New Stanek WND column, "Octomom's gift to the pro-life movement"

UPDATE, 3:55p: FYI, Americans United for Life also has model language for legislative consideration entitled, "Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies."
_______________

WND%20logo.gif

I don't know why Nadya Suleman opted for single, poverty-stricken motherhood on steroids, pun intended, undergoing the in vitro fertilization procedure several times to produce 14 children since 2001. The last eight were born Jan. 26....

But in one fell swoop Suleman has spotlighted problems with unregulated IVF and turned public opinion against unregulated IVF....

Now is the time for pro-lifers to introduce legislation in their states regulating IVF and with it regulating the creation and care of embryos.

There is perfect model language, introduced in the Georgia Senate last week, The Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act, SB169.

SB169 limits the number of embryos implanted to the same number fertilized, up to a maximum of 3, which will stop the practice of freezing human embryos and curtail selective reductions.

The bill defines ex utero embryos as human beings with inherent rights, so court disputes must be decided in the best interest of the embryo, not either parent fighting over the embryo.

SB169 goes much further, outlawing all forms of human cloning, creation of chimeras, etc. David Prentice of the Family Research Council has endorsed SB 169.

Importantly, the wording of SB169 attempts to take Catholic concerns about IVF into account. Crafters are hoping for the endorsement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, even today....

Continue reading my column today, "Octomom's gift to the pro-life movement," at WorldNetDaily.com.


Comments:

"But in one fell swoop Suleman has spotlighted problems with unregulated IVF and turned public opinion against unregulated IVF".

That's it exactly Jill. Public opinion has turned against UNREGULATED IVF as a result of Nadya Suleman. It hasn't turned public opinion about IVF in general. It has simply made it clear that strict regulations need to be in place restricting the number of enbryos that can be implanted, and severe consequences for a doctor that doesn't adhere to them.

It has also made it abundantly clear that just because a woman wants 14 children doesn't mean she should necessary have 14 children and is a good mother.

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 11:20 AM


Asitis, this legislation doesn't outlaw IVF, it places commonsense regulations on it. Did you read what I wrote?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 25, 2009 11:28 AM


Jill, are you kidding!!?

Your column explains IVF it harms women, it exploits women, it kills children at their embryonic stage of development. So you want to regulate it?!?!

I'll put this as simple as I can say it. To regulate something is to provide a how-to instruction manual. Pro-lifers should NOT be asking for instruction manuals on child-killing. They should be demanding criminalization.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at February 25, 2009 11:32 AM


Yes Jill, I did read what you wrote. Regardles of what THIS legislation does, it remains that many people on this site want to see IVF banned. They believe it is immoral.

Did you read what I wrote!? It was about public opinion.

Oh and while you're here.... I'm not so sure I buy the PR person's reason for dropping this case. Death threats against her? Possibly, but not very plausible. What is more plausible is that she finally woke up and realized that supporting/promoting this women could kill her career!

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 11:33 AM


Jill, I give you Cranky Catholic's comment above as Exhibit A.

Keep 'em coming...........

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 11:35 AM


I make no bones about this: I am 100% pro-choice, and know that making abortion illegal will be catastrophic for this country, and am utterly opposed to the whole conservative agenda and am disgusted by the narrow-mindedness,intolerance,self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the religious right. Which is not to say that am anti-christian. I have no problem with people being Christians; I am just opposed to their social and religious agenda.

I'm not sure about your claims about the dangers of In Vitro fertilization, but do think that the Octamom and her doctors were very irresponsible. They are and will be causing terrible difficulties for those unfortunate new borns and their older siblings.

With all due respect, what you claim in your latest post about "desire for population control" and the alleged evils of contraception etc is absolute hooey. This is nothing but conservative propoganda.

When you say that you want a return to "traditional morality", where no-one has sex before or outside of marriage,even adults who have never been married, there is no contraception,no abortion etc, is nonsense. This kind of idealized christian society has never existed in America or anywhere else. And it's a totally unrealistic goal,anyway.

I am not saying that people SHOULD be promiscuous, and engage in sex with whomever they want whenever they choose,with no regard for the consequences, and that I want abortions to happen, etc, but you cannot stop human nature and the sex drive. The fact remains that many people have been irresponsible sexually over the ages, and abortions, STDs,illegitimacy etc have been very common, and infanticide has been much more common over the centuries than most people realize.

Yes, it would be better if more people were responsible sexually and there were far fewer abortions, illegitimacy, incidences of STDs, fewer teenage pregnancies etc.

But the fact remains that condoms and contraceptives have prevented an enormous number of abortions in our time. To advocate making contraception illegal in America and that all unmarried people refrain from sex,
etc, and all that religious nonsense if not only unbelievable foolish but
absolutely insane. You conservatives just have totally unrealistic goals and expectations.

Pro-choicers like myself would be glad if there were no abortions,and it were possible to prevent all unwanted pregnancies, but this is totally unrealistic. It would also be wonderful if there were no poverty, unemployment, crime, disease, environemntal problems, hunger, famine, etc., and everybody got a good education,and there were peace,freedom, and contentment everywhere.

But abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Making them illegal will only be disastrously counterproductive, making a bad situation far, far worse. And there is absolutely no way to enforce laws against abortion,unlike other laws. Calling it "murder" is ludicrous. It's a necessary evil.

If this government would do more to subsidize poor mothers, married or single, and see to it that their poor, unwanted children got decent food, shelter,clothing, housing, education and medical care, abortion would be far rarer than today. But nooo- conservatives don't want that-it's socialism, and we don't want that here do we?

If it were possible for the private sector and charities to provide for the poor and unfortunate, and the government didn't need to do this, I would be all for it. But this is a totally unrealistic gola. It will bnever work.

Please don't assume that I'm a socialist, Marxist or communist. I'm anything but that. I believe in capitalism, but not the kind that abandons the poor and those out of work and leaves them at the mercy of fate.

That's what conservatives would do if they got their way. If you think Obama's plans to help the poor and umemployed are bad, the conservative agenda would be infinitely worse for this country.

Posted by: Robert Berger at February 25, 2009 11:38 AM


Hi Robert,

You raised too many issues to address. But I'll respond to a few.

First, expressing human sexuality is a behavior, it is not an uncontrollable animal instinct. While there have and always will be humans who cannot or don't want to control their sexual behavior, you must admit that throughout most of American history until the 1960s, humans controlled their sexuality to a much greater extent. The norm was to wait to have sex until married.

Second, contraceptives have most certainly not staved off abortion. With more access to contraceptives came more abortions. The statistics don't lie. Guttmacher even admits it isn't lack of contraceptives that gets girls pregnant, it's nonuse for the most part and misuse to a lesser degree.

Third, just because people will break laws is no reason not to make laws. Of course there will be mothers who abort no matter if it is legal or not. Making it illegal will certainly change behavior, I guarantee. But by your standards we should have no laws, because they are all broken.

Thanks again for writing, Robert. I appreciate that you comment on my blog.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 25, 2009 11:39 AM


Cranky, 11:32a: IVF is not going to go away. Your suggestion to outlaw it is not going to happen.

We can either stand aside and let the situation grow worse, or we can take advantage of the situation presented by Suleman to stop the freezing of human embryos, which will stop them from being killed through escr or neglect; to lower the number of embryos implanted, to curtail the practice of selective reduction and decrease the risks for implanted babies; to ban chimeras, cloning, etc.; and to legally constitute human embryos as legal persons.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 25, 2009 11:45 AM


It would also be wonderful if there were no poverty, unemployment, crime, disease, environemntal problems, hunger, famine, etc., and everybody got a good education,and there were peace,freedom, and contentment everywhere.

Posted by: Robert Berger at February 25, 2009 11:38 AM
******************************************

And yet, we strive to prevent these things. Obama seeks to do away with poverty by "redistributing wealth." We outlaw crimes and imprison those who commit them, and sometimes even use the death penalty as a deterrent. We seek cures for disease and raise funds through taxation as well as donations to do so. We enact laws to regulate and work toward elimination of environmental abuse. We send food to countries that need it, and we even feed those here in this country through various charities (many of which are operated by Christians, by the way).

And yet, you've called only ABORTION a "necessary evil." We are talking about the deliberate, premeditated destruction of human life here...not unemployment. In my mind, the two are nowhere near equivalent.

Posted by: Kel at February 25, 2009 11:52 AM


While IVF is immoral, once those human beings are created, implantation is a moral necessity -- or they die in the freezer, get thrown out, or sold (without parent's knowledge) or parent can donate them.

She had all implanted because it takes 6 to produce 1 living, usually.

See my column @ http://hermitsskeet.motime.com.

Posted by: Hermit at February 25, 2009 11:53 AM


I guess I'm a pragmatist - baby steps, baby steps! Saying that freezing embryos is WRONG doesn't mean that one is saying creating embryos in a dish is RIGHT, IMO.

The Pope has said that IVF is a wrong that cannot be righted - but we can do our best to mitigate the damages.

Posted by: Milehimama at February 25, 2009 12:04 PM


Jill, good article.

I think that steps like these are very important. The regulations discussed address the very worst aspects of IVF and would put a stop to those aspects of IVF that are most heinous and degrading to life.

I agree with Milehimama. Baby steps.

Posted by: Elisabeth at February 25, 2009 12:25 PM


I am confused by the comment.... The Pill plays a secondary role by leeching estrogen into our drinking water. I am looking it up to see what you are refering to.

Posted by: Maria at February 25, 2009 12:30 PM


maria there has been some research done that shows the presence of estrogen in waterways. The major source is likely agriculture. Effects on marine life have been found. The effect, if any, on humans has not been determined.

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:39 PM


"Pro-choicers like myself would be glad if there were no abortions.It's a necessary evil."

Robert, I read your thoughts and I know they are straight from the heart and not meant to incite but reading it I am confused by your thoughts above. As a pro choice person why would you call abortion evil and would be glad if there were no abortions. By saying that it sounds like you are conflicted. Why would you call abortion evil?
Just trying to understand your point of view. Thanks for staying with us.


Posted by: Maria at February 25, 2009 12:42 PM


I think the consensus here from both PC and PL sides is that the assisted reproduction industry (let's face it, that's what it really is) MUST be better regulated to avoid Suleman-like catastrophes. Where we continue to debate (of course) is the issues of morality, patient/doctor relationships and confidentiality, selective reduction as a result of AR and the many population, gender and reproductive choice issues this whole mess brings with it.

Personally, I argue that the rampant use and industrialization of AR in this country is a direct result of the increased sense of entitlement issues we encourage. Somehow the message has been spread that having biological children of one's own is a birthright and must be pursued and achieved at all costs. It is not. But now we (women, media, families, medicine, etc) are culpable in stroking and placating some people's narcisism and selfishness by encouraging and rewarding risky and irresponsible behavior in the name of procreating biological heirs, all the while millions (no, billions) of infants and children around the world are desperate for a family of their own. Some women are so blinded by the race to the prize that they won't even fathom the idea of adoption...no matter how irrational and delusional their pursuit of pregnancy becomes. It's really sad and frustrating to witness.

Somehow motherhood and pregnancy became competitive sport.

Posted by: Danielle at February 25, 2009 12:57 PM


Artis, thanks for your answer but I am still confused by what does this mean about the pill leaching into the water.

Posted by: maria at February 25, 2009 1:17 PM


Maria, 12:30p: I've written on estrogen showing up in water a few times: http://www.jillstanek.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=estrogen+water

BTW, I spelled leaching wrong. It has been corrected... :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 25, 2009 1:19 PM


It has also made it abundantly clear that just because a woman wants 14 children doesn't mean she should necessary have 14 children and is a good mother.

While that may be true, NO ONE but God has the right to make that call.

And you know what? He kind of gave us the ground rules, like needing two people to reproduce, and the fact that people usually have 1, maybe 2 babies at a time.

Posted by: Pansy Moss at February 25, 2009 1:21 PM


sure pansy, that works if that's your religous belief. It's not mine though.

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 1:25 PM


hi maria. Well basically, the "pharmaceutical" estrogen (from the pill, hormone therapy, etc. ) gets into wastewater after humans excrete it. That's how it enters the ecosystems. Estrogen comes from other sources as well.

Any effect on humans remains speculative.

I'll send some links when I'm home and at computer.

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 1:31 PM


Links on pharmaceuticals in waterways:
http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcquality/5pharpass11.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002354190_pollute01.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56623

Posted by: Milehimama at February 25, 2009 1:38 PM


SB169 limits the number of embryos implanted to the same number fertilized, up to a maximum of 3, which will stop the practice of freezing human embryos and curtail selective reductions.

HA! What a foolish idea.

Requiring doctors to only retrieve three eggs, fertilize them and implant them immediately is a terrible idea. Only about a third of IVF cycles result in a pregnancy, so this law would force most women to go through hormone treatment and egg retrieval two or three times before finally achieving pregnancy -- making it much more expensive and difficult for the woman.

It would be a disaster for IVF in Georgia. No woman in her right mind would go through that when she could just go out of state, do the hormone therapy once, have all her eggs retrieved and fertilized, and then do as many cycles as she can without having to go through the hormones and retrieval over and over again.

I would be surprised if this bill ever made it out of committee. It would be political suicide. People hate Nadya Suleman, but not enough to make IVF harder and more expensive for all infertile couples. You'd see sweet Christian infertile couples all over the TV, showing off their miracle babies and blasting this bill.

Posted by: reality at February 25, 2009 2:06 PM


I hope we see a voluntary change in the preoccupation with having babies regardless of the expense.

There are many worse things in the world than being infertile.

Posted by: Hal at February 25, 2009 2:18 PM


reality,

People hate Nadya Suleman

I haven't seen statistics on this, have you?

I would be surprised if this bill ever made it out of committee. It would be political suicide. People hate Nadya Suleman, but not enough to make IVF harder and more expensive for all infertile couples.

Wouldn't it be fun to see the outrage of the IVF industry if the bill included price caps on the procedures? (It doesn't, as currently written.)

Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 2:23 PM


IVF is not going to go away. Your suggestion to outlaw it is not going to happen.

Hmm... the same could be said about abortion...

Posted by: Leah at February 25, 2009 2:24 PM


Hi Hal,

I hope we see a voluntary change in the preoccupation with having babies regardless of the expense.

There are many worse things in the world than being infertile.

Posted by: Hal at February 25, 2009 2:18 PM

We actually agree on something. As Danielle mentioned earlier, the sense of entitlement in our society has moved into the realm of reproduction. The amount of money that couples spend on IVF is staggering. Alternatively, the cost of adopting a minority child is almost nil, as I understand. Ray Guarendi of Relevant Radio has adopted minority and many special needs children.Ten in all.

Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 2:30 PM


1) Anything in the water supply, be it birth control pills, antibiotics, fertilizers, insecticides, etc., etc., is a cause for concern. Not necessarily alarm, but definitely concern. Antibiotics in the water system, for example, can lead to the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, placing us right back where we were before the discovery of penicillin and the development of other antibiotics.

2) I see a lot of girls with precocious puberty. I do believe that while there are some contaminants you cannot control, you should strive to control those contaminants that you can. We only drink milk from non-BGH treated cows. I limit the amount of milk my children drink. (There's more USABLE calcium in leafy greens anyway, even if less overall calcium.) My oldest daughter had her first menarche at age 14-1/2. I hope the younger ones follow suit.

3) Lauren, a young man at our church has had a great deal of success with growth hormone therapy. I wish you and your son the best as you seek to ensure his health.

4) Can BCP in the water supply change, without their permission, the nature of men? I think it would be silly to say that there cannot be an effect. Do I think this is a conspiracy of some particular group? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't a concern. I don't like anything effecting my children in such a fundamental way... I would personally be more concerned about the fertility effects on boys than whether they became effeminate. Are we seeing a corresponding rise in male infertility? That would be worth checking out.

Posted by: Elisabeth at February 25, 2009 2:31 PM


IVF is not going to go away. Your suggestion to outlaw it is not going to happen.

Hmm... the same could be said about abortion...

Posted by: Leah at February 25, 2009 2:24 PM

...and rape and arson and murder and extortion et al.....
Right?

Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 2:32 PM


Maria,

I see you have been given several articles here re: estrogen in waterways. They explain the source, the problems seen in marine and some speculate that this might suggest an effect on humans and the need for reserach to determine if that is the case.

Here also is a summary of a recent study out of Motreal. Same thing, but shows HRT also contributes to the contamination:

Estrogen flooding our rivers,' Université de Montréal study
18 septembre 2008
Montreal water treatment plants dumping as much as 90 times the critical amount of estrogen products into the river

The Montreal water treatment plant dumps 90 times the critical amount of certain estrogen products into the river. It only takes one nanogram (ng) of steroids per liter of water to disrupt the endocrinal system of fish and decrease their fertility.

These are the findings of Liza Viglino, postdoctoral student at the Université de Montréal’s Department of Chemistry, at the NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution, who is under the supervision of Professors Sébastien Sauvé and Michèle Prévost.

The presence and effects of estrogen residues on aquatic wildlife are well documented. However, this research is unique because it didn’t only consider natural hormones and those used in oral contraceptives – it also included products used in hormone therapy that is prescribed to menopausal women. Data indicates that 128 million contraceptive pills and 107 million doses of hormone therapy are consumed every year in Quebec.

Water samples were taken in five different spots: the Mille-Îles river, the St. Lawrence River, the two water collectors entering the Montreal treatment plant and at the exit of the plant.

The only compound detected in the St. Lawrence River was estradiol, a natural hormone. The water still contained 90 ng of estradiol per liter after being treated. “If other products weren’t detected it doesn’t mean they aren’t present,” says Viglino. “Our method doesn’t detect amounts lower than 7 ng per liter.”

According to Professor Sauvé, ozone treatments could eliminate these hormonal compounds. He also stresses that 80 to 90 percent of antidepressants remain in the water after treatment. These molecules can have a variety of effects on aquatic wildlife. Again, ozone treatment could destroy these molecules.

The studies cited in this article can be consulted at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021%2Fac800162q or http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2008.05.008.

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 2:35 PM


Oh, crap, I commented on the wrong thread. HELP! Can a moderator move that thing????

Posted by: Elisabeth at February 25, 2009 2:35 PM


ROFLOL... maybe I didn't. Maybe I should go take a nap now, apparently preggo brain has hit full force.

Posted by: Elisabeth at February 25, 2009 2:36 PM


Maria, here's a recent summary of another study from Ontario

Scientist Karen Kidd added synthetic estrogen to an artificial lake in Ontario, Canada, for three summers to track its impact on wildlife.

The pollution killed many fish and disrupted reproduction in others. The sperm count of male minnows fell, with some even beginning to produce eggs in their testes.

“We’ve known for some time that estrogen can adversely affect the reproductive health of fish, but ours was the first study to show the long-term impact,” Kidd said. “What we demonstrated is that estrogen can wipe out entire populations of small fish.”

The presence of hormonal pollutants in the country’s waterways is not new. According to Environmental Science and Technology magazine, scientists have been studying the impact of these chemicals on wildlife since the 1990s.

Intersex fish have been found in the St. Lawrence River, the Mississippi and the Great Lakes, Science Daily reports.

Wastewater, the source of the pollution, contains hormones because women excrete traces of estrogen, and many birth control drugs and household products contain compounds that chemically resemble hormones—called “hormone mimics.”

Still undetermined is what effect, if any, exposure to environmental hormones has on human health.

Scientists are studying whether hormonal pollutants “interact with the same receptor molecules inside the body that estrogen can,” Scientific American writes. If they do, the pollutants “might subtly overdose living things with excesses of hormone-like signals.”

Thankfully, the magazine reports that a number of studies into whether the pollutants contribute to breast cancer and other human health issues have provided insufficient “evidence, at least at the present, for such effects of exposure to an environmental estrogen.”

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 2:40 PM


IVF is not going to go away. Your suggestion to outlaw it is not going to happen.

Hmm... the same could be said about abortion...

Posted by: Leah at February 25, 2009 2:24 PM

Ha! I was thinking the exact same thing leah!

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 2:47 PM


making it much more expensive and difficult for the woman.

Why is pregnancy - which, by its very nature affects more than one human being - always couched in terms of "expense and difficulty for the woman"?

Should we not regulate ANYTHING that might cause added expense?

Posted by: Milehimama at February 25, 2009 3:13 PM


"The bill defines ex utero embryos as human beings with inherent rights, so court disputes must be decided in the best interest of the embryo, not either parent fighting over the embryo".

Well, can't really see this actually passing. But think of it.....can you imagine being the ex-wife fighting for "custody" of the embryo, losing, and then have to see your ex husband's new partner with it?

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 3:35 PM


Just a couple of comments: if women want to go out of state from Georgia to do IVF--go for it! Louisiana has had a similar bill for a lot of years and the IVF industry is thriving there.

Has anyone considered that this is not about the babies or the women but about the bio-tech industry not having enough human embryos to kill for their research? Just asking.

Another question: Does my unconcern for an born, unwanted child (supposedly) justify you killing it?

Finally, I would think that all of you pro-obamas out there would be glad that Georgia wants to regulate an industry that makes beau-coup bucks off desperate women and exploits them for their eggs.

Think about it!

Posted by: Psychdoc at February 25, 2009 3:54 PM


Hermit,
I find it interesting that you mentioned on here mentioned that it takes 6 embryos in order for one to take. When according to the CDC's most recent report, the average of embryos implanted in the mother's womb is between 2.3-3.2 embryos which includes women under 35 all the way up to 42.

This was the average nationally from 2006 which are the most recently produced numbers.

Check it out for yourself.
http://www.cdc.gov/art/art2006/508PDF/2006ART.pdf

On page 97.

Posted by: LoveWisdom at February 25, 2009 3:56 PM


"Pro-choicers like myself would be glad if there were no abortions.It's a necessary evil."

Robert, I read your thoughts and I know they are straight from the heart and not meant to incite but reading it I am confused by your thoughts above. As a pro choice person why would you call abortion evil and would be glad if there were no abortions. By saying that it sounds like you are conflicted. Why would you call abortion evil?
Just trying to understand your point of view. Thanks for staying with us.


Posted by: Maria at February 25, 2009 12:42 PM


Mary,
I don't think anyone has responded to your post! I want to try to answer this question, without insiting rage in anyone. :-)
Being pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion like so many people seem to think. I don't think anyone ACTUALLY likes abortion and thinks it's awesome! I am pro-choice but I can agree that in a perfect world, abortions would not ever happen. But I also believe that women have been seeking abortions since women have been getting pregnant, and that it's not something that's just going to go away. I am NOT pro-abortion, just pro-the woman choosing if she wants to have one. I think that's what Robert was trying to say, I am certain he is not confused about his beliefs.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 4:22 PM


So,
why is abortion a necessary evil?

Posted by: Carla at February 25, 2009 4:25 PM


I also want to add to the general conversation:
I watched the two Dr.Phil shows where they talked about the Octamom and the babies.... They said that last time she had IVF they implanted 6 as well and she only had twins or whatever. This time they did the same thing because of what happened last time. It is not normal to implant that many embryos because there is always the slight possibility, no matter how small, that the empryos will all implant.
In my opinion, it was irresponsible of both Nadya and her doctor to do what they did. But that's not really the point, because it's over and done and the situation can't be changed.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 4:29 PM


Because women will ALWAYS seek abortions, no matter how illegal it is, no matter how hard it is to find, it will continue to happen. Doesn't make it good, doesn't make it right, just makes it a reality, and a necessary evil part of our reality.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 4:31 PM


Kate, people will always do all sorts of horrible things. That doesn't mean we should do away with all laws.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 4:47 PM


IVF is not going to go away. Your suggestion to outlaw it is not going to happen.

Hmm... the same could be said about abortion...

Posted by: Leah at February 25, 2009 2:24 PM

...and rape and arson and murder and extortion et al.....
Right?

Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 2:32 PM

Sorry Janet, but that makes no sense. Rape, arson, murder and extortion ARE outlawed

What is it you were trying to say?

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 4:48 PM


Do you think abortion is evil, Kate?

Posted by: Carla at February 25, 2009 4:53 PM


So make laws against it (abortion). Just like you said, rape, murder, extortion, arson, etc etc abortion etc etc it's all still going to happen and we will still be having this conversation about why abortions shouldn't happen....

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 4:53 PM


Carla :-) ,
When I look up the defintion of "evil" and ask myself "is abortion (insert one of the many definitions of evil here)?" sometimes my answer is yes, sometimes it's no.
The honest truth is, I don't think abortion is good. I don't think it should happen or be something that women might feel they need to have. I am not pro-abortion, because that would mean I am in favour of abortion, which I am not. I am pro-choice, because I am in favour of choice. And I believe that abortion will never cease to exist however badly everyone might want it to, so I am pro-women having the right to choose.


I want to add, just as a "disclaimer" or whatever on my posts, that I am not here to "stir stuff up" "poke fun at pro-lifers" "be a troll" or any of the any number of things I could potentially be accused of doing. I just want to have a PLEASANT conversation! :-)

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 4:59 PM


Kate, it's one thing for an action to occur despite laws trying to stop it. It's quite another for our society and laws to openly support the action.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 5:08 PM


Kate, honestly your position doesn't make sense. I know because it's how I used to feel as well.

Ask yourself this: If abortion is something that is wrong, why should we support someone having the legal option to do it?

We wouldn't say "well, I personally think that child abuse is wrong, but I think that people should have the choice."

If it is wrong, it's wrong. The fact that people will break a law doesn't mean one shouldn't exist.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 5:11 PM


asitis,

I think Lauren gets it. Does that help?

Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 5:21 PM


Hmmm, that's tough Lauren, because I don't necessarily believe that abortion in all circumstances is WRONG.
I am quite the relativist, I know.

I want to tell you a story :-) who doesn't love stories right?

I had a friend (she was a really good friend at the time, but isn't a friend anymore) who frequently had unprotected sex with her boyfriend. I have no oposition to premarital sex, and we're both in our 20s so really I feel it's an individual, personal choice, neither of us are children. However, I kept telling her and telling her, if you're having sex and you're not using any birth control whatsoever, you ARE going to get pregnant, just give it time. And I told her and told her and told her and she never listened.

One day, she came to me and told me she was pregnant. She'd been pregnant for awhile, but didn't tell me because she figured I would say "told you so".

So I asked her what she was going to do, and she wasn't sure. Didn't think she wanted to have a baby, but couldn't make up her mind. So I would frequently ask her what she was going to do and if she had made up her mind yet, and the pivotal point for our friendship was the day she told me "I haven't decided yet, I have so much going on right now, I'm trying to forget I'm pregnant and I'll deal with it later". I was upset, disappointed etc. THAT to me is wrong. Knowing you're pregnant, knowing you likely won't keep it or don't want to and WAITING as a baby grows inside of you, THAT is wrong. If she had found out she was pregnant, made a decision either way, right away and followed through with it, I wouldn't have had an opinion either way. But that is only this one situation. So when I say I'm a relativist, I mean I judge peoples actions based on each situation. In the situation I've described, abortion, to me, at the begining of her pregnancy would have been acceptable, but waiting and waiting and "trying to forget you're pregnant" is not ok. If you're raped and become pregant, abortion is acceptable IMO. And I could site other instances where I would think it wasn't ok.

I know my position doesn't make sense to you, and to many many others here. But to other pro-choicers I'm sure it does. And I can say the same for you. I do not understand the pro-life side, I don't get or support the arguments. I can however respect your position and opinions
:-)

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 5:34 PM


Kate, I understand your position. Like I said, I used to hold it. However, you have to see that it isn't logical.

Take your friend. You say you would be alright with her having an abortion early in her pregnancy right after you told us that she was having unprotected sex despite knowing the risks. Your issue with her later actions seems to be her irresponsibility in ignoring the situation. That irresponsibility is the same thing that allowed her to continue to have unprotected sex despite knowing the risks.

What is the difference between irresponsibly getting pregnant, despite knowing how to prevent it, and irresponsibly failing to really deal with the pregnancy.

There isn't one.


Furthermore, why is it wrong to wait to have an abortion? What fundamentally changes about the child that makes it "wrong" to have an abortion at 13 weeks(or whatever) but "not wrong" at 7 weeks?

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 5:44 PM


asitis,

I think Lauren gets it. Does that help?

Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 5:21 PM

Well, that still doesn't mean it makes any sense though.

But thanks for the reply, ummm... Janet?

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 5:48 PM


"What is the difference between irresponsibly getting pregnant, despite knowing how to prevent it, and irresponsibly failing to really deal with the pregnancy.

There isn't one."

Agreed. I have an issue with her irresponsibility, I have an issue with her being irresponsible to the point of needing an abortion, I wouldn't have an issue with her having one early in her pregancy because for me it's about Biology and the stages of development. There is a stage at which a fetus in the womb can feel pain and is an actual being. TO ME. I don't believe that a person has a soul at conception, I don't believe that clump of cells should be considered a child, I don't believe that destroying a frozen embryo is ending a life, I don't believe in God and that each "person" that is conceived has a purpose in this life. I DO believe that there is a point in development when a fetus has some perception of pain and at that point for me it's wrong. That's what fundamentally changes IMO.

And no, I don't see that it isn't logical. In my mind it's perfectly logical. All the power to you for changing your position though.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 5:53 PM


Kate,

I agree you are a PC moral relativist, and a highly judgmental one at that. Did your friendship end because of her CHOICE.?

Waiting to abort instead of doing it immediately should not make a difference in a PC'rs opinion on the matter. It's a baby from day one, you know.

Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 5:56 PM


Kate,
I heart pleasant conversations as well with puhlenty of smiley faces. :)

If you are support of CHOICE then does that include INFORMED CHOICE? Ultrasounds shown and explained to women, the actual and painful procedure known as abortion described and understood, the possible side effects and health risks, a referral for adoption as a choice as well.

Sadly that is just not the case.

How is it choice when a lack of knowledge and access leaves one with no choice?
-The Raving Theist

Posted by: Carla at February 25, 2009 5:57 PM


asitis,
Try to read between the lines. I don't know how else to say it. Sorry.

Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 5:58 PM


Kate, biology definitively states that a new, unique human being is created at amphimixis. There is zero debate that once the male and female pronuclei align, a unique individual exists. This isn't some sort of metaphysical debate, it's science.

Your beliefs are not based on science. Your critera for humanity is the ability to feel pain. This is completely illogical. What about people who can not feel pain? Are they less human? What about animals who CAN feel pain, do these sensations make them human?

The ability to feel pain doesn't fundamentally change what something is. Using your logic it would be ok to kill someone as long as we did it in such a way that did not cause pain.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 6:17 PM


"Your beliefs are not based on science. "

She didn't say they were. I thought she explained her positions pretty well. You're free to agree or disagree of course.

Posted by: Hal at February 25, 2009 7:05 PM


Hal, Kate said "I wouldn't have an issue with her having [an abortion] early in her pregancy because for me it's about Biology "

She pretty clearly says it's about science.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 7:08 PM


Hi Janet! I'm happy to see you back (I have been wondering where you have been)!
I LOVE Dr. Ray!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 25, 2009 7:19 PM


Oh, I'm reading between the lines Janet!

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 8:07 PM


So many comments, so little time.

Janet, our friendship definetly didn't end because of that. It ended for an entirely different unrelated issue than her abortion.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:18 PM


Oh Kate, forgot to email you. I'll do that tomorrow. Sorry about that!

Have a good night.

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 8:20 PM


I don't think my choice to end my friendship with someone makes me judgemental. If you don't know the circumstances of the end of our friendship or the reasons for it, you're hardly in a position to call me judgemental and I would in fact say that your knee jerk reaction to call me judgemental based on a story I told makes you the judgemental one.

I'm aware it's human that is created, but I disagree that it's a baby. It's unique yes (biology) But It's a clump of cells that has human genetic material, unable to feel pain. I don't think my criteria for humanity is arbritrary at all. I don't dispute science, yes it's human genetic material, but science also says that there is a point at which it can feel pain and be aware. That point is not conception.

Carla, yes of course I'm supportive of informed choice. If a woman who doesn't understand what she's doing sees an ultrasound and decides that it's a baby's life she would be ending and she can't do that then she should have that choice. Everyone should be informed, and then be able to make a choice based on what they've been presented with.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:26 PM


Kate, yes you are being extraordinarally arbitrary. It isn't just "genetic material" it is the earliest stage of development of a human being. Life is a continuem, and amphimixis marks the beginning of this unique human's continuem.

Again, what does feeling pain have to do with a person's humanity?

Is someone who can not feel pain human?

Are animals who can feel pain human?


Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 8:29 PM


The ability for an animal to feel pain does not make it human, but I do think it gives it rights. Do we allow people to mistreat and abuse animals? No, or at least we should, because they can feel pain. On the other hand, my mother way a vetrinarian for over 20 years and ran a strictly spay/neuter practice. I saw many pregnancies ended in cats and dogs and see no issue with this since the fetuses could not feel any pain.
Why is that humans believe our lives are valuable over and above those of animals?

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:30 PM


Is someone who can not feel pain human? Not always.

Are animals who can feel pain human? Who said they were? But who said that humans should be considered more important than animals who can also feel pain?


Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:31 PM


Lauren,
You say I'm being arbritrary, I say I'm not, we're definetly never going to agree on that, and that's ok.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:33 PM


I agree that it's a unique human. I have never disputed that. However it's nothing but cells at conception, cells can't feel anything.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:35 PM


Kate,
They are not presented with anything. Women aren't told a thing about what stage of development their growing baby is. They are not shown an ultrasound at the abortion clinic. I was almost 11 weeks along and was told it was a "clump of cells."

Who aborts at conception?? By the time a woman finds out she's pregnant, the baby has all of the organ systems in place.

Posted by: Carla at February 25, 2009 8:39 PM


Carla :-) (Pleasantly of course)
I'm sure that can't be true of all clinics, but I don't know much about the ones in the US. I know the clinic where my friend went showed her ultrasounds etc. and she still made the choice.
I do think informed choice is important, and there should be an effort to help women make INFORMED choices. I don't believe that women will always make the pro-life choice even if they are informed, and I don't think they would always make the pro-choice choice either. But it least they would know what they're choosing.
We agree on that, yes? :-)

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:43 PM


Kate we aren't talking about ice cream flavors. We're talking about human life. Yes, you are being arbitrary.

You are definining the beginning of life at a point other than the biological beginning of life. You can defend yourself, but you are making a false statement to say your distinction is not arbitrary.

Please explain how the ability to feel pain determines someone's humanity.

Furthermore, we have determined that human life has value over animal life as a society. We have unique characteristics that are innate to our species that elevate us above animals.

If you are arguing that animals and humans are equal, you should either

A) Have no issue with murder, since we are no better than animals

or

B) Take great issue with the killing of anmials because they are equal to us.


If you are so compassionate as to g ive himan rights to animals, it makes no sense that you would deny these rights to preborn humans.

Of course, using your criteria we should be able to kill anything or anyone as long as we take measures to make sure no pain is caused.

So, again, what does the ability to feel pain have to do with humanity?

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 8:43 PM


Kate, we're all "nothing but cells."

There have been several times in my life when I could not feel pain.

The ability to feel pain does nothing to affect my humanity. You are grasping at straws.

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 8:47 PM


As a western society we decided that humans were above animals, not all societies feel that way. Yes we have abilities that make us DIFFERENT from animals. But not better. Not above. I DO have an issue with killing animals. When they are tortured and mistreated, same as I would have an issue if a human was tortured and mistreated. But if an animal is put to sleep peacefully, or a human life is ended so that they feel no pain, I see no difference.

As far as what pain has to do with humanity, I think the fact that I can feel pain and a lump of cells in the womb (although it is human) makes me more human. If I were to be tortured and murdered I would feel it. Before a fetus in the womb can feel pain, if it's aborted it can't feel it. That's the difference to me.

And that's fine if you think I'm being arbritrary, I disagree, but we already determined that we're not going to agree on that.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:52 PM


It's true Lauren, we agree. We're all nothing but cells. you, me, my grandma, my dog, my goldfish, nothing but cells.
I guess we've determined that we have very different views of life.
And you say I'm grasping at straws, but I say that I am very confident and strong in my beliefs. Just like you are.

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 8:56 PM


But if an animal is put to sleep peacefully, or a human life is ended so that they feel no pain, I see no difference.

Would you find it just a little more creepy if someone was a cannibal... than if they ate a hamburger?

Posted by: Bethany at February 25, 2009 9:02 PM


If we could change the culture regarding the birthmother decision to entrust her baby in adoption, there would be much less demand for IVF and other expensive, invasive assisted reproduction technology.

Let's honor those women and girls who choose to carry their babies to term, go through the stresses and strain of pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, and the losses of leaving the hospital with empty arms. Let's recognize that they are taking sacrificially loving steps to ensure their babies have established, loving, prepared marriages to grow up in. Let's get their stories out--they chose adoption because it was best for their baby.

Posted by: KOL at February 25, 2009 9:11 PM


Kate,
I have gone back and read all your posts to understand your logic. You describe yourself as a relativist and do not believe in God. You also do not see humans as being above animals. You do not have a problem with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy but only after it has been determined that the fetus(young one) feels pain do you have an issue with it.

I am glad you are still on this website and that you are reading the posting and considering the evidence. Just to follow your thought process, if a born human is killed while not feeling pain such as having her throat slit or being shot while asleep or while under anesthetic, would this qualify as alright. To follow your logic further, let's presume it is a small infant say newborn....to get to the not fully developed issue...is that acceptable?
Trying to understand.... so it is size and lack of documentation of evidence of fetal pain??

Posted by: maria at February 25, 2009 9:15 PM


Would you find it just a little more creepy if someone was a cannibal... than if they ate a hamburger?

Posted by: Bethany at February 25, 2009 9:02 PM

Oh, I'm guessing Kate will say yes to that, as would anyone. Also, in our society anyway, most people would find it a little more creepy if someone ate their dog, than if they ate a hamburger.

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 9:37 PM


Bethany, :-)
Yes, I would find it weird..... Humans rarely eat humans, although it does happen. Animals rarely eat their own species, but animals do eat other animals. And we're an animal that eats other animals....
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with your question?

Posted by: Kate at February 25, 2009 9:51 PM


Sorry, I got busy there for a minute and forgot I posted that.

You had written that you don't understand why anyone would see humans and animals as being on different levels.

I was trying to let you see that even you see animals and humans as being on a different level.

I would think that if someone really and truly believed that humans and animals were on the exact same level, they would be equally as horrified by someone eating a piece of a cow as they would be with a piece of human flesh.

Posted by: Bethany at February 25, 2009 10:24 PM


Katie, you did a nice job there of explaining your position.

Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 10:37 PM


Robert's comments rocked!

Posted by: Ash at February 26, 2009 12:22 AM


Yes Kate,
An INFORMED choice would be absolutely wonderful. Tell the mommy all of the facts about abortion. We can agree on that.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 5:50 AM


Agreed, tell her the FACTS. But don't forget to respect her decision.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 6:44 AM


I am sorry to tell you that the FACTS are not told.
Asitis,
You are reminding abortion clinic workers to respect her decision?

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 6:55 AM


"Carla, yes of course I'm supportive of informed choice. If a woman who doesn't understand what she's doing sees an ultrasound and decides that it's a baby's life she would be ending and she can't do that then she should have that choice."

If it were only just a clump of cells then why are there so many women out there who deeply regret their choice? Something (a conscience) is telling them that what they did was wrong. People don't experience anguish over surgical removal of other bodily tissues like they do after abortion.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 26, 2009 7:09 AM


Carla, I am saying that any current or future clinic/hospital regulations should respect her decision.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 7:12 AM


Eileen #2
EXACTLY!! :) If it is "just a clump of cells" which a 3D or 4D ultrasound clearly shows it is not WHY the anguish?

Now we shall get into 30 comments of not ALL women regret their abortions........

Asitis,
Why?

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 7:17 AM


I'll start it! Not all women regret their abortion....

Carla, why "why"?

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 7:20 AM


I know Carla. But most women sooner or later, and it seems to be later, regret abortion. Just because some --never appear to regret it-- is not a sound argument. Some people never regret the crimes that they commit. Is it okay then to commit those crimes?

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 26, 2009 7:24 AM


I know Carla. But most women sooner or later, and it seems to be later, regret abortion. Just because some --never appear to regret it-- is not a sound argument. Some people never regret the crimes that they commit. Is it okay then to commit those crimes?

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 26, 2009 7:24 AM

Most" Eileen? How do you know this? And to what degree do they regret it?

Is it okay for criminals to commit crimes they don't regret? No. They are still crimes.

Is it okay for woman to have abortions they don't regret? Sure. Unless you are asking someone who supports making abortion illegal - they will tell you abortion is never okay. But that's something else.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 7:29 AM


Frankly, I think that Bobby made an excellent argument for pro-life side on the thread where Kate asked for input for her class. But there are still people who refuse to listen to reason and ignore sound evidence. These are the people that we are suppose to simply pray and fast for. Everyone from the Pope to numerous bishops are really emphasizing fasting this Lent. I think that they are really in tune to the seriousness of these times right now. Jesus said that some sins can not be cast out without fasting (in addition to prayer).

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 26, 2009 7:35 AM


Sorry. You lost me at regulations need to respect decisions.

Asitis,
Have you had an abortion? Do you work at Planned Parenthood? Are you a spy? Do you need any more questions?

Women regret abortion. Men regret abortion. They are hurt, they are harmed. A baby dies. The hurt comes from KNOWING you killed your own child and now you are the mother of a dead child.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 7:36 AM


So the solution to unwanted pregnancy is not eating, Eileen???? ;)

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 7:38 AM


Carla, no I have never had an abortion. NO, I am not a spy (though I have been told I'd make a good one!). No, I do not work for Planned Parenthood.

Carla, I have acknowledged before that some people do regret their abortions. It affects some people differently, especially if they are in a very bad situation at the time of their abortion or when they got pregnant. Perhaps knowing the FACTS beforehand might make a difference to their decision or how they feel about it later. That is why I think they should make an informed decision.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 7:43 AM


Carla, I will never understand how, after listening to the testimony of a woman who regrets her abortion, how people can continue to defend the right to an abortion.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 26, 2009 7:45 AM


asitis, if you believe that it is only a clump of cells then why the need to be informed?

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 26, 2009 7:46 AM


Oh shoot! I have to go! Be back later!

Posted by: Eileen #2d at February 26, 2009 7:47 AM


It's not always "just a clump of cells" Eileen. Not in reality and not in all women's minds.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 7:56 AM


Kate says "But if an animal is put to sleep peacefully, or a human life is ended so that they feel no pain, I see no difference"

Kate, so you would really be ok if I walked into your best friends house and killed her as long as I did while she was sleeping and she didn't feel any pain?

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 8:18 AM


Lauren, I think Kate means with consent. But you knew that.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 8:33 AM


Ignorance of human development before birth is alive and well.......so sad

So, when do these "clumps of cells" magically become a baby? Your life began BEFORE you were born. You don't magically grow to a 7 or 8 pound baby when your mother is in labor.

And BTW, I learned the nervous system is the first to develop. I am certain the baby feels pain. An innocent child is slaughtered in the name of "choice" at the rate of 3000 - 4000 a day in the USA.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 26, 2009 8:35 AM


No, asitis, I didn't know that. Obviously the fetus isn't consenting to being killed, so why would I assume that she considered consent to be a prequalification to "moral" painless killing?

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 8:47 AM


And BTW, I learned the nervous system is the first to develop. I am certain the baby feels pain.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 26, 2009 8:35 AM

That doesn't mean it has developed to the point where pain is felt Liz. How exactly are you "certain"?

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 8:49 AM


Eileen,
I know. People have a very hard time facing the truth that women grieve a baby that died in an abortion clinic. They don't know what to do with it. So they dismiss it. :)

It is not only the regret I have to live with. It is the anger as well. There is absolute anger at NOT BEING TOLD A THING about how much an abortion physically hurts, nothing about my baby, nothing about risks or side effects or ANYTHING. A video of a clump of red circles. I was 10 weeks along!! So not a clump of red circles.

They lie by omission, Asitis. Of course knowing the facts would be great!! How pray tell do we get PP or ANY mill to do that??

I am still trying to figure out your "game" A. I'm watching you. Always watching...sorry. Just watched Monsters, Inc.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 8:51 AM


No, asitis, I didn't know that. Obviously the fetus isn't consenting to being killed, so why would I assume that she considered consent to be a prequalification to "moral" painless killing?

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 8:47 AM

Lauren, I assumed from Kate's comment that she was referring to euthanasia, not abortion. She was talking about putting animals "to sleep so that they feel no pain.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 8:58 AM


Asitis, when does an animal consent to being put to sleep? Just curious.

Posted by: Bethany at February 26, 2009 9:01 AM


Asitis, we were talking about painless killing as an extrapolation from abortion. She made no comment that would imply she was talking about suicide. If she were talking about suicide, we would be comparing apples to oranges and I would press her on her views regarding killing someone painlessly who did not consent to being killed.

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 9:07 AM


Carla, first off, I have no "game". Honestly. Maybe you just have this stereotype in your head and I'm not that and it's throwing you off. I don't know. But I am real. And I am me.

I DO know the truth that some women have deep regret about their abortions and grieve their loss. You have shown me this. I have heard others stories here.

I think it's wrong that you were misinformed. I think women should be informed of the facts and they should be told the real risks. I also think clinics and hospitals should have strict standards for hygiene and care and severe consequences if they do not adhere to them.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:09 AM


Asitis, when does an animal consent to being put to sleep? Just curious.

Posted by: Bethany at February 26, 2009 9:01 AM

Obviously they don't. Just like they don't consent to where they live, who they live with, what food they eat, when they go for a walk, being taken away from their mother and litter mates, being neutered.... We make lots of decisions for animals.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:12 AM


No. I have no stereotypes. I just have to wonder when it seems sometimes you argue just to argue. I don't particularly care if Nadya Suhlman had cosmetic surgery done to her lips or her nose...:)

I appreciate your comments and will take them as sincere. Sincerely.

Gotta go. Winter Storm Warning and no groceries in the house. :)

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:16 AM


Carla, I don't just argue to argue. That's a misconception you have.

You might not care that Nadya has had cosmetic surgery, but I happen to think it is important to note. Here is a woman who has six kids to support, no job and no house. She is relying on her parents and the government and the charity of others to support her. So what does she do with the money she gets from her injury? She goes out and buys herself MORE babies. Some might excuse her for that because they see that as the only right solution for those remaining embryos. But how can you excuse a mother who goes and uses the money on cosmetic surgery rather than on her children's needs? What does this say about that woman? To me, it sets off warning lights.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:26 AM


"It's not always "just a clump of cells" Eileen. Not in reality and not in all women's minds."

So, asitis, then the decision to abort is arbitrarily decided.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 26, 2009 9:29 AM


That depends on what you mean by "arbitrarily" Eillen. Please explain.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:43 AM


Does it also depend on the meaning of the word is, is?

;)

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 10:48 AM


Asitis,
After awhile all of the talk of Nadya tends to sound like gossip to me. There is nothing I can change about her situation or her beautiful children. I am not going to venture a guess about what porno she might star in or where she gets her nails done or when she might finish her Master's. I won't be predicting the worst of what might happen to her or her children. I am praying for the best outcome for all of them.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 12:16 PM


Does it also depend on the meaning of the word is, is?

;)

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 10:48 AM

Don't be silly Lauren. Arbitrarily could mean randomly or illogically or it could mean according to an individual's discretion. In which case it's important to know just what Eillen means by arbitrarily.

Nice try.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 1:56 PM


Asitis,
There is nothing I can change about her situation or her beautiful children. ......I am praying for the best outcome for all of them.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 12:16 PM

You're right Carla, but there is something society CAN do to change the situation for them if it's in the children's best interest. I honestly have serious doubts that this women is fit (in so many ways) to raise those 14 children. Hopefully someone is doing more than just praying IMO.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 1:59 PM


Why do pro-lifers not agree with pro-choice? As the potential parent of that child it is the parent's, or parents', responsibility to choose what is best for that child until they are able to make their own conscious decisions, or am I wrong? And before you ask me if I have Children, yes I do have a child, now ask me some silly questions about abortion regarding him, I'll answer them all.

Do pro-lifers with children not decide what is best for their children? Do pro-choice people also not make those same decisions? I might be calling the kettle black here with those questions but really, as intelligent life forms we are able to distinguish what we BELIEVE is best for us and our children (born or unborn).

I hear people say abortion is selfish and a cowardly way out of a situation all the time. Well maybe in some instances yes, but it's not your choice to make, you will NEVER change someone else's mind after they've made their INFORMED decision, so why do people insist on pushing their values and morals on others? Pro-choice does not mean "Pro-abort", pro-abort would imply that there is only one option with pregnancy, abortion, it is in fact the direct reciprocal of pro-life. Pro-choice is as it sounds, CHOICE, if someone believes that the child inside them is better off never coming in to this world, then maybe they are right, maybe they saved that child from years of abuse and pain. So tell me, if you knew a child was to suffer years of neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, poverty, hunger, unimaginable pain (have I made my point yet?), would you wish that upon a person? Would you shoulder that burden in your day of judgement? Think about that honestly, there are only two people in this world I can honestly say I would give my life for, or endure everlasting pain in place of them without having to think about it long and hard.

The ability to choose is what defines us as the people we are. Do not think for a second that you have the power to make someone's mind up for them, not even your God can influence free will.

Abortion is not a good thing, it is not something that pro-choice people celebrate once yearly and host a parade for, don't confuse fact with opinion.

Telling Kate she is arbitrary on her position is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, at least she has a position, SHE BELIEVES what she thinks is right, that is HER RIGHT.

In the end no one is truely 100% right or wrong, a person's choices are their own, not yours, not mine, not Barack Obama's.

Oh and one more thing, abortion is a necessary evil because I'd rather see a child never born at all, than die a slow, agonizing death in a dumpster on a cold night when it didn't have to, the option is there, once again, it's all about choice and what a person BELIEVES is best.

Posted by: Dustin at February 26, 2009 2:05 PM


Dustin, you seem to base your arguement on the assumption that abortion somehow "prevents" life from every beginning. This is not true.

Abortion kills an already living human being. None of your arguments make any sense when this fact is added into the equation.

Oh, and one more thing, pro-choicer's most cetainly *do* parade for abortion. See http://march.now.org/

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 3:03 PM


You seem to base your arguement on the simple fact that you're right and I'm wrong. Superiority complex?

A pro-choice march, is not a celebration of abortion, rather a demonstration of the pro-choice arguement.

Your facts don't make sense to me either.
Have fun argueing on an internet blog, I'm not going to "grasp at straws" for an entire evening with you. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. I don't understand your points, and you don't understand mine.

I do however have a point to make:

"Kate, I understand your position. Like I said, I used to hold it. However, you have to see that it isn't logical."

Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2009 5:44 PM

Wouldn't logic tell you to choose what's right or what you believe to be right? Wouldn't logic be the reasoning behind a person's choices? Wouldn't logic lead you to believe what you determine as logical, is not the same thing another person may feel is logical? Wow, I guess we're back to that "you're only wrong because I'm always right" thing you base your comments on.

Posted by: Dustin at February 26, 2009 3:19 PM


Hi Dustin,
There is no INFORMED decision to be offered in an abortion clinic. There are no facts of fetal development offered, ultrasound, description of the how painful an abortion is, side effects or health risks. "A clump of cells" is the standard lie.

Hardly INFORMED is it?

Maybe that is why 80% of women who see their baby on an ultrasound choose life.

You seem to think a baby should be killed before it "might" be abused, neglected, starved or forced to live in poverty. Following that logic we should kill all of the children right now living in those conditions.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 3:32 PM


Oh and logic hardly comes into play when one is scared and alone and coerced into thinking abortion is "the best thing" she can do.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 3:33 PM


"Maybe that is why 80% of women who see their baby on an ultrasound choose life".

Carla, where does this figure come from? Pro-life pregnancy centers? Where? Are the women involved already biased toward carrying to term? These are good questions to ask when looking at statistics.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 3:50 PM


Dustin,I obviously didn't start with the assumption that I was right. I was pro-choice remember? I logically sought out information about fetal development as well as examined the consistancy of my own argument.

As such, I base my arguments on the realities of fetal development. I base my arguments on consistant application of a constant set of morals.

That is logical.

Kate bases her arguments on a completely arbitrary set of criteria that she does not consistantly apply.


Instead of attacking me, perhaps you could logically explain why you believe that a fetus isn't a living human being.

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 3:52 PM


Ever been to an abortion clinic? Ever had an abortion? Do you TRUELY know what it's like? I didn't say "might" be abused by the way, and no children in these conditions shouldn't be killed, did I say that? You look for every oppurtunity to defend your side as do I, but taking words out of context and twisting them makes you look uncredible.

Preventing a life of neglect and abuse blah blah blah (I suppose I'm insensitive and don't care about the children because I said "blah blah" right?) is what I was referring to and it's quite clearly stated. Never did I say we should kill children living in these conditions, give your head a shake and use that logic your so fond of when you read someone's posts. I'm not sure where you live, but abortions where I live are a lenghty process, the women don't walk in the door and get told "this is for the best sweetie", they go through discussions and evaluations with counsellors prior to the procedure, or murder if you prefer.

This debate is endless, almost pathetic, you refuse to use your superior logic and reason to see that your choices and values aren't everyone elses's. You being pro-life is a choice much like being pro-choice is a choice, so LOGICALLY you too are pro-choice, oh snap! Did I just do that? Did logic just logically find the flaw in logic?

I like that coerced comment, you make it sound like the women are hypnotized and persuaded in to aborting.

Can't wait to see your next response... My typed sarcasm is the pits, I apologize.

Posted by: Dustin at February 26, 2009 3:55 PM


Kate believes what Kate believes, as do you. Her criteria isn't arbitrary.

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

Those are the official definitions of arbitrary. So which one applies to Kate? And which one applies to you?


Posted by: Dustin at February 26, 2009 4:00 PM


"Contingent solely upon one's discretion"
certainly fits the bill.

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 4:10 PM


Is that the same one that apllies to you?

Posted by: Dustin at February 26, 2009 4:12 PM


Applies, rather.

Posted by: Dustin at February 26, 2009 4:13 PM


Asitis,
Shhhhh...I was talking to Dustin.

If I showed you Lifenews.com you would just LAFF and say that its BIASED!!

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 4:17 PM


Dustin, no my basis for the beginning of life is amphimixis, which is scientifically recognized as the beginning of a unique, human life. That is not arbitrary, but rather the recognized beginning. It would be arbitrary if I definied life as beginning at any other time.

Also, you are confusing me and Carla. I never said anything regarding abortion clinic abuse. And yes, she has had an abortion.


As for you, you said that "if someone believes that the child inside them is better off never coming in to this world, then maybe they are right, maybe they saved that child from years of abuse and pain." This assumes that the child is not already in this world. This is a false assumption. The child is a unique, living human being who exists as much as you or I exist.

This is what I pointed out to you.

As to your comments re: the term "pro-choice," you hit the nail on the head as to why this is such a disingenous term. It implies that anyone who does not support abortion is "anti-choice." This is absurd. I support any number of choices that do not result in the death of another human being. Perhaps the better termionology would be to say that I am "anti-the-choice-to-kill-your-child."

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 4:28 PM


Is anyone else having issues with the site?

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 4:31 PM


oh I'm sorry carla I didn't realize it was a private discussion. Maybe once you are finished it you could send me the article. I won't dismiss it automatically, but I will see where the data was collected and at how many weeks the ultrasounds were done. These parameters would be important to how the results are interpreted. Or maybe you already have considered this and can speak to that.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 4:40 PM


Dustin,
If you are addressing me Carla...Yes. I have had an abortion. Yes, I have been to an abortion clinic. Yes, I do know exactly what it is like.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 4:44 PM


asitis,
http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/01_Jan/12302preg.htm

Chew it up and spit it out. :)

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 5:03 PM


There is no INFORMED decision to be offered in an abortion clinic. There are no facts of fetal development offered, ultrasound, description of the how painful an abortion is, side effects or health risks. "A clump of cells is the standard lie. Hardly INFORMED is it?

Maybe that is why 80% of women who see their baby on an ultrasound choose life.
Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 3:32 PM

-Carla, let me first preface this by saying that I acknowledge your experience with abortion and will not diminish YOUR situation in any way. I would not wish such turmoil on anyone.

But, it really doesn't seem like there's any way to agree on what an 'informed' choice is that will satisfy you. What you see as facts, many others see as subjective opinion. For example...fetal development: fact; how painful abortion is: not fact. Opinion.

I mean, what kind of pain are you referring to? Physical pain, like cramping? That most certainly is covered with the patient. Mental pain, like depression? The potential of that happening is covered in the counseling session, but its certainly not guaranteed to happen. Did you want them to say it is guaranteed?

Side effects and health risks: Which ones, exactly? The ones that have been proven, definitive health risks as documented and confirmed by the AMA or ACOG? Or the ones that have been disproven by the medical community, but further leverage the propaganda of the PL side?

80% of women with a ultrasound change their minds...where's that number from? I can tell you that at the clinic where I volunteer at, EVERYONE gets a sonogram. If this % were true, virtually all of the appointments for that day would be cancelled, but they certainly are not.

I think you gather where I'm going with this. We're all for informed choice. But, it can't be informed spin. The challenge here is how can one remain objective in their quest for providing information, when the point is to dissuade others from doing it in the first place? This is the issue I have with your argument. Can we just be honest and start by agreeing that the whole point of arguing for 'informed choice' by PL'ers is to prevent and dissuade, rather than pretend that the hoped result is the gradual abolishment of abortion and access to it?

Abortion is filled with so many maybes. So many what ifs. An infinite number of variables and experiences play into it and the combination is different for everyone. Finding the cold, hard black and white facts in the midst of our emotions and beliefs can be hard.

I am not a counselor, and I have never counseled a friend/family member who was debating whether to have an abortion (although I find out about them after the fact). But I assert that if I did, many times my answer would be'it depends'. "Does it hurt? Is it a person? Will I be suicidal or relieved?" It depends, it depends, it depends.

Debating that the situation and experience is not the same for every woman is futile on this board, I know, but I emphasize this with no agenda and I believe it. Someone above spoke in detail about what 'choice' really means. Its about stepping out of the way and letting someone make a decision, even if we don't agree. My family is dealing with the fact that a younger cousin just discovered she's pregnant, but she's also of age. Her mother (my aunt) is reeling. Internally, I know that I wouldn't have had a baby at her age. But I also know its not my decision or my place to suggest that unless she asked directly. She was emphatic that she was keeping her baby. And that's that. Now its our job to support her as best we can. If she had made another decision, I would have also stood by her as well, because it is her choice.

Posted by: Danielle at February 26, 2009 5:10 PM


Now its our job to support her as best we can. If she had made another decision, I would have also stood by her as well, because it is her choice.
Posted by: Danielle at February 26, 2009 5:10 PM

Good job Danielle. Finally someone who understand what choice means.

Posted by: Dustin at February 26, 2009 5:29 PM


Thanks Carla. I read the article. The issues I can see are these:

1. No information was given/collected (?) about the number of weeks at which the ultrasounds were performed. Why is this important? Well, most abortions occur prior to 9 weeks. The ultrasound at 9 weeks is quite different than say at 15 weeks or 20 weeks or 26 weeks. The effect could be significantly different.

2. All of the data comes from pro-life centers that do not offer abortion services. While they do identify the individuals as abortion-vulnerable or not, it remains that the women going to these centers are not representative of the entire population. It would be safe to say that the women going to Planned Parenthood or other facility that provides abortion services are more intent on abortion than those that choose to vist centers that do not. An ultrasound may not have the same effect on their decision. A true indication on the effect of an ultrasound on a woman's decision to abort, would require a sampling across these centers as well.

So it would more appropriate to say 80% of women who go to pro-life centers for pregnancy counselling and see their ultrasound choose to continue the pregnancy.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 5:34 PM


Some CPCs have been lucky to get 3D and 4D technology. I wonder what the stats are for women who see a better view of their child (Since 3D and 4D give clearer pictures of the tiny child. 4D is even better because of the live movements (you can see the baby moving around!)


Nadya needs some serious counseling. These poor babies need a mentally competent mother.

What about poorly educated mothers that believe the lie that their child is nothing but a blood clot or a clump of tissue? Or they ask "is it a baby yet?" and they are told "no".

Did you read the article that was the quote of the day a week or so ago that was from Canada? After three abortions, a young woman was researching fetal development and was surprised at how developed a baby is so early on.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 26, 2009 6:17 PM


Dustin, you are the one who doesn't seem to grasp what choice means. You support someone having the legal choice to kill another human being.

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 6:20 PM


asitis, PP keeps the ultrasound monitors turned away from the client. Perhaps if they showed their clients what was on the screen then 80% of their clients would choose to go through with the pregnancy.

Posted by: Eileen at February 26, 2009 7:46 PM


PP keeps the ultrasound monitors turned away from the client.
Posted by: Eileen at February 26, 2009 7:46 PM

Not true.

Posted by: Danielle at February 26, 2009 8:27 PM


perhaps eileen. But since they are more intent on having an abortion than those in the prolife centers, I think it would be lower. How much lower? That has yet to be determined.

If the woman asks to see the ultrasound at PP to that not let her see? Do they ask her she would like to see?

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 8:48 PM


sorry.... do they not let her see?

Stupid iPhone!

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 8:50 PM


Hi Danielle,
7 inches of snow so far...wheeeeee!!

I appreciate that you at least acknowledge my
abortion story.

I will probably not be able to convince you that abortion physically hurts. I was not told a thing about what it would feel like...it frickin hurt like nothing I have ever felt. Ever. Of course that is just my opinion. :P

Side effects
Guilt/Shame
Depression/Despair
Frequent Crying
Anger/Rage
Increased Promiscuity
Suicidal thoughts
Suicidal attempts
Drug/Alcohol Abuse
Nightmares
Eating Disorders
Intense Desire to become
pregnant again

Just a partial list of side effects and the struggles after a woman has an abortion. So not told to anyone about to get an abortion.

I have seen numbers from 70-80% of women that see an ultrasound at a CPC decide to keep their babies. These are "abortion vulnerable" women.
Everything I read is Prolife and can be easily dismissed of course.

Absolutely I want to prevent and dissuade a woman from having an abortion!!!! I will prevent and dissuade women by telling them THE TRUTH. That is why I do what I do.

It is black and white to me and no I will NEVER be satisfied with what PP or you or Dustin or Kate or Asitis or Obama think is "informed choice."

I may not have gotten to all of your points but that's ok. You know how passionate I am. You know that I do this out of love. You know I would give ANYTHING to go back there and do it over and let Aubrey live. You know I will never give up telling my story.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:03 PM


Asitis,
Did you expect that an abortion mill would show women a 3D or 4D ultrasound and do a study of how many decide to keep their babies?? I mean, come on, that could be bad for business. Got any links to any studies that abortion mills are doing?

Yes, Pregnancy Care Centers use ultrasound to show abortion vulnerable women their child. 70-80% of these women choose to keep their babies.

Thank you Lord!!

Where did you recruit Kate and Dustin from?

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:09 PM


carla, I did NOT dismiss the article you sent. They were clear in it that the data related to their centers only and not ones that provided abortion services. The article even noted that the figure would be lower at the latter.

No, I was very fair. My only issue is when someone takes that finding and applies it to the whole population of unwanted pregnancies. It's not valid.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:12 PM


One more thing Asitis,
Several friends from Operation Outcry asked to see the ultrasound screen before their abortions. It was turned away from them or they were simply told no. It has happened and continues to happen.

http://www.operationoutcry.org

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:12 PM


I did not say you dismissed it. I did not say you weren't fair either.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:14 PM


I may not have gotten to all of your points but that's ok. You know how passionate I am. You know that I do this out of love. You know I would give ANYTHING to go back there and do it over and let Aubrey live. You know I will never give up telling my story.
Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:03 PM

-Fair enough, Carla. I don't expect you to stop doing what you believe is right, nor would I want you to.

Posted by: Danielle at February 26, 2009 9:15 PM


where did I recruit Kate and dustin from? ?????? While I'd love to take credit for their contributions here, I honestly do not know them.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:18 PM


Thank you Danielle. Can I tell you something? I think you are very articulate and I applaud you for sticking around when that can be so hard to do. It is not always easy to be here. Even for me. I understand that you think that you are helping women but I hope that somehow, someway the seeds of doubt have been planted in your mind that abortion isn't the best thing we can offer women.

I am praying you out. YouknowwhatImean.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:22 PM


carla , I think it is wrong to not be shown your ultrasound if you request to see it.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:23 PM


Asitis,
I thought they were friends of yours. :) Ok. I am going to call it a night and say that when everyone gets a chance to be heard without the put downs...it feels pretty good. I want to thank you for reading and responding and being YOU!!!

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:24 PM


OH, and yes. It is wrong to not be shown an ultrasound when someone requests to see it.
Sweet Dreams.

Posted by: Carla at February 26, 2009 9:26 PM


Ditto. Sweet dreams to you to Carla.

Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:46 PM


Dustin, you are the one who doesn't seem to grasp what choice means. You support someone having the legal choice to kill another human being.
Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 6:20 PM

Lauren, coming to different conclusions is not a failure to grasp.

Posted by: Hal at February 26, 2009 10:04 PM


Hal, there are no different conclusions to come to. A unique human life begins at amphimixis.

This is like saying 1+1=2. The pro-choice side says 1+1=something that may one day turn into 2.

I would call that, generously, failure to grasp.

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 10:08 PM


Lauren.... People know what choice is, don't be an imbecile. Your comment about not grasping what choice is made you seem incredibly ignorant you know?

I am staying anonymous on this post because I am a PL person who wishes to express my disgust with your comment, your arguements hold substance but that comment about not grasping the concept of choice made you look foolish. Think with you head, not your fingertips.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2009 10:28 PM


Amphimixis
Biology. the merging of the nuclei of the sperm and egg cells.

Cells. Yes cells. Cells that are nothing but genetic data, no heartbeat, no brain activity, no humanity yet whatsoever. Plants have cells, are they human too when they reproduce?

You need a better arguement than Amphimixis.

Posted by: Ridiculous at February 26, 2009 10:34 PM


Ridiculous

Of course plants reproducing and creating cells does not make them human, I understand where you're going with that comment but it won't prove a point and isn't condusive to convincing people that others have a choice.

Posted by: Dustin at February 26, 2009 10:55 PM


Anon, or should I say Josephine,

I am pointing out what the "freedom to choose" really is because the very term hides behind euphanism that allows people to feel more comfortable supporting an immoral act. It's also ridiculous because it implies that people who don't support killing preborn human beings don't support "choice" in general. Again, I support any number of choices that don't result in the killing of a human being. So, again, let's call things what they are, not hide behind buzzwords.

Ridiculous,

You understand, don't you, that I'm talking about human amphimixis? Human amphimixis marks the beginning of a unique human life. I wouldn't think it was necessary to point out, but apparantly so.

Dustin,

Again, finish your thought. "that others have a choice to kill their child."

We aren't talking about someone's choice of icecream here.

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 11:06 PM


Oh, and anon, anoymous posts aren't allowed. Man up and claim your insult.

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 11:10 PM


Lauren, for some people being a living human person means more than having human cells, or even a beating heart (esp since you can be dead but still have a beating heart- another discussion for another day). For most pro-choicers these things include the capacity to feel pain and a level of awareness. Formation of a neural tube does not in any way guarantee this. For most pro-lifers, having the characteristics of a unique organism is enough.

Both sides have good points, and we can see how difficult an issue it really is when it comes down to the wide spectrum of beliefs. If it really was completely black-and-white then, there wouldn't be such confusion!

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2009 11:33 PM


Pip, it really is black and white. Setting criteria for life at any point other than amphimixis does not allow for a consistant world view.

Unless Kate believes that it is ok for me to come kill her in her sleep so long as she feels no pain, she doesn't believe that it is ok to kill someone as long as it is painless.

The same could be said in regards to awareness.

There is confusion because people want there to be confusion. It is convienant for abortion to be legal, just like it was convienant for slavery to be legal. We're just doing a modern version of the 3/5ths rule. We are dehumanizing a subset of people in order to make our own lives easier. I know people hate that analogy, but in terms of dehumanization, it certainly fits.

Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2009 11:48 PM


PIP is very certain about macro evolution and anybody who disagree's is a dumb ass, but when it comes to when life is created it's "not black and white" and "confusing"....

Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 12:12 AM


Lauren, we hold the same view that abortion is wrong from the beginning. I'm just saying, I can understand that the pro-choice position on stopping allowing it when the baby starts getting the capability of feeling pain etc. I don't think that is the issue, but it's solid, it allows for more technology to refine their position as long as they are flexible. If we later find that in some ways they can feel pain at 8 weeks, I would hope their consistency takes it that far back accordingly. I don't know, I can't really speak for all the PC'rs here.

Jasper,

This is for you.


Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2009 12:33 AM


Lauren, this is for you:


Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2009 12:36 AM


PIP,

they don't care when the baby feels pain. Most of them use the bodily autonomy argument now..

Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 12:50 AM


And seriously jasper, it's time you lightened up a bit. Next time you see a picture making fun of Obama and think "backstabber" you should simultaneously think, "maybe I should go have a drink and cool down a while."

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2009 12:51 AM


jasper, I thinkt hat was the argument Kate was making.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2009 12:53 AM


PIP,

I wasn't talking about the Obama picture, I was talking about you accusing me of racism over on 2secondsfaster.

Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 12:55 AM


Jasper, you specifically asked for us to give examples of some times you might have offended us.
I said once you supported what I considered a racist t-shirt.
I never said that you have always said horrible, terrible things but thought I'd chime in since you asked. If you had said, "Hey PiP I didn't take it that way at all" then I would have said "OK but we can admit it was inappropriate" like we reached with everyone else. You stopped responding though.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 27, 2009 1:02 AM


it's no biggie PIP, I was kidding about the back stabbing remark.

"jasper, I thinkt hat was the argument Kate was making."

oh, OK.

...but with the bodily autonomy argument, when a baby feels pain doesn't matter because "no else can use her body without her consent", etc etc.

Thst what Rae uses now...shes gone backwards...

So, even if we could prove the baby feels pain at 6 weeks, it wouldn't matter to them..

Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 1:06 AM


A pro-choicer who is pro-choice because issues like 'when does a baby feel pain', or when it can feel this or sense that.. are probably more open to conversion as technology advances fetal monitoring equipment etc.

But once they go to the bodily autonomy argument, we completely lost them. This mean they don't give a sh** what the baby feels, the mother has a right to do what she pleases...

a good question to ask a bodily autonomy person would be "if it's Ok for the mother to smoke crack or do something that would harm the fetus"

according the bodily autonomy argument, she should be able to....

Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 1:15 AM


a good question to ask a bodily autonomy person would be "if it's Ok for the mother to smoke crack or do something that would harm the fetus"

Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 1:15 AM

Not if she plans on carrying the baby to term Jasper.

Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 6:33 AM


"Not if she plans on carrying the baby to term Jasper."

So if she doesn't plan on carrying the baby to term, it's OK for her to smoke crack, do meth and get stoned out of her mind while pregnant?

Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 7:12 AM


Pip. I understand their positoin, but it really does not take much to realize that it is an inconsistant worldview. That's what I'm trying to get at with Kate and Dustin.

Posted by: Lauren at February 27, 2009 7:37 AM


This bill is based on ignorance. Those behind it obviously know nothing about reproductive endocrinology. While it is generally irresponsible to transfer more than three embryos in a single cycle, it is usually necessary too create far more than three. This enables doctors to implant the ones most likely to achieve a healthy pregnancy. Italy passed a similar law, and it has only drastically reduced pregnancy rates while increasing the risk of multiples. Let's leave medical decisions to doctors.

Posted by: Emma at February 27, 2009 10:38 AM


"Not if she plans on carrying the baby to term Jasper."

So if she doesn't plan on carrying the baby to term, it's OK for her to smoke crack, do meth and get stoned out of her mind while pregnant?

Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 7:12 AM

Are you asking is it OK with regards to the fetus she is going to abort, or Ok in general?

Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 10:42 AM


It seems to me that anyone who was really pro-choice--even just pro-reproductive choice--shouldn't have any problem with what Suleman did. Her reproductive choices are her own. Have you considered that maybe she just did what she thought was best for her and for her family? We all know what pro-choice really means though:

"I don't believe that women will always make the pro-life choice even if they are informed, and I don't think they would always make the pro-choice choice either. " -Kate

I am so glad to hear someone on the pro-choice-to-kill-babies side admit it, even by accident. Choosing abortion is pro-choice; choosing life can be irresponsible. (Not me saying that, that's what the pro-choicers are saying.) Otherwise, why are there no pro-choicers defending Nadya's choice?

"Oh and one more thing, abortion is a necessary evil because I'd rather see a child never born at all, than die a slow, agonizing death in a dumpster on a cold night" -Dustin

But a death due to salt poisoning, dismemberment, or having a sharp instrument stuck in that child's skull is better? Why? Why does birth matter so much? Or does it? Is it okay for the baby to die a slow death of suffocation in a biohazard bag on a sunny afternoon at a place where babies get killed? Let us not forget, the octuplets are not yet at term. Not too late to abort them. Except that they're born.

Now if, on the other hand, one's argument is not the humanity of the unborn, but bodily integrity--there should be no problem with frozen embryos having rights. It doesn't infringe on the mother to say that the embryos are persons. She is free to get pregnant with them or not (although she may be required to release them for someone else to get pregnant with if she will not do it). This argument also means that late abortions (after the potential viability) should never be permitted. Instead, if a woman decides she does not want to raise her viable child, she can give birth by induction or C-section (her choice, and likely safer than a late-term abortion, with all those sharp instruments going in to slice up her son or daughter). And if someone is willing to adopt the baby and someone is willing to pay for the medical care, they can try to save the baby. And they might not always succeed, but many times they will. And I know I would give up all my savings, sell many of my belongings, maybe even go further to save babies' lives, regardless of their medical condition. I doubt any of these children would end up not receiving medical care.

"It would be safe to say that the women going to Planned Parenthood or other facility that provides abortion services are more intent on abortion than those that choose to vist centers that do not." -asitis

Oh, so now the pro-choice crowd is admitting that Planned Parenthood exists in large part to do abortions? It's not just a clinic that provides many important services for women anymore? Personally, I would think that many people might think Planned Parenthood would help them plan for parenthood, if they didn't know otherwise.

"a good question to ask a bodily autonomy person would be 'if it's Ok for the mother to smoke crack or do something that would harm the fetus'"
-Jasper
"Not if she plans on carrying the baby to term Jsper."
-asitis

Interesting. What penalties should be levied against the mother who doesn't want to kill her baby or change her lifestyle?

What if she finds out she's pregnant, schedules an appointment at planned parenthood, goes out and gets drunk and smokes pot, and after her hangover decides she can do it and she wants to be a mom? Has she done something wrong? Or is she required to kill the child? If there's a time a woman must kill her child, then you are pro-abortion, not pro-choice.

If the child is not a human, then why should he or she matter? Why would the potential life of the embryo matter more than the mother's right to do as she likes with her body? Why should one choice about her body affect another? And a lot of things might harm a fetus. What is an acceptable risk and what isn't? Sushi? Wine cooler? Scotch? Heroin? Roller coasters? Driving?

Posted by: YCW at February 27, 2009 1:16 PM


"It would be safe to say that the women going to Planned Parenthood or other facility that provides abortion services are more intent on abortion than those that choose to vist centers that do not." -asitis

"Oh, so now the pro-choice crowd is admitting that Planned Parenthood exists in large part to do abortions?"

Nice try YCW, but that's not what I "admitted" at all. PP provides all kinds of srvices in addition to aboryion. Regardless, it is safe to say that women who want an abortion are going to visit PP rather than a pro life center. Unless of course they've been misled from the center's advertising to think that they actually do provide full services, including abortion or at least abortion referrals.

Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 7:13 PM


Why would the potential life of the embryo matter more than the mother's right to do as she likes with her body?

Posted by: YCW at February 27, 2009 1:16 PM

Because if she is planning on carrying that embryo to term, what she does to her body might effect the health of the child once it is born. Duh. That's why women are told not to do partake in certain activities while pregnant. Almost everything carries some degree of risk. Some are a big risk and have no benefit (alcohol, drugs, smoking). Some have smaller risk and a purpose(driving). Some have a smaller risk and benefits to mother and baby (I ran and swam and was very active throughout. Years ago that would have been verboten). Sushi? Hair dye? Maybe risks. You decide.... I think you get the picture. What's your point?

Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 7:27 PM


Please explain or describe or otherwise provide proof Asitis how a pregnancy care center misleads a woman into thinking they do abortions or give abortion referrals......

Posted by: Carla at February 27, 2009 9:43 PM


Carla, are you serious????

Okay.... When I was in college and after, prolife centers in Canada were accused of doing just that. Their literature would make a women think she could go to them for abortions or referrals. When women would contact them about getting an aborion they would attempt to talk her out of it, and if that didn't work they would delay her in a number of ways, even making her think that she was waiting for one when she wasn't. These were the allegations. This was 20-25 years ago....a different time for Canada.

I can't say what goes on inside these centers now and in the U.S. But I do see from checking out some of the websites that some unsuspecting person might think they offer abortion services or assistance. And if you Google "abortion help" you get predominantly pro-life centers. This is not by chance. It makes sense that pro-life centers would have a women seeking an abortion come to them and do whatever they can to stop her. Even if that means misleading them.

It's not so far-fetched now is it?

Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 10:27 PM


Carla, sorry I just got home from a hockey game and I have to go to bed... early run in the morning. I'll check in tomorrow a.m. if you have any more questions about this. But I'm thinking you must be aware of it. I mean if I am.....

Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 10:29 PM


Carla, I just checked to see if I could find anything about centers misleading women. Because really that was pretty much off the top of my head. It actually is a concern here. Here's something I found on a Pro-Choice site (see below).Are these allegations news to you? Do you think they are valid allegations?

If these allegations are true, I don't really care if you think the tactics are excuseable or not (I suspect you would think they are, because the end justifies the means). I'm just curious as to why you would even ask me "to explain to you explain or describe or otherwise provide proof how a pregnancy care center misleads a woman". I would think someone as involved as you would know about this already.

Here it is. Now to bed!

How Do CPCs mislead women?

CPCs have a long history of deception. For example, some CPCs intentionally choose their name to mislead women into believing that they offer a wide range of services, including family planning and abortion care. In a 1989 report, the Family Research Council showed that women faced with an unplanned pregnancy were most likely to look in the Yellow Pages under the words "Pregnancy," "Medical," "Women's Centers" and "Clinics."6 Accordingly, CPCs often are advertised under these categories, as well as "Abortion Alternatives," and "Women's Organizations."7 CPCs also advertise through posters, signs, and billboards that contain messages like, "Free Pregnancy Test," or "Pregnant? Scared? We Can Help! Call 1-800 #."8 Women report, however, that when they call these numbers the CPC representatives evade questions about whether they provide abortions, and urge the women to make an appointment to meet with a 'counselor' to talk in person.9

CPCs' deceptive tactics extend to their physical appearance as well. CPCs often design their facilities to look like actual health care facilities with a waiting room, a partitioned check-in desk, and an ultrasound machine.10 They typically locate themselves near clinics that offer abortions in a deliberate attempt to increase their legitimacy and lure potential patients away from receiving abortion care by capitalizing on patients' confusion.11

Though CPCs portray themselves as medical clinics, advertising medical services including an "Ask the Doctor" section and urging women to come in for "options counseling," they do not provide full options counseling and generally will not refer for abortion care or birth control.12 In fact, Care Net, the largest network of CPCs in the United States, specifically instructs its CPCs not to give out information about birth control.13 Most do not mention anywhere on their websites that the CPC will not provide or make referrals for abortions or birth control, but instead claim to provide a "nonjudgmental environment" where "each option" can be explored.14

How do CPCs target women?

CPCs often direct outreach towards young and low-income women. They offer free pregnancy tests, locate themselves in close proximity to colleges and universities, and advertise in school newspapers.15 Low-income women are particularly vulnerable because nationwide there is a shortage of clinics that offer full options counseling and abortion care.

The Family Research Council encourages CPCs to target individuals or groups a pregnant woman is most likely to consult, primarily mothers and other family members.16 CPCs are encouraged to target families and advise them of what to do if there is an unplanned pregnancy. Additionally, the Family Research Council found that 40 percent of women turn to their doctors and that intentional marketing to the medical community could significantly increase clientele.17

Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 11:04 PM


Jill: "But in one fell swoop Suleman has spotlighted problems with unregulated IVF and turned public opinion against unregulated IVF...."

But it must be regulated in the proper way. Some merely want to reduce the number of embryos who can be IMPLANTED at any one time. That would just open the door to more "excess" embryos being destroyed, which, of course, is ethically unacceptable. What we should do, as you wrote, Jill, is to do what Italy does with IVF: limit the number of embryos who can be CREATED at any one time.

asitis: "Sorry Janet, but that makes no sense. Rape, arson, murder and extortion ARE outlawed..."

-- and yet they still take place. See? This is the rejoinder to your argument that ______ will still happen even if it becomes illegal.

Ridiculous: "Cells. Yes cells. Cells that are nothing but genetic data, no heartbeat, no brain activity, no humanity yet whatsoever. Plants have cells, are they human too when they reproduce?"

No, sugarcakes, they're PLANTS.

And, again, when the sperm cell fertilizes the ovum, the result is a complete human being. If one argues that there is no brain, heart, spinal column, etc., then the burden of proof is on him/her to demonstrate exactly when and how those entities are added later -- which, of course, doesn't happen.

Posted by: bri at February 28, 2009 4:28 PM


asitis: "CPCs have a long history of deception. For example, some CPCs intentionally choose their name to mislead women into believing that they offer a wide range of services, including family planning and abortion care. In a 1989 report, the Family Research Council showed that women faced with an unplanned pregnancy were most likely to look in the Yellow Pages under the words 'Pregnancy,' 'Medical,' 'Women's Centers' and 'Clinics.'6 Accordingly, CPCs often are advertised under these categories, as well as 'Abortion Alternatives,' and 'Women's Organizations.'7 CPCs also advertise through posters, signs, and billboards that contain messages like, "Free Pregnancy Test," or 'Pregnant? Scared? We Can Help! Call 1-800 #.'"

Asitis, NONE of these is an example of deception. NONE of the above phrases indicates in any way that a CPC provides abortions. If a CPC billed itself as an abortion clinic, or announced that abortion was among the "services" it offers, then, yeah, it's guilty of deception. If, on the other hand, it merely uses phrases such as "medical," "abortion alternatives," or "we'll help you with your crisis pregnancy," and someone figures, "Yeah, that must mean abortion," then that's her own projection, and that's on her.

Posted by: bmmg39 at March 1, 2009 11:29 PM


I agree bmmg39 they are very cautious to not step over the line. But it's carefully crafted so that someone looking for an abortion or even considering abortion will come to them.

Posted by: asitis at March 2, 2009 8:12 AM


Hi! xecrh ekmfb

Posted by: Kazelshj at May 5, 2009 9:24 AM


It's certainly admirable that government wants to take the Catholic perspective into consideration and try to bring satisfaction with the Catholic Church. Yes, I admire trying to do anything in a 'Christian' manner but who's to say the Catholic Church is always right? Hmmm . . . we often put 'denominations' on pedestals and not Christianity. Again, admire that they are trying to satisfy the Catholic Church but just don't know that I always agree with them. Sorry.

Posted by: Karen Anderson at June 12, 2009 3:02 PM