMG.

Centurion: Where is Brian of Nazareth?
Brian: You sanctimonious bastards!
Centurion: I have an order for his release!
Brian: You stupid bastards!
Mr. Cheeky: Uh, I'm Brian of Nazareth.
Brian: What?
Mr. Cheeky: Yeah, I - I - I'm Brian of Nazareth.
Centurion: Take him down!
Brian: I'm Brian of Nazareth!
Victim #1: Eh, I'm Brian!
Mr. Big Nose: I'm Brian!
Victim #2: Look, I'm Brian!
Brian: I'm Brian!
Victims: I'm Brian!
Gregory: I'm Brian, and so's my wife!
Victims: I'm Brian! I'm Brian!...
Brian: I'm Brian of Nazareth!
Centurion: All right. Take him away and release him.
Mr. Cheeky: No, I'm only joking. I'm not really Brian. No, I'm not Brian. I was only - It was a joke. I'm only pulling your leg! It's a joke! I'm not him! I'm just having you on! Put me back! Bloody Romans! Can't take a joke!

Posted by: Edyt at June 18, 2008 8:41 PM


HisMan, you wrote, WAAAAY back: "You know what it takes to be a great leader SoMG? It's called character. It's called basing your life on priciple. McCain demonstrated this as a 5 year Vietnam POW ..."

Yes, I agree, it shows great strength of character to remain in a bamboo cell for five years, particularly when there's no way to get out. (sarcasm)

Sorry but his service record from several decades ago is not a good reason to elect him President today.

You wrote "...and the service he has since provided as a US Senator."

He sold out to the defense industry very early in his career, and he has remained their loyal servant through thick and thin. For all his anti-government-spending talk. Who was quoting Heinlein's line a while back about a good politician staying bought? He certainly chose his friends early, I'll give him that. One thing we don't need in the near future is a president likely to continue the current policy of handing money or rather shoveling it into the military black hole and inventing wars to justify doing so. We are about to enter a new era as far as need to save money goes. We cannot continue to ignore the concept of financial solvency as GWB has done for eight years (actually for the whole of his life).

Above all, in order to deal with the laws that will force huge increases in government spending, we will need a president with whom the Congress will cooperate. If we get locked in this 1980s pattern whit a Republican President who proposes enormous military spending increases along with unrealistic cuts in domestic spending and taxes in order to embarass the Democratic Congress which retaliates by threatening to refuse to increase military spending it will be absolutely impossible to change those laws and prevent huge legally-forced increases in government spending. Obama MAY be able to get Congress to work him on entitlement spending laws but McCain certainly will not. The result will be rapidly increasing debt and consequent devaluing of the dollar. Which you will not enjoy.

The only good news I can see is, the Bush tax cuts are due to expire all by themselves in 2010 even if McCain is President.

Going back to the question of Hitler's skill or lack thereof as an orator, the person you may remember whose speaking style reminds me most of Hitler's based on what I've been able to see of him is Ross Perot. You know how his hi-pitched, wide-ranging intonation and his general twitchiness gave the impression he was nuts (even though he, unlike Hitler, said genuinely intelligent things like "we need to confront the debt" which are even more relevant today by an order of magnitude)? I think Hitler had the same thing. Speaking in public he appeared whackier even than he was. The funniest imitation of Hitler, after all this time, is still Charlie Chaplin's in THE GREAT DICTATOR.

It is difficult to think of anyone LESS like Hitler, in any respect, than Barack Obama. Maybe they're both short. Neither is overweight. They're both male. I can't think of anything else they have in common.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 8:47 PM


Also, if you want to see another bold faced liar, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Posted by: Edyt at June 18, 2008 8:53 PM


If the woman who is raped obtains an abortion, in the first place, she causes irreparable damage to herself, because she is deprived of the best "psychological treatment" available to her, which is to live out her maternal instinct, caring for her child with love.

Posted by: Patricia at June 18, 2008 7:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't imagine anything more horrifying than being forced to carry some cretin's devil spawn. Amazing that this conclusion was reached by the sort of medical professionals found in a third-world pesthole like Ecuador. (I guess that's what happens when your grades aren't good enough to get you into a medical school in Granada...)

Posted by: Laura at June 18, 2008 8:54 PM


Thank you Carla. (Bravo!)

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 8:58 PM


Janet, you wrote: "So a baby kangaroo or opossum shouldn't have a right to live in its mothers pouch? "

What a touching image. Tweet widdle baby marsupiaws! Not if the mother doesn't want it there, of course not. (In nature the baby opossum should probably be considered lucky if it doesn't get cannabalized by its parents.)

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 8:59 PM


I can't imagine anything more horrifying than being forced to carry some cretin's devil spawn. Amazing that this conclusion was reached by the sort of medical professionals found in a third-world pesthole like Ecuador. (I guess that's what happens when your grades aren't good enough to get you into a medical school in Granada...)

Posted by: Laura at June 18, 2008 8:54 PM

That's about the most prejudicial comment I've heard in a long time.

No matter how a baby is conceived, it is still a child of God.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 9:02 PM


A lot of creatures eat/kill their own young. When I was young I had hamsters and one female would eat her babies (ALL OF THEM) after every birth. After a few times, we stopped trying. Obviously she didn't take well to the rape we'd subjected her to, and felt no motherly inclinations.

Chimpanzees and other creatures have also been known to kill their young, for no reason biologists can discern.

On the other hand, dolphins, supposedly the brightest creatures in the sea, have been spotted torturing other creatures to the point of death, just for fun.

I don't think there's anything unnatural about humans not wanting kids, any more than any other animal has no desire to raise its young.

Posted by: Edyt at June 18, 2008 9:06 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "If the woman who is raped obtains an abortion, in the first place, she causes irreparable damage to herself, because she is deprived of the best "psychological treatment" available to her, which is to live out her maternal instinct, caring for her child with love."

I see, it's like Janet's baby marsupial animals, right? A fairy tale. As long as you understand that you are detatched from reality, there's no harm in it. Unless some idiot puts you in a position with authority.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 9:07 PM


"On the other hand, dolphins, supposedly the brightest creatures in the sea, have been spotted torturing other creatures to the point of death, just for fun."

@Edyt: Orca whales do the same thing with seals before they eat them- they toss them in the air and "play" with them until they're dead. Sometimes it's before they eat- other times it's just for "funsies".

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 9:14 PM


If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, it is her child too.

Posted by: Carla at June 18, 2008 9:19 PM


Janet, you wrote: "So a baby kangaroo or opossum shouldn't have a right to live in its mothers pouch? "

What a touching image. Tweet widdle baby marsupiaws! Not if the mother doesn't want it there, of course not. (In nature the baby opossum should probably be considered lucky if it doesn't get cannabalized by its parents.)

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 8:59 PM

What a touching image indeed.These animals do not eat their young, they are herbivores for the most part. It's a good thing I'm not an animal lover, or I might be offended. I like baby humans a lot more.

I'm amazed how calloused you can be about baby animals. ( Jess, where are you?) Most pro-aborts tend to be animal lovers for some reason (To make up for their guilt from killing babies? ) Maybe you need to take time to read a few fairy tales yourself, to get away from your sad reality.


Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 9:20 PM


There's a QOTD: Right-to-lifers are only dangerous if they have authority. I guess it wouldn't apply to people like Paul Hill, though.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 9:23 PM


I don't think there's anything unnatural about humans not wanting kids, any more than any other animal has no desire to raise its young.

Posted by: Edyt at June 18, 2008 9:06 PM

So Pro-Aborts are just like animals - not fully evolved?

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 9:24 PM


@Janet: Just because an animal isn't of the human variety doesn't mean it's not fully evolved. Humans are not the "end all" to evolution.

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 9:29 PM


Funny you bring up QOTD! This one's better:

I believe in dignity and worth inherent in every person, including unborn persons. I just do not believe that dignity and worth entitle the person to remain inside the body of another person against her will, or to live off her metabolism against her will, or to take components of her bloodstream against her will, or to inject metabolic waste products into her bloodstream against her will, or to subject her to significant medical/surgical trauma against her will. If dignity and human worth conferred these rights, then as a human being I'd be entitled to keep myself alive by crawling into your body and remaining there regardless of your will if I needed to do so.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 4:00 PM

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 9:30 PM


Rae:9:29: @Janet: Just because an animal isn't of the human variety doesn't mean it's not fully evolved. Humans are not the "end all" to evolution.

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 9:29 PM

Then what is?

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 9:31 PM


@Janet: Nothing is. There is no "end all" to evolution. Everything continues to change and evolve to better fit its environment.

Look at bacteria- they are constantly changing and mutating and evolving to live in even more extreme niches once thought uninhabitable. Bacteria evolve to use materials for food or "breathing" that were once thought to be unable to support life.

Humans are constantly changing too- but not as noticeably as bacteria as bacteria have shorter reproductive spans and produce far more generation sin a short period of time than humans. :)

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 9:35 PM


Rae, I forgot about the orcas! Yep. Pretty mean, if you think about it. But cats play with mice too, before they kill them, so it's not very different.

Janet, Rae's right. We people seem to think we're the "end" of evolution. But imagine how ridiculous it would be if a prehistoric jellyfish was suddenly like "That's it! The world was created for me and I am the most superior creature of all!"

It's just not like that. Creatures evolve. There's no end point, except extinction, I guess.

Posted by: Edyt at June 18, 2008 9:43 PM


Rae:

Semantics. I'll re-phrase:

"So in some ways pro-aborts are like animals."

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 9:46 PM


And in some ways pro-lifers are like animals. You haven't even gotten to pro-choicers yet.

Posted by: Jared at June 18, 2008 9:52 PM


Ummmmmmm Janet, animals ARE fully evolved. If they weren't, they wouldn't be here. I know someone who needs to start sitting in on her kid's high-school biology class. Alternatively, start reading Richard Dawkins' web site, he explains it all pretty well and he stays up to date.

Speaking of which, did you all see the case described in PNAS of de-novo evolution in a long-term e. coli culture of the ability to use citrate, rather than sugars, as a carbon source? This is the sort of thing they give Nobel Prizes for although not necessarily right away. (Some discoveries are so important that they get recognized in the very next cycle--like high-temperature superconductivity, scanning tunnelling microscopy, automated PCR, all got their discoverers Nobel Prizes within a year of discovery.)

I think it's a possible argument (if we needed one, which we don't) against ID--a citrate utilization-cascade of successive chemical reactions, each of which would need to be catalyzed by its own enzyme without any one of which the whole thing is useless, is just the sort of thing Michael Behe would try to describe as "irreducibly complex". We (the scientific community) are poised to dissect its evolution base by base. We will reduce its complexity to a finite searchable string of ones and zeros. One very interesting questions will be, how many of the mutating genes were redundant genes (duplicated genes or genes whose function can be fulfilled by another gene)? Michael Behe has been criticized for failing to take account the redundancy in biological systems when he postulated "irreducible [biochemical] complexity".

Here's a pretty good explanation and discussion of what it means in comments: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2872655

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 9:57 PM


jared: 9:52: And in some ways pro-lifers are like animals. You haven't even gotten to pro-choicers yet.

Good point. You may be right, but that doesn't make it any less distasteful.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 10:00 PM


SoMG: 9:57: Ummmmmmm Janet, animals ARE fully evolved. If they weren't, they wouldn't be here. I know someone who needs to start sitting in on her kid's high-school biology class. Alternatively, start reading Richard Dawkins' web site, he explains it all pretty well and he stays up to date.

Hey, Talk to Rae, not me. (You meant what I know by my comment!)

Speaking of which, did you all see the case described in PNAS of de-novo evolution in a long-term e. coli culture of the ability to use citrate, rather than sugars, as a carbon source? This is the sort of thing they give Nobel Prizes for although not necessarily right away. (Some discoveries are so important that they get recognized in the very next cycle--like high-temperature superconductivity, scanning tunnelling microscopy, automated PCR, all got their discoverers Nobel Prizes within a year of discovery.)

I think it's a possible argument (if we needed one, which we don't) against ID--a citrate utilization-cascade of successive chemical reactions, each of which would need to be catalyzed by its own enzyme without any one of which the whole thing is useless, is just the sort of thing Michael Behe would try to describe as "irreducibly complex". We (the scientific community) are poised to dissect its evolution base by base. We will reduce its complexity to a finite searchable string of ones and zeros. One very interesting questions will be, how many of the mutating genes were redundant genes (duplicated genes or genes whose function can be fulfilled by another gene)? Michael Behe has been criticized for failing to take account the redundancy in biological systems when he postulated "irreducible [biochemical] complexity".

Here's a pretty good explanation and discussion of what it means in comments: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2872655

I'm not decided whether or not I agree that Michael Behe failed to take into account the redundancy in biological systems when he postulated "irreducible (biochemical) complexity". We were just discussing this last week at dinner. :)

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 10:11 PM


@Janet: That's not entirely correct either- as biologically, humans *are* animals. So not only are "pro-aborts" animals, but "pro-lifers" are animals as well.

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 10:16 PM


@SoMG: I read about that! I thought that was awesome how he set that up and was able to do it again with that same culture that produced the E. coli that could use citrate.

Last I heard- my lab has caused Shewanella to produce ethanol from glycerol. :)

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 10:20 PM


In my lab we're learning to make Ethyl Fornicate.

And Janet just in case you don't already know this Dr. Behe is somewhat entertaining but it is a mistake to take him seriously. Where he sees irreducible complexity the rest of the biochem world sees an insufficiently imaginative biochemist who gets too much of his money and too many of his ideas from non-scientific sources.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:27 PM


I vow to never use the word evolve or any form of the word. (Eleven comments, Yikes!) I don't care!!!! Thank you.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 10:30 PM


@SoMG: *gigglefit*

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 10:31 PM


@Janet: Sorry if you thought I was attacking. :( Not my intention.

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 10:34 PM


10:27: In my lab we're learning to make Ethyl Fornicate.

We tried in high school chemistry, but couldn't.

Does her husband know?

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 10:35 PM


@Janet: Sorry if you thought I was attacking. :( Not my intention.

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 10:34 PM

No problem Rae, I just really don't care, no offense. :)


Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 10:38 PM


@Janet: It just bugs me when people use terms like "evolution" incorrectly or make incorrect assumptions on it.

It also really bugs me when certain bloggers *cough* use the term "schizophrenic" wrong...

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 10:40 PM


I gotcha, Rae. I'm one of those people for sure. Pure ignorance on my part, I admit it. Don't take it personally if I slip up! :)

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 10:45 PM


This is too much fun, but I have to catch some Zzzzz's. Adios ustedes!

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 10:49 PM


Janet, you wrote: "I vow to never use the word evolve or any form of the word. "

That's one option but another option is to learn to use it correctly.

Start here: http://richarddawkins.net/

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:50 PM


SoMG, Thanks, but I have no interest in the subject.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 10:58 PM


@Janet: No worries. You may have misused it- but most Americans also misuse it, so don't worry. :)

Posted by: Rae at June 18, 2008 11:01 PM


Really Janet? No interest at all in how you became what you are?

I think it was Evelyn Waugh who wrote about the special serenity " ... which those peoples alone enjoy who are untroubled by the speculative or artistic itch." I envy you your serenity. It must be very relaxing not to care about how you became what you are.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:20 PM


I should be going to bed..... but I'll answer...

At this point, I want to make sure I get to where I want to go.
That's hard enough!

"Untroubled by the artistic itch?" Do you know what that means?

Oh, serenity comes to those who find comfort in God.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 11:38 PM


You wrote: ""Untroubled by the artistic itch?" Do you know what that means?"

Among other things it means not caring about what you are and how you became that, since, as they explained to me in high school, "Good art is art that makes you understand what it means to be a human being."

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:45 PM


I think art makes us think of things higher than ourselves, for example:

Pope Benedict on Art and Life
"It is no coincidence that Christian tradition shows the spirits of the blessed as they sing in chorus, captivated and enraptured by the beauty of God. But true art, like prayer, is not foreign to everyday reality, rather it calls us to 'irrigate' that reality, to make it sprout that it may bring forth fruits of goodness and peace."

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 11:57 PM


Changing the subject:

I can't believe Governor Jindal of Louisiana said this but apparently he did:

"[L]et's talk about intelligent design. I'm a biology major. That's my degree. The reality is there are a lot of things that we don't understand. There's no theory in science that could explain how, contrary to the laws of entropy, you could create order out of chaos. There's no scientific theory that explains how you can create organic life out of inorganic matter. I think we owe it to our children to teach them the best possible modern scientific facts and theories. Teach them what different theories are out there for the things that aren't answerable by science, that aren't answered by science. Let them decide for themselves. I don't think we should be scared to do that. Personally, it certainly makes sense to me that when you look at creation, you would believe in a creator. Let's not be afraid to teach our kids the very best science."

He's sold himself. He's a Rhodes Scholar and those people know this is govno, that unanswered scientific questions are not good evidence for a supernatural explanation. Maybe he wants to be McCain's VP and hopes to present himself as a way to improve McCain's relations with the religious right which still remembers ancient grudges against him?

What an embarrassment Governor Jindal must be to the Rhodes Scholarship people. I have worked with a few Rhodes Scholars (it was very difficult to understand anything they said, trying to talk to them make you realize how little you know about things in general) and based on their common characteristics (they are all overacheivers, miserable people like the Clintons who cannot be satisfied no matter how impressive they become, which is extremely impressive, and: they feel very strongly about impingements on their professional authority to determine the final word about what is taught as correct and what is not in their fields of expertise, especially when that authority is usurped by non-experts and second-raters motivated by political or ideological agendas and funded by political or ideological sources. I bet they're all just weeping with shame and resentment at Governor Jindal. Imagine: this public bearer of their proud shared name of Rhodes Trust which has contributed so much to high-end scholarship and science is about to sign legislation that will allow theories of the supernatural to be presented to kids in science classes in state schools. Surely even HisMan, who is after all an engineer of some kind, and therefore understands natural law, cannot fail to be appalled by this. Unless he's seeing the funny side of it.

Oh well after all Cecil Rhodes also contributed money to a bunch of secret societies whose goal was to restore British ownership of the American Colonies. You can't always get what you want, as the fellow said.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 12:34 AM


SoMG:

You ever heard of Albert Einstein?

I didn't think so.

Posted by: HisMan at June 19, 2008 3:20 AM


Well HisMan I read RELATIVITY, A SIMPLE EXPLANATION ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND by him. I started SUBTLE IS THE LORD but didn't get too far.

I read some of his brother, Alfred Einstein's commentary on Mozart. He was a musicologist.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 3:33 AM


But HisMan I am curious, how do you as an engineer, which requires some scientific training, feel about the fact that Governor Jindal (R-La) is about to sign legislation which will authorize the teaching of theories of the supernatural to kids in science class in state schools?

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 3:41 AM


"Good art is art that makes you understand what it means to be a human being."

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:45 PM

Go back to art class, PLEASE!

That's one option but another option is to learn to use it correctly.

Start here: http://richarddawkins.net/

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 10:50 PM

Oh, yes richard dawkins sure KNOWS his words well. Like you, to push HIS agenda of a Godless society where people's worth is determined by their usefulness.

Posted by: Patricia at June 19, 2008 5:27 AM


Uh Oh,
Somg is into "secret societies" which aren't secret anymore. Well that at least gives reason to why Rhodes treated human beings as nothing but "hole drillers for diamonds". The real cause, was a secret cause, which no one knew about. Really Somg, such words from a eastern European, communist parented person, whose father was a double agent for the KGB in "real life". Next thing you'll say was Eitienne Emile Baulieu was a communist friend of your double agent father, and your babuska, was a famous writer for young komsomols.
So the question must be asked, what happen to you,Somg, to become a lowly abortion provider, cranking out paultry bucks for yourself from the medical philosophy of "healing by death", while waiting for mommies book to make some bucks for the "family vault"?.
All the spy work and secret societies betray you, Somg?

Posted by: yllas at June 19, 2008 7:45 AM


SoMG,

You could save a human life today by donating a kidney. (If you are a healthy normal person, then your body has SIX times as much kidney tissue as it needs; you could donate one kidney AND half of the other one with less medical/surgical consequences than chidbirth causes.) Why do we allow patients to die rather than taking one of your kidneys by force or by law and saving human lives with it? Because your body-ownership rights supercede the patient's right to remain alive.

I get so tired of that analogy. Mostly because it's wrong.

You say a baby has no right to be IN another persons body. So we are talking about NOT wanting something being put into your body.

We are NOT talking about taking something OUT of your body against your will.

Abortion (Taking something OUT of the body because it isn't wanted)

ProLife (forcing someone to keep something IN their body whether it's wanted or not)

For your analogy to work you would have to say that I was willing to donate my kidney and I was going to FORCE YOU to ACCEPT IT. Then, like the pro life stance, I would be forcing you to stay alive against your will by putting something IN your body)

In order for you analogy to make logical sense, you would have to say that forcibly taking someones kidney is equal to forcibly taking someones child from their womb. I want my kidney to say IN my body, you want to take it out.

I want my baby to stay IN my body, you want to take it out.

I want the baby to stay IN your body, you want it taken out.

I want my kidney put into your body, you want it take out.

We are all about saving lives, and you often accuse us of doing so against someones will.

You are all about killing people. So YOU would be the one forcibly removing peoples organs, or babies, not us.

Posted by: mk at June 19, 2008 8:43 AM


Somg, did you happen to catch my post at 6:58?

Posted by: Bethany at June 19, 2008 9:05 AM


Refresh my memory, SoMG.

I recall you stating that your mother had 3 abortions pre-Roe and one abortion post-Roe.

Correct?

Posted by: carder at June 19, 2008 11:16 AM


Patricia at June 18, 2008 7:26 PM:

As someone who has been sexually assaulted, I would not wish it on my worst enemy. It is fundimentally the right of the assaulted to decide how they want to deal with the ramifications of the event.

Some may think that they want to bring the fetus to term, some may raise the resulting child, some may give it up for adoption. Some may have an abortion. All are equally valid decisions, which cannot and should not be legislated or judged.

It is condescending to think that you would know what a woman should do in that situation. Even if you have been assaulted and have carried a fetus to term as result, it does not make your decision the right one for another survivor. Please, speak to what you know; and until you can live fully within the mind of another person who has gone through this event please don't pretend you have the ability to speak for them.

Posted by: Yo La Tango at June 19, 2008 12:05 PM


As someone who has been sexually assaulted, I would not wish it on my worst enemy. It is fundimentally the right of the assaulted to decide how they want to deal with the ramifications of the event
Some may think that they want to bring the fetus to term, some may raise the resulting child, some may give it up for adoption. Some may have an abortion. All are equally valid decisions, which cannot and should not be legislated or judged.
It is condescending to think that you would know what a woman should do in that situation. Even if you have been assaulted and have carried a fetus to term as result, it does not make your decision the right one for another survivor. Please, speak to what you know; and until you can live fully within the mind of another person who has gone through this event please don't pretend you have the ability to speak for them.


Yolatango, what if a woman who was sexually assaulted carried to term, but then was devastated after she saw the child, because her child reminded her of her attacker.

To assuage her grief, she kills the baby.

Would that be acceptable in your eyes, since the poor woman has been victimized already and "we really shouldn't judge" what a woman would choose to do with the result of her rape?

Posted by: Bethany at June 19, 2008 12:15 PM


YoLaTango,

Hello. Your argument does not work because someone who has gone through the criteria that you listed could make the exact same arguments that Patricia did, and your argument would not hold anymore. You must address the issues, not the person. That is a form of ad hominum. Also, when you write

"All are equally valid decisions, which cannot and should not be legislated or judged."

it is a judgment on your part which makes your proposition self-defeating. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 19, 2008 12:43 PM


Answer me, SoMG.

SoMG:

And how do you deal with someone like me? Someone who IS pro-life, and doesn't fall back on religion to justify myself; someone who IS pro-life and believes that contraception does save lives, and should be considered indispensable by the pro-life movement? Someone who feels that consent to sex should be a lawful invitation to a "fetus" to reside within that woman for as long as it might require, and that those blood components of mother and that fetus are community property?


Also, you never answered my comments on the thread about the "pro-life" pharmacies. I really am curious to know the answers to the questions I asked.

Posted by: xalisae at June 19, 2008 2:44 PM


xalisae:

I "deal" with you by informing you that you are wrong.

I will answer your questions if you re-post them here.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 3:26 PM


Patricia, you are right that Richard Dawkins has an athiest agenda. However, he also explains evolution clearly and accurately in terms anyone can understand.

It is foolish to refuse to get knowledge from some one because you disagree with him.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 3:31 PM


You haven't been doing a good job of that. It seems to me that you prefer to try and either change the subject, throw red herrings at me in the form of false analogies, or ignore me altogether in favor of going after someone who YOU KNOW is going to turn it into a battle of religion so that they change the subject themselves.

SoMG:

How about this: you're a general surgeon doing a trauma rotation and your patient is a pregnant primagravida in her early third trimester who's been shot in the belly and the ultrasound says the bullet partially severed the umbilical cord and also ripped through the bulk of the placenta (which is highly vascularized, like liver) and both the fetus and the patient are losing blood pressure through it. Your patient tearfully begs you not to sterilize her so you want to avoid hysterectomy. This could be a job for Dr. Tiller or someone like him. (Who else are you going to call with something like this?) Now your ambulance driver, xalisae, refuses to transport your patient and threatens to walk off the job. You finish the story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, and the only one who can save her is you, you valiant man! Puh-leeze. Inflated sense of self-importance much? You're an abortionist. You're not saving anyone's life, you're taking lives. Are you honestly telling me that a hospital would actually transport a woman on death's doorstep to an abortion clinic to save her life? I think you've been out of the legitimate medical community too long, fella. You ARE aware that hospitals themselves have been preforming emergency terminations(not that it's even a certainty that one would be required in this instance) for the gravest of special circumstances legally since well before Roe VS. Wade, right? Even to the extent that sometime AFTER r.v.w., a woman STILL had to go to an actual hospital to have an abortion at later stages of pregnancy, because it's too dangerous to be done properly at a clinic? Do I seem like I was born yesterday? Are your eyes brown? Why did you get into such a ghoulish business, anyway? Was delivering LIVE babies too difficult for you?


-----------------------

And you are mistaken xalisae, I'm not trying to change the subject or anything like that. I am genuinely curious about athiesm and therefore about athiests. I do not understand what makes them so certain that there is no god (or God), considering the total absence of evidence in support of that proposition. I have asked many athiests about this but none so far has been able to explain in plain terms why (s)he was so sure that athiesm is right.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When it gets down to it, I am an atheist for the same reason that Christians are Christian. I searched for a higher power...even begged and pleaded for one...for many years. I implored the heavens to grant me the peace of mind and joy in The Spirit they said they had found in their God. I couldn't find it. They found it, I did not-at least not with their God. I still try to be the best person I can be, and I feel that even if there IS a God (which I am almost certain there is not, but I don't think ANYTHING can be counted out, and I don't think that makes me agnostic. I don't think that bigfoot exists, but I still hold it within the realm of possibility.) he will accept me, because I am a good person. If he wouldn't, I don't know if I would want to be accepted by him anyway, if he would turn away a good person for whatever reason, and allow evil to flourish in his domain. Do you believe in God? If so, aren't you scared?

Posted by: xalisae at June 19, 2008 3:53 PM


I remember that post. My reply was, your experience with the Bible supports the proposition "The Bible is not God's book although it claims to be" but not the proposition "There is no God (or god)".

To answer your question, I am an agnost. I believe that human beings are constitutively incapable of knowing anything whatsoever about anything supernatural, including God. "Anything whatsoever" includes whether or not God exists.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 4:01 PM


Somg, did you happen to catch my post at 6:58?

Posted by: Bethany at June 19, 2008 4:09 PM


You're not done yet. You've still ignored a good portion of my post, and I'll not be satisfied until you're done.

And I also diagree with your supposition that "human beings are constitutively incapable of knowing anything whatsoever about anything supernatural", as I've experienced it firsthand before in my life, in situations which I'd rather not talk about. As a matter of fact, I believe that some instances of supernatural occurance experienced by biblical authors were probably rationalized into a "god/devil manipulation" in an attempt to understand things which they lacked a capacity to understand.

But, you've changed the subject to religion, yet again. How easy it is for you to talk about religion...it doesn't seem as easy for you to keep the subject on abortion though. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: xalisae at June 19, 2008 4:19 PM


Eh. I've got things to do today, SoMG. Just let me know when you're ready to grow a pair and talk with me and address what I'm saying like the rest of the adults instead of picking on utterly defenseless fetii all day.

Posted by: xalisae at June 19, 2008 4:53 PM


SoMG:

Any education, scientific or otherwise, that doesn't include God, Christianity and Judaism, as part of a curriculum, at best, is an incomplete education.

Posted by: HisMan at June 19, 2008 6:17 PM


How easy it is for you to talk about religion...it doesn't seem as easy for you to keep the subject on abortion though. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: xalisae at June 19, 2008 4:19 PM

xalisae: it's called denial

Posted by: Patricia at June 19, 2008 6:17 PM


I searched for a higher power...even begged and pleaded for one...for many years. I implored the heavens to grant me the peace of mind and joy in The Spirit they said they had found in their God. I couldn't find it. They found it, I did not-at least not with their God. I still try to be the best person I can be, and I feel that even if there IS a God (which I am almost certain there is not, but I don't think ANYTHING can be counted out, and I don't think that makes me agnostic...because I am a good person. If he wouldn't, I don't know if I would want to be accepted by him anyway, if he would turn away a good person for whatever reason, and allow evil to flourish in his domain. Do you believe in God? If so, aren't you scared?

Posted by: xalisae at June 19, 2008 3:53 PM

First of all xalisae, I'm not sure exactly what you want from God when you say peace and joy in the Spirit. Do you want to "feel" good about yourself or about life? Do you want to have nice happy feelings about God? (I'm asking seriously and not snarky-like!) I think your biggest surprise will be how much God loves you!

Posted by: Patricia at June 19, 2008 6:26 PM


To answer your question, I am an agnost. I believe that human beings are constitutively incapable of knowing anything whatsoever about anything supernatural, including God. "Anything whatsoever" includes whether or not God exists.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 4:01 PM

How do you account for Christian mysticism? Or do you think it is delusional? I'm not surprised at someone like yourself believing that it is impossible to know anything about God given your choice of life's work. Maybe your occupation is preventing you from knowing anything about God - sort of a spiritual dam.

Posted by: Patricia at June 19, 2008 6:29 PM


Patricia, you are right that Richard Dawkins has an athiest agenda. However, he also explains evolution clearly and accurately in terms anyone can understand.

It is foolish to refuse to get knowledge from some one because you disagree with him.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 3:31 PM

Dawkins simply has no knowledge that I would ever want to GET from him. He is a theological bigot.

Posted by: Patricia at June 19, 2008 6:46 PM


No, Patricia, Dawkins is not a bigot of any kind. Bigots pre-judge, irrationally. Dawkins judges, rationally.

And you are mistaken if you think Dawkins has no knowledge that would be valuable to you if you had it. He does.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 11:08 PM


And yes, I think that all mysticism, including Christian, is delusional.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 11:10 PM


I envy you your serenity. It must be very relaxing not to care about how you became what you are.

Posted by: SoMG at June 18, 2008 11:20 PM

Are you are being sarcastic? Did you mean "stupidity"?

Posted by: Janet at June 19, 2008 11:34 PM


One thing I've never been accused of before: being reluctant to talk about abortion.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 11:44 PM


Janet, no, I meant serenity. To be free of the need to seek knowledge--that must be relaxing indeed.

HisMan, you wrote: "Any education, scientific or otherwise, that doesn't include God, Christianity and Judaism, as part of a curriculum, at best, is an incomplete education."

I agree with you. God, Christianity, and Judiasm are essential parts of the subject of history. Also, the Greek and Roman gods. And, for that matter, Islam.

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you whether theories of the supernatural should be taught in science class. I'm still curious to know what you think about this.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 11:53 PM


xalisae, you wrote: "I feel that even if there IS a God (which I am almost certain there is not, but I don't think ANYTHING can be counted out, and I don't think that makes me agnostic. "

You are wrong. Agnostic is exactly what it makes you. Athiests are people who believe as a matter of faith that there is no God. If you don't think the possibility that there is a God can be counted out, then you are an agnost like me, not an athiest.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 11:58 PM


Patricia, among other things, Dawkins understands more about Christianity than you do.

Do you also refuse to read Einstein, who called religion "childish superstition" and wrote: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of... primitive legends."

?

Posted by: SoMG at June 20, 2008 12:01 AM


xalisae, you wrote: "And I also diagree with your supposition that "human beings are constitutively incapable of knowing anything whatsoever about anything supernatural", as I've experienced it firsthand ..."

Did you consult a psychiatrist?

Posted by: SoMG at June 20, 2008 12:04 AM


Bethany, no, I missed your 6:58 post. I'll go back to it.

You wrote: "The woman and man who conceived the baby put it there by their actions which they knew in advance could put the child there. Do they really not bear some responsibility in your mind for that fact at all? "

Yes, they bear responsibility either to grow the pregnancy or to cancel it. The woman does, anyway.

And when I get frustrated by repeat aborters, I am thinking of the patient, not the fetus.

Posted by: SoMG at June 20, 2008 12:07 AM


Here's what it is: repeat abortion makes me worry that the patient is failing to look after herself well generally. I guess it could be argued that that's not really my business. But it bothers me. Everyone is in some sense responsible for every patient's overall health. Even a specialist-radiologist who never sees his/her patient takes a certain degree of theoretical responsibility for the patient's general health.

Posted by: SoMG at June 20, 2008 1:32 AM


I envy you your serenity. It must be very relaxing not to care about how you became what you are.

Are you are being sarcastic?

Janet, no, I meant serenity. To be free of the need to seek knowledge--that must be relaxing indeed.

I said I don't care about how the world came to be.."from the beginning of time". I didn't say I had no need to seek knowledge. (sarcasm****)

Do you also refuse to read Einstein, who called religion "childish superstition" and wrote: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of... primitive legends."

Addressed to Patricia, but I'd like to respond - Einstein is an expert on religion now? A scientist is the last person I'd trust for an opinion on religion. Please.

Here's what it is: repeat abortion makes me worry that the patient is failing to look after herself well generally. I guess it could be argued that that's not really my business. But it bothers me.

It should bother you. And it actually IS your business, in more ways than one. That should bother you too.

Posted by: Janet at June 20, 2008 2:08 AM


SoMG: Here's a site right up your alley:
http://agnost.com/

Posted by: Janet at June 20, 2008 2:12 AM


SoMG: And another:
http://www.agnost.net/main.html

Posted by: Janet at June 20, 2008 2:16 AM


Janet, you wrote: "Einstein is an expert on religion now? A scientist is the last person I'd trust for an opinion on religion. Please."

No, but don't the lines I quoted qualify him as a "theological bigot" in Patricia's eyes, same as Dawkins?

What I'm objecting to is Patricia's principle of refusing to accept scientific knowledge from people she calls "theological bigots".

Forget "theological". William Shockley who invented the transistor was a racist bigot who set up a foundation to pay negros money for having themselves sterilized. Should we not use transistors (which if you don't already know this mean no computers) because he was a bigot? The same applies to refusing to learn about biochemical evolution from Dawkins or saying he has nothing to teach because he is a "theological bigot".

Posted by: SoMG at June 20, 2008 3:27 AM


"Patricia, among other things, Dawkins understands more about Christianity than you do."

Oh SoMG, this is very, very wrong. Dawkins has a childishly poor understanding of Christianity. In his book God Delusion (which is an embarrassment to authentic atheism), he fails time and time again to articulate the Christian understanding. Seriously, stick with Russell and David Hume. Dawkins, hitchens, and the new atheism is the worst. When it comes to atheism, they are completely irrational. I had to pause a total of maybe 30 seconds while reading Dawkins to think how I would refute a point he made. hitchen's book I never once had to pause. He's actually worse than Dawkins.

For a very good new book on atheism, which actually does justice to the rational, logical old atheism, I recommend "Atheism Exclaimed" by David Ramsay Steele. Dawkins may be a world class evolutionary biologist, but when it comes to philosophy and theology, he's a moron.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 20, 2008 7:40 AM


Here's what it is: repeat abortion makes me worry that the patient is failing to look after herself well generally.

Why is that, SOMG?

Why is repeat abortion a sign that a woman might not be looking after herself, generally, from your point of view?

I guess it could be argued that that's not really my business. But it bothers me. Everyone is in some sense responsible for every patient's overall health.

I agree, and I think it should be your business to care.

Why are repeat abortions not good for a patient's overall health, in your professional opinion?

Posted by: Bethany at June 20, 2008 8:06 AM


Bobby, 7:40, right on.

Posted by: Bethany at June 20, 2008 8:08 AM


Oh BTW, for a good refutation of the arrogance of the new atheism and its hijacking of science in general (and Dawkins in particular), David Berlinski's book "The Devil's Delusion" is very good. Berlinski is a secular Jew, and a wonderful writer. He's also a mathematician (woo hoo!) and all around science guy.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 20, 2008 8:30 AM


Bobby, I previewed that "Devils Delusion" book at Books a Million the other day and really wanted to get it. It looked REALLY good. I think I'll buy it on Amazon.com.

Posted by: Bethany at June 20, 2008 9:01 AM


Alright! You won't be disappointed, Bethany.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 20, 2008 9:15 AM


RE: What women should do in cases of assault:

You mistakenly assume that I assume fetuses are children. I do not. Children are children, fetuses are not. Is a catepillar a butterfly? Nope. It is a woman's body it is her decision what to do with the fetus. You can make all the "what if" scenarios you want but there are galaxies of distance between a fetus and a child.

Posted by: Yo La Tango at June 20, 2008 11:47 AM


The problem, Yolatango, is that terms like fetus, child, embryo etc. are accidental terms which only describe certain stages of development of the being in question. However, at all these stages, the being in question is a human being. Its substance is human whether it is described as a child, fetus, or baby. What abortion does is kill a human being. Yes, children are children and a fetus is a fetus, but children are human beings and a fetus is a human being.

Also, I'm not quite sure what your argument in favor of abortion-choice is. You seem to imply that the fetus does not have a right to life (personhood theory) yet when you say "It is a woman's body it is her decision what to do with the fetus" you seem to be appealing to the so-called bodily autonomy or bodily ownership argument. If the fetus isn't a person, why the need to appeal to bodily ownership?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 20, 2008 11:56 AM


SoMG,
For someone who doesn't rule out the possiblity of an existing God, you sure have no problem mocking Him.

At any rate...

Are you able to read books in German by German atheists/agnostics?

Posted by: carder at June 20, 2008 12:44 PM


And yes, I think that all mysticism, including Christian, is delusional.

Posted by: SoMG at June 19, 2008 11:10 PM

That's exactly the answer I expected from you! No wonder you are agnostic. You can have anything proven to you. However, I assure you, you will have at least one mystical experience in your life and that will be when you die.

Posted by: Patricia at June 20, 2008 5:19 PM


In his book God Delusion (which is an embarrassment to authentic atheism), he fails time and time again to articulate the Christian understanding. Seriously, stick with Russell and David Hume. Dawkins, hitchens, and the new atheism is the worst. When it comes to atheism, they are completely irrational. I had to pause a total of maybe 30 seconds while reading Dawkins to think how I would refute a point he made. hitchen's book I never once had to pause. He's actually worse than Dawkins.

For a very good new book on atheism, which actually does justice to the rational, logical old atheism, I recommend "Atheism Exclaimed" by David Ramsay Steele. Dawkins may be a world class evolutionary biologist, but when it comes to philosophy and theology, he's a moron.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 20, 2008 7:40 AM


I would agree with this post totally. Everytime I see dawkins and hitchen's books in our library I have to calm myself. Of course we carry alot of other JUNK too! My brother is an atmospheric physicist and he considers dawkins writings nonsense.

BTW my post at 5:19pm should read You can't have anything proven to you.

Posted by: Patricia at June 20, 2008 5:27 PM


Patricia, how does being an atmospheric physicist qualify your brother to evaluate Dawkins?

Posted by: SoMG at June 20, 2008 6:24 PM


Dear Ms. Stanek:
You have done a great service to each and everyone of us that care so much for children their rights and the future of our country.
You have taken risks, you have worked hard and sacrified much. You have cared for the rights of the unborned and the borned.
A greatful nation should hold you up in gratitude and honor for your work, integrity and service.
Maybe this will wake up a lot of people as to the importance of the presidential elections and who we elect as the leader of this great nation!
Thank you for your service.

LS,
Orlando, FL

Posted by: Luisa at June 30, 2008 10:38 AM


Well, you can argue all day long about Obama is better than McCain, or McCain is better than Obama, but I've been through an abortion. and point blank period it's WRONG!! Do not try and tell me that it was a FETUS!! It was a live and growing HUMAN BEING!!

I used to be pro-choice, but now having been through it, I am definitely against it. When you yourself go through it, and have your child killed, THEN you tell me it's ok. I will never be able to hold my own child, because of lies and deception of how it is ok. "Oh, it's only a fetus, it's not considered a baby" BULL!!! You live with the pain and regret of it everyday, and THEN tell me it's ok! I won't ever be able to tell my child I love you.

and do not slander MY God!! That, is something I will not allow!! Go do it somewhere else!!

Posted by: Hailey at September 24, 2008 11:15 AM


Jill,
Thank you for doing the right thing and making us aware of the situation.
Best Regards,
David

Posted by: dcb at October 23, 2008 11:25 AM