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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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!!

Are these abortions still going on?

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

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

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

So a "cutting back" is fine under BAIPA?

The comfort room makes me ill.

"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

"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)

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

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.

"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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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

Glad to do it. Any time.

Focus SoMG. Focus.

Is there a comfort room at your abortion clinic?

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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./

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

SoMG,
How many babies have you killed approximately?

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.

Wow, Carla, that's difficult to estimate.

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.

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.”

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.

Jill, LOL, big difference, huh? lol

"(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...

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?

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.

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.

"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?

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

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.

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?

Amen, Hisman.

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

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.

"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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Zero. I kill fetuses, not babies.

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

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.

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.

Bethany, I am talking about the MEDICAL terms.

Zero. I kill fetuses, not babies.

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

Bethany, I am talking about the MEDICAL terms.

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

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

"..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.

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.

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.

"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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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".

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?

Bethany:

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

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?

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).

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?

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...

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."

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

Or you changed your mind.

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!

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.

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

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.

Hal, did you have a Christian background?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

SoMG,

How would this refusal have gotten Him off the cross?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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."

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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

"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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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!