Democrat National Convention: Day 2

DNC day 2-4 i love pro-choice boys.jpgTo the right, an interesting t-shirt I spotted on the way to The Big Tent this morning.

I cannot fathom why girls would knowingly hook up with boys who, they know ahead of time, would encourage them to abort their child after an oopsie. Pro-life boys, at least, would accept responsibility.

And what difference does it ultimately make? Fathers have no say in the life or death of their preborn children anyway. Pro-life boys will lament the death of unique human offspring created together; pro-choice boys will not only celebrate finding perpetual free sex, but also excapism from fatherhood.

Seems to me this girl is a walking advertisement for a good time at the DNC....

Whatever. Moving on, I thought you might like to see my working environment, so here's a photo of me this morning with my fellow bloggers in the background:

DNC day 2-1 JLS.jpg

Yesterday I received an anti-McCain condom here; today it was a button.

Also, greenness is huge here; our table service is even compostable. There is a compost trash can next to the regular and recyclable trashes. Some of my conservative friends will worry I've gone to the dark side because there is an element of environmentalism I connect with. Earth and everything in it is God's creation and should be treated with respect.

But as I explained to a fellow blogger yesterday, who became beside himself when I said I didn't believe in the theory of global warming, liberals have taken a good thing too far, worshipping the earth as god and placing a higher priority on plant and animal life than on human life.

I told this fellow about Barack Obama, btw. He didn't believe me.

DNC 2 signs.jpg

Famous people also drop by The Big Tent. Dan Rather is speaking upstairs right now on new media and MSM (which, I caught him saying, he didn't consider himself a part of when I ran up to get a photo). CO US Senator Ken Salazar dropped by a little while ago.

rather salazar.jpg

By sheer "luck", the only other conservative blogger and I happened to sit by each other today(! ), Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation.


Comments:

"Democrat National Convention" again. Perhaps Jill isn't reading the comments and hasn't gotten the memo. It is the Democratic National Convention.

Posted by: Ray at August 26, 2008 1:44 PM


Ray,
Who's blog is this?? Oh, that's right it's called Jill Stanek, Pro-Life Pulse.

Posted by: Sandy at August 26, 2008 1:47 PM


That t-shirt is cute.
To answer your question Jill, women like men who understand their rights. (some women do anyway)

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 1:48 PM


That's "Pro-Liffee Pulse"

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 1:53 PM


I cannot fathom why girls would knowingly hook up with boys who they know ahead of time would encourage them to abort

Actually, a pro-choice boy would let the girl decide. That's what pro-choice means, silly.

Pro-life boys, at least, would accept responsibility.

And if he's really pro-life, he might even beat her up!

Posted by: reality at August 26, 2008 2:02 PM


Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 26, 2008 2:02 PM


Reality in real life people kill their wife/girlriend/hookup because they WONT have an abortion.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 2:08 PM


i want that t-shirt! how dare she try to usurp my walking advertisement for a good time at the DNC status?!

Posted by: modchen at August 26, 2008 2:23 PM


In real life, people also shoot abortion providers and bomb abortion clinics.

Posted by: reality at August 26, 2008 2:25 PM


Um....one little problem with the logic here:

Just b/c a guy is pro-choice does not mean he is going to actually accept responsibility for what happened or even lift a finger to help the mother/child.

Posted by: midnite678 at August 26, 2008 2:25 PM


That shirt really does say it all - they're boys and not men.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 26, 2008 2:26 PM


I don't look at it as people "worshipping" the Earth (though I'm sure there is a fringe minority of people who do revere nature as a religion), merely having a good healthy respect for it as the only planet in which we can live (as of now).

They'll be no human lives to save if we destroy the atmosphere and resources needed to sustain them. Just my $0.02.

Posted by: JKeller at August 26, 2008 2:27 PM


Just b/c a guy is pro-choice does not mean he is going to actually accept responsibility for what happened or even lift a finger to help the mother/child.

Sadly, dating a pro-life guy won't ensure that, either.

Posted by: reality at August 26, 2008 2:37 PM


Whoops -

So Jill's friends, "Focus on the Family", had made a public prayer to God to punish Denver to flooded by storms and torrential rains while hosting the DNC.

In a wonderful twist of irony, the only rain in Denver over the course of the convention has fallen....

...in the Fox News skybox!

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=98286&catid=188

God has spoken! He rules!

Posted by: Mike at August 26, 2008 2:43 PM


I think you can be unbalanced in environmentalism. We need to be good stewards of the gifts God gives us - including our earth and the life contained therein.

But, sometimes people care more about Gaia and not enough about our neighbors.

For example, it is unconscionable for a country to set aside food crops to make fuel, when there are starving people.

Just my .02

Posted by: Milehimama at August 26, 2008 2:45 PM


Reality, far more women have been murdered by the pro-abortion fathers of their children than abortionists have even been threatened.

This certainly doesn't excuse clinic violence, but the reality is that the leading cause of death for a pregnant woman is murder.

Homicide was found to be the leading cause of death for pregnant women in Maryland, according to a March 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Using death records and coroner reports, state health department researchers found 247 pregnancy-associated deaths between 1993 and 1998. Among those deaths, 50 were murders. By comparison, homicide was the fifth-leading cause of death among Maryland women. And, nationwide, the maternal mortality rate was just 9.9 percent in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

and

The Maryland study reinforced at least two earlier studies that found homicide to be the top killer of pregnant women. In Cook County, Ill., 26 percent of the 95 deaths of pregnant women recorded between 1986 and 1989 were slain. In New York, 25 percent of the 293 deaths among pregnant women between 1987 and 1991 were homicides.

From http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant.html

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 2:49 PM


Good points, Milehimama. Pope Benedict XVI has made the same points.

Posted by: Eileen at August 26, 2008 2:50 PM


"In a wonderful twist of irony, the only rain in Denver over the course of the convention has fallen.......in the Fox News skybox!"

Why, I LOVE rain! Don't you know what the world we like without rain, Mike? Gee Willikers!

Posted by: bmmg39 at August 26, 2008 2:52 PM


Wasn't there tornadoes that touched down in the Denver Metro area?

Posted by: RSD at August 26, 2008 2:59 PM


Good post, Lauren. Regarding violence committed by pro-aborts and "pro-lifers," this site is a useful resource (though the pro-aborts will likely disagree):

http://abortionviolence.com/

Posted by: Matt C. Abbott at August 26, 2008 3:03 PM


Cranky, I'd love to see a new button "Ask me how many condoms I own".

Posted by: Janet at August 26, 2008 3:08 PM


Chris @ 2:26,
That shirt really does say it all - they're boys and not men.

Amen, amen, amen.

Posted by: Janet at August 26, 2008 3:10 PM


Hey, I just talked to a bum who'd been out of work for 10 years, and he said he knew when life started, and assured me that the question was NOT above his "pay grade".

I wonder how much you have to earn to know that?

Posted by: Doyle at August 26, 2008 3:29 PM


That t-shirt is cute.
To answer your question Jill, women like men who understand their rights. (some women do anyway)

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 1:48 PM

Suprised by Hal? NOT!

I"m with Chris on this one - a boy is prochoice but a real man has self-control, respects women enough not to use them for his own self-gratification and honours his promises.
Happily, "pro-choice" chicks like this one will take all the losers and leave the real men for the rest of us!

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 3:39 PM


Hey SoMG..lay off the weight issue...that's below the belt...

Moderators?

Posted by: RSD at August 26, 2008 3:46 PM


Well, Patricia, I sure am glad I found my "loser" before some other "chick" did.

PS, he has self control, he respects me, and he honours his promises. Our reproductive views are our own, and we discussed them before getting serious. He does not want a say in other women's reproductive decisions, though.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 3:47 PM


somg- always helpful and always tactful
and what do YOU look like somg? so we can judge if you are healthy or not?

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 3:49 PM


That's free medical advice. Some people get paid more than $100.00 per hour to give that advice.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 3:51 PM


Well, Patricia, I sure am glad I found my "loser" before some other "chick" did.

PS, he has self control, he respects me, and he honours his promises. Our reproductive views are our own, and we discussed them before getting serious. He does not want a say in other women's reproductive decisions, though.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 3:47 PM

I don't know what YOUR lifestyle is Alexandra and quite frankly I don't care. But any man that is "prochoice" (read proabort/procontraception) is no man. He's a pool boy IMO.

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 3:52 PM


That was just wrong SoMG!

Posted by: becky at August 26, 2008 3:52 PM


Patricia, I also need to lose some weight but not as much as Jill.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 3:53 PM


Biblical alternative to the eco-crazies:
http://www.we-get-it.org/

Yes, Scripture tells us to care for God's creation. Yes, that includes the environment. Therefore, Christians have an obligation to care for the environment.

Up to a point.

The "point" is remembering that God gave us His creation to use, not to worship. The world belongs to us, not the other way around. People are more important than trees, birds, and anything else except other people.

Therefore, we should never let "environmentalism" deter us from developing our industry, generating wealth, and using that wealth to care for people. It is not Christian to require (or even to allow) people in developing countries to remain impoverished because we want to protect the wetlands, save an endangered species, or whatever. People are more important than nature. Whenever possible, we should develop eco-friendly technologies, and we should strive to be responsible ... but we must always put people first.

Ironically, poor people and people in developing countries (often the same people) will suffer a lot more from extreme environmentalist policies than the affluent folks (hello, Al Gore!) who are pushing those policies....

Posted by: Naaman at August 26, 2008 3:53 PM


Oh yeah! Real men, like YOUR husband!!


Oh wait. Heh.

Posted by: just saying at August 26, 2008 3:53 PM

yes unfortunately. He has all the values of a prochoice "man"

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 3:57 PM


Alexandra added:
He does not want a say in other women's reproductive decisions, though.

Cool. I don't want a say in other women's reproductive decisions. Get pregnant or not. Have your uterus removed & bronzed, if that seems like a good idea to you....

However, if you have already reproduced, then I must insist that you refrain from killing the unborn child within your womb. That's not a "reproductive decision"; it's killing an innocent child.

For whatever it's worth, I would object just as strongly to a woman who wanted to kill her already-born child. I'm consistently opposed to killing innocent children. :)

Posted by: Naaman at August 26, 2008 3:59 PM


of course, just think of all the good you are doing somg
think of all those babies you are killling who will never have the chance to ever get overweight....
must tickle the cockles of your heart...

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 4:00 PM


That's free medical advice. Some people get paid more than $100.00 per hour to give that advice.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 3:51 PM

I wouldn't pay you a piece of coal for any medical advice you gave - mostly because I'd believe you were trying to kill me....
you don't respect or care about women at all

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 4:04 PM


I like how you fail to point out that the girl in the pro-choice shirt is most certainly underweight.

I'm pretty sure she's just on the low end of healthy. She looks like she's got a BMI of maybe 18-19 or so, and while BMI is not the best indicator of health because it fails to take into account muscle mass, etc, she has indications that her body is at a healthy weight -- breasts, for example.

Obviously, commenting on someone's picture without having them ask your opinion, even when you disguise it as a concern for their health, is unnecessary.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 4:04 PM


If the mods want to delete it, that's fine with me. You're the one who it was directed at, and you've seen it.

Also, the padding of her bra doesn't matter. Her BMI is obviously under 20.

The point is, you're not trying to give helpful "advice" and you know it. You're being a jerk.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 4:06 PM


Patricia, the correct expression is "warm [not tickle] the cockles of your heart". Woody Allen replies: "Great! Nothing like hot cockles!" There has also been some talk about warming the heartles of something but we probably don't need to go into that here.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 4:07 PM


Patricia, the correct expression is "warm [not tickle] the cockles of your heart". Woody Allen replies: "Great! Nothing like hot cockles!" There has also been some talk about warming the heartles of something but we probably don't need to go into that here.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 4:07 PM

I think you get the drift of my post somg.....

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 4:09 PM


SoMG:

Why don't you have the courage to post a picture of yourself and stand up for your views and values like Jill does?

OK everyone, SoMG's back. Makes a stupid comment and in doing so becomes the center of attention.

I fell for it again.

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 4:10 PM


Her arms are thin and her face is narrow which makes her look thinner generally than she is.

Patricia, you wrote: "I wouldn't pay you a piece of coal for any medical advice you gave - mostly because I'd believe you were trying to kill me...."

Are you saying that telling Jill to lose weight is not good advice???

You wrote: "you don't respect or care about women at all"

Some more than others.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 4:12 PM


lauren: I have to disagree with you. The girl in the pic looks fine to me. It's her mind & heart that are anemic.....
I'm on the low end of the BMI scale and believe me I would love to weigh as much as her....

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 4:13 PM


Alexandra,

I agree that talking about someone's weight is unnecessary, I was just making a point that if SoMG is trying to pretend he's concerned about health, he should look at the pro=choice girl as well.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 4:15 PM


Monica Lewinski loved pro-choice boys too. And they're trying to put another one in office.

Nothing to fear, Jill is here.

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 4:20 PM


You wrote: "you don't respect or care about women at all"

Some more than others.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 4:12 PM

yes, unborn baby girls you don't care about
If you were a good doctor, you would care about ALL women and not discriminate
Do you mind if people discriminate against yourself?

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 4:23 PM


I'm consistently opposed to killing innocent children. :)

It's good to see you around again, by the way, Naaman.

Of course, you are anti-abortion and I am pro. So I'm not looking to make you agree with me. But my point is, the views a man holds about whether someone's right to life trump another's right to bodily autonomy do not indicate his ability to respect a women, or all women. It's simplistic to say that pro-choice men are losers who lie and have no self control, and that assertion was what I was responding to.

I don't much mind being called a loser, though. People like Patricia have been telling me for nigh on three years now that one day my boyfriend will leave me broken and alone, because that's what pro-choice men do, they use women and throw them away. All it really does, honestly, is make me more convinced than ever that people like that are wrong, because I see how wrong they are every single day of my life.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 4:23 PM


The girl in the (very cute) pro-choice shirt is not unhealthily underweight, IMO. Most certainly on the thin side, but some people are just like that.

SoMG was certainly being an ass, though. If you're not going to be nice or helpful, don't make comments at all. Geez.

And I found it funny that the pro-life tees and buttons say "boys" as well, not men. So you can't talk about one side or the other being "boys" vs "men"! ;P

Also, Jill said "liberals have taken a good thing too far, worshipping the earth as god and placing a higher priority on plant and animal life than human life."

Umm...if we don't put a priority on plant and animal life, we won't even HAVE human life. Or at the very most, we'll have human life but not a good quality of life.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2008 4:24 PM


Lauren --

Oh, I know, I included that last bit so that you'd know that even though I don't think the pro-choice woman is anywhere near underweight, I wasn't defending SOMG's comment.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 4:25 PM


Patricia, I think she looks "normal" too, it's just that our perception of "normal" is acutally medically "underweight" which carries its own health risks.

I am usually somewhere between 18 and 19 BMI, and my High-risk OB told me, in no uncertain terms, that she wanted me to gain as much weight as possible with my last pregnancy because she didn't feel that I gained enough in my first pregnancy. I gained 35 lbs the first time around, but I was still urged to gain more because I started out "underweight."


Here's the abstract on an interesting study on the matter:

Based on total follow-up, underweight was associated with significantly increased mortality from noncancer, non-CVD causes (23 455 excess deaths; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11 848 to 35 061) but not associated with cancer or CVD mortality. Overweight was associated with significantly decreased mortality from noncancer, non-CVD causes (–69 299 excess deaths; 95% CI, –100 702 to –37 897) but not associated with cancer or CVD mortality. Obesity was associated with significantly increased CVD mortality (112 159 excess deaths; 95% CI, 87 842 to 136 476) but not associated with cancer mortality or with noncancer, non-CVD mortality. In further analyses, overweight and obesity combined were associated with increased mortality from diabetes and kidney disease (61 248 excess deaths; 95% CI, 49 685 to 72 811) and decreased mortality from other noncancer, non-CVD causes (–105 572 excess deaths; 95% CI, –161 816 to –49 328). Obesity was associated with increased mortality from cancers considered obesity-related (13 839 excess deaths; 95% CI, 1920 to 25 758) but not associated with mortality from other cancers. Comparisons across surveys suggested a decrease in the association of obesity with CVD mortality over time.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 4:27 PM


For example, it is unconscionable for a country to set aside food crops to make fuel, when there are starving people.

Just my .02
Posted by: Milehimama at August 26, 2008 2:45 PM

Well, there's just so much high fructose corn syrup starving children can eat - you know?

Posted by: phylosopher at August 26, 2008 4:30 PM


SoMG

I was thinking the same thing. Those shirts probably don't come in XXXXXL-so I put this down to a little green monster.

Posted by: phylosopher at August 26, 2008 4:33 PM


Girls:

SoMG is laffing it's arse off.

Aren't you on to it yet?

It always does this to dilute the topic.

Let's get back to the post.


Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 4:34 PM


Jill,

no worries. as my blog name implies, I definitely have hippie aspects. :) Recycling, baby!

Certainly not putting earth above people, or trees above unborn babies, but being a good steward is clearly written in God's word. He set Adam up in the garden to care for it, not to let it go to pot. Or grow pot, as the case may be. haha.

And while I don't put much stock in global warming, I'm always shocked by the ridicule that environmentally conscious folks receive by those in the conservative community. If I can go a little out of my way to recycle, or take a moment to care about where my food comes from, or where my garbage is going, we're all a little better off, and I've made the earth a little better for my children. The Earth is a beautiful creation of God, and I feel that it's a snub to our Lord if we stomp on it and trash it without taking the time to think through our actions. Isn't that a fundamentally conservative ideal?

Just my two cents. :)

Rock on at the DNC-- I look forward to your continued reports.

Posted by: CHChick at August 26, 2008 4:37 PM


Nothing to fear, Jill is here.
Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 4:20 PM
But as I remember, she couldn't get elected dogcatcher - lucky dogs.

Posted by: phylosopher at August 26, 2008 4:38 PM


Hi Lauren
I weighed 91 lbs when I got pregnant with my first baby - I gained 53 lbs! It was LOVELY!
I now weigh about 105 lbs but wish dearly I could gain another 15 lbs. I'm 5 ft 2 inches!

Alexandra I lived with a liberal pro-contraception man for 11 years - he was my husband. I didn't know he held these views but it became apparent that he favoured many liberal ideas as time passed and that he lied to me. I would NEVER marry another man who didn't have the same values as me. Every man who believes in contraception has NEVER said to me - well lets have a friendship and then lets move on to see if we having anything that might develop into marriage. EVERY pro-contraception man I've ever dated has placed SEX first and foremost in the relationship and very quickly too I might add. IMO, they are losers! They see women not as persons but as sex objects.
If you think your man loves you and cares about you, ask him to marry you. I guarantee you he will have a zillion excuses. Or maybe it will be you with the excuses.

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 4:39 PM


Ok refresh my memory...why was SoMG allowed back again?

Posted by: RSD at August 26, 2008 4:42 PM


Girls:

SoMG is laffing it's arse off.

Aren't you on to it yet?

It always does this to dilute the topic.

Let's get back to the post.

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 4:34 PM


righto

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 4:45 PM


Patricia, there is a character in Don Giovanni you will like very much. Her name is Donna Elvira.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 4:49 PM


Yes Patricia, perhaps if you keep repeating to yourself over and over again that you're a single mom because your husband was a liberal, you'll eventually convince yourself of it, but you're certainly not convincing anyone else.

Posted by: just saying at August 26, 2008 5:06 PM


what WAS the topic anyway? Cool t-shirts and rational sexuality?

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 5:11 PM


I think SoMG cares a lot about women. Enough to want to protect and help them exercise their rights. I'd be happy to have a doctor like SoMG treating me or performing my abortion- because I'd know that it was one who was passionate about what he was doing.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 5:11 PM


Reality, far more women have been murdered by the pro-abortion fathers of their children than abortionists have even been threatened.

This certainly doesn't excuse clinic violence, but the reality is that the leading cause of death for a pregnant woman is murder.

Homicide was found to be the leading cause of death for pregnant women in Maryland, according to a March 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Using death records and coroner reports, state health department researchers found 247 pregnancy-associated deaths between 1993 and 1998. Among those deaths, 50 were murders. By comparison, homicide was the fifth-leading cause of death among Maryland women. And, nationwide, the maternal mortality rate was just 9.9 percent in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

and

The Maryland study reinforced at least two earlier studies that found homicide to be the top killer of pregnant women. In Cook County, Ill., 26 percent of the 95 deaths of pregnant women recorded between 1986 and 1989 were slain. In New York, 25 percent of the 293 deaths among pregnant women between 1987 and 1991 were homicides.

From http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant.html

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 2:49 PM
............................................................

This has nothing to do with abortion Lauren. The stats show that abusive men often take advantage of a pregnant woman's vulnerability to abuse and often kill them. These sociopaths are not pro-choice. They are about controlling and punishing women. Who does that sound like?

Posted by: Sally at August 26, 2008 5:15 PM


I think that girl's t-shirt is disgusting.

Pro-choice boys?

What a cop-out. Have sex, get pregnant, then kill your baby that you helped pro-create with a boy.

That's real mature.

And then advertise it on your stupid t-shirt.

What an idiot.

Posted by: Opinionated at August 26, 2008 5:20 PM


Sally:

"Men who kill pregnant women are most likely romantically involved with their victims and see the pregnancy and unborn child as obstacles and burdens in their lives. They may not want a child, may want to pursue an extramarital affair or may want to keep an affair secret.

"The usual reason when it involves a man is the [unborn] baby. The baby is causing a complication in his life," said Pat Brown, profiler and chief executive officer of The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency. "


http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/Story?id=522184&page=1

Sounds like these men kill women *precisely* because they refuse to abort.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 5:25 PM


So this is "live-blogging" the DNC. No money wasted here.

So far, we've had coverage of some graffiti, a random t-shirt, and some marketing materials. What's next? A play-by-play of the line for the port-a-potty?

I'm shocked that the AP hasn't offered Jill a bazillion dollar contract for her reporting services.

Posted by: Woo at August 26, 2008 5:30 PM


Sally:

"Men who kill pregnant women are most likely romantically involved with their victims and see the pregnancy and unborn child as obstacles and burdens in their lives. They may not want a child, may want to pursue an extramarital affair or may want to keep an affair secret.

"The usual reason when it involves a man is the [unborn] baby. The baby is causing a complication in his life," said Pat Brown, profiler and chief executive officer of The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency. "


http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/Story?id=522184&page=1

Sounds like these men kill women *precisely* because they refuse to abort.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 5:25 PM
........................................

Are you saying that you understand that these men are not Pro-choice? But rather about controlling women and punishing them?

Posted by: Sally at August 26, 2008 5:33 PM


I'm sorry, Jill, but Woo has a pretty valid point.

And a very funny one.

Now Ted Kennedy is getting squirmy two spots away from the john! Will he make it? Read jillstanek.com tomorrow for the answer!

Hahahahaha...

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 5:33 PM


I think SoMG cares a lot about women. Enough to want to protect and help them exercise their rights. I'd be happy to have a doctor like SoMG treating me or performing my abortion- because I'd know that it was one who was passionate about what he was doing.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 5:11 PM

No, actually SOMG stated heshe aborts babies to pi*@ off RTLers. He/she is using you and your unborn child for his/her own agenda.

It bothers me that you use the word "passionate"
as an admirable quality in someone who kills babies for a living.

BTW, where is SOMG when a woman dies from an abortion, or when Angele placed a lawsuit against dr. "nowhere to be found" when she delivered a live baby, or when a clinic is found to be digustingly filthy. If he/she was so caring about women he/she would start a group to monitor these quacks.

Posted by: Sandy at August 26, 2008 5:33 PM


There are health inspectors, and there are lawyers. SoMG is a doctor. *shrugs* I believe that you can be passionate about anything, and about things that are far more destructive than reproductive rights.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 5:36 PM


Sally,

They're men who use legalized abortion as a justification that they *deserve* to have their offspring killed. However, I will concede that these men are not "pro-choice", but rather "pro-abortion," and yes, they are very much out to control women.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 5:37 PM


"So this is "live-blogging" the DNC"

I know. How about a review of Mrs. Obama's great speech?

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 5:46 PM


Sally men also kill women for aborting. And threaten to do so.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 5:58 PM


"You killed my baby so now I'm gonna kill you!"

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 6:00 PM


Hal, I watched the speach with an open mind. I didn't think it was great.

I don't think it will *hurt* the campaign, but I don't think it will help either. It was quite forced, and honestly felt a bit contrived. Honestly, it felt like she was a highschool freshman reciting a monologue of someone else's life.

I also found it odd that the title was "I love America," yet there was very little about America. They should have renamed it "my story" or...something. I also thought the "south side girl" title was bit heavy handed. The film itself was fine, but "south side girl," really?

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 6:00 PM


"That shirt really does say it all - they're boys and not men."

Right-On Chris

Posted by: Jasper at August 26, 2008 6:01 PM


Yes Patricia, perhaps if you keep repeating to yourself over and over again that you're a single mom because your husband was a liberal, you'll eventually convince yourself of it, but you're certainly not convincing anyone else.

Posted by: just saying at August 26, 2008 5:06 PM

you have no idea what my life is like now JS! I'm very happy and you've no idea whether I have a wonderful man or not! So bug out. Thanks. BTW, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything re my first "marriage". I'm here to say that if you live a liberal sexuality promiscuous lifestyle as many do, you have my deepest sympathies. And your saying it's wonderful over and over won't convince me it's so.


I think SoMG cares a lot about women. Enough to want to protect and help them exercise their rights. I'd be happy to have a doctor like SoMG treating me or performing my abortion- because I'd know that it was one who was passionate about what he was doing.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 5:11 PM

this is a very sick view, IMO
You are saying you'd be happy to have a doctor KILL your unborn child - how depraved can you get Erin? I'm sure somg is QUITE passionate when he snuffs out the life of a little child - must be very empowering....

I believe that you can be passionate about anything, and about things that are far more destructive than reproductive rights.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 5:36 PM

I fail to see how anything can be more destructive to human beings than reproductive "rights" which include the killing, at will, without cause, of innocent children?

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 6:06 PM


"I know. How about a review of Mrs. Obama's great speech?"

Hal,

It looks like the campaign has Michelle Obama putting up a front, she not being her true self with all that "I love America" stuff.

Posted by: Jasper at August 26, 2008 6:08 PM


FYI the woman in the picture is the main blogger for NARAL. Emily or Elizabeth or something like that.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at August 26, 2008 6:09 PM


I think that girl's t-shirt is disgusting.

Pro-choice boys?

What a cop-out. Have sex, get pregnant, then kill your baby that you helped pro-create with a boy.

That's real mature.

And then advertise it on your stupid t-shirt.

What an idiot.

Posted by: Opinionated at August 26, 2008 5:20 PM

lol, i agree!
However, when have you seen these people every think through something to it's logical conclusions, Opinionated?

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 6:09 PM


CHChick:

God also said to have dominion over the creation and I agree this includes being a good steward of it. I am a devout Christian. I drive fuel efficient cars, I live in an enegy efficient house, I recycle, I don't litter and am a supporter of many nature type organizations as long as they are not wacko about it.

However, my priorities are in line with God's Word. I don't worship nature, I don't put animals and nature over humans (and I really love both) and I certainly don't support a political party that advocates murder over living through the challenge.

It's one thing to take care of the environment and another thing to create hysteria based on an environmental myth for the purpose of raising money for the Party of Death, to attain power, to support policies that kill unborn children, to redefine marriage and morality, to attain power, ad infinitum, etc.

The Democratic Party has truly been led astray by the seductive nature of power and money, abandoning their historical foudations laid by the likes of Harry S. Truman, a devout Christian who God used to rebirth the nation of Israel. Mr. Truman would not be a Democrat in today's Democratic Party.

Lauren:

My thirty year old son just married. He saved himself for his wife. He wrote me a note after the wedding and it said this, "Dad, thank you for raising me in the faith. You and mom have blessed us more than we could have ever hoped.....".

Any father that would bring up his son to not respect a woman by using her before marriage is not a father, but just a sperm donor.

And cetainly not a father who would bring up a son that would advocate abortion. How manly is it to kill an unborn, innocent, defenseless child in the womb? It is the most cowardly thing a male could do.

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 6:09 PM


FYI the woman in the picture is the main blogger for NARAL. Emily or Elizabeth or something like that.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at August 26, 2008 6:09 PM

well, isn't that special!
why am I NOT surprised? I'm sure she lives what she advertises...

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 6:12 PM


Jasper,

The Democrats cannot show who they really are.

Look, Pelosi tried to show it on Sunday, pretending that she studied historical church teaching on abortion, speaking a grave heresy, and in the process making herself look like an idiot.

I only wish the Catholic priests would really say what was on their minds which is this woman and the people she misleads are in grave danger of eternal hellfire.

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 6:14 PM


"FYI the woman in the picture is the main blogger for NARAL. Emily or Elizabeth or something like that."

That makes sense, normal people wouldn't walk around in a t-shirt like that.

Posted by: Jasper at August 26, 2008 6:16 PM


Jasper, I don't know what to say about your views. You really seem pre-disposed to believe the worst of people. It's not sufficient to simply disagree on policy, you must assume Mrs. Obama "hates" America? Do you fear Obama's Presidency so much that you must attack him and his wife (kids too?) to try to poison public opinion?

People like you are the reason she had to give that amazing speech, explaining her background and why that translates into love of country. But, your heart is closed, and your mind as well perhaps.

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 6:17 PM


Sally,

They're men who use legalized abortion as a justification that they *deserve* to have their offspring killed. However, I will concede that these men are not "pro-choice", but rather "pro-abortion," and yes, they are very much out to control women.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 5:37 PM
.................................................

These men most obviously do not use legal abortion as any kind of justification or excuse for their behavior. Legal abortion undermines their absolute authority. These men are much more likely to justify their behavior with the excuse of male dominion than anything else.

Posted by: Sally at August 26, 2008 6:25 PM


Sally men also kill women for aborting. And threaten to do so.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 5:58 PM
.......................................................

Of course. Anything that usurps their authority over their property infuriates these sociopaths.

Posted by: Sally at August 26, 2008 6:28 PM


People like you are the reason she had to give that amazing speech, explaining her background and why that translates into love of country. But, your heart is closed, and your mind as well perhaps.

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 6:17 PM

YOU are accusing Jasper of having a closed heart and mind? I think you of any people on this BB Hal, have NO right to accuse anyone else of this. I am completely disgusted by your statement.

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 6:28 PM


Hal,

I didn't attack MO. I just think she wasn't being her normal self. I would normally be excited about the first African American President, but Obama is not someone a pro-lifer can get behind. Plus MO wrote a letter defending PBA.


Good Point HisMan. On your 2nd point, there have been 3 bishops who already spoke out Pelosi. The QoTD for tomorrow will have one of them.

Posted by: Jasper at August 26, 2008 6:31 PM



lol, i agree!
However, when have you seen these people every think through something to it's logical conclusions, Opinionated?

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 6:09 PM

Patricia, I haven't seen anything logical of note from pro-aborts. They are truly blinded by the evil one.


well, isn't that special!
why am I NOT surprised? I'm sure she lives what she advertises...
Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 6:12 PM

Patricia, you sound like "church lady", LOL!

Hisman at August 26, 2008 6:09 PM

So well said.

also Hisman at 6:14 PM

Right again about Pelosi, an apostate.
As you may know, at least a few Catholic bishops have warned pro-choice pols, e.g., Archbishop Raymond Burke, (formerly of St. Louis), and Archbishop Naumann of KC has told Gov. Sebelius that she must not present herself to receive Holy Communion until she has confessed her sins in the Sacrament of Confession and publicly renounced her pro-death positions.

Posted by: Opinionated at August 26, 2008 6:35 PM


Sally, I don't think I explained it well. Basically, a certain type of man will see a woman's refusal to abort as an afront on HIS "right to not have a baby".

Then, an even more deranged subgroup will take this further and kill the woman because SHE'S TRYING TO RUIN MY LIFE!

Have you seen Match Point? It deals with this theme.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 6:39 PM


it was a line from the "church lady"!

Also, Pelosi has been severely chastised by Cardinal Edward Egan who bluntly put it this way:

"Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being 'chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name," concluded Cardinal Egan

God bless Cardinal Egan.
Ms Pelosi should stick her head in the toilet - that's the only place she's fit to make the comments she has. If she wants to support abortion she should formally join another religion - she's already practicing another in my mind.

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 6:48 PM


Jill, hope you have a good time.

Posted by: Doug at August 26, 2008 6:58 PM


Of course we should see our partners as sexual, sexy. Would you really marry someone who you didn't want to have sex with?

Posted by: Jess at August 26, 2008 6:59 PM


Jasper:

I heard statements from both the Denver and Washington, DC bishops.

My point is they were being very kind, so kind s to not even make her think about how absolutely evil and subject to damantion her comments make her.

It's time to speak the truth fearlessly and without thought to the consequences. I am not saying they should offend her, I am saying they should speak the truth which is that "someone who professes, in a public way, absolute heresy and lies, is held to a much higher standard and stricter judgement".

Why should they do this? Because it is in the best eternal interests to repent of such evil and be found in the safe arms of the Savior.

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 7:01 PM


And to everyone who called Jill fat, shut up. Honestly. Oh yeah you're all *really* pro-choice. You support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body unless she *gasp* gains weight and isn't super sexy to you anymore. Jill has every right to weigh whatever she wants. And any intelligent person would know extra weight doesn't mean unhealthy. It's a combination of factors. I was skinny when I was bulimic, was I healthier then?

Jill you're beautiful I love you keep smiling!

Posted by: Jess at August 26, 2008 7:04 PM


I have a friend who can't have children now because her eating disorder messed her up permanently. Think about that next time you start bashing someone for being above "average".

Posted by: Jess at August 26, 2008 7:07 PM


Sally, I don't think I explained it well. Basically, a certain type of man will see a woman's refusal to abort as an afront on HIS "right to not have a baby".

Then, an even more deranged subgroup will take this further and kill the woman because SHE'S TRYING TO RUIN MY LIFE!

Have you seen Match Point? It deals with this theme.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 6:39 PM
...............................................

Abortion being legal is not the cause for a man to think he has any right to dictate anything over a woman. You can thank religion for that.

I've spent a great deal of time and money in therapy to treat my PTSD from DV as well as quite a bit of time reading on the subject. Watching a movie won't really give you a decent understanding of the dynamics of DV Lauren.

It all comes down to control of property for these men. I see a great deal of this attitude supported by religious institutions. Two of the women in my former support group were wives of ministers. Interesting that religious groups aren't protesting outside the homes of these thugs isn't it?

Posted by: Sally at August 26, 2008 7:08 PM


YOU are accusing Jasper of having a closed heart and mind? I think you of any people on this BB Hal, have NO right to accuse anyone else of this. I am completely disgusted by your statement.
Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 6:28 PM

Awe. Shucks.

Jasper, by saying she is pretending to love America, are accusing her of being dishonest and a person who doesn't love America. That's an attack in my book.

Good night all...

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 7:10 PM


I must have missed the insult. I think Jill looks great in that photo! I like both the photos on this thread.

Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 7:11 PM


I think the Republicans should do a medley of Obama's and Pelosi's recent over-the-top and exceedingly ignorant statements regarding life and their obvious ignorance on life issues and as a result disqualify themselves from leadership roles of any type. They should be played over, and over, and over again until it sinks in, especaily to Catholics. This will drive them to madness and even more dumb statements.

We have ben given gifts from above from these two Democrat leaders and it would be a shame if we don't use their own words against them. I sense the abortion issue coming to a head in this election and the gates of hell in all it's insanity are storming the church as a result.

They will not prevail. We are the church of Jesus Christ, the Bride of Christ and He will defend us with His mighty Spirit who lives in every believer. Therefore, it's time to take the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, and cut these lies to shreds exposing their underbelly and the satanic influence behind them.

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 7:16 PM


"Jill you're beautiful I love you keep smiling! "

I agree Jess.

SoMG, I oughta punch you out.

Posted by: Jasper at August 26, 2008 7:17 PM


It's ok Jasper, I'll be Jill's knight in shinning armor : )

Posted by: Jess at August 26, 2008 7:18 PM


It's very obvious that Pelosi is an addict.

Addicted to money, addicted to power.

The same indications are found in Al Gore, Biden, the Kennedy's, the Clintons, and now the Obama's. And they will do anything for a fix including misrepresenting Christ, supporting the blasphemy of abortion, and indeed calling good evil and evil good.

"What does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his soul".

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 7:22 PM


Sally, I'm not using the movie as the basis for my statment, just using it as an example of what I'm saying.

I'm sorry that you were in an abusive relationship. Thankfully, though I dated some jerks, they were never abusive jerks, and I married a wonderful man who would never dream of hurting me or our children.

As for people not protesting, I think a large part comes from people just not knowing. It's something that happens in private, and alot of women don't want to admit to it happening because they feel like it's their fault.

I don't think it is the fault of religion that some men are abusive, though I think that a very small percentage of abusive men twist religion to justify their abuse just like they use legalized abortion to justify their abuse. Men who want to control women will justify it with anything they can grab onto.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 7:23 PM


And to everyone who called Jill fat, shut up. Honestly. Oh yeah you're all *really* pro-choice. You support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body unless she *gasp* gains weight and isn't super sexy to you anymore. Jill has every right to weigh whatever she wants. And any intelligent person would know extra weight doesn't mean unhealthy. It's a combination of factors. I was skinny when I was bulimic, was I healthier then?

Jill you're beautiful I love you keep smiling!

Posted by: Jess at August 26, 2008 7:04 PM
.................................................................

I doubt if I would have ever found Jill sexy if she was ever thin but of course you have a point. People always tell overweight people how pretty their faces are and how pretty on the inside they must be ...... to not care about their outward appearance.
Shallow judgments.

But when someone spends all of their time preaching control and abstinence ...................... well! Practice what you preach.

Posted by: Sally at August 26, 2008 7:26 PM


Very well said Jess. I'm proud of you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 26, 2008 7:26 PM


Sally:

Keep posting. I'm sure your victim mentality and negative spirit are changing many minds.

Whew!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 7:28 PM


Love you and what you're doing, Jill. I come to your blog through Barbara Curtis' blog. I'll be checking with you as you survive Denver. Blessings to you and yours...

Posted by: suzanne at August 26, 2008 7:29 PM



WEll done, Jess!


Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 7:32 PM


Erm...from what I've seen, HisMan, Sally doesn't have a victim mentality. Nor does she have a negative spirit. She has BEEN a victim, but now she is focused on making choices that never end up with her in that position again. That's a fantastically healthy position to be in.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 7:41 PM


Sally, I'm not using the movie as the basis for my statment, just using it as an example of what I'm saying.

I'm sorry that you were in an abusive relationship. Thankfully, though I dated some jerks, they were never abusive jerks, and I married a wonderful man who would never dream of hurting me or our children.

As for people not protesting, I think a large part comes from people just not knowing. It's something that happens in private, and alot of women don't want to admit to it happening because they feel like it's their fault.

I don't think it is the fault of religion that some men are abusive, though I think that a very small percentage of abusive men twist religion to justify their abuse just like they use legalized abortion to justify their abuse. Men who want to control women will justify it with anything they can grab onto.

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 7:23 PM
...............................................................

If you have any empathy for any victim of abuse and a religious affiliation, I only ask that you work up your courage to ask your religious leader what they are doing to prevent and heal the damage done by domestic violence.
Remind them or just educate them that every minute of every day a woman is being beaten by a man that has professed to love her. And countless children are witnessing this. If mamma is a worthless nonhuman what is the child? Worthless subhuman? And you want to blame this attitude on legal abortion?
This attitude is the child of it's birth.

Posted by: Sally at August 26, 2008 7:49 PM


Jess, ever since I saw SoMG's post I've been looking at different weight related sites. I found a really cool site that graphs different height/weight pictures of men and women. It is AMAZING, to see someone else of your weight and to realize that how we see ourselves is *really* flawed. I'm so glad you've overcome your ED, and I really hope that everyone can come to a more healthy acceptance of weight.

Here's the chart:

http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/heightweight.shtml

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 7:55 PM


Jill,

I think you look very pretty in that picture! I'm sure you're having a good time out there! Seriously people, the mockery of one's looks is at the very least, PATHETIC. And sad.

I'd wear that shirt if it said "pro-life boys" on it..it's cute.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 26, 2008 8:09 PM


Jess: to everyone who called Jill fat, shut up.

Good grief - no doubt. ^5 (high-five) Jess.

This is Jill's place, and anyway it's certainly "bad form" as well as just very lame to talk about somebody's appearance.

Come on now, you grouches, no matter how Pro-Choice you may be - Jill's actually quite cute, and....

and early on in my experience here she told me about her grandson, and I could feel her in that, and no matter how much I or anybody else might disagree with some of her positions and some of the things she's said, I don't think anybody can say she's a "bad" person nor is there any need to try and cut her down with childish stuff.

And I'd say that goes for Pro-Life grouches too, since we've sure seen some of them too, some of them at times quite critical of Jill.

It boils down, way down, to disagreeing with what a person says, versus ad hominem baloney.

Ah, message boards.....

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 26, 2008 8:13 PM


Jill: I cannot fathom why girls would knowingly hook up with boys who, they know ahead of time, would encourage them to abort their child after an oopsie.

And right here I gotta disagree, Jill. Pro-Choice boys are going to let the woman decide what is best, they're not going to try and "encourage" (or otherwise act against) the woman against her will.

Posted by: Doug at August 26, 2008 8:16 PM


Hi Ms. Stanek,

I heard you on Moody radio this morning. Thank you for sharing your story. It was also interesting to hear about what was going on at the DNC.

Best wishes.
MR

Posted by: MR at August 26, 2008 8:25 PM


Pro-Choice boys are going to let the woman decide what is best, they're not going to try and "encourage" (or otherwise act against) the woman against her will.

Doug, 64 percent of abortions are coerced abortions.* Please don't be naive.

You personally may not encourage an abortion from anyone. That may be true. But to assume that ALL people on your side are equally 'fair' is a bit naive.

(And I put 'fair' in quotes, because leaving the woman alone to figure out for herself what to do in an emotional crisis situation is anything but fair to the woman. I would be so extremely hurt if the person I loved and trusted was so non-supportive and nonchalant during a time when I needed him the most)

* VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16 (2004).
http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=11784

Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2008 8:28 PM


http://noticias.aol.com/inmigracion/quiz/citizenship

Quiz.

Posted by: Doug at August 26, 2008 8:28 PM


Patricia:

For once your post was so honest! If only you'd know when to stop:

"Alexandra I lived with a liberal pro-contraception man for 11 years - he was my husband. I didn't know he held these views but it became apparent that he favoured many liberal ideas as time passed and that he lied to me. I would NEVER marry another man"-FULL STOP.

So when's the coming out party, dearie?

Posted by: phylosopher at August 26, 2008 8:32 PM


Lol great Lauren! This is me:
http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/504-120.shtml

5'4 and 125lbs. Actually, 120-130, it shifts between those two pretty easily. What I lack in boobs I make for in booty : )

Posted by: Jess at August 26, 2008 8:34 PM


If this wasn't so sad, it would be funny...

Australia Baby Bonus Measure Includes Accidental Loophole Paying for Abortions
Canberra, Australia (LifeNews.com) -- Needing to boost its birth rate to respond to the abortions that have plagued the nation's population and caused a worker shortage, Australian officials instituted a baby bonus paying $5,000 per child. However, an accidental loophole in the law allows women who have late-term abortions to receive the money. The loophole came about because abortion practitioners wrongly list late-term abortions as stillbirths in official governmental medical records. Under the baby bonus statute, women who become pregnant but sadly lose their child during the pregnancy still qualify for the bonus. Full story at LifeNews.com.

Posted by: mk at August 26, 2008 8:34 PM


Woot! 100% on that test!

Jill, you and I have the same haircut (for now- I am very noncommital when it comes to my hair)!

Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at August 26, 2008 8:35 PM


Alexandra I lived with a liberal pro-contraception man for 11 years - he was my husband. I didn't know he held these views but it became apparent that he favoured many liberal ideas as time passed and that he lied to me. I would NEVER marry another man who didn't have the same values as me. Every man who believes in contraception has NEVER said to me - well lets have a friendship and then lets move on to see if we having anything that might develop into marriage. EVERY pro-contraception man I've ever dated has placed SEX first and foremost in the relationship and very quickly too I might add. IMO, they are losers! They see women not as persons but as sex objects.
If you think your man loves you and cares about you, ask him to marry you. I guarantee you he will have a zillion excuses. Or maybe it will be you with the excuses.

Right you are, Patricia. Very sound advice. My husband was one of the good ones; I was very fortunate. We were best friends for 1 year before getting engaged, and then another 2 years before getting married. And we're still best friends today.

Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2008 8:36 PM


Doug, (@8:13)

Great Job! I'm so proud.

Posted by: mk at August 26, 2008 8:37 PM


Jess, 7:04, what a sweet post!! :)

Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2008 8:39 PM


Doug, ditto what I said to Jess to your 8:13 post!

Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2008 8:40 PM


Phylo, 8:32, please.

Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2008 8:41 PM


If you think your man loves you and cares about you, ask him to marry you. I guarantee you he will have a zillion excuses.

Wow, that's quite a guarantee, considering you know basically nothing about my boyfriend other than that he's pro-choice. And virtually nothing about me.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 8:42 PM


Alexandra, I'm sorry...I missed your 4:23 post. I sometimes seem to read the posts backwards when I'm catching up...it's really stupid of me.

Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2008 8:44 PM


Sally, I don't think I explained it well. Basically, a certain type of man will see a woman's refusal to abort as an afront on HIS "right to not have a baby".

Then, an even more deranged subgroup will take this further and kill the woman because SHE'S TRYING TO RUIN MY LIFE!

Have you seen Match Point? It deals with this theme.
Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 6:39 PM

Lauren:

There's also that whole group of men who are anti-choice as part of their misogynist platform. They might be vocally against abortion as women's choice, but hells' bells - when it comes to his woman (his property in his misogynistic mind) she'll abort or not by his choosing - and if it interferes with his fishing trip or new SUV well, then she'll abort. But if he thinks it's time for a little Junior, then, well she'll just produce one. Like rape, this type of "thinking" (violence) isn't about pro/anti-choice/life moral stands. It's about violence/power and control over women.

Posted by: phylosopher at August 26, 2008 8:46 PM


Well Patricia, since you are the one who stated what you think Nancy Pelosi should do, you certainly won't mind, and certainly the mods won't object, if I suggest the same for your dinner? What Patricia? Oh, you're Catholic - oh that's right, you've already tasted and swallowed a whole load of it.

Posted by: phylospher at August 26, 2008 8:54 PM


Alexandra, I'm sorry...I missed your 4:23 post. I sometimes seem to read the posts backwards when I'm catching up...it's really stupid of me.

Don't worry about it, Bethany. It's not that stupid -- I asked what the sheets of shame were on the sheets of shame post today!

Anyway, by this point I'm quite used to people telling me that my boyfriend throws me away every night like a used tissue. Like I said, all it does is remind me how absolutely incorrect the people I'm talking to are.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 8:56 PM


Sorry- that 64% of abortions being coerced (sp) stat is CRAP. There's too many holes in that one to even bother arguing.

Posted by: Danielle at August 26, 2008 8:56 PM


And to everyone who called Jill fat, shut up. Honestly. Oh yeah you're all *really* pro-choice. You support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body unless she *gasp* gains weight and isn't super sexy to you anymore. Jill has every right to weigh whatever she wants. And any intelligent person would know extra weight doesn't mean unhealthy. It's a combination of factors. I was skinny when I was bulimic, was I healthier then?

Jill you're beautiful I love you keep smiling!
Posted by: Jess at August 26, 2008 7:04 PM

Jess dear, you really do have a kind heart. But remember the things Jill has said about pro-choicers? remember how she wants to control other women's bodies? how she thinks she has a right to say what goes on in your uterus?
Either everyone has a right to bodily privacy or no one does - it's a foundational principle.

If you don't like the comments, you won't like world as Jill would have it, either.

Posted by: phylosopher at August 26, 2008 9:00 PM


If you don't like the comments, you won't like world as Jill would have it, either.

Like those are the only two options. I always hate when people say, "This is the way the world is!" when they're the ones making it that way.

There is really no reason to make fun of someone's appearance.

For one, no one's appearance comes into any of this. You may feel personally attacked by Jill's opinions, but they are not designed to personally attack you, which is not the case with comments about Jill's appearance.

For another, Jill is pretty adorable.

And making fun of the bodies of women you deem acceptable has an exponential effect, and it's no better than people here calling Clinton a dyke with dykey man calves -- they're just targeting different women than you are. Allowing comments like that, even about people you disagree with, sends the message that we are all targets for ridicule. That's not the case. We are all people worthy of respect, even though we all disagree to the point of offending each other at times.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 9:10 PM


"Well, there's just so much high fructose corn syrup starving children can eat - you know?"
Posted by: phylosopher at August 26, 2008 4:30 PM

Corn grown for ethanol based fuel is taking the place of other grains that could be grown.


"Jess dear, you really do have a kind heart. But remember the things Jill has said about pro-choicers? remember how she wants to control other women's bodies? how she thinks she has a right to say what goes on in your uterus?
Either everyone has a right to bodily privacy or no one does - it's a foundational principle.

If you don't like the comments, you won't like world as Jill would have it, either."
Posted by: phylosopher at August 26, 2008 9:00 PM

You don't see a grave moral difference between a few extra pounds and ending human life for your own convenience?

Posted by: Eileen at August 26, 2008 9:15 PM


BTW, I think Jill is beautiful.

Posted by: Eileen at August 26, 2008 9:16 PM


Corn grown for ethanol based fuel is taking the place of other grains that could be grown.

Yeah, but weren't we growing way more corn than other grains anyway, because of the farm bill/subsidies? Which is partially what helped absolute crap food to become so cheap and so prevalent?

I don't even think ethanol-based fuel is the way to go. I just don't think that it's the reason we're growing so much freaking corn. Vegetables and cattle grazing have mostly received less government support, which has distorted the farm economy, as far as I've been able to tell.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 26, 2008 9:22 PM


Well Patricia, since you are the one who stated what you think Nancy Pelosi should do, you certainly won't mind, and certainly the mods won't object, if I suggest the same for your dinner? What Patricia? Oh, you're Catholic - oh that's right, you've already tasted and swallowed a whole load of it.

Posted by: phylospher at August 26, 2008 8:54 PM

You can suggest whatever you wish phylosopher. But at least I have some integrity. At least I live what I believe and belong to a faith that I believe in and practice what it teaches.
Ms Pelosi is a hyprocrite of the highest degree. She, first of all, KNOWS exactly what her Catholic faith teaches and believes regarding abortion. She is misrepresenting her faith on national television and has scandalized millions of Catholics. She herself KNOWS when life begins, but has rationalized her position to fit the politics. She rightfully has been rebuked by the Catholic bishops.
If she doesnt believe the tenets of the Catholic faith and is unwilling to practice it and defend the teachings of her faith, then she should move on. WE DON'T WANT HER!

Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 9:30 PM


Alexandra, I'm not sure on the validity of this because I can't remember the source, but I remember hearing that farmers are often paid to burn their crops.

Does anyone have any info on this?

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 9:31 PM


Jess, I thought that woman looked particuarlly good lol!

Right now I feel fat because I'm in that awkward phase after pregnancy when you look pretty normal but your jeans say otherwise. Anyways, after seeing that chart I was like "psh, I look pretty good...what am I freaking out about?"

Posted by: lauren at August 26, 2008 9:34 PM


Alexandra--hope this helps--


"Because corn is a building block for the country’s entire food supply, it is driving price inflation in the food sector towards 4.5 percent this year.

“The problem, according to food manufacturers and supermarket executives,” reports the LA Times, “is . . . the cost of grain, which has soared as an ever growing amount of corn is diverted to make ethanol to mix with gasoline.”

Posted by: Eileen at August 26, 2008 9:35 PM


Lauren counts your blessings, at least you didn't have six at once! Kate from the show "John and Kate Plus 8" (twins and sextuplets).
http://ordinarymoments.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/willow_street_pictures_gosselin_discovery_health_1_086_color2.jpg
You aren't popping back after that : /

Posted by: Jess at August 26, 2008 9:59 PM


I just watched Hilary's speech and it was fantastic. They put the camera on the former president Clinton once at the very beginning and he was watching his wife be applauded and was smiling, with tears in his eyes, mouthing "I love you" over and over again. It was phenomenally touching.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 10:10 PM


Erin,

Yes it was pretty good. Stragetically speaking, I think your party really blew it throwing HRC under the bus and leaving her off the ticket.

Posted by: Jasper at August 26, 2008 10:22 PM


Oh, good! It's over! Now I can turn on the weather report.

Posted by: Eileen at August 26, 2008 10:22 PM


Phylosopher,

Explain to me how it is that abortion is a woman's right. Im curious what your personal reasonings are. You state so matter of factly that it is, so go ahead, lets here what you have to say on it.

Posted by: oliver at August 26, 2008 10:46 PM


Erin:

All of us are victims, every single one. Victims of satan's deceptions. The way of escape is being forgiven by Jesus Christ and then forgiving those that have hurt us. Period. Of course, forsaking the Liberal philisophy is a start.

When Sally posts her vitriolic hatred of men and groups them all together, that offends me deeply. Not me personally but my sons, who I have brought up to be respectful of women. And the sad thing is, Liberals via NOW and PP and NARAL feed into this self-destructive mind set in exchange for power.

The sad thing is that no good man would ever want to be associated with the woman the Liberals see as a "liberated" woman. Who could rspect such a woman? It's no wonder they all feel like victims, there in the wrong store shopping for the wrong men.

Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 11:45 PM


Lauren, in MATCH POINT the music you hear during the murder is Verdi's opera OTELLO.

Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 11:53 PM


SoMG...which opera do you have playing over the sound systen when you're killing the babies in your clinic?

Anything to dress up the evil you're commiting...

Posted by: Anonymous at August 27, 2008 1:37 AM


I think SoMG cares a lot about women. Enough to want to protect and help them exercise their rights. I'd be happy to have a doctor like SoMG treating me or performing my abortion- because I'd know that it was one who was passionate about what he was doing.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 5:11 PM

Erin, did you see what SOMG posted yesterday about why he likes to commit abortions on people like you?
Every abortion I do, every student I train, and every advance in abortifacient technology I help develop is partly a way of pissing in the faces of those who promote RTL terror.
Posted by: SoMG at August 23, 2008 7:16 AM

Erin, the reason SOMG provides the service to kill your baby for you is in order to get back at RTL'ers. And you are comfortable with that?
Well, I guess any woman who is comfortable with getting her baby ripped from her womb in pieces is more morbid then I could ever understand.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 27, 2008 1:52 AM


It was funny watching Hillary say her supporters should vote for Obama NOT because of of who Obama is or his capabilities as president, but so that she could have an easier time passing her agenda. News flash, you don't elect a president to help the senators and congress, you elect a president cuase he has character. It sounded to me like Hillary was saying we need to vote Obama so the Democratic congress and senate can tell him what to do/ push their agenda as president. Obama is such a loser and Hillary knows it.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 27, 2008 2:01 AM


Erin,
In your experience, is one of the reasons some women choose to have an abortion just to "piss in the face of RTL'ers"?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 27, 2008 2:06 AM


Maybe the back side of that slut's shirt should say: "I abort to piss in the face of RTL'ers"

Posted by: truthseeker at August 27, 2008 2:11 AM


Just because a person doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a slut. Way to show your true colors, ts.

And look. I had an abortion because I DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A BABY. That's all. That's it. That's the whole, entire reason. It really seems to bother PLers that I don't have some dark ulterior motive.

HisMan- I am with a phenomenally good liberal man whom I love and who loves me feverishly. I believe we will most likely get married. Does it bother you to see happy liberal? Do you think we should all be miserable, because we're not like you?

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 6:19 AM


Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 10:10 PM

Excuse me while I go vomit. And it's not because it's those two. I'd vomit an any politician who does that. It's SO fake. YUCK!

Posted by: Kristen at August 27, 2008 7:36 AM


Erin,

That is a pretty dark motive, albeit not an ulterior one.

There really is not "philosophical" justification to have an abortion to "not have a baby," unless you are talking about labor and delivery. However, there is no justification to abort to avoid labor and delivery either if you really think about it. If you claimed you aborted because you didnt want your preborn to make you fat or because you didnt like the idea of a blood to blood transfer, you would have a better case honestly.

I wouldnt call you a monster...just confused. My issue isnt with any one particular person, but our society in general. Im not even upset with SoMG. He truly believes his views are justified.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 7:36 AM


And look. I had an abortion because I DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A BABY. That's all. That's it. That's the whole, entire reason. It really seems to bother PLers that I don't have some dark ulterior motive.

Well Erin, all I can say, is that if you didn't want a baby why on earth were you having sex? Sex makes babies, even when women and men are contracepting. You killed your baby for convenience. I'd say that's a pretty "dark" reason.
If you got pregnant now, would you have another abortion? I wonder....

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 8:25 AM


Alexandra added:
Of course, you are anti-abortion and I am pro.

Pro-choice or pro-abortion? There is a difference, you know.... ;)

Nevertheless, I find something (perhaps unintentionally) revealing in your choice of which line of mine to quote and how to respond. You quoted me as saying:
I'm consistently opposed to killing innocent children. :)

To which you responded:
Of course, you are anti-abortion and I am pro.

The most favorable interpretation of your response is to call it a non sequitur. Many pro-choicers would steadfastly deny that abortion rights have any relationship with killing children. Abortion ends a pregnancy, or it removes a product of conception, or perhaps it expels a womb parasite ... but it certainly doesn't kill children.

Naturally, this viewpoint doesn't stand up to even a casual viewing of modern ultrasounds, such as this picture or this other picture. By the way, those aren't stock ultrasounds from some pro-life website. They are actual images from a 4D ultrasound session that my family did when my wife was 32 weeks' pregnant with our third child. the kiddo in those pictures is two years old now....

The other alternative is more chilling. It requires me to believe that you know that abortion kills children, and that's okay with you. And then you can casually dismiss it by saying, "I am pro." Pro-what? Pro-child-killing? Really?

Unfortunately, your following statement:
But my point is, the views a man holds about whether someone's right to life trump another's right to bodily autonomy do not indicate his ability to respect a women, or all women.

... seems to argue for the second interpretation. In other words, you know that abortion kills a child. You even seem to acknowledge that the child has a right to life. Still, you cling to a belief that it can be justified. Is my understanding accurate?

You also wrote:
It's simplistic to say that pro-choice men are losers who lie and have no self control, and that assertion was what I was responding to.

Here, we agree. Some pro-choice men are self-centered schmucks. In hindsight, I was one such schmuck. Even so, I am willing to grant that some pro-choice men are merely ignorant of the facts of abortion. Out of their ignorance, they seek to be sympathetic to their wives, girlfriends, and daughters ... and so they are pro-choice. They are not losers or liars, merely decent chaps who are sadly ignorant of the basic truth of abortion.

People like Patricia have been telling me for nigh on three years now that one day my boyfriend will leave me broken and alone, because that's what pro-choice men do, they use women and throw them away.

People should not claim to know the future unless they truly have the gift of prophecy. :)

I am not a prophet, so I will admit that your relationship with your boyfriend could last for the long term. For your sake, I hope that it will.

All it really does, honestly, is make me more convinced than ever that people like that are wrong, because I see how wrong they are every single day of my life.

The natural rejoinder is that you will continue to believe that she is wrong ... right up until the day that she is proved right. :-/

Nonetheless, I hope that you are right, and that she is wrong. The statistics are against you, but none of us actually know your boyfriend's heart. He could be the sort of guy that beats the odds and goes the distance. We don't know. Hopefully, you do know, and you are choosing wisely.

Since you keep mentioning him, is it reasonable to ask whether or not you two have plans for marriage?

Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 9:25 AM


People like Patricia have been telling me for nigh on three years now that one day my boyfriend will leave me broken and alone, because that's what pro-choice men do, they use women and throw them away.

My point has been and remains that that co-habitating relationships last on average 18 mons before either partner moves on. They generally do not experience the committment of marriage. This means some last longer and others not so long.The point I have always tried to make, is that co-habitating is NOT practice for marriage. Research has shown it is practice for serial monogamy and divorce. Apparently, everyone who is co-habitating on this blog, is a success story - for now.

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 9:33 AM


Mod's, I would really like if you could remove TS's comment at 2:11 a.m. It is offensive, thanks.

Erin,

I would call your motives pretty selfish, but I'm sure you acknowledge that already. That is however why you did not want to have a baby, because of you, you, you. And while that makes me sad, it does not make me at all surprised. Just sad for you for being that self-absorbed.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 27, 2008 9:45 AM


Some pro-choice men are self-centered schmucks. In hindsight, I was one such schmuck. Even so, I am willing to grant that some pro-choice men are merely ignorant of the facts of abortion. Out of their ignorance, they seek to be sympathetic to their wives, girlfriends, and daughters ... and so they are pro-choice. They are not losers or liars, merely decent chaps who are sadly ignorant of the basic truth of abortion.


I agree with this.

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 9:49 AM


Pro-choice or pro-abortion? There is a difference, you know.... ;)

We've been through this before. I have no problem framing the conflict as being anti-abortion rights versus pro-abortion rights. But if we are framing it in terms of the ideological reasons that we are anti- or pro-abortion rights, then it's pro-life and pro-choice. You are anti-abortion rights because you're pro-life. I'm pro-abortion rights because I'm pro-choice.

Still, you cling to a belief that it can be justified. Is my understanding accurate?

Yes. I am really not looking to get into yet another conversation about "But if I want to get rid of my kid I have to at least make a phone call!!!!!" because it's been done, by me and by you and by others here, more than once already.

Since you keep mentioning him, is it reasonable to ask whether or not you two have plans for marriage?

I really don't talk about him much, at least not here. Every so often I muster up the energy to remind people who say ignorant things that they're not correct, and this was one of those times. We are not engaged, which I would define as 'having plans for marriage.'

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 9:50 AM


I'm applauding Erin's refreshing honesty and candor here.

She didn't have to reveal that she had an abortion, but she did.

She could've tried to play up a tragic story to somehow make her choices more palatable for this audience, but she didn't.

She told you clear-eyed and soberly, 1) I got pregnant 2)I didn't want to have a baby 3)I had an abortion.

Period. Done. She doesn't owe you any further background, information or justification.

So, thank you to Erin, for bringing down the hysterics on this issue and demonstrating that many times (if not most), teens, single women or married mothers decide to end a pregnancy with knowledge, forethought and rationality and aren't broken, damaged women because of it. Abortion is a life-changing event, but not necessarily a damning one. People make a choice and just get on with it.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 9:50 AM


The point I have always tried to make, is that co-habitating is NOT practice for marriage.

No, the point you were making here was that pro-choice men all losers who have no respect for women, no self-control, and an inability to honor their promises.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 9:53 AM


So Patricia is it better for these people to get married and then divorced in 18 months then simply move out? Oh that's right, marriage is a sacred commitment and NO ONE gets divorced.

Posted by: Jess at August 27, 2008 10:16 AM


..demonstrating that many times (if not most), teens, single women or married mothers decide to end a pregnancy with knowledge, forethought and rationality and aren't broken, damaged women because of it. Abortion is a life-changing event, but not necessarily a damning one. People make a choice and just get on with it.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 9:50 AM

in fact, Erin stated that she didn't want to have a baby.
Most women abort for convenience, not becuase of some dire circumstance, although there certainly are women who are abandoned etc.
But by now, there are so many social agencies to turn to, that most women should be savvy enough to find the help they need should they require it.
IMO, not "wanting" a baby is NOT a rational nor significant excuse for an abortion. If a woman or man is not ready to be a parent then don't have sex. It's really that simple. What you are saying is that for you abortion was a backup to what I presume was a contraceptive failure or just an unwillingness to face the consequences of sex.
Having said that, I don't damn you Erin, by any means. I just hope that some day you realise what you have done. I see you as a victim of our culture.

People make a choice and just get on with it.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 9:50 AM

I certainly wish I could be so cavalier about the death of a baby as you apparently can be Danielle. Simply amazes me....

To me there is NO difference between a proabort and a prochoice. After all WHAT is the choice - between life and death. When a woman uses choice - she chooses death for her baby. The choice comes BEFORE the sex.

So Patricia is it better for these people to get married and then divorced in 18 months then simply move out? Oh that's right, marriage is a sacred commitment and NO ONE gets divorced.

Posted by: Jess at August 27, 2008 10:16 AM

It's better that people remain chaste before marriage and treat members of the opposite sex as persons and not objects. People should marry with the intent to remain with that person for life and with the purpose of being in service to their spouse and offering the gift of self to the other. That is true marriage.

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 10:33 AM


I agree with everything Danielle said at 9:50 a.m.

And Jasper, the Democrats didn't "throw Hillary under the bus," she lost the primary.

And like everyone who lost primaries before her, she's getting on board the train to victory.

Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 10:37 AM


And like everyone who lost primaries before her, she's getting on board the train to victory.

Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 10:37 AM

in your dreams....

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 10:39 AM


"IMO, not "wanting" a baby is NOT a rational nor significant excuse for an abortion. If a woman or man is not ready to be a parent then don't have sex. It's really that simple."

In your dreams. Not wanting a baby, sometimes for years, sometimes forever, should preclude a healthy sex life. Sexuality for most people is an important part of their lives. Better birth control and better education will reduce the sex=babies link to some extent. Unwanted pregnancies will always happen, I suspect, and that's why abortion in some form will always be with us.

Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 10:42 AM


Danielle,
What of the women that ARE broken or damaged by abortion? What of them? What of those that simply try to "get on with it" because that is what they are told to do but they can't? What of them? The nightmares, the shame, guilt and pain of realizing what they have done to an innocent child has to be dealt with somehow, someway....

Yes. I would agree Erin is honest and straightforward about her abortion. She had an abortion almost a year ago and doesn't regret it in the least. It breaks my heart to read her words, but I said them myself 18 years ago.

Posted by: Carla at August 27, 2008 10:49 AM


Not wanting a baby, sometimes for years, sometimes forever, should preclude a healthy sex life.

In fact, this is a very distorted view of sexuality Hal.

The healthy and correct view of sex is that it is designed to unify a husband and wife and make them one body and one soul, with the view of creating a new life which represents, in the flesh, their love. A child is the incarnation of their spousal love.
Of course, it often doesn't work out this way because we are humans prone to making mistakes. But this IS the way it has been designed and it IS what we should all strive for.

Your view, is sex as a sport or mere recreation - a crass and vulgar view of it with the result that the baby is seen as the problem to having a healthy sex life. Once seen as such, then any means will be justified to remove this "intruder".
In fact, the people I know who have the best sex are those with the most children!
Science and recent research does NOT support your claim, Hal. Recent studies on the use of BC for example demonstrate that women on the pill have lower libido and do not bond well with their partners. Couples reporting the happiest sex lives are women and men in stable marriages with some sort of religious beliefs.

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 10:53 AM


Yes. I would agree Erin is honest and straightforward about her abortion. She had an abortion almost a year ago and doesn't regret it in the least. It breaks my heart to read her words, but I said them myself 18 years ago.

Posted by: Carla at August 27, 2008 10:49 AM

peace to you Carla. Hope you are having a good day and enjoying your "kitty-kats" - my dad's term for us when we were kids!!

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 10:54 AM


"The healthy and correct view of sex is that it is designed to unify a husband and wife and make them one body and one soul, with the view of creating a new life which represents, in the flesh, their love"

Says you. Which is fine, for you. I just can't accept your premise that people who don't want babies simply should not have sex. Some people don't want babies until they're in their 30s. No sex from 18 to 30????? Some people just never want to have children. No sex ever?

Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 10:59 AM


Says you. Which is fine, for you. I just can't accept your premise that people who don't want babies simply should not have sex. Some people don't want babies until they're in their 30s. No sex from 18 to 30????? Some people just never want to have children. No sex ever?

Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 10:59 AM

nope. not says me.
sex is much more sacred than just a roll in the hay Hal!
That me be all it is to you, but I think we are called to something more than just that.

no marriage, no sex and therfore no kids.

yup, if you feel that you don't want kids, direct your energies to something positive like helping others in this world instead of thinking all the time of your own self-gratification.

sorry but I believe we are ABOVE being animals. We have an intellect too and we can easily discern that there is something more to this than what you claim...

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 11:04 AM


"IMO, not "wanting" a baby is NOT a rational nor significant excuse for an abortion. If a woman or man is not ready to be a parent then don't have sex."

-Exactly: In your opinion. Mine is, having a baby shouldn't be used as a form of punishment to chastise women for making choices that counter to someone else's morality.

"I certainly wish I could be so cavalier about the death of a baby as you apparently can be Danielle. Simply amazes me...."

-That's ok. I don't expect or need everyone to share my viewpoint. I also don't feel the need to try and change your opinion that my view is being 'cavalier about the death of a baby.' Believe as you wish.

"It's better that people remain chaste before marriage and treat members of the opposite sex as persons and not objects. People should marry with the intent to remain with that person for life and with the purpose of being in service to their spouse and offering the gift of self to the other."

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 10:33 AM

-I agree with your definition of marriage and monogamy. I do not agree with your view that without marriage, one should remain chaste:

a)I enjoy sex too much for that(as everyone does) and don't think it's a sin outside of marriage;

b)there's no guarantee that a married couple wants to have children, either. Saving sex for marriage doesn't necessarily cancel out an unwanted pregnancy;

c-z)I could go on, but no need. We understand each other's position as well as we're going to.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 11:06 AM


Danielle: "-Exactly: In your opinion. Mine is, having a baby shouldn't be used as a form of punishment to chastise women for making choices that counter to someone else's morality"

Yeah it shouldnt be and rarely is. However, what should be immoral is the destruction of a preborn because you do not want a child.

Lets apply that same exact motive to a living child. Is it okay to destroy your child "because you do not want a child?"

Of course not. That would be murder!

How is different Danielle? Im curious what your thoughts are.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 11:19 AM


"Danielle,What of the women that ARE broken or damaged by abortion? What of them? What of those that simply try to "get on with it" because that is what they are told to do but they can't? What of them? The nightmares, the shame, guilt and pain of realizing what they have done to an innocent child has to be dealt with somehow, someway...."

Posted by: Carla at August 27, 2008 10:49 AM

-For those who regret their decision, I am glad that there are services available (mental health providers, physicians, church, etc) for support and its unfortunate that their experience was so traumatizing. It happens, I'm not refuting it. My point here is that's not the whole picture. There are many, many women and couples who felt comfortable with their decision, had positive interaction with medical staff and DO NOT REGRET THEIR CHOICE. I'm sure that is difficult to comprehend to some but it's the truth. They don't require sympathy or prayer - seems like that should be reserved for those who are struggling.

I'm growing tired of the assumption that all/most women who have an abortion experience some sort of PTSD and if they don't immediately repent and show martyr-like remorse for their 'mistake' that the only justification is that their trauma is latent or somehow repressed. Sometimes, it simply is what it is.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 11:22 AM


"There are many, many women and couples who felt comfortable with their decision, had positive interaction with medical staff and DO NOT REGRET THEIR CHOICE"

And this proves what? I could say the same about any violent crime.

There are many, many men and women who felt comfortable wit their decision to murder someone, (the medical staff part doesnt quite apply), and DO NOT REGRET THEIR CHOICE

Sweet, I just proved murder moral.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 11:27 AM


Good points Danielle. The fact that some women regret their decision is not a reason to take the right to make the decision away from others. Some women regret dropping out of college, but we don't make that illegal. I could give 100 other examples. Adults in free socieities make decisions and live with the consequences. (yes, "the baby is the one who suffers the consequenes" I know, I know.)

Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 11:28 AM


Hal,

So Hal, why should we keep it legal, but still make it illegal to neglect your child, including withholding breast milk?

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 11:36 AM


Alexandra added:
Yes. I am really not looking to get into yet another conversation about "But if I want to get rid of my kid I have to at least make a phone call!!!!!" because it's been done, by me and by you and by others here, more than once already.

So just to clarify: Abortion kills a child, and you're okay with killing children.

(I don't know where the phone call gets into the picture. Why on Earth would a phone call make it okay to kill a child?)

Are you willing to approve of all child-killing? If a woman whacks her toddler over the head with a shovel and buries him in the back yard, is that okay? How far does this right to child-killing extend in your view? Which children can be killed, and which children should be saved?

Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 11:37 AM


They cant answer that question without posing contradictions to themselves and thats the issue.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 11:39 AM


Regret doesn't usually begin until 5-7 years after an abortion. By then, the reasons one had for aborting have changed. Careers, marriage, buying a home and the longing to start a family can be on the horizon. There is nothing like seeing that first "wanted" baby on an ultrasound.

Yeah, I get tired too. Tired of the "abortion helps women" rhetoric.

Posted by: Carla at August 27, 2008 11:40 AM


Oh and that is why they wont answer the question. Hal is a great example of this.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 11:41 AM


(I don't know where the phone call gets into the picture. Why on Earth would a phone call make it okay to kill a child?)

Me: I do not think that someone should need to donate the use of their body to another person.

You: But we require that people donate the use of their bodies to their children after birth. They must work and provide for their children.

Me: No, they have the option of putting their children up for adoption.

You: They must provide for their children until they can put them up for adoption, though.

Me: They can call the police, say that they are in danger of neglecting or hurting their children, and have someone there almost immediately, who will almost certainly remove the children from their care at least temporarily.

You: But they still have to make the phone call. Which they use their body for.

Me: And women getting an abortion have to make a phone call too. They can't just abort by sitting there and thinking about it; there is always a minimum effort required in doing anything. The question is whether we view sharing your body with another person for nine months to be an effort we legally require. I don't. I think it's nice, certainly, and often the "right" thing to do, objectively, but I don't support requiring it.

We have had this conversation before.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 11:47 AM


You know one of the signs of a recovering co-dependant is to be called selfish? Doing things to take care of or help yourself isn't selfish. It's called 'self-care'. Honestly, I'm THRILLED to be called selfish- it means that I'm doing something right.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 11:48 AM


We should keep abortion legal because it's wrong to force a woman who doesn't want to have a child to remain pregnant. Terminating a pregnancy is not "murdering a child." I understand some of you think it is. I doubt we'll convince you or you'll convince us.

Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 11:49 AM


Hal wrote:
The fact that some women regret their decision is not a reason to take the right to make the decision away from others.

That's a common straw man.

For the record, no pro-lifers are actually arguing that abortion should be legal because it might make women sad. As you have clearly demonstrated, we allow people to do things that make them feel sad all of the time. The risk of feeling sad is part of living in a free society.

Abortion should be illegal because it kills children. Period.

The post-abortion argument is not an argument for banning abortion, but rather an argument against the Shiny Happy Abortion that pro-choicers tried to sell us. Abortion was supposed to improve women's lives. Instead, it has created millions of walking wounded. Even if you ignore the 40-50 million dead children, abortion's benefit to women has been extremely dubious.

By the way, claiming that abortion-related PTSD doesn't exist because some women don't experience it is also bogus. Nobody ever claimed that every woman who aborts will experience PTSD as a result. Many women are sadly ignorant of what abortion actually does. Other women may have calloused hearts and not care. Either way, there are undoubtedly plenty of women who do not suffer any after-effects from abortion.

Again, that's not the point. The actual point is that many women do suffer after-effects from abortion. Some of those after-effects are physical, and some are emotional. And the pro-choicers -- who supposedly care so much about women -- have mostly done jack squat to help these women. A few pro-choice organizations (Exhale) have started to address the wounded, but the vast majority of the care is coming from pro-lifers.

Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 11:51 AM


Alexandria :"Me: I do not think that someone should need to donate the use of their body to another person.

You: But we require that people donate the use of their bodies to their children after birth. They must work and provide for their children.

Me: No, they have the option of putting their children up for adoption.

You: They must provide for their children until they can put them up for adoption, though.

Me: They can call the police, say that they are in danger of neglecting or hurting their children, and have someone there almost immediately, who will almost certainly remove the children from their care at least temporarily.

You: But they still have to make the phone call. Which they use their body for.

Me: And women getting an abortion have to make a phone call too. They can't just abort by sitting there and thinking about it; there is always a minimum effort required in doing anything. The question is whether we view sharing your body with another person for nine months to be an effort we legally require. I don't. I think it's nice, certainly, and often the "right" thing to do, objectively, but I don't support requiring it.

We have had this conversation before. "

Wow...

Okay, let me explain the HUUUUUGE language shift you are making here. You use the phrase "make a phone call" in two different senses. I am honestly flabergasted that this is the case, so Im sure you will no idea whats up unless I slowly spell it out. Here goes.

In the FIRST sense, you use the "phone call" to represent a parent accuiring a suitable alternative to take care of their child. In your case it is the police.

In the SECOND sense, you use the "phone call" to represent a parent accuiring a non suitable alternative to take care of their child. In your case it is the destruction of the child.

If I use your meaning in the second sense in the fist scenario, it would sound like this.

A parent can call a hitman to come kill their child, so they dont obviously have to take them to the adoption clinic.

Makes a ton of sense right?

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 11:56 AM


YES! YES! Thank you, Naaman, for calling it PTSD, which is real, instead of PAS, which is not.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 11:58 AM


Hal :"We should keep abortion legal because it's wrong to force a woman who doesn't want to have a child to remain pregnant."

So it is moral to keep it legal because to make it illegal would be immoral.

This is circular reasoning bud. Why would it be immoral to make prevent women from having abortions?

Hal: "Terminating a pregnancy is not "murdering a child." I understand some of you think it is. I doubt we'll convince you or you'll convince us."

It isnt murder in the legal sense, but we assert it is murder, unjust killing, in the ethical sense. Your awesome argument that "Nu uh it not" is no good.

I also like your "I wont be able to convince you so I wont even try" attempt to get out of providing some thought to the issue. What was your thought when your wife has her abortions? What would you say to someone who was on the fence and confused about the issue? Do you have anything?

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 12:00 PM


Hey Patricia,
I am enjoying the last few days of summer and counting the days until school starts! :)

Posted by: Carla at August 27, 2008 12:01 PM


"You know one of the signs of a recovering co-dependant is to be called selfish? Doing things to take care of or help yourself isn't selfish. It's called 'self-care'. Honestly, I'm THRILLED to be called selfish- it means that I'm doing something right."

Every willful action is selfish. There is nothing wrong with being selfish.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 12:02 PM


Oliver, my point is, it is absolutely impossible to do anything without putting some effort in. If a phone call is too much for you, you're probably seriously mentally ill and thus not legally responsible for whatever neglect occurs as a result.

The phone call for adoption or police services has only one equivalent in a pregnancy situation, and that's nine months of being pregnant. I don't consider that something we should legally require.

I asked you this before, but what if the gestation period were longer? What if it were 22 months rather than 9? What if it were five years? Is there a length of time that you would consider too much to require people to share their body for?

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 12:04 PM


Okay, that's the relevance of the phone call. Thanks for explaining it. You've probably had that conversation with others, but not with me...

... because I find it silly.

Abortion doesn't merely evict an unwanted child from the womb. That's one of the reasons why Judith Jarvis Thomson's defense of abortion rights doesn't work. For other reasons, check out the Libertarians for Life rebuttal to Thomson's (in)famous violinist analogy:
http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html

I don't object to a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. I don't object to a woman who wants to remove the unborn child from her womb. I do object to a woman who kills her child, whether born or unborn. Does that make it clear for you?

You didn't answer my other questions, which were more important than the the question about the phone call:
Are you willing to approve of all child-killing? If a woman whacks her toddler over the head with a shovel and buries him in the back yard, is that okay? How far does this right to child-killing extend in your view? Which children can be killed, and which children should be saved?

Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 12:06 PM



I just watched Hilary's speech and it was fantastic. They put the camera on the former president Clinton once at the very beginning and he was watching his wife be applauded and was smiling, with tears in his eyes, mouthing "I love you" over and over again. It was phenomenally touching.

Posted by: Erin at August 26, 2008 10:10 PM

If he really loved her he would keep his pants zipped up. The man is a show boat. I am sure he was picturing one of his one-nighters in his mind when he said that. (He may have been saying it to his daughter and it just looked like he was saying it to Hillary)

Posted by: Sandy at August 27, 2008 12:06 PM


He had an affair while in the White House. That's between him and his wife. That is the ONLY incident that has been confirmed and that anyone knows is true. Who are you to say he didn't just make a terrible mistake and repent of it instantly?

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 12:09 PM


1. We should cut out the whole "boys vs. men" thing. I'm tired of both men and boys being shamed and coerced into things by people saying, "If you were a real man/a gentleman, you would _________" to get them to do everything under the sun. You can support the pro-life position or the pro-choice position without sounding anti-boy. You make it sound like eight-year-old boys are all pro-choice and then later on they develop a different stance.

2. Are there pro-life men who are schmucks? Yeah. Are there pro-choice men who are schmucks? Yeah. For that matter, there are plenty of WOMEN who are schmucks, too, so we can knock off the misandry (i.e. male-bashing) by perpetuating this stereotype of men being the predators and women being the prey. Most often, when a male and female (I use those words because we could be talking about minors OR adults) have sex, it's because they BOTH wanted to do it, not because the male kept pressuring the female until she finally capitulated. Many (but not all) females have high sex drives, just as many (but not all) males have high sex drives. Often, it's the female who initiates the sexual relationship, and not because she's trying to be popular with the guys, but rather because she has a highly active libido.

3. Meanwhile, it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility (Hal with his five question marks in "No sex from 18 to 30?????") that a person remain sexually inactive until his or her 30s. I'm living proof of that, and it's not because of some fear of having children, but because, as Morrissey once said, "Sex is a waste of batteries."

Posted by: bmmg39 at August 27, 2008 12:16 PM


Erin :"Oliver, my point is, it is absolutely impossible to do anything without putting some effort in. If a phone call is too much for you, you're probably seriously mentally ill and thus not legally responsible for whatever neglect occurs as a result."

I am not saying a "phone call" is too much effort and I never even implied that. That is completely irelevant. The point of the "phone call" was to explain that no matter the case, a parent cannot just suddenly decide to stop care, unless they provide a suitable alternative to the care for the child. Abortion does not provide a "suitable alternative to care." Why do we have to provide that alternative to a born child and not to a preborn?

Erin: "The phone call for adoption or police services has only one equivalent in a pregnancy situation, and that's nine months of being pregnant. I don't consider that something we should legally require. "

So what if there was a wait period for the adoption agency, and all you had to do to keep your child alive was heat up some nutrient enriched ramen for 7 months? (A woman doesnt even know she is pregnant most times untill she is already a month pregnant, and it isnt necessary to carry the last month and a half to ensure the preborn will have a good shot at life)

Would you think it is alright for a parent to not provide the ramen to keep the child alive because of a 7 month waiting period? Maybe you would, but I doubt many other people would.

Erin: "I asked you this before, but what if the gestation period were longer? What if it were 22 months rather than 9? What if it were five years? Is there a length of time that you would consider too much to require people to share their body for?"

Is there a length of time that you think is too long to require care for born children? What if your child has a severe case of Down's and cannot function alone. Wouldnt you think it was neglect if the parent stopped giving care without finding a suitable alternative, or hired a hitman to kill the child?

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 12:18 PM


Naaman, it actually was with you! A couple years ago, though. Unless you're a different Naaman.

No, I do not think a woman should be able to whack her toddler over the head and bury him in the backyard. Her child can survive separate from her, if she does not wish to be responsible for him.

My view is basically that the only time it's okay to kill someone is when they're inside another person's body, and removing them will result in their death.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 12:19 PM


That was all actually intended for Alexandria, not Erin. Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 12:19 PM


Oliver- that was Alexandra's post, mon cher.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 12:20 PM


Erin wrote:
YES! YES! Thank you, Naaman, for calling it PTSD, which is real, instead of PAS, which is not.

It's good to use clear language. There's a post-abortive blogger named Slient Rain Drops who has done a lot of good writing about abortion-related PTSD:
http://abortionhurts.blogspot.com/

(Sadly, her blogging seems to be less frequent than it used to be. Still, good stuff there!)

Please keep in mind that changing the language doesn't make it any less real. You have claimed that your abortion did not cause any negative effects ... other than the death of your child. I hope that you are correct. I do not wish any harm for you. Life can be hard enough on its own without people heaping more trouble on our heads....

Nevertheless, please do not let your own experience blind you to the fact that many other women have suffered from their abortions. Simply calling it PTSD instead of PAS doesn't change their suffering; it just enables us to describe it more accurately.

Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 12:25 PM


Is there a length of time that you think is too long to require care for born children? What if your child has a severe case of Down's and cannot function alone. Wouldnt you think it was neglect if the parent stopped giving care without finding a suitable alternative, or hired a hitman to kill the child?

That doesn't answer my question. If the gestational period was years rather than months, would you still legally require women to share their body for that period of time?

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that if a woman said that she was unable to care for her child, social services would require her to wait seven months. Additionally, the physical aspects of pregnancy are a bit more strenuous than heating up some noodles every day. I don't really think there is an accurate analogy to being pregnant because there's nothing quite like it; it's a case all its own and that's pretty much precisely why people will always disagree on it.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 12:27 PM


"My view is basically that the only time it's okay to kill someone is when they're inside another person's body, and removing them will result in their death. "

Sure, but WHY? It is the law that to withhold breast milk from your child is to neglect them. This is an affront to bodily autonomy greater than the imperceptible transfer of nutrients in a pregnancy. What makes it different?

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 12:28 PM


If you don't want to breastfeed, you can substitute with formula.

This is an affront to bodily autonomy greater than the imperceptible transfer of nutrients in a pregnancy.

That's debatable.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 12:30 PM



He had an affair while in the White House. That's between him and his wife. That is the ONLY incident that has been confirmed and that anyone knows is true. Who are you to say he didn't just make a terrible mistake and repent of it instantly?

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 12:09 PM

Erin, Erin, Erin,
Go back and look at the history of this man.
The only reason he was sorry is that he was sorry he got caught. I would have a small bit of respect for Hillary if she would have dumped him and moved on solo. They use each other.

Posted by: Sandy at August 27, 2008 12:33 PM



Alexandria :"That doesn't answer my question. If the gestational period was years rather than months, would you still legally require women to share their body for that period of time?"

Uhhh I dont think its uhhh likely that would happen.

Actually I will answer you question the way you posed it. Maybe you will take the same approach for my questions as well. If we lived in a bizarre world where the pregnancy had to last longer than it does, I would oppose abortion as it would be neglecting your child of food and water.

Alexandria: "I find it incredibly difficult to believe that if a woman said that she was unable to care for her child, social services would require her to wait seven months."

It isnt a case of "unable" Alexandria. Abortion is not about "unable" its about "dont wanna." Regardless, who cares what you think is likely. This is a hypothetical question no different than your hypothetical question of a 22 month gesational period. In fact, yours was way more unlikely.

Alexandria: "Additionally, the physical aspects of pregnancy are a bit more strenuous than heating up some noodles every day."

Have you been pregnant before? The transfer of nutrients is imperceptible. You dont "feel" the blood transfer. If you are refering to throwing up, would it be neglect to not heat up ramen because it may make you throw up?

Alexandria: "I don't really think there is an accurate analogy to being pregnant because there's nothing quite like it; it's a case all its own and that's pretty much precisely why people will always disagree on it."

Although I do agree with you that it is nearly impossible to create an analogous scenario that is perfect, we can create analogous scneraios that examine the various aspects of the issue individually.

For example, what if there were a set of conjoined twins who had no personal desire to be separated, but had nonetheless developed a condition that required them to be separated or else they would both die. There are two surgeries to choose from. The first surgery will without a doubt kill the weaker twin, with limited complications and recovery time to the stronger twin. The second surgery however will allow for a 99% chance of survival for both and low complications as well. However, the second surgery will require the stronger twin to take more time to recover and will pose slightly worse complications. Would the stronger twin be justified in demanded the first form of the surgery?

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 12:37 PM


Alexandria: "If you don't want to breastfeed, you can substitute with formula. "

Suppose that you cant then?

I wrote: "This is an affront to bodily autonomy greater than the imperceptible transfer of nutrients in a pregnancy."

Alexandria: "That's debatable"

Have you been pregnant or talked to anyone about it? They do not feel their blood going into the uterus to feed the child. Trust me, you feel the milk. There is a huge difference.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 12:41 PM


Sandy- the history of this man is he presided over one of the largest economic booms in American history.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 12:50 PM


Erin,

What does the President really have to do with the economic situation of the country? Very little.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 12:51 PM


If we lived in a bizarre world where the pregnancy had to last longer than it does, I would oppose abortion as it would be neglecting your child of food and water.

No matter how much longer it had to last? Is there a point at which a person is not legally responsible for keeping another alive?

NoIt isnt a case of "unable" Alexandria. Abortion is not about "unable" its about "dont wanna." Regardless, who cares what you think is likely. This is a hypothetical question no different than your hypothetical question of a 22 month gesational period. In fact, yours was way more unlikely.

So is it okay if I say Uhhhhhhhhh I don't think that's uhhhhhhhhh likely? But I'll answer anyway? My point is we're both coming up with stupid scenarios.

If a woman for some reason had to wait seven months, and just heat up some noodles once a day, before she could put her kids up for adoption, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would have a problem with our society putting her in that position because I would view it as a failure of the social structure, but as I've said, I don't really view heating up a meal once a day as being appropriately analogous to pregnancy.

I think that as far as the twins are concerned, it's also not the same. One is not inside the body of the other. That is to say, the body equally belongs to both of them. This is not the case with pregnancy, where the woman's body belongs entirely to her.

Have you been pregnant before? The transfer of nutrients is imperceptible.

Yes, I have. And while the transfer of nutrients may be imperceptible, the fact of sharing your body most certainly is not.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 12:52 PM


I swear, I should know better than to ever say anything here, no matter how many disclaimers I include about not having the time to go through the whole dance right now. I've got a couple hours of dishwashing ahead of me due to a roach infestation and subsequent roach bombing, so you'll have to excuse me for a bit.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 12:55 PM


Lol, that's right, Oliver. The president only has control over those things if you want him to. Like how it wasn't Bush's fault that gas prices went up and now it's because of him that they're going down.

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

Things could have kept up like that, too, if the Bush administration hadn't come in and sh&t all over it.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 12:56 PM


Alexandra replied:
Naaman, it actually was with you! A couple years ago, though. Unless you're a different Naaman.

I think I'm the only Naaman around these parts. It's a pseudonym, of course, so I suppose anyone else could use it. Nevertheless, I don't recall this conversation. Hmmm ... a sign of my increasing age, perhaps? I just turned 35, and I'm already losing my memory. ;)

No, I do not think a woman should be able to whack her toddler over the head and bury him in the backyard. Her child can survive separate from her, if she does not wish to be responsible for him.

Okay, so viability is your limit? Would you be willing to ban all post-viability abortions?

My view is basically that the only time it's okay to kill someone is when they're inside another person's body, and removing them will result in their death.

Perhaps location is the key, then? If the child is inside the womb, she can be killed. If the child is outside of the womb, she cannot be killed.

How about partial-birth abortion? The child is both inside and outside the womb. Can you kill her? How much of the child's body needs to be inside the mother for killing to be okay?

Also, which is more important: viability or location? Your responses seem to indicate viability is more important, but I'm not sure.

Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 1:05 PM


oooooo, so he helped the economy so it's okay that he's a dirtbag to his wife? Erin, come off of that stuff please. That is just a ridiculous assertion, and I hope you can see THAT.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 27, 2008 1:05 PM


OK? No. Our business? Also no. The economy is an issue of national importance. Him getting a BJ from an intern is not.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 1:08 PM


Yeah, but him LYING about it is our business though. He made it our business when he did that. Like it or not, that's the way it is. And let's face it, if it had been some Republican that had done it and was muttering "I love you" during that oh so touching speech last night, you would call it for what it is too: FAKE.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 27, 2008 1:11 PM


Alexandra: "No matter how much longer it had to last? Is there a point at which a person is not legally responsible for keeping another alive? "

With a parent? The point would be when there is a suitable alternative or when the offspring can survive on their own. This is how our society works, as you admited earlier. If there is no such point, then there is no point that a parent can relinquish themselves.

This is sad, but frankly, thats how a social contract works. We take part in society and as a result owe certain responsiblities to that society, such as not killing each other, etc. One of those responsibilities is to care for those responsible to you. If there is no alternative, you are responsible. If you have a Down Syndrome child that cannot be adopted for whatever reason, wouldnt you think that the parent would be responsible for this child until the child dies? Would you think it morally just for the parent to just refuse to feed the child until it starved to death? I would hope not. It is a rare circumstance, and neither examples exist in reality, but I think that as comfortable that you would be in saying that a person's right to bodily autonomy could be justifiably violated in such a way, I would be comfortable to say that a person's right to bodily autonomy could be violated in such a way.


Alexandria: "If a woman for some reason had to wait seven months, and just heat up some noodles once a day, before she could put her kids up for adoption, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would have a problem with our society putting her in that position because I would view it as a failure of the social structure, but as I've said, I don't really view heating up a meal once a day as being appropriately analogous to pregnancy."

!

You say it isnt analogous to pregnancy, so explain to me why the violation to the rights of Privacy and Property are justified but not the right to bodily autonomy. Actually, the mother is required to breast feed, which is a sacrifice to her bodily autonomy.

How is it any different than pregnancy? If you do not think that a violation to privacy/property with a length of time analogous to pregnancy in a scenario analogous to pregnancy (care for a child) is unjust, then what makes the violation during pregnancy unjust? You may say "oh because the right being violated is the right to bodily domain." Well lets go back to our twin analogy

Alexandria: "I think that as far as the twins are concerned, it's also not the same. One is not inside the body of the other."

Yes they are in a certain sense. Besides, why does the "inside" nature of the violation to bodily autonomy matter? Would it be any different if the preborn was attached to your hip? Both pose violations to bodily autonomy and you know that.


Alexandra: "That is to say, the body equally belongs to both of them. This is not the case with pregnancy, where the woman's body belongs entirely to her."

The body actually does not belong to both. In cases where the bodies are clearly separated, they each have their own bodies. They just share nutrients, exactly like in a pregnancy, unless of course you are trying to assert that a preborn is part of the woman's body.

If the stronger twin cannot choose to separate by the first surgery, then it is clear that when there is a conflict of rights in such a case that the only ethical situation is to preserve the rights of both individuals as much as possible. Abortion in the sense to avoid the Labor and Delivery pains is not justified then. The rights of the preborn must be balanced with the rights of the mother as much as possible. Abortion kills the prebon, and still causes pain to the mother. Labor and Delivery saves the preborn, and causes pain, but only marginally more pain to the mother if done by C section.

If it is the case that the length of time of a violation is irrelevant to a violation of rights when the said violation is justified, as demonstrated in the "ramen noodle" case, then the justified violation to the mother's body (which is justified by the breast feeding example) cannot be avoided because it takes 7 months to reach fruition.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 1:12 PM


Alexandra,

"I think that as far as the twins are concerned, it's also not the same. One is not inside the body of the other. That is to say, the body equally belongs to both of them. This is not the case with pregnancy, where the woman's body belongs entirely to her."

But see the principal that you're using to justify abortion is the same. The principal is that no one has the right to use another person's body without their permission. That is precisely what is going on in the conjoined twin scenario; a body is being used without one's permission. If I have the absolute right to bodily ownership, so much so that I am allowed to directly and willfully kill a fetus who is using it for survival, why doesn't that same absolute bodily ownership allow me to "unplug" (to use a word from our favorite author Judith Jarvis Thompson) myself from my conjoined twin? My body is being used by another without my permission.

See, the only way I've seen PCers get out of this one is to say that the twins both have full bodily autonomy while the fetus does not. But now you've got a personhood theory. One is now claiming that in order to be a person, they must have "bodily autonomy." This of course, makes the "bodily autonomy in favor of abortion-rights" argument a moot point. One might as well argue that the fetus isn't a person until consciousness, or viability, or until it has white skin, or sentence, or first breath. So we're back to focusing on the nature of the fetus rather than the rights of the mother.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 27, 2008 1:13 PM


Erin: "Lol, that's right, Oliver. The president only has control over those things if you want him to. Like how it wasn't Bush's fault that gas prices went up and now it's because of him that they're going down. "

I am certainly not claiming anything economic, positive or negative, on Bush in full. Most of the economy is not governed by the president. If you remember back to economics class you will know who really controls the economy.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 1:15 PM


Erin:
Him getting a BJ from an intern is not.

Character matters.

If a man can't be trusted to follow his marriage vows, why should we trust him in other areas? Why would we trust him to fulfill his oath of office?

If he'll lie to his wife, why should we believe that he'll tell us the truth?

Character matters.

Besides, it was NOW who first taught me that the Personal is Political. A man who treats women like disposable objects in his personal life cannot be trusted to be the Chief Executive of our country. NOW seems to have forgotten that point in their love affair with Bill Clinton (except for Dulles NOW!), but this former NOW member has not forgotten....

Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 1:18 PM


Bobby,

Be careful with the twin scenario. I hate using it because it gets very complicated. In a situation where there are no physical threats, most doctors follow the "quality of life" argument to justify separation.

In my example, this isnt the case. It isnt a case of living with someone your whole life, because neither is pregnancy. The question is "can you justify the destruction of someone else, even when there is an alternative, as long as the destruction option provides less violation to bodily domain."

The obvious answer is no, of course not. This basically means that you cannot abort to prevent labor and delivery because the labor and delivery would be the most ethical response to the "horrible accident" of pregnancy. If we go for abortion because it is less painful than labor and delivery we are essentially asserting that you can kill your conjoined twin because the first surgery is less painful.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 1:20 PM


Elizabeth- except you won't see that from Republicans. They like to keep their women in the kitchen popping out babies like a 'good woman' should.

They also like to keep their black people in the dark rooms under the house and be called 'massa'.

No wonder the Repubs are so pissed about our party this year.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 1:30 PM


That was out of line, I apologize.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 1:33 PM


Good one Erin! All those Republican women want to just stay in the kitchen popping out babies!! And all those black Republicans like to be slaves in the basement! You go girl!

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 1:35 PM


Maybe you are just getting frustrated because you have little support for your beliefs on abortion?

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 1:36 PM


Oliver- I have tons of support. Perhaps not on this blog, but on tons of other forums and from tons of other people. I get frustrated by people who can't appreciate the smallest thing about people they disagree with.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 1:39 PM


I mean reasoning. You cant reason why its a moral action. You may have "support" from other people who believe the same, but you know that is not what I am talking about.

Over half of the population "supports" abortion. I am sure though that most of the supporters dont really know what they think. I frequently run into people who say that they are in fact "pro-choice" but only in the case of rape and when the mother's life is threatened....which is a "pro-life" stance. Most people cannot justify to themselves or to anyone the destruction of a preborn because "they dont want a kid." Give it up for adoption.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 1:44 PM


" The question is whether we view sharing your body with another person for nine months to be an effort we legally require. I don't. I think it's nice, certainly, and often the "right" thing to do, objectively, but I don't support requiring it.

We have had this conversation before.
Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 11:47 AM

Alexandra, how can you support a woman's right to abort her child if you think that sharing her body for nine months is "the right thing to do, objectively" ? By stating it thus, you are implying that carrying a pregnancy to term is the moral thing to do. I think that you are listening to that small voice known as a conscience which is Natural Law implanted by a loving God in every man and woman's heart.

Posted by: Eileen at August 27, 2008 1:45 PM


My belief is that I do what is right for me. An abortion was right for me. End of story.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 1:46 PM


My belief is that I do what is right for me. I killed the store clerk and took his money and it was right for me. End of story.


Brilliant!!

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 1:50 PM


A prime example of Moral Relativism, unfortunately.

Posted by: Eileen at August 27, 2008 2:01 PM


Erin,

Listen, I have no problem with you as a person. You may have support from people on other blogs. That is fine. That has no bearing on my opinion of abortion in general or the fact that you've had an abortion. You had one. Fine. I have my opinions on abortion, and no matter how many other things I like about you, I will NEVER condone your abortion. If it's the end of story, then move on, and stop trying to convince me I should think your abortion and your reasons for having an abortion are right and okay. I don't think they are. End of story.

Oh, and I'm glad you apologized for your earlier comment because it was TOTALLY uncalled for and definitely NOT related to any point I was trying to make.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 27, 2008 2:21 PM


Erin:
Him getting a BJ from an intern is not.

Erin,
It matters very much. He did this on our tax payer money. At work, in his office, on the job, while on the phone talking to world leaders.

Do you know of anyone who could sit at their desk on the phone at work, have oral sex with an intern and not get fired for their actions??

Posted by: Sandy at August 27, 2008 2:26 PM


Eesh, taking a break from dishes. What an awful chore.

Eileen, I do not think we should be legally forced to do something just because it is morally right. I think cheating on your spouse is morally wrong but should not be a crime, for example. Additionally, I do often feel that there is moral ambiguity surrounding the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Mostly I don't want to insert my morals into someone else's life.

Oliver and Bobby:

The body actually does not belong to both. In cases where the bodies are clearly separated, they each have their own bodies.

But it is still a unique relationship. If the separation will be risky, then they tend to be somewhat dependent on each other up until the point at which they are separated. There is a factor of co-dependency which is not there in pregnancy; both twins are using each other's bodies for survival. Even if one is stronger, if they are connected such that one could die by separating them but not so connected that to separate them would be to kill them, then I'm pretty sure they are sharing their bodies to an extent that neither is merely supporting the other.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 2:29 PM


More pragmatically speaking, I think that women not wanting to be pregnant is a fairly universal phenomenon, in that for most of recorded history, some women have had reasons to want to terminate their pregnancy. Moreover, it's something that is within their power, provided they are willing to be self-destructive enough, which is something desperate people have in their favor. It's kind of a confluence of all of these factors -- that in no other situation do we require someone to share her body with another person, that the desire to terminate a pregnancy is understandable, and that the means to terminate a pregnancy, while frequently damaging, is often at the hands of the woman in question. I'm all in favor of providing resources to make abortion less attractive as an option, or trying to change women's minds, or putting some restrictions on abortion (ie parental consent, counseling, etc). I just really think that making it a crime is not the best solution.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 27, 2008 2:32 PM


-Exactly: In your opinion. Mine is, having a baby shouldn't be used as a form of punishment to chastise women for making choices that counter to someone else's morality.

Erin: who says the baby is a form of punishment? YOU. If that's how you view things, DONT have sex because eventually you will likely get pregnant. It's not a sneeze to snuff out another person's life you know.

Too bad you view a baby as a punishment. Babies are a sign of the love between two people.


Good points Danielle. The fact that some women regret their decision is not a reason to take the right to make the decision away from others. Some women regret dropping out of college, but we don't make that illegal. I could give 100 other examples. Adults in free socieities make decisions and live with the consequences. (yes, "the baby is the one who suffers the consequenes" I know, I know.)

Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 11:28 AM

what a load of nonsense this entire paragraph is?
It's not about "regret" it's about the harm being done to women, babies !, men and society as a whole.
To compare abortion - the DEATH of a baby with droppiing out of college is sick! One involves the death of a human being - I don't know of too many college drop-outs who die because of their decision.
Yes we know how inconsequential you consider the death of a baby, Hal.

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 2:48 PM


My belief is that I do what is right for me. An abortion was right for me. End of story.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 1:46 PM

and my question to you Erin, is what about doing what is right for the innocent unborn baby? Or are you the only person that matters all the time?

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 2:51 PM


"Lets apply that same exact motive to a living child. Is it okay to destroy your child "because you do not want a child?"

Of course not. That would be murder! How is different Danielle? Im curious what your thoughts are."
Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 11:19 AM

My thoughts are - you're right. It is not okay to destroy a living child. Yes, that is murder.

No, I don't apply the same argument to abortion because it is not murder to me.

Yes, I believe a fetus/pre-born/zygote/etc is living and that by aborting it, you are ending a form of life.

No, I do not believe that a fetus/pre-born/zygote/etc is the same as a fully formed, breathing, living newborn. It has the potential to become a baby as it gestates, but so long at it requires my body to sustain life, it is a part of my body. A life form, but not a fully realized baby.

Yes, my argument applies to extremely premature babies who are born months early and who without extensive, significant medical intervention, would not survive on their own.

Yes, I believe that these babies should get the rigorous medical care that they receive once they are born. Why? The reasons are complex. Because once you're born, you're born. Because of the family. Because of the mother. To them, this is a baby they'll do anything to protect. For the same reasons you cannot force a woman to abort or view the life inside as you do, you also cannot dispute a woman's wishes to carry a pregnancy to term and protect it.

This is the disconnect (one of many)- being PC does not mean you don't support the desires and needs of pregnant women who have every intention of seeing out their pregnancies and becoming mothers. This is why mothers and pregnant women volunteer or work at Planned Parenthood or other clinics.

I really don't know how else to explain it.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 2:57 PM


Alexanda : "But it is still a unique relationship. If the separation will be risky, then they tend to be somewhat dependent on each other up until the point at which they are separated. There is a factor of co-dependency which is not there in pregnancy; both twins are using each other's bodies for survival. Even if one is stronger, if they are connected such that one could die by separating them but not so connected that to separate them would be to kill them, then I'm pretty sure they are sharing their bodies to an extent that neither is merely supporting the other."

Actually, as Im sure you know but you are failing to consider, the preborn does pose a sort of risk if separated improperly. This is called placenta abruptia/previa if I am spelling it correctly. My wife actually had both during her first pregnancy, essentially the preborn was "trying" to separate at the cost of causing my wife to hemmorage. The situations are remarkably similar in how they use each others body. Imagine if you will that the twins are not dependent on each other. Only the weaker twin needs the stronger one. The question still is relevant. Does the stronger twin have the right to choose the easiest surgery at no matter the cost of the weaker twin?


Alexandra: "More pragmatically speaking, I think that women not wanting to be pregnant is a fairly universal phenomenon, in that for most of recorded history, some women have had reasons to want to terminate their pregnancy. Moreover, it's something that is within their power, provided they are willing to be self-destructive enough, which is something desperate people have in their favor."

There have been murders since the begining of humanity. How does that help justify it? It has been shown that humans will frequently abuse morality, why would you be suprised that they would do the same with abortion?

Alexandra: "It's kind of a confluence of all of these factors -- that in no other situation do we require someone to share her body with another person"

We require a mother to breast feed if formula is not an option, unless she provides a suitable alternative - adoption.


Alexandra: "that the desire to terminate a pregnancy is understandable"

By that logic, we could say that certain murders are "understandable."

Alexandra: "and that the means to terminate a pregnancy, while frequently damaging, is often at the hands of the woman in question."

Actually, few women abort the preborn themselves. They have someone else do the job.

Alexandra: "I'm all in favor of providing resources to make abortion less attractive as an option, or trying to change women's minds, or putting some restrictions on abortion (ie parental consent, counseling, etc). I just really think that making it a crime is not the best solution."

Im also all for limiting murders, getting people to change their mind, etc etc, but I still dont think that because I want to limit it, that I can justify the law not existing.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 2:57 PM


"-Exactly: In your opinion. Mine is, having a baby shouldn't be used as a form of punishment to chastise women for making choices that counter to someone else's morality.

Erin: who says the baby is a form of punishment? YOU. If that's how you view things, DONT have sex because eventually you will likely get pregnant. It's not a sneeze to snuff out another person's life you know.

Too bad you view a baby as a punishment. Babies are a sign of the love between two people."
Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 2:48 PM


-Actually, Patricia, that was me. Not Erin. And, no, having a baby isn't punishment in and of itself. Forcing a woman to have a baby against her will, as payment or restitution for her 'moral defects' ("you made your bed now lie in it") IS an act of punishment.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 3:03 PM


No, I do not believe that a fetus/pre-born/zygote/etc is the same as a fully formed, breathing, living newborn. It has the potential to become a baby as it gestates, but so long at it requires my body to sustain life, it is a part of my body. A life form, but not a fully realized baby.

It's NOT part of your body though Danielle. That just it. It has different DNA, it's own blood, a beating heart 22 days after fertilization and has circulating blood at day 24. Muscle movement is controlled by the nervous system at 6 weeks. While the child does require you to live, it will also require you to live after birth as well.
As for the potential - we could say that you had the potential to reach adulthood at age 10. You were not an adult at age 10, so is it okay for us to do something to prevent you from attaining adulthood? You are arguing about the unborn babies personhood based on it's stage of development.

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 3:07 PM


Danielle: "My thoughts are - you're right. It is not okay to destroy a living child. Yes, that is murder.

No, I don't apply the same argument to abortion because it is not murder to me."

Oh great thoughts. It isnt because it isnt.

Danielle: "Yes, I believe a fetus/pre-born/zygote/etc is living and that by aborting it, you are ending a form of life.

No, I do not believe that a fetus/pre-born/zygote/etc is the same as a fully formed, breathing, living newborn."

I dont believe a newborn is the same as an adult. Why is it any different then? Did you know that newborns do not have self-awareness? Did you know that there are several animals that have more awareness than a newborn, yet no human is responsible to ensure their survival and medical care etc. How is a newborn any different than a preborn?

Danielle: "It has the potential to become a baby as it gestates, but so long at it requires my body to sustain life, it is a part of my body."

What???? Its part of your body?? Thats the most scientifically inaccurate statement I have seen. A preborn is NOT a part of the mother's body.

And anyways, thats like saying a newborn is a part of the mother's body as long as it requires breast milk. Why can we not then kill a newborn?

Danielle: "A life form, but not a fully realized baby."

Newborns are life forms, but not a fully realized adult. So what?

Danielle: "Yes, my argument applies to extremely premature babies who are born months early and who without extensive, significant medical intervention, would not survive on their own."

You mean to say of course that after they are born early, they are still part of their mother right. LOL. Seriously.

Danielle: "Yes, I believe that these babies should get the rigorous medical care that they receive once they are born. Why? The reasons are complex. Because once you're born, you're born."


Ah you are right...very very complex...when something is born it is born. That explains why abortion is okay when its inside but not when its outside!

Danielle: "Because of the family. Because of the mother. To them, this is a baby they'll do anything to protect."

And if the mother decides she does not want the baby to live, she has the right to "choose" that as well right?

Danielle: "For the same reasons you cannot force a woman to abort or view the life inside as you do, you also cannot dispute a woman's wishes to carry a pregnancy to term and protect it."

Who said that a woman has to have an abortion? We are saying that it is wrong to have one and thats it.

Danielle: "This is the disconnect (one of many)- being PC does not mean you don't support the desires and needs of pregnant women who have every intention of seeing out their pregnancies and becoming mothers. This is why mothers and pregnant women volunteer or work at Planned Parenthood or other clinics."

Who cares if you support women who dont want abortions. Thats the same as saying "Well I mean, I support those who dont want to murder random people, that means that its okay to not make it a law to not murder random people."


Danielle: "I really don't know how else to explain it."

Thats because there really is no good justification other than "I really feel like its right." Sure you have to ultimately rely on "intuitions" and such, but if you actually examine your "intuition" here you will find that it in fact conflicts with your other "intuitions" about morality. Thats why you are confused in your explanation.

A newborn has no special aspect to it that makes it different from a preborn other than it made it outside the womb. Why would one have rights and not the other?

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 3:11 PM


Yes, because God forbid anybody deal with the consequences of their actions. We wouldn't want that, because then we would be "punishing" them. No, it's called cause and effect. You teach it to kids when they're verrrrry little. Actions have consequences. Don't want to deal with the consequences? Think before you act.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 27, 2008 3:12 PM


What the...Patricia beat me to half my points...

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 3:14 PM


The bottom line is that the above proabort arguments are made to rationalize the decision to abort.
If you do some research Erin about the development of the baby you will learn exactly how developed your baby was when he/she was aborted. Please try to face the facts.
I'm wondering if you had an ultrasound before your abortion?

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 3:27 PM


Patricia, as usual you hit the nail on the head (post-3:27 pm) If there was ever an example of anyone talking out of both sides of their mouths it is those who posted this afternoon! There is no way one can possibly wrap one's mind around their thinking -- it is so illogical.

Posted by: Eileen at August 27, 2008 3:50 PM


"Thats because there really is no good justification other than "I really feel like its right." Sure you have to ultimately rely on "intuitions" and such, but if you actually examine your "intuition" here you will find that it in fact conflicts with your other "intuitions" about morality. Thats why you are confused in your explanation."
Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 3:11 PM

-No, actually I'm quite clear. I'm not confused by my position in the least. You just don't agree with my position and I don't believe as you believe. Done.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 3:50 PM


Danielle,

You said you had no other way to explain your position, and then everything you said made little sense, including the gem that the preborn is a physical part of the mother's body.

I dont know any other way to interpret your position than of one who is confused. I seriously doubt its the alternative....

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 3:56 PM


Erin wrote:
Actually, Patricia, that was me. Not Erin. And, no, having a baby isn't punishment in and of itself. Forcing a woman to have a baby against her will, as payment or restitution for her 'moral defects' ("you made your bed now lie in it") IS an act of punishment.

Two points for you to consider.

Firstly, a woman who becomes pregnant already has a child. She can choose to carry that child to term and delivery, or (sadly) she can choose to kill the child. But either way, she has a child. If she didn't want a child, she should have taken steps to prevent the child from being created. However, even if the child was conceived against her will, that doesn't change the facts of conception. A child is a child, no matter how she came to be created.

Abortion isn't an "undo" option that magically reverses pregnancy. A woman who has an abortion is still a mother. The only difference is that her child is now dead.

Secondly, motherhood is not a punishment, but rather a blessing. If you choose to see it as a punishment, your choice says a lot more about you than it does about motherhood....

Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 3:57 PM


I dont know any other way to interpret your position than of one who is confused. I seriously doubt its the alternative....
Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 3:56 PM

-That's fine too, if you want to label me confused (or callous or cavalier or ignorant, etc). These are all circular, never-ending arguments. You are pro-life, I am pro-choice. We have fundamental disagreements on life, birth, choice, religion and the interpretation of it. No amount of posting b/f, shouting, pissing matches, etc. will change our viewpoints. You work hard for your end, I work hard for mine. It's cool. I know where I stand and where you stand.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 4:04 PM


so sad -- hate the sin -- not the sinner. God is always ready to welcome home the prodigal. No one is won over by vicious attacks.

Posted by: Eileen at August 27, 2008 4:06 PM


Thank you, Oliver.

After I got done convulsing over So Sad's comment I was going to write essentially what you wrote, except you beat me to it. Good job. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 27, 2008 4:06 PM


Danielle: "It has the potential to become a baby as it gestates, but so long at it requires my body to sustain life, it is a part of my body."

Oliver: What???? Its part of your body?? Thats the most scientifically inaccurate statement I have seen. A preborn is NOT a part of the mother's body.
***********************************

Oliver, you beat me to that one. :D

That statement is absolutely absurd.

If, for example, you are pregnant with a male child (and golly gee, the sex is determined at *gasp* CONCEPTION), then it is not a "part" of your FEMALE body.

Danielle: "A life form, but not a fully realized baby."
***********************************

A "life form"?? What type of life form, exactly? It is a human life. The only difference between that "life form" and the "fully realized baby" (whatever that means) is growth. DNA does not change.

BTW, when does a baby become "fully realized?" When you see it on the ultrasound? When you feel it kicking inside you? When it is fully and completely born and takes its first breath? Maybe when you give it a name?
I am wondering what's so "magical" about the six inches between pre-birth and birth that makes a baby "fully realized."

I fully realized I was carrying my baby the day I found out I was pregnant. I didn't wonder "what" I was carrying, or if it was human, or if it was part me, part my husband.

What kind of language must we use to continue to delude ourselves against the obvious humanity of the unborn??

Posted by: Kel at August 27, 2008 4:07 PM


so sad is apparently very, very sad. Don't post that kind of garbage here ever again, please.

Posted by: Kel at August 27, 2008 4:09 PM


Can there be a discussion without the coarse language, please?

Posted by: Eileen at August 27, 2008 4:11 PM


Yes, because God forbid anybody deal with the consequences of their actions. We wouldn't want that, because then we would be "punishing" them. No, it's called cause and effect. You teach it to kids when they're verrrrry little. Actions have consequences. Don't want to deal with the consequences? Think before you act.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 27, 2008 3:12 PM
******************************

Agreed, Elizabeth.

I think a huge problem in society today is that we can't see past our selves to think about anything else. It's "look out for number one" and all that, you know.

Even the very thought of "I have to SHARE MY BODY with somebody else for nine months" is an extremely narcissistic and sick view of the process of pregnancy/motherhood. Good grief.

Posted by: Kel at August 27, 2008 4:12 PM


Danielle: "That's fine too, if you want to label me confused (or callous or cavalier or ignorant, etc). These are all circular, never-ending arguments."

Not if you actually appeal to principles, and not to "I think its right duh."

You know this because you attempted to appeal to principles but when faced with objections instead of analyzing the issue, you resort to "well this is how I feel. Humph."

"You are pro-life, I am pro-choice. We have fundamental disagreements on life, birth, choice, religion and the interpretation of it. No amount of posting b/f, shouting, pissing matches, etc. will change our viewpoints. You work hard for your end, I work hard for mine. It's cool. I know where I stand and where you stand. "

I have actually seen a handful of people change their mind about pro-life versus pro-choice. My whole goal is not to strictly covert you, but to find a way to articulate the position clearly and concisely so that I can eventually push the philosophy on mainstream America so that they can decide for themselves. I am sure that I will eventually be successful.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 4:13 PM


It would help if critical thinking was taught in schools again. It seems that public school education (and some private schools for that matter) has been "dumbed down" to such a degree that moral relativism has established a stronghold. That can be plainly seen in pro-abortion advocates' arguments.

Posted by: Eileen at August 27, 2008 4:20 PM


Hey, Patricia, did you know that a mother is supposed to put her own well-being before that of her children?

Why do you think it is that a person is instructed to put their masks on in case of depressurization on a plane before helping anyone else?

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 4:23 PM


my apologies Danielle! I must have got confused there!

my 11 year old wants the proaborts on this board to look up "baby" on wikipedia!

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 4:24 PM


"Pro-Choice boys are going to let the woman decide what is best, they're not going to try and "encourage" (or otherwise act against) the woman against her will."

Bethany: Doug, 64 percent of abortions are coerced abortions.* Please don't be naive.

You personally may not encourage an abortion from anyone. That may be true. But to assume that ALL people on your side are equally 'fair' is a bit naive.

* VM Rue et. al., ?Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,? Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16 (2004). http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=11784

Bethany, that file isn't opening up for me. What is a .php file, anyway?

I'm wondering what the definition of "coerced," they were using is.

Regardless, if the guy is pushing his own agenda, rather than going with what the woman wants, then he's not being Pro-Choice, in the first place.
......


(And I put 'fair' in quotes, because leaving the woman alone to figure out for herself what to do in an emotional crisis situation is anything but fair to the woman. I would be so extremely hurt if the person I loved and trusted was so non-supportive and nonchalant during a time when I needed him the most)

Yeah, and you wouldn't want him acting against you or for him to encourage you to do what you don't want to.

Posted by: Doug at August 27, 2008 4:26 PM


Erin, I'll try to answer -- so that she can come to the assistance of her children. If a woman can't come to the assistance of her unborn child then give it to someone who can (adoption). I was blessed with an adopted child.

Posted by: Eileen at August 27, 2008 4:28 PM


Why do you think it is that a person is instructed to put their masks on in case of depressurization on a plane before helping anyone else?
Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 4:23 PM
**********************************

Probably so they don't pass out while trying to help save the lives of the passengers around them...unlike those who choose abortion, who seek self-preservation (in the largest percentage of cases) and disregard the lives of those dependent upon them.

Posted by: Kel at August 27, 2008 4:29 PM


Eileen- I'm an adopted child. That's fine for women who choose to gestate and give away the newborn. But some people don't want to gestate for 9 months or have the time for it.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 4:44 PM


Erin,

"Or have the time for it."

Most women dont have to "do" anything for their pregnancy except eat some more food and take some vitamins. You can even just walk into a hospital and deliver the baby.

Ive known several women that worked, relatively physical jobs (mail room type jobs) up to the day of pregnancy. Besides, they dont need to go that far. If they can make it to 33 weeks or so, it would be good enough to save the perborn child's life.

Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 4:50 PM


"Danielle: "That's fine too, if you want to label me confused (or callous or cavalier or ignorant, etc). These are all circular, never-ending arguments."

Not if you actually appeal to principles, and not to "I think its right duh."

You know this because you attempted to appeal to principles but when faced with objections instead of analyzing the issue, you resort to "well this is how I feel. Humph."
Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 4:13 PM


Unless I'm directly asked for a response, this will be my last response to this thread.

Here's another place where we differ: You disagree that we are having a never ending argument, because if 'sound principles' are presented, then there is ultimately a right answer(and someone wins the argument and case closed).

It has never been my intent to 'win arguments' here. I don't need to be a right-fighter. I don't need to prove my position. I already knew the outcome of this discussion before I opted to reveal some more texture around why am pro-choice. The parsing of text, the refutement, the scrutiny - knew it was coming and did it anyway. Because, for me, its just worth it to put my voice out there, whether anyone agrees or not.

I have no delusions of converting ANYONE who is pro-life on this board. None. Sometimes I wonder why I bother checking this damn site (masochism?). Although I'm somewhat active in the pro-choice movement (via volunteering), I usually work within the confines of those who are also pro-choice. I don't bait fights. If I find out someone's pro-life I don't ask why - don't even bother, because it's irrelevant. I don't intend for others to walk away feeling as I do, I simply respect the opinion and move on to shore up my side as I can (by donating time, money and legislative support).

The only time this becomes an issue is when faced with active or physical opposition. Then we have a problem. I'm totally ok with someone being pro-life, having 50 babies, not taking BC, whatever. Just don't try to stop me from making THIS very personal decision within my own life. I swear, I can't even believe that we have to even discuss abortion (outside of our own homes) at all. It should be such a non-issue for anyone who is not the two people involved in the center (woman/man). It's sooo none of anyone's business.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 27, 2008 4:58 PM


Sorry! Anon 4:58 = Danielle

Forgot to tag.

Posted by: Danielle at August 27, 2008 4:59 PM


Eileen- I'm an adopted child. That's fine for women who choose to gestate and give away the newborn. But some people don't want to gestate for 9 months or have the time for it.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 4:44 PM

This is a somewhat selfish viewpoint. You don't have the "time" for a pregnancy - so that's the excuse for aborting the baby? Please. This is so navel gazing it's pathetic.
Oliver, you beat me to it this time!

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 5:00 PM


"I can't even believe that we have to even discuss abortion (outside of our own homes) at all. It should be such a non-issue for anyone who is not the two people involved in the center (woman/man). It's sooo none of anyone's business"

You know, this was the logic used to defend child abuse as well. "Why should we have to talk about this at all, it happens in our homes and it is soo none of anyone's business!"

WE talk about it because there are more people involved than simply the woman/man...there is also a child. I know the pro-choicers like to ignore this fact, but that doesn't make it go away.

THAT is why it is an issue. I don't care if you dress up like Santa and choke yourself for sexual pleasure, I really don't care about anyone elses sex life, but I care when someone's sex life leads to the creation of a child that they subsequently kill.

Posted by: lauren at August 27, 2008 5:11 PM


Hey, Patricia, did you know that a mother is supposed to put her own well-being before that of her children?

Why do you think it is that a person is instructed to put their masks on in case of depressurization on a plane before helping anyone else?

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 4:23

Erin,
False argument. She takes oxygen so she can save her children not let them die. Do you know anything about your own mother?

I find it interesting that your own mother gave you life so you could live to fulfill your dreams and you took the life of your baby so you could fulfill your dreams.

How selfish. How sad.

Posted by: Sandy at August 27, 2008 5:23 PM


Drew Mariani is talking about BAIPA, Jill should be on soon. 930 AM

Posted by: Janet at August 27, 2008 5:40 PM


My name is Erin, and I am codependant. Being called selfish is music to my ears!

Also, congratulations to Barack Obama for being nominated by acclimation, and props to Hilary for having the grace to support her parties' unity.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 5:55 PM


Erin,
Support? Unity? That whole show last night was about Hillary not Obama. Her speech was about as superficial as it could have been. There were Hillary signs everywhere as she spoke.

Hillary's speech included very cursory endorsement snipets. Michelle looked like she was going to attack the stage if she had the chance. I could see the tension in her face.
From what I understand today from watching several news sources, nobody thinks this convention is going well for Obama. I can't wait to see what Bill has to say. This is just going to get even more interesting.

Posted by: Sandy at August 27, 2008 6:07 PM


I agree that Michelle Obama looked like she was about to attack!

I have never seen such a forced smile! I mean, seriously, you could have cut that tension with a knife!

Posted by: lauren at August 27, 2008 6:28 PM


From what I understand today from watching several news sources, nobody thinks this convention is going well for Obama. I can't wait to see what Bill has to say. This is just going to get even more interesting.

Posted by: Sandy at August 27, 2008 6:07 PM

This is what I've heard up here in Canuck land as well. Some people feel that Ted Kennedy stole the show the other night from Obama.

So Erin, in what way does having an abortion impact a codependent person?

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 6:38 PM


Lauren,
She looked like a mad mad woman. The ony time she did force herself to smile is when her name was mentioned and she KNEW she would be on camera.

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall when all of these behind the scene discussions are being had?? I think Hillary's speech just invoked more of her supporters feelings that they wanted her for the nomination not Obama.

Posted by: Sandy at August 27, 2008 6:57 PM


Patricia- it depends on the person. In my case, an abortion was me performing a high degree of self-care. Lots of times people call self-care selfish. It is up to the recovering codependent to be able to understand her own needs and ignore or distance herself from those who would encourage her to remain unhealthy.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 8:32 PM


Erin: are you saying that having the abortion was part of your recovery from codependency?

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 8:45 PM


Patricia- no, because I am just now starting my recovery. Actually, tomorrow I get my one-month chip at CoDA!

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 8:50 PM


Do you not think that your abortion was because of your codependency?

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 9:00 PM


why women choose abortion

Women and men chose abortion for a variety of reasons. Abortion Recovery is available no matter how or why someone makes the choice to abort. Recovery does not discriminate.

1.Three decades of "programming" that it is a woman's body, a woman's right to choose

2. unchallenged lies in mainstream media, (many over a span of 30 years) such as:
Abortion is safer than having a baby
Abortion is a simple medical procedure like going to the dentist
Abortion has no lasting side-effects
Abortion is safe with little or no physical risks or complications
It's merely a blob of tissue (not a baby)
"You can have a baby later, when you're ready..."
Abortion is the solution to the problem
Abstinence pledges don't work
Abstinence isn't cool
"Everybody's doin' it"
"Safe sex" philosophy
Pressure (including threats) from outside influences: the father of the baby, the girl's parents, friends, etc.
Pressures from social standards relating to career-minded women
Bad timing: too young; in high school; aspirations of getting a college degree; etc.
Perceived shame or exposure to gossip, ridicule, being judged, etc. were she to carry the baby to term (especially prevalent among Christians)
Financial issues
Domestic violence issues ("Better off dead" line of thinking)
Marital problems
Medical reasons - upon advice from physician
Fear of having to raise the child alone (Single-parenting)
Date rape
Rape (by a stranger)
Incest (protection of the "family secret" and the family's reputation)(Fueled by the prevalence of pornography in our society)
Fear of abandonment
Fear of the responsibilities of parenting
Emotional immaturity
Codependency
Victim mentality (history of sexual abuse)
Wrong view or understanding of God
Lack of abstinence education/Errant sex education in public schools
Prevalence and social acceptance of premarital and extramarital sex
Diminished responsibility for personal actions within our society
Lack of awareness of consequences for personal actions within our society
Propagation of a basic self-centered mindset within our society (The "It's all about me" mentality)
Relaxed social norms relating to sexual issues on TV and in movies
Propagation of situational ethics
Seared conscience
Idea of abortion as birth control (Widespread acceptance and legitimization of birth control)
Absence of testimonials from those who have had abortions and how their lives have been affected as a result


This is from the following site:
http://www.abortionrecovery.org/aboutabortion/whywomenchooseabortion/tabid/228/Default.aspx


Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 9:03 PM


To the contrary, Patricia, I find it to be a moment of strength. A moment where I actually focused on what was best for ME. In fact, I find that assertion to be something I'm very proud of.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 9:04 PM


*sigh* Patricia, I have a feeling you have no idea what codependency really is.

Posted by: Erin at August 27, 2008 9:07 PM


well I do know a little about codependency since I was married to a man where this was a problem in his family, particularly among his parents. His father was an alcoholic.

To quite honest Erin, I am shocked that you would think that killing your unborn child, would be an empowering, assertive action and a healthy one. How can the death of another innocent person be a healthy choice, especially in your circumstances.
I think you will likely come to the conclusion one day that there WAS another way.
You could have given that child life and then moved on to deal with your personal problems.
The death of your child will not make you healthier, it will likely lead to more problems down the road.
Whoever sold you this lie should be ashamed.

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 9:16 PM


Patricia, well said.

Posted by: Jasper at August 27, 2008 9:18 PM


well others have said it much better than I jasper

"No one can live happily who considers only himself. You must live for others if you wish to live for yourself." Seneca

And of course your very own Ben Franklin:

"A person wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle."

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 9:43 PM


I dont know, some people suggest that killing period is a powerful asserting sensation.

Posted by: Oliver at August 27, 2008 10:19 PM


I dont know, some people suggest that killing period is a powerful asserting sensation.

Posted by: Oliver at August 27, 2008 10:19 PM

so is abandoning a spouse for another, so I've read......

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 10:32 PM


so is abandoning a spouse for another, so I've read......

Posted by: Patricia at August 27, 2008 10:32 PM

..................................

Have you considered professional help for your abandonment issues? It's not healthy to go on blaming everything and everyone you fear for your failed marriage.

Posted by: Sally at August 27, 2008 11:03 PM


Have you considered professional help for your abandonment issues? It's not healthy to go on blaming everything and everyone you fear for your failed marriage.

Posted by: Sally at August 27, 2008 11:03 PM

Thank you Sally for your once again, very charitable response. I have received some wonderful Catholic counselling and am quite at peace with what happened.
I have read however, that for men, in particular, who abandon their spouses, it has been likened to the adolescent experience of leaving home. Very immature men have stated feeling a strong sense of empowerment and assertiveness in doing this to someone they are supposed to love and protect. A good counsellor does not "enable" the husband in such actions but in fact encourages him to stay in the marriage and work on "maturing".

It sounds like Erin has had the typical counselling that most people receive today - which is to empower oneself at all costs, regardless of who gets hurt.

Posted by: Patricia at August 28, 2008 8:05 AM


Selfishness is a losing proposition.

"Then he said to them all: 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?'"
(Luke 9:23-25)

The "modern" notions of self-empowerment and "good" selfishness are not new ideas. In fact, they can be traced right back to that fateful day in the Garden of Eden. True life can only be found in living for God and other people.

Posted by: Naaman at August 28, 2008 8:35 AM


Patricia, Unfortunately, you are right about counseling by secular therapists. The husband of someone close to me has been enabled by his therapists to remain a "victim" and to continually have excuses for his behavior. The last secular therapist that he saw seemed to nurture this guy's anger. They are now being counseled by a Catholic marital therapist who is making him accountable for his actions and behavior. He is being told how to deal with his anger in a mature way and the vitally important issue of forgiveness is being addressed. Without the spiritual perspective that Christian therapists bring their can be no real healing.

Posted by: Eileen at August 28, 2008 8:40 AM


sorry -- typo --"their" should be "there"

Posted by: Eileen at August 28, 2008 8:41 AM


Patricia,
If I remember correctly Erin had just been awarded the lead role in a musical around the time she found out she was pregnant.
Unfortunately the character she was to play did not call for a pregnant woman.
Only if it had........

Posted by: Sandy at August 28, 2008 8:54 AM


"Dirt-bag to his wife"

This from a McCain supporter. McCain had numerous adulterous affairs and eventually abandoned his disfigured wife, who had waited for him while he was a POW, for a young drug-addict hieress.

Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2008 9:12 AM


Codependency
=
Wrong view or understanding of God?


Oh my. Don't tell HisMan.

Posted by: Hal at August 28, 2008 11:35 AM


Patricia,
If I remember correctly Erin had just been awarded the lead role in a musical around the time she found out she was pregnant.
Unfortunately the character she was to play did not call for a pregnant woman.
Only if it had........

Posted by: Sandy at August 28, 2008 8:54 AM

how many actresses do we know have been in this exact situation.
I believe Bette Davis stated she had 9 abortions.

Posted by: Patricia at August 28, 2008 11:45 AM


Am I allowed to call Question mark a name? Probably not...

Posted by: Oliver at August 28, 2008 1:47 PM


why women choose abortion

Actually, it's because:

Posted by: Doug at August 28, 2008 6:29 PM


First of all,
Jill, I appreciate what you are doing with your efforts in this blog.
Secondly,
recycling and taking care of the environment are not "hippie" qualities, just logical, since this earth is where we exist - eat, sleep, breath, procreate, etc. and we should take care of our own space.

And now for the the point...
Why do so many care more about the space they live in rather than who has the opportunity to live here? Why cheat someone out of the opportunity to exist? I'll bet most of the Pro-Choice people who commented on this blog would agree that they don't want someone else making decisions for them (that's what the "women should decide" argument is all about, right?). But know one talks about how incredibly contradictory this platform is --- I mean, those who believe this way don't want others to "choose" for them, while in at the same time, those who chose abortion took away the right to "choose" from someone else! It's completely illogical! Ironically enough, so many college campuses are filled with the Pro-Choice mentality and preach it from the rooftops, making themselves look as though they've learned nothing from "higher education." There's no true logic or reason in the Pro-Choice stance.

And to top it all off... abortion is incredibly selfish, since it's all about the person who couldn't make good decisions in the first place and now wants to do damage control for their plans, since another life wasn't in the plans! There's a reason we celebrate mothers and fathers; it's difficult, selfless and time-consuming work.
So, the person who calls himself or herself "Pro-Choice" is really allowing murder to be an option (an out) for someone makes a poor decision to not abstain, has a lack self-control, or is so selfish as to want to do only what it is he/she wants to do, knowing from sex ed. class that when a man and a woman have intercourse there's a possibility a child could come out of the situation.

Such basic logic, and yet so many refuse to see it because they are far too self-consumed.

*Any remember, a child is not guaranteed from having sex, only a potential blessing.

Posted by: ProudtobePro-Life at September 13, 2008 9:00 AM