Bill Clinton to Gupta on CNN: Ok to research embryos if they're not fertilized

UPDATE, 3/13 12a: Whoops, he said it before. Bill Clinton on Larry King Live February 17:

stork carrying baby.gif

But this stem cell research, if the stem cells are frozen embryonic stem cells, if they are never going to be used to be fertilized, to bring a life into being, then I think making them available for medical research is the pro-life position and I honestly don't understand - I would understand it if we were going and raiding stem cell banks, where these stem cells were going to be used to actually fertilize eggs and have babies.

A couple commenters thought Clinton meant to say "implanted," but never mind the fact he said "fertilized" 6x, the above interview makes clear he meant "fertilized," which he defined as "to bring a life into being."...

At any rate, substituting "implanted" would render Clinton's statements more nonsensical than they already are. As commenter Raving Theist wrote:

If so, did he mean:

(1) We shouldn't carry on the research inside a woman's uterus after implanting the embryo?

(2) We shouldn't create the embryo through IVF, implant it, and then take it out and use it for ESCR?

(3) We shouldn't remove naturally conceived and implanted embryos for ESCR?

So when Clinton is properly educated on how babies are made, will he change his position on embryonic stem cell research? Sorry, can't resist another one, from DougPowers.com:

You'd think that if anybody would know the rules of the fertilization process, it would be Bill Clinton. Sperm on egg = embryo. Sperm on dress = impeachment, no embryo.

Also spotted: Gupta was on with Anderson Cooper after his Clinton interview, replayed a section of the tape where Clinton erroneously defined embryos as unfertilized eggs, and still didn't correct Clinton!

[HT for February 17 CNN quote: reader Valerie]
_______________

3/12, 7:02a: Can it be that both these men are so ignorant?

Last night on Larry King Live, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent and former candidate for President Barack Abortion's surgeon general, interviewed former President Bill Clinton on embryonic stem cell research among other things.

gupta clinton.jpgAfter first presenting Clinton as some sort of expert on ESCR, Gupta stood by as Clinton repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, misstated it is morally acceptable to experiment on embryos as long as they're not fertilized!

Clinton's ignorance is staggering, particularly given the fact he was president of the United States when this issue first came to the fore. He must have been off smoking cigars with interns when the White House primer on embryos was given. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

And where in the world was Gupta? Shame on him for letting that gross misrepresentation of embryos go uncorrected. Or, I wonder, does he even know embryos can only be embryos if fertilized?

This was not some slip. Bill Clinton thinks human embryos are unfertilized eggs. Does this mean when he realizes they are fertilized, he'll oppose embryonic stem cell research?

Watch for yourself...

Here's the transcript:

Gupta: Let's talk about something you talked a lot about in the early part of your presidency, stem cells. There was an order today providing federal money for embryonic stem cell research. First of all, let me just ask you, as someone who studied this, is this going to always be as divisive an issue as it is now? Is this going to be the abortion of the next generation? Or are people going to come around?

Clinton: I think - the answer is I think that we'll work it through. If - particularly if it's done right. If it's obvious that we're not taking embryos that can - that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it's obvious that we're not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this....

Gupta: Any reservations?

Clinton: I don't know that I have any reservations, but I was - he has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they're not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it's a pro-life decision to use an embryo that's frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research....

But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don't want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those....

But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they're not going to fool with any embryos where there's any possibility, even if it's somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings.

[HT: reader Milehimama]


Comments:

Wow.... that's all I can say, just "Wow"....

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at March 12, 2009 7:23 AM


Astounding! What's Mr. Clinton's paygrade? He seems to have no understanding of sexual reproduction. I like his compliment about President Obama's dedication to science. And he ends with such a good, pro-life stance: we ought never to be experimenting with anything fertilized, something that can develop into a baby. Seriously, though, could President Obama simply have been thinking of one word but saying another? what other word?

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 7:23 AM


Oh...my ... goodness! The ignorance is astounding! WOW!!!!!!

But what gets me is...is Bill Clinton trying to make a pro-life statement? Does he believe that if the egg is fertilized it is in fact a human being?

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 7:24 AM


oops, could Mr. Clinton (not President Obama) simply have been thinking...

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 7:25 AM


Yeah, pretty unaware - although I don't think he actually meant the word fertilized. Judging from the transcript, I'll bet he was thinking of something else and using the word fertilized. Everyone does that, though I'd expect more from a past-president.

Posted by: Kat at March 12, 2009 7:39 AM


There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg".

Don't pay attention to on-line or recent dictionaries either, they've all been polluted.

The oocyte (egg) ceases to be once amphimixis (the DNA blending) is complete. In fact the moment the zona pellucida is penetrated major reactions occur, which transform both the egg and sperm.

When the transformation is finished, there is no longer a sperm cell or an egg cell. Two individual cells have become one. It is a zygote - a single cell human being.

Robert P. George lays it out clearly in his book with Christopher Tollefsen: Embryo: A Defense of Human Life

http://www.amazon.com/Embryo-Defense-Robert-P-George/dp/0385522827

He goes through the whole process and backs it with medical and scientific references.

We lose when we continually refer to such a thing as a "fertilized egg" because that deceptively masks over what the zygote really is - a formed, existing human being at the most primary stage of life.

It also glosses over the amazing fact that the conception process is unique and life-giving.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 12, 2009 7:43 AM


From another blog I found that the word Mr. Clinton probably had in mind was implanted. I don't know why Mr. Gupta said nothing.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 8:04 AM


Jon,
This is exactly what I was going to write; I'll bet that is what he is thinking. Or....they've already tried to redefine "conception" to be implantation, so maybe now they are trying to redefine "fertilization" to be implantation. Anything to dehumanize the embryo.

Posted by: Eileen at March 12, 2009 8:10 AM


Clinton is not ignorant (imho). I think he's trying to change terms. Because if he can change "fertilize" to mean "implanted" then this whole video seems like it's reasonable to most Americans.

Posted by: Carl Brown at March 12, 2009 8:16 AM


Eileen and Carl, I think you may be right. Clinton is no dummy (though his past actions may speak otherwise).

Either that, or he's jaw-droppingly uneducated. And I don't think he is.

Posted by: Kel at March 12, 2009 8:22 AM


Some more clarification of what I mean, because others might say - yes - it's okay to say "fertilized egg".

Fertilization is a process - a verb, it is not an adjective or an end state.

If an egg is fertilized (undergoes that process) it is no longer an egg. It is transformed. It changes its state of being.

ESCR proponents play word games, using a valid phrase "fertilized egg", but reassigning a new meaning. Saying an egg has undergone that process is not the same as saying the process creates that result.

Here's an illustration to clarify:

Someone is holding a glass of water. We could say - that's a melted ice-cube, and understand that at some point prior to our immediate presence an ice-cube was in the glass.

But would we talk about drinking a melted ice-cube as though the cube still existed?

Now we're going to extract a few drops from this "melted ice-cube". Where's the ice-cube? It's not an ice-cube anymore. The ice-cube has ceased to be.

Now let's take our illustration one step further. Suppose while holding the glass of melted ice-cube, the melted ice-cube started to grow, filling up the glass on it's own. Where's the ice-cube now?

Melting is a process that transforms the state of water from a solid to a liquid. At the end of melting, there is no identifiable object "ice-cube". We can only understand it as having existed at the time of the transformation, but not after.

The same thing applies to eggs and fertilization.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 12, 2009 8:34 AM


This is the same man that said "I did not have sex with that woman, ms. Lewinski,"

Lets take you back to Biology class, Mr. Clinton.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 12, 2009 8:35 AM


Chris, do you refer to an unhatched chicken zygote as an egg? Indeed, given our Western appetites (some people in the East like to eat them), we are careful to distinguish them as fertilized eggs. Isn't it okay to do the same for mammals? What's the history of the term fertilized egg? Is it as recent as you imply Robert P. George has said it is?

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 8:45 AM


From another blog I found that the word Mr. Clinton probably had in mind was implanted.

If so, did he mean:

(1) We shouldn't carry on the research inside a woman's uterus after implanting the embryo?

(2) We shouldn't create the embryo through IVF, implant it, and then take it out and use it for ESCR?

(3) We shouldn't remove naturally conceived and implanted embryos for ESCR?

Posted by: The Raving Theist at March 12, 2009 8:47 AM


Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 8:45 AM
--------

Did you hatch or were you born?

If you didn't go through the same gestational process as a chicken, then the same terms are not applicable. Clearly you would not use the term "hatched" to describe your separation process from your gestational environment (your mom). Humorously - maybe.

If ESCR is about science, which it most definitely is, then clearly describing the terms and processes correctly is imperative for solid moral discussion.

The current center of this moral debate is "What is it?" What are embryos?

Science tells us they are human beings. Any other aspect of the discussion is merely about stages of development.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 12, 2009 9:01 AM


Raving Theist, I think what he probably means is he doesn't care either way.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 9:09 AM


Good questions, The Raving Atheist. What did he really mean?

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 9:11 AM


Arrggh!!! I called you Raving Atheist. I'm sorry, Raving Theist!

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 9:13 AM


RA: You have such an analytical mind. Love it!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 12, 2009 9:13 AM


I wonder whether the pro-life movement should start to refer to all induced abortions as forced abortions. As I've argued with (against) Doug before, the only natural abortions are miscarriages. And unlike Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gupta, pro-lifers would only be speaking more precisely by doing so. There's nothing Orwellian about such a use of the term forced abortion: all induced abortions are violence. We could refer to the kind of induced abortions that China sometimes does as unsolicited forced abortions.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 9:15 AM


I wonder whether the pro-life movement should start to refer to all induced abortions as forced abortions.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 9:15 AM

Forced is synonymous with involuntary.Surely you wouldn't want to mislead people into thinking all women are having abortions against their will?

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 9:22 AM


If Mr. Clinton means implanted, then we can boil his verbiage down to this: if we're going to use human embryos for stem cell research, then we had better make clear that we designate certain embryos for stem cell research and others for in vitro fertilization so that we don't confuse the two categories. Confusion of ESCR and IVF would be immoral [probably has something to do with a "woman's choice."]

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 9:28 AM


Asitis 9:22, read further. Read my whole comment at 9:15 a.m.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 9:29 AM


I did Jon.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 9:30 AM


"Clinton: I don't know that I have any reservations"

You're damn right you don't, you vetoed 2 bills (passed by congress) that would have banned Partial birth abortions.


Posted by: Jasper at March 12, 2009 9:32 AM


Asitis, do you call the autonomic nervous system the forced system (as opposed to the somatic)? No, it's called (synonymously) the involuntary nervous system. The word force implies a degree of violence.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 9:39 AM


Asitis said, "Surely you wouldn't want to mislead people into thinking all women are having abortions against their will?"

Surely you wouldn't want to mislead women into thinking induced abortions are not forced? The use of force implies the intent to kill. There is no such intent in a miscarriage.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 9:48 AM


Or, at least, there is the implication of physical violence.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 9:52 AM


That's a good point, Carl. Change terms around, create a semantical smokescreen and confusion around what words mean... it worked so well before, why not use it here?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 12, 2009 9:53 AM


Asitis, do you call the autonomic nervous system the forced system (as opposed to the somatic)? No, it's called (synonymously) the involuntary nervous system. The word force implies a degree of violence.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 9:39 AM

Jon, the word forced is very commonly used to describe something that is involuntary so it's not a good adjective for abortion. It could easily be misinterpreted. Wouldn't you say?

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 9:56 AM


I like Jon's idea.

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 10:03 AM


Asitis, it is always forced on the unborn.

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 10:04 AM


I don't know, Asitis. People quickly catch on: there are natural abortions and there are forced abortions. Forced abortions are generally solicited in the U.S. In China, they are sometimes unsolicited. Regardless, they are forced. The pregnancy is forcefully terminated against the natural impulse of the female body and feminine instinct. Indeed, every induced abortion is indeed involuntary. Some chemical or sharp piece of metal must force her womb to give up the new creature it is nurturing. The womb doesn't automatically--voluntarily--comply with the mother's perverted will. If a forced abortion is being sought, then it is following its design to continue the pregnancy.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:08 AM


Asitis, it is always forced on the unborn.

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 10:04 AM

Well, that's a given Bethany.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:09 AM


Argue it all you want Jon, but it's intentionally misleading.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:13 AM


Except for peer, parental, or societal pressure, only a mother with a healthy body but unhealthy mind forces herself to abort. Often she is pressured to do so by her husband, boyfriend, parents, high school counsellor, Planned Parenthood representative, etc. If so, then they force her to force an abortion.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:14 AM


Asitis, you mean like "choice"?

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 10:20 AM


Except for peer, parental, or societal pressure, only a mother with a healthy body but unhealthy mind forces herself to abort. Often she is pressured to do so by her husband, boyfriend, parents, high school counsellor, Planned Parenthood representative, etc. If so, then they force her to force an abortion.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:14 AM

I don't doubt that that can sometimes happen Jon. But to say it always happens.... that women don't make their own choice... that they choose abortion against their better judgement or against their will.... is untrue.

See.You ARE using the termed forced to imply that it is involuntary

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:20 AM


Asitis said, "Argue it all you want Jon, but it's intentionally misleading."

No, the term forced abortion as I use it is not misleading. You are misleading. And the most misleading feminist term is it. We're talking about a human being, not a choice, not an it. And as you well know, my use of the term forced abortion forcefully (in a good way) demonstrates the very real violence to both mother and child.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:23 AM


People quickly catch on: there are natural abortions and there are forced abortions.
Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:08 AM

Jon, do people actually use that term "natural abortion" in real life? Because I've never heard it used. People call it a miscarriage. If someone said "natural abortion" to me, I'd think they were talking about a herbal version of a chemical abortion to be honest

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:24 AM


Asitis said, "You ARE using the termed forced to imply that it is involuntary."

But it is. See my comment at 10:08 a.m. The womb doesn't voluntarily give up what it has received and nurtured.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:26 AM


See.You ARE using the termed forced to imply that it is involuntary

The majority of the time, it is either coerced or forced, Asitis. Take a look at www.unchoice.info sometime. Abortion is the ultimate UNCHOICE.

Anyone who's ever volunteered at a CPC can tell you about that one from personal experience.
Parents force their children to abort all the time. Boyfriends coerce their girlfriends or threaten them with their lives.

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 10:27 AM


The womb doesn't voluntarily give up what it has received and nurtured.

Good point, Jon. That is so true.

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 10:27 AM


I know my point at 10:27 is irrelevant to Jon's point, but I thought it is also a good thing to note.

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 10:29 AM


Hey everyone,
haven't commented in a while here, but I had a really disturbing and sad story told to me last night by one of my friends. I don't think I can re-type it here, but it's on the top thread. I thought it would be appropriate to post on Jill's site...it really boggled my mind how wrong on SO MANY LEVELS the story was.

On a brighter note; how are you Bethany? I haven't been around much and hope you are doing well, as I hope everyone here is doing. I see new commenters here than before. Great! :)

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2009 10:30 AM


No, the term forced abortion as I use it is not misleading. You are misleading. And the most misleading feminist term is it. We're talking about a human being, not a choice, not an it. And as you well know, my use of the term forced abortion forcefully (in a good way) demonstrates the very real violence to both mother and child.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:23 AM

Excuse me? You are saying the term "abortion" is misleading?

Now,you might want to add the adjective "forced" to it in order to describe your view of abortion. But it is misleading and unnecessary.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:30 AM


Asitis said, "You ARE using the termed forced to imply that it is involuntary."

But it is. See my comment at 10:08 a.m. The womb doesn't voluntarily give up what it has received and nurtured.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:26 AM

Jon, you know I was referring to your 10:20am post. You know, the one where you claimed women (not just thier uterus') do not voluntarily get abortions, but are rather forced into the decision. Nice try .

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:33 AM


Anyone who's ever volunteered at a CPC can tell you about that one from personal experience.
Parents force their children to abort all the time. Boyfriends coerce their girlfriends or threaten them with their lives.

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 10:27 AM

Sutre, I said I don't doubt it happens some times. We have even heard personal accounts of that here. But it doesn't mean it happens all the time or even most of the time.....

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:35 AM


Asitis said, "Jon, do people actually use that term 'natural abortion' in real life?"

I don't think they do. The term abortion has become a dirty word, rightfully so. No expectant mother who has a miscarriage wants to be associated with the guilt of an abortion. Doctors, at least pro-life doctors, do not term the termination of an ecto*** pregnancy (when the zygote or embryo attaches to the wrong organ) an abortion. They recognize that such pregnancies are almost always fatal to both mother and child.

And, you know, Asitis, the term abort was originally only a transitive verb. I just looked in my 1964 Concise Oxford Dictionary. I think that's because abort was originally more of a medical term. Then we could only correctly say, "She aborted." To say, "She aborted her pregnancy (or child)" would be incorrect grammar.

Hey, if we're going to forcefully change the English language in the postmodern fashion--where language is merely power politics--in which every text has an agenda--then what could be wrong with adding some much-needed precision? if pro-lifers could actually accomplish the change?

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:41 AM


Asitis said, "Jon, do people actually use that term 'natural abortion' in real life?"

John said :I don't think they do. The term abortion has become a dirty word, rightfully so. No expectant mother who has a miscarriage wants to be associated with the guilt of an abortion.

So, there is abortion. And there is miscarriage.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:47 AM


Oops, at 10:41 a.m. I meant to say, "The term abort was originally only a intransitive verb."

Asitis said at 10:47 a.m., "So, there is abortion. And there is miscarriage."

Yes. Or, as an alternatively, there are forced abortions and miscarriages (natural abortions).

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:51 AM


Asitis, actually there is spontaneous abortion and induced abortion.

Our medical charts say "spontaneous abortion" though doctors usually don't use the term.

Posted by: Lauren at March 12, 2009 10:52 AM


there are*

Posted by: Lauren at March 12, 2009 10:52 AM


* There are spontaneous abortions and induced abortions*

Oy!

Posted by: Lauren at March 12, 2009 10:54 AM


then what could be wrong with adding some much-needed precision? if pro-lifers could actually accomplish the change?

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:41 AM

What's wrong with it is that, as I have been saying all along, forced is not an accurate adjective to add because it could easily be misinterpreted to mean involuntary. Furthermore it's not necessary.

In which case you aren't adding the adjective for "much-needed precision", but ratehr for... how did you put it?...."merely power politics"

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:54 AM


Yes. Or, as an alternatively, there are forced abortions and miscarriages (natural abortions).

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:51 AM

Yeh.... again. You aren't used clear language. Forced abortions could be taken to mean involuntray abortions. And natural abortions could be taken to mean herbal abortions.

Better use the staright terms: abortion and misscarriage. No misinterpretation.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:57 AM


Asitis, actually there is spontaneous abortion and induced abortion.

Our medical charts say "spontaneous abortion" though doctors usually don't use the term.

Posted by: Lauren at March 12, 2009 10:52 AM

And I take it spontaneous abortions are miscarraiges and that's what doctor's refer to them as?

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:00 AM


Asitis said, "Jon, you know I was referring to your 10:20am post. You know, the one where you claimed women (not just thier uterus') do not voluntarily get abortions, but are rather forced into the decision."

And you should read again what I said in my comment at 10:20 a.m. I said, and I put it in italics (though not in bold type) as I do here: "[T]hey force her to force an abortion."

The first instance of force refers to the pressure of the boyfriend, parents, high school counsellor, Planned Parenthood representative, etc. The second instance refers to the violence of the abortion itself.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:00 AM


Yes. Or, as an alternatively, there are forced abortions and miscarriages (natural abortions).
Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:51 AM

So, who forced it?

Posted by: Danielle at March 12, 2009 11:01 AM


Clinton is the guru of sex education. The master leader. Surely he needs sex ed.
course an embryo is not a human baby for these folks. It is a surprise that a human baby shows at birth.

Posted by: xppc at March 12, 2009 11:05 AM


And you should read again what I said in my comment at 10:20 a.m. I said, and I put it in italics (though not in bold type) as I do here: "[T]hey force her to force an abortion."

The first instance of force refers to the pressure of the boyfriend, parents, high school counsellor, Planned Parenthood representative, etc. The second instance refers to the violence of the abortion itself.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:00 AM

Right.... and by calling abortions forced abortions you are implying that all abortions are like this.

Here it is again Jon....


Except for peer, parental, or societal pressure, only a mother with a healthy body but unhealthy mind forces herself to abort. Often she is pressured to do so by her husband, boyfriend, parents, high school counsellor, Planned Parenthood representative, etc. If so, then they force her to force an abortion.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 10:14 AM

I don't doubt that that can sometimes happen Jon. But to say it always happens.... that women don't make their own choice... that they choose abortion against their better judgement or against their will.... is untrue.

See.You ARE using the termed forced to imply that it is involuntary

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:20 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:06 AM


Asitis at 10:54 and 10:57 a.m., as I've already reiterated at 10:26 a.m., induced abortions are indeed involuntary. The womb doesn't voluntarily give up what it has received and nurtured. Please consider what I say.

Lauren at 10:52 a.m., thank you for the term spontaneous abortion. Yes, I've also heard miscarriages referred to as spontaneous abortions.

Bethany at 10:27 a.m., thank you for your note and moral support.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:06 AM


Jon: Asitis at 10:54 and 10:57 a.m., as I've already reiterated at 10:26 a.m., induced abortions are indeed involuntary. The womb doesn't voluntarily give up what it has received and nurtured. Please consider what I say.


Oh, I have considered that Jon. But you are missing my point: The terminology "forced abortion" can easily be misinterpreted to mean that the woman (not merely her uterus) is involuntarily having the abortion.

But I think you know this.


Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:10 AM


Danielle asked at 11:01 a.m., "So, who forced it?"

The abortionist and aborting expectant mother forced it. Obviously. Leaving her body to its own ways, the mother wasn't about to abort. That's why she determined to force it.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:10 AM


On a brighter note; how are you Bethany? I haven't been around much and hope you are doing well, as I hope everyone here is doing. I see new commenters here than before. Great! :)

Lyssie, i have missed you! Can you add me to your Facebook friends list?

I just commented on the story you wrote about...how terrible. I'm going to town for a bit but will be back later to talk more.

Jon, you're welcome. :)

Posted by: Bethany at March 12, 2009 11:11 AM


abortions are indeed involuntary. The womb doesn't voluntarily give up what it has received and nurtured. Please consider what I say.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:06 AMM

Oh, wait a minute! I think I understand your confusion Jon. You think women THINK with their uterus! No, no.... we have a brain, just like men.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:16 AM


Abortion as we all know it is really called "induced abortion."

"Induce" is a synonym of "force."

Posted by: Lauren at March 12, 2009 11:19 AM


Yes, it is Lauren. But induced is not going to be confused with involuntary.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:22 AM


Personally, while we're changing terms, I want to see the term "fetal rights" (or maybe "fetal civil rights") thrown around some more.

Never allow someone to talk about the woman's situation alone. Bring it back to the child. Compare the child to an older child, or a born child, and restate.

It all comes down to either the humanity/inhumanity of the unborn, and whether the woman's right to bodily integrity is insurmountable. If they believe the unborn inhuman, they are going against science and reason, and belittling born children less than 40 weeks old as being inhuman as well. They also do a great injustice to anyone who has ever lost a child to miscarrriage. If it is about bodily integrity, they are selfish beyond belief and we can argue that only abortion by inducing labor may be performed. We can save some of the babies in the late second trimester and most in the third through medical care, even giving them steroids and such before the procedure to increase their chances. And we can insist on respecting the rights of frozen embryos.

Posted by: YCW at March 12, 2009 11:25 AM


Abortion as we all know it is really called "induced abortion."

Posted by: Lauren at March 12, 2009 11:19 AM

Lauren, I'm a little sconfused about something: Yesterday in her post about the Russia documentary, Jill referred to induced abortions and surgical abortions as two different things:

"older girls tell younger girls to wait until after 20 weeks to abort because, they say, it is better for the female body to have an induced abortion than surgical abortion"

But from what you wrote above, it sounds like you are using "induced abortion" to refer to all types of abortion (except for spontaneous abortion aka misscarriage).

Which is it?

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:26 AM


Asitis said at 11:10 a.m., "The terminology 'forced abortion' can easily be misinterpreted to mean that the woman (not merely her uterus) is involuntarily having the abortion."

But we're talking about her body here. This is medical vocabulary. In every forced abortion, the expectant mother is forced to abort. As to the other part of the story as you would have it, her twisted will is bent from its original motherly state. Didn't she welcome the father of her child? Didn't she become one flesh with him? What is the child but the greatest manifestation of their union? You disconnect sex and procreation, but that's not natural. That's forced again. And violence usually begets more violence.

My term isn't a misinterpretation. It's the greater truth. As with homosexuality, abortion is the abuse of one's own body. It is physical violence.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:27 AM


My term isn't a misinterpretation. It's the greater truth. As with homosexuality, abortion is the abuse of one's own body. It is physical violence.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:27 AM

Yeh Jon.... well clearly your truth isn't everyone's truth.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:32 AM


Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2009 10:30 AM
--------

Hi Lyssie - welcome back. As you can see - there's still some heavy discussion that goes on here.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 12, 2009 11:37 AM


Asitis said, "You think women THINK with their uterus! No, no.... we have a brain, just like men."

No, I think a woman nurtures and develops a child with her uterus. She unconsciously does this very well. In fact--though I am a bachelor and do not even have a womb, let alone a wife--I would daresay that as much or more conscious nurture is given after the child is born than before. But I only suppose.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:38 AM


"Lauren, I'm a little sconfused about something: Yesterday in her post about the Russia documentary, Jill referred to induced abortions and surgical abortions as two different things"

In an surgical abortion, they rip the limbs off and crush the skull, then remove tha parts. If the baby is small enough, they vacuum him/her out with a tube.

In induced labor abortion, the baby is actually delivered early (the baby is delivered and left for dead) and other times the baby is injected with posion in womb then delivered dead.


Posted by: Jasper at March 12, 2009 11:39 AM


Hmmmm... Well, thanks for that Jasper. But I think Lauren was referring to induced abortion as being all-encompassing. Hence, the confusion.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:51 AM


Asitis: "If someone said "natural abortion" to me, I'd think they were talking about a herbal version of a chemical abortion to be honest."

No you are wrong Asitis. As someone who heard the term "threatened abortion" about 20 times from a various number of doctors when my wife was bleeding during her first pregnancy, I think I have some insight.

They werent talking about us "forcing" an abortion either. They were talking about threat of miscarriage.

A forced abortion, is an abortion that is purposefully brought about.

Anyone else notice how Asitis has no problem pretty much with Clinton refering to an embryo as unfertilized? Its amazing how brainwashed she is.

Forced abortion is a proper, if not possibly misleading term.

Unfertilized embryo is NOT a proper term and is a SPECIFICALLY misleading term.

Why are you not upset by Clinton's distortion of truth and Gupta's refusal to correct him? Does Gupta not know how an ebryo functions? Or was he more likely happy to hear Clinton distort the information so that the average American becomes further muddied on the issue.

If only Americans really knew the whole story and reasoned it out.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 11:54 AM


There is 'induced abortions' which are what all intentional abortions are. Then there is 'induced labor abortion' which is a specific kind of abortion.

Posted by: Jasper at March 12, 2009 11:54 AM


YCW at 11:25 a.m., I like the term fetal civil rights except that the term fetus doesn't have to refer to a human fetus. And the trouble is that we already have the term human rights but don't apply it to human beings before they are born. So although all women have women's rights, all Amerindians have Amerindian rights (at least in Canada), all gays have gay rights (whether there are any unique ones or not), and all animals have animal rights--still not all human beings have human rights. This inconsistency is a willful blindness. And we can see the same inconsistency in American rights and children's rights, to name two other categories. Pre-born American children are still considered neither Americans nor children.

Another good term for surgical abortion is prenatal dismemberment.

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:57 AM


"it is better for the female body to have an induced abortion than surgical abortion"

To be accurate, which you seem to be so upset about, (except for on the pro-choice side,) it should say induced LABOR abortion vs surgical abortion. Induced abortion, or forced abortion, refers to the abortions that we are familiar with Asitis. Im curious how you can be so ignorant on an issue that you vehemently support? Is this why you post your own opinion on the issue?

Im also curious why you didnt just look it up before coming in and accusing everyone of "distortion."

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:00 PM


Asitis: "Hmmmm... Well, thanks for that Jasper. But I think Lauren was referring to induced abortion as being all-encompassing. Hence, the confusion. "

Right, in that she is correct, and you once again have no idea what you are talking about, hence your confusion.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:04 PM


Oliver: Anyone else notice how Asitis has no problem pretty much with Clinton refering to an embryo as unfertilized? Its amazing how brainwashed she is

Oliver, did I say I had no problem with it? To tell you the truth, I don't know what to think about it. I don't know if he doesn't knows any better or if he was "misspeaking" in an effort to mislead viewers or if it he simply made a slip of the tongue (I doubt this since it happened a few times). But I do think the bottom line for him is that it doesn't make any difference to him personally if it's fertilized or not.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 12:28 PM


Asitis: "If someone said "natural abortion" to me, I'd think they were talking about a herbal version of a chemical abortion to be honest."

No you are wrong Asitis. As someone who heard the term "threatened abortion" about 20 times from a various number of doctors when my wife was bleeding during her first pregnancy, I think I have some insight

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 11:54 AM

Insight into what? What someone might think when they hear "natural abortion"? Okay, what would they think Oliver? Or at least what would you think? Because you did not specify.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 12:32 PM


To be accurate, which you seem to be so upset about, (except for on the pro-choice side,) it should say induced LABOR abortion vs surgical abortion. Induced abortion, or forced abortion, refers to the abortions that we are familiar with Asitis. Im curious how you can be so ignorant on an issue that you vehemently support? Is this why you post your own opinion on the issue?

Im also curious why you didnt just look it up before coming in and accusing everyone of "distortion."

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:00 PM


Whoa, down boy. Sorry, Ollie but you are looking for a fight that simply isn't there. I was just looking for clarification so that I had the terms staright. Nothing more than that.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 12:38 PM


Right, in that she is correct, and you once again have no idea what you are talking about, hence your confusion.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:04 PM

And there he goes folks......

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 12:39 PM


Asitis,

You were trying to call someone out on something that was clear by the wording. When you recieved an explanation, you claim that you "thought" Lauren was causing confusion by refering to induced abortion as all-encompassing.

You are trying yet again to cause trouble. Too bad you are seriously uninformed on the issue of abortion and your attempts only went to magnify this fact.

And we wonder why Asitis wont explain her stance on abortion...

Oh and for Clinton, you came in here saying "I think what he probably means is he doesn't care either way. "

So in other words, it was not that big of a deal for his slip-up. When we PROPERLY use terms such as "forced" or "induced" abortion you get all uppity. Its ridiculous.

Its amazing that even after Jaspar explained the terms to you, you STILL thought Lauren was incorrect in refering to all abortions as induced abortions.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:45 PM


Oliver: You were trying to call someone out on something that was clear by the wording. When you recieved an explanation, you claim that you "thought" Lauren was causing confusion by refering to induced abortion as all-encompassing.


Oliver you are absolutely 100% wrong in this asumption. as I already told you, I was honestly confused by the different uses of the term induced abortion and wanted to make sure I had it right. You can go on thinking I am lying about this, but I most certainly am not.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 12:49 PM


Its amazing that even after Jaspar explained the terms to you, you STILL thought Lauren was incorrect in refering to all abortions as induced abortions.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:45 PM

Oliver, I never said I thought Lauren was incorrect. I was looking for someone to clarify for me what was correct.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 12:52 PM


Right.

Regardless it goes to show your ignorance on the abortion issue and your celerity in questioning pro-lifers without research yet again.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:54 PM


Asitis: " I never said I thought Lauren was incorrect. I was looking for someone to clarify for me what was correct. "

What are you talking about?

You said "but" and then said how Lauren used the term induced abortion and said "hence, the confusion."

Do you not know what the word "but" means? Its a rebuttal. You were saying "Thanks Jaspar" to his point and the "but" meaning that in spite of his point such and such is the case.

How could you have meant that you needed clarification? You didnt even ask a question, just pointed out that what Lauren said ran contrary to Jaspars point and then concluded that confusion came from her usage.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:58 PM


Oh and for Clinton, you came in here saying "I think what he probably means is he doesn't care either way. "

So in other words, it was not that big of a deal for his slip-up. When we PROPERLY use terms such as "forced" or "induced" abortion you get all uppity. Its ridiculous.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:45 PM


Oliver you are doing it again. You are getting an idea in your head and running with it instead of listening. So please do us all a favor and listen:

I didn't say that Clinton's "slip up" was no big deal. Depending on what it actually was it could be a big deal. Was it just a slip up? not really a big deal. Except that he did it more than once and wasn't corrected. Is he unknowledgeble? Sure, big deal. Was he intentionally misleading the public? Bigger deal.

Whatever Clinton knows or doesn't know or if he mislead, I think to him it doesn't matter whether an embryo is fertilized or not. I am suggesting that to him it's a non-issue.

That is what I meant by my statement. Understand?

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 1:00 PM


You said "but" and then said how Lauren used the term induced abortion and said "hence, the confusion."

Do you not know what the word "but" means? Its a rebuttal. You were saying "Thanks Jaspar" to his point and the "but" meaning that in spite of his point such and such is the case.

How could you have meant that you needed clarification? You didnt even ask a question, just pointed out that what Lauren said ran contrary to Jaspars point and then concluded that confusion came from her usage.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:58 PM


Oliver, jasper gave me some information, but it didn't answer my question. I was saying Thanks Jasper, but I still need the aswer to my question.

You are looking for something that is not there.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 1:03 PM


Asitis: "You are looking for something that is not there."

Maybe, but the alternative is that you have the cognitive ability of a houseplant. How could you not understand what Jaspar said in light of what Lauren said? Hell, how could you ocntinue inserting doubt when you could have simplied looked the information up?

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 1:10 PM


How could you have meant that you needed clarification? You didnt even ask a question, just pointed out that what Lauren said ran contrary to Jaspars point and then concluded that confusion came from her usage.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 12:58 PM

Oliver, I'm thinking you must have missed my original comment, wher the question was asked.

Abortion as we all know it is really called "induced abortion."

Posted by: Lauren at March 12, 2009 11:19 AM

Lauren, I'm a little sconfused about something: Yesterday in her post about the Russia documentary, Jill referred to induced abortions and surgical abortions as two different things:

"older girls tell younger girls to wait until after 20 weeks to abort because, they say, it is better for the female body to have an induced abortion than surgical abortion"

But from what you wrote above, it sounds like you are using "induced abortion" to refer to all types of abortion (except for spontaneous abortion aka misscarriage).

Which is it?

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 11:26 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 1:11 PM


Asitis: "You are looking for something that is not there."

Maybe, but the alternative is that you have the cognitive ability of a houseplant. How could you not understand what Jaspar said in light of what Lauren said? Hell, how could you ocntinue inserting doubt when you could have simplied looked the information up?

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 1:10 PM

Oliver, did you re-read my comment I just wrote containing the original query.

Okay? Are you over this now?

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 1:13 PM


the cognitive ability of a houseplant?????

I'd say I was pretty accurate the other day when I said you get an idea in your head that you are so sure is right that you don't bother listening to what the other person is REALLY saying and end up hurling insults

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 1:16 PM


I did read your original comment. The fact that you could not piece what was happening together is either a sign of your incompetence or your willful abuse of the language at hand.

Besides, all that and you could have easily investigated all you want. You went on to argue that "induced" or "forced" abortion is misleading when it is the terminology used. Please do some research on abortion. It may inform you on your own position, which you must apparently hold out of "feelings" and what "seems" right.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 1:20 PM


For Pete's sake Oliver. You're still not listening. Here's "what was happening": I pointed out that Jill differentiated between induced and surgical abortions and that Lauren had used induce to refer to all abortions. I was simply looking for clarification. In response, Jasper described induced abortions and surgical abortions. All that did was reiterate Jill's use of the terminology. I still was still looking for clarification.

It's not a big deal. You are making it something it's not. And trying to insult my intelligence.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 1:27 PM


Asitis: "Jasper described induced abortions"

What is wrong with you? Do you still not get it? Jasper explained the difference between induced LABOR abortions and surgical abortions.

Why cant you understand this? Do you do these kinds of things on purpose?

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 1:33 PM


I've learned not to expect much from Clinton, but I'm very upset with Gupta. Honestly, I think I would have been laughing and said, "WHAT did you just say???"

All I can think based on the lack of correction is that Gupta is pro-abortion and was "in on it" with Clinton to change the term and that is very disturbing.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 12, 2009 1:36 PM


I've learned not to expect much from Clinton, but I'm very upset with Gupta. Honestly, I think I would have been laughing and said, "WHAT did you just say???"

All I can think based on the lack of correction is that Gupta is pro-abortion and was "in on it" with Clinton to change the term and that is very disturbing.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 12, 2009 1:36 PM


(By the way...off-topic but the Ped-egg is amazing.)

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 1:36 PM


Its amazing what pro-choicers will do isnt it? It has to be because the only way to justify this stance is to distort the truth.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 1:40 PM


What is wrong with you? Do you still not get it? Jasper explained the difference between induced LABOR abortions and surgical abortions.

Why cant you understand this? Do you do these kinds of things on purpose?

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 1:33 PM

Ah, I didn't see the LABOR in his terminology. Well, I might have been able to figure out that's what Jill had meant to write had I read his comment more carefully.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 1:45 PM


Hm, at least you can admit when youre wrong, sometimes. Kudos to you.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 1:46 PM


Yes, I was wrong to miss that in his comment oliver. And you were wrong on the intent of my comment and wrong about what I was saying about Clinton.

Minus 2 pts Oliver. Minus 1 point Asitis.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 1:55 PM


Im afraid not. I did leave open the possibility that you were not reading Jasper/Lauren properly.

And I am not wrong on what you said about Clinton. The first thing you brought up was something defending him, even though his transgression was much worse. Then again, I guess its okay for Clinton to not know what hes talking about and/or deceive the American public, hes a Democrat after all!

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 2:12 PM


Jon at March 12, 2009 8:04 AM

From another blog I found that the word Mr. Clinton probably had in mind was implanted. I don't know why Mr. Gupta said nothing.

Sanjay Gupta is a neurologist, and reveals HIS limited knowledge of stem cells in his book Chasing Life, this below was from an email I sent Jan. 6th to pro-life relatives when Gupta was first being considered for Surgeon General (he's since declined, I heard at least one reason was the paycut he'd have to take):

"It turns out stem cells are located in many different areas of the body, including your bone marrow and even your fat." ---excerpt from Dr. Gupta's book Chasing Life http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/Story?id=3020670

IT TURNS OUT? Did he not know this? Even I know that, but, alas, the American public is largely ignorant of the facts surrounding stem-cell research. I would hope our *cringe* next Surgeon General would be a bit more informed. The truth is there's no need to use embryos (though I'm not sure Gupta even put two and two together, because he goes on to say, rather wistfully, that in Russia they are stem cell rich since the abortion-to-live-birth ratio is 2:1)

"Coming from the United States, the scientific capital of the world, I feel woefully behind. In the United States, we still only talk about the possibility of stem cell treatments. Here in Russia, where abortions outnumber live births two to one, fetuses and their stem cells are in abundant supply, and they are being used at an ever-quickening pace." -Gupta, Chasing Life

Wasteful Americans. I'm imagining a natural resources map done in grade school, you know, the type with an ear of corn or an oil tower, what would a plethora of aborted fetuses and their stem cells be represented with? Will Gupta, then, be the one Obama designates as having a pay grade equal to deciding when life begins? The only thing I can agree with Gupta about is the 'err on the side of caution' stance he made here http://www.gopusa.com/news/2006/december/1214_abortion_pain.shtml when it comes to fetal pain. But that was more than 2 years ago and I'd bet dimes to dollars that being chosen by The One might just be flattering enough to forget he ever dared challenge the opinion of pro-abortion activists.

-------------
Clinton is a Rhodes scholar. I've got to agree with those who believe he's re-defining terms. The birth control companies do it by saying a pregnancy is implantation, so they can skirt the issue of their abortifacient products!

Posted by: klyn73 at March 12, 2009 2:15 PM


Klyn :"Clinton is a Rhodes scholar."

I think this is evidence more for the idea that no schooling/training/experience is sufficient to produce an inteligent mind.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 2:21 PM


I agree, Oliver. Let's keep in mind that Clinton's the same one who attempted to redefine the word "is" when he was impeached, as well as the already mentioned "sexual relations". Sin corrupts the thought processes of even the most learned scholars, scientists, politicians and even ethics experts.

Posted by: klyn73 at March 12, 2009 2:48 PM


The first thing you brought up was something defending him, even though his transgression was much worse. Then again, I guess its okay for Clinton to not know what hes talking about and/or deceive the American public, hes a Democrat after all!

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 2:12 PM

Huh? How exactly was I defending Clinton Oliver?

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 3:16 PM


Interestingly, CNN host Carol Costello made the very same gaffe in July 2006 when interviewing CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen about stem cell research:

Cohen: "These are four-day old embryos. We’re talking about very tiny, tiny embryos."

Costello: "And they’re not fertilized either, right?"

Cohen, forced to correct Costello, gave her a quick explanation of how an embryo is formed:

Cohen: "Well no, an embryo is fertilized."

Costello: "Just to make it clear–"

Cohen: "Its sperm and egg have met each other–"

Costello: "So, it is?"

Cohen: "–and they, they’ve grown for about four days. So, they’ve formed a very, very small embryo."

Costello: "Ok, so I feel silly now."

Cohen: "Don't feel silly."

Posted by: The Raving Theist at March 12, 2009 3:20 PM


How could you exit highschool not knowing that a embryo is fertilized? Im both amazed and disheartened that one of the faces of a cable news company could be so uninformed. Does anyone wonder why I believe most Americans incapable of truly following the agreed upon premises to the conclusion that abortion is immoral?

Asitis, you tried to explain what he "meant" when he said what he said. Those were the first words you posted, not a critique.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 3:26 PM


Oliver please show me exactly what you are referring to. let's keep this simple.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 3:38 PM


Asitis: "Raving Theist, I think what he probably means is he doesn't care either way. "

That was in response to Raving Theist post evaluating the absrudity of the "He meant implanted, not fertilized" argument. Your post was not to critique Clinton on his mistake, but to try and explain what he meant by it.

Again I wonder at your motive to explain Clinton's incorrect statement, but to attack the pro-lifers on their correct statements.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 3:41 PM


I believe that Pro-choicers/ Pro-ESCR people constantly have be on guard on how they refer to life/unborn babies, embryos, etc. The have to be careful not to acknowledge when human life starts... carefully crafting the right words in their arguments, pre-occupied in 'not slipping up'...

All we pro-lifers have to do is speak the truth.

Posted by: Jasper at March 12, 2009 3:49 PM


IT was neither Oliver. I was not defending Clinton nor explaing his incorrect statement. As I have already said, I don't know the explanation for the mistake (misspoke? misinformed? misleading?). What I meant by this comment to RT was that whatever the explaination, Clinton probably doesn't care whether an embryo is fertilized or not or implanted or not.

It was not defending Bill.


Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 3:57 PM


It was an explanation of an absurd statement. This is a defense, whether or not it is justified, Asitis.

Heres a sample scenario.

Bob: "Blah blah blah blah"

Person A: "What Bob said makes no sense."

Person B: "Well, what Bob said makes sense because of this."

Person B is defending Bob. Call it what you want.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 4:02 PM


Oliver, there you go again......Please stop and listen:

I never said "Well, what Bill says make sense because he doesn't care either way". No I simply said "Bill probably means to say he doesn't care either way".

I was not defending Bill. If anything, I was accusing him of not saying what he really means on the issue.

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 4:09 PM


Klyn :"Clinton is a Rhodes scholar."

I think this is evidence more for the idea that no schooling/training/experience is sufficient to produce an inteligent mind.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 2:21 PM

absolutely brilliant!

Posted by: angel at March 12, 2009 4:20 PM


You want another confusing term thrown into the mix?

My first miscarriage was a "missed abortion". The baby had died of its own natural causes, but my body hadn't rejected it yet. We found out by sono at our second prenatal checkup after the dr. couldn't find the heartbeat. It took about 4 weeks after the baby had died for my body to finally miscarry.

I always have a hard time explaining that to people with no medical background and "missed miscarraige" sounds bizarre spoken and is not the proper term.

I have now had two "spontaneous complete miscarraiges" and two live births according to my chart and am 17 weeks pregnant again :)

The miscarriages were spontaneuos in that I did not willfully cause them and complete in that the baby, placenta and all the "products of conception" eventually came out without medical intervention. *Trying to be both medically accurate and not to gross, and still not offend anyone by failing to acknoweldge the babies.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at March 12, 2009 4:48 PM


Oliver 2:21PM

This is a guy who didn't know oral sex was having sex. Let's see how many straying husbands will get off the hook with that one!

I read an amusing article where a bunch of construction workers sat around giving their opinion on Clinton's stupidity when it came to philandering. Their advice for Clinton would have been:

1. Never squeeze your plaything in public

2. Buy her an expensive gift to make sure she keeps quiet. Don't give her a chinzy hatpin

3. Don't leave messages on her answering machine, especially if you have a very recognizable voice!

This guy is a Rhodes' Scholar?

Posted by: Mary at March 12, 2009 5:11 PM


What can we expect from a man who publicly declared he did not have sex with that woman (Monica Lewinsky.) Oppose Bill Clinton and BO with the following poem:

OPERATION CREATION
The Eve of Man’s Manipulation


Dying for designer genes
Trying every new pair
Acid washed, custom made
Branded DNA wear

We the people have a greed
A better breed’s the answer
Our self-enhancing power only
Spreading like a cancer

Scientists increase their scope
Scalpels, needles, knives
Off they go down the slope
Crashing into lives

They break into the master plan
And make a master copy
They try to freeze a mortal man
And throw away the floppy

Oh highest tech intellect
Think about the scar
Think before dissecting us
Controlling who we are

You scrub away and scour
And carefully inspect us
With microscopic power
You claim you can perfect us

So slipping down the slope we go
To the deep abyss below
Design a mind, create a face
A polished, finished human race...


Copyright Mary Beth Lavin/Lavinia Publishing 2009
http://www.marybethlavin.com

Posted by: MarybethLavin_com at March 12, 2009 7:41 PM


Wow! I hardly know what to say. I've often thought that ignorance (as in lack of adequate and accurate information) is one of our biggest obstacles to overcome, but Bill Clinton's apparent lack of adequate and accurate information is stunning. Makes you wonder who else thinks the same way.

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2009 8:14 PM


Interesting poem, Mary Beth. Satan claimed that by disobeying God we would become like God, but we were already like God. The very fact that we are made in His image is the reason that we cannot play with each other's lives except in the God-ordained way of normal sexual reproduction (in which a loving husband tends his wife and attends to her needs so that she becomes fruitful. God made Eve wonderfully suited for helping Adam carry out God's command to populate the earth.)

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 8:39 PM


These are the clowns that control government? I'm dumbfounded.

Posted by: KansasGirl at March 12, 2009 8:49 PM


Gee, I wonder why no comment from reality

Posted by: Gerry at March 12, 2009 9:05 PM


I am no fan of Bill Clinton. But, it seems fairly clear that he used the term "fertilized" thinking that it means "implanted." The ways in which he used the term "fertilized" in this clip mean exactly what the word "implanted" (in the womb) would mean.

I'm sure he latched onto this word in his mind thinking of it as meaning what happens when implantation takes place. It was a kind of senior moment when the delivery, the charm, etc., were more the focus at the time. What came out of his mouth and the meaning in his mind did not match.

Gupta, I would guess, noticed the gaff but did not point it out because he realized Clinton really meant implantation and did not want to call attention to the blunder.

I say this as a pro-life person who thinks Clinton was a bad president, was horrible for unborn children, and is a self-serving politician. I didn't read through all the above so my apologies if someone already has said this.

This would fit the standard culture-of-death talking point on this. The standard line is, "Gee there are all these unwanted frozen embryos which for sure are going to be thrown away and never implanted in the mother's womb. We're only talking about using embryos that would be thrown away anyways. Why not use them instead of throwing them out?" Clinton was basically trying to say the exact same thing.

Posted by: Scott Johnston at March 12, 2009 9:27 PM


Scott: "I am no fan of Bill Clinton. But, it seems fairly clear that he used the term "fertilized" thinking that it means "implanted." The ways in which he used the term "fertilized" in this clip mean exactly what the word "implanted" (in the womb) would mean."

Think about the ramifications if he DID mean implanted Scott. Does he mean to suggest that Americans believe ESCR is about implanted embryos? Does he mean to make the bold statement that "implanted" embryos, that is to say embryos already inside a womb, shouldnt be used for experiment? Really go back and insert "implanted" in the place of "ferilized" and it would make even worse sense.

He didnt mean to say "implanted." He just doesnt know what an embro is. Hes as uninformed about abortion and ESCR as the next generic pro-choicer.

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 10:57 PM


No, I agree with Scott that Mr. Clinton did mean implanted. But my impression from Mr. Clinton's remarks was that he wanted to be careful--oh, so scrupulously careful--that we not use embryos that still could be implanted and were intended to be implanted. And I'm guessing that his scruple has to do with private ownership and a "woman's right to choose."

Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2009 11:17 PM


How could you exit highschool not knowing that a embryo is fertilized? Im both amazed and disheartened that one of the faces of a cable news company could be so uninformed....

Posted by: Oliver at March 12, 2009 3:26 PM

She must have gone to one of those fundie controlled high schools that teach abstinence only or no sex ed at all.Be careful what you wish for Olivah, dahling.

Posted by: phylosopher at March 13, 2009 12:18 AM


Phylosopher,

Care to explain what on earth abstinence has to do with not understanding the basic structure and development of the human body?

Im also curious how a "no sex-ed" stance is something that anyone is for. Moreover, what makes you think that I am an abstinence only kind of guy?

I find it amazing that the pro-choicers on this site repeatedly establish themselves as complete tools.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 1:02 AM


She must have gone to one of those fundie controlled high schools that teach abstinence only or no sex ed at all.Be careful what you wish for Olivah, dahling.

Posted by: phylosopher at March 13, 2009 12:18 AM

I wonder if phylosofer knows that it is a fundamental purpose of the sexual organs to reproduce.

Is it possible that phylosfer needs to be told if you have sex you can get pregnant?.

Was this phylosfer abused and neglected as a child, and his birthing units failed him so fundamentally in matters of human biology?

Posted by: yllas at March 13, 2009 6:22 AM


I find it amazing that the pro-choicers on this site repeatedly establish themselves as complete tools.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 1:02 AM

Asitis comes to inform us of her life as a "French person", and fails to be able to engage in matters of French history. Such as the connection between the "Butcher of Lyon"(ww2) and the Vendee genocide

In response to questions of the Vendee massacre, Asitis denies through her limited "French connections" that a act of genocide occured.

French General Francois Joseph Westermann penned a letter to the Committee of Public Safety stating: "There is no more Vendée... According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the feet of the horses, massacred the women who, at least for these, will not give birth to any more brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated all."

The "noyades" was repeated in Lyon, France during the 20th century.

Asitis knows nothing. A typical liberal in the grand tradition of William Duranty, who closed his eyes everytime a chance to see a victim of the Great Famine in the Ukraine sped by his train.

Thus, the conscience is clean.


Josephine comes to inform the board of her exploits in the medical arts of Chicago, which includes "family connections" that verse her in public/university hospital ops. But, she has no idea that public/university hospital districts are funded locally by property taxes.

And on it goes.

Posted by: yllas at March 13, 2009 6:47 AM


It must be hard for the PC crowd to continuously have to dance around words, meanings and phrases and try to make it "sound right." There seems to be no end to the mental and vocal gymnastics they have to do to get something said.
Um.Er.Ah.

The truth is so much simpler.

Posted by: Carla at March 13, 2009 7:28 AM


I love that quote. Jill, you should do an article about this....it is priceless. It is scary that people in power have such little knowledge. It is terrible that no one around Clinton is correcting him. Are they all so ignorant?

Posted by: Maria at March 13, 2009 8:38 AM


I come to inform you of my life as a "French person", yllas? Huh???? I'm not French. But I have been to France a few times.... something that seems to bother you. Why? Is that because I have been to places you have only read about? Is that what's really bothering you?????

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 9:11 AM


So Mr. Clinton said the same thing on February 17. Well, I take everything back about Mr. Clinton having meant implanted but saying fertilized. What's the history of this misleading use of the word fertilized? Do many besides Mr. Clinton use the word this way?

On February 17 Mr. Clinton said, "I think making them available for medical research is the pro-life position and I honestly don't understand..."

Who puts any stock in Mr. Clinton's honesty? (or in President Obama's economy?) The only positions that Mr. Clinton takes are indecent ones.

Posted by: Jon at March 13, 2009 9:36 AM


Asitis: "Is that because I have been to places you have only read about? Is that what's really bothering you?????"

More elitist crap.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 11:22 AM


Posted by: Scott Johnston at March 12, 2009 9:27 PM
--------

After watching it several times, and given that he has done it before, the only conclusion I can come to, is Bill Clinton is deliberately trying to confuse the meaning of the words "fertilized" and "implanted" to the American public.

His timing and approach bears a striking resemblance to how Obama discussed fetus/living child on the IL Senate floor. The pretense of being morally just, while deflecting the issue with a tortured "apparent" ignorance.

Someone seriously needs to call him on this - and ask him exactly what he meant. Actually, I doubt that would do any good. He lied directly to the voters of this country, and they still haven't shamed him out of politics.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 13, 2009 11:32 AM


I come to inform you of my life as a "French person", yllas? Huh???? I'm not French. But I have been to France a few times.... something that seems to bother you. Why? Is that because I have been to places you have only read about? Is that what's really bothering you?????

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 9:11 AM


Well ASitis, your the person who brings up your personal travels, and when a person trys to engage you in well known history of that culture, you grow into a mere tourist.

I mean, Anthony Bourdain reveals more French culture then you, and that's even when he is in the back roads of China, admiring a grizzled old man who has beat the odds surviving those communist/socialist/humanist lunatics cooking duck his whole life.

Posted by: yllas at March 13, 2009 11:48 AM


Asitis: "Is that because I have been to places you have only read about? Is that what's really bothering you?????"

More elitist crap.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 11:22 AM

Asitis, get over yourself, if travel experience makes one wise, you need to get your money back. Amazingly, I've managed to travel through all three countries on the North American Continent and throughout almost all of the UK and the European Continent including then Soviet controlled eastern Europe.

I came home with an even deeper appreciation for human life in all of its forms and for the freedoms and opportunities provided by a capitalist society that does not dictate the limits of human ability via onerous taxes and massive redistribution of wealth.

I walked through the killing chambers of Dachau and Auschwitz, I sat in Anne Frank's attic... and got to know individual people in many different countries. All of this solidified my gratitude to live in a country like the United States and are the basis of my opposition to the Marxist/socialist policies of an inept, corrupt, bungling Obama administration.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 13, 2009 12:01 PM


In the later interview with Cooper, Gupta signals that he may be aware of Clinton's gaffe when he says "I think what he was trying to say . . ." Gupta, of course, doesn't want to humiliate Clinton by identifying the precise nature of the original error -- which obviously eluded Cooper -- so instead he suggests two additional possible meanings for Clinton's statement. Neither of them makes a lot of sense:

(1) Clinton wanted to make sure research was done "only on embryos that were going to be discarded." In other words, Clinton was supposedly suggesting regulations that would prohibit laboratories from snatching embryos away from couples who planned to use them to have children, and using them for research purposes instead? I don't recall this sort of theft being a big part of the moral debate.

(2) Clinton wanted to make sure that researchers didn't first secretly "fool around" with a couple's not-to-be discarded embryo before returning it for implantation. Again, a non-issue. The main objection to ESCR is that it destroys an embryo, not that it might produce an altered embryo which might end up back in the hands of the parents.

Posted by: The Raving Theist at March 13, 2009 12:22 PM


Elisabeth, I sat in Anne's Frank attic too... with my younger son. It is an experience he will never forget I'm sure.

And as for travel making me wise, I believe it has given me a perspective I would not have had otherwise. Perhaps you just don't think it has made me wise because we share some very different beliefs Elisabeth. That doesn't make you less wise than me nor vice versa.

Oliver, I know it probably sounds to you like "elitist crap". It actually unfortunate that you feel that way. I don't think experiencing travel and life in other countries is something that only the "elite" should do. Yllas seems to takes great offense to my travels and I can't help but think it's because he hasn't taken the opportunity (or had the opportunity?) to actually visit some of these places that seem to interest him so much.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 12:41 PM


Some who have posted here are under the impression that Mr. Clinton simply misspoke when he said what he said. Some have tried to pass it off that he meant to say implanted instead of fertilized egg. Maybe if he said it once it could be deemed as a slip of the tongue, but he clarified his position when he said, "we're not taking embryos that can - that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies." An embryo will become a baby unless a scenario such as being torn apart by scientists in some dim hope of creating a cure for some disease takes place.

Posted by: Troy at March 13, 2009 1:49 PM


Asitis: "I don't think experiencing travel and life in other countries is something that only the "elite" should do."

I dont either. I do however think that it is elitist to hold it over someone's head as you just did. No wonder youre friends with Josephine! Makes sense now.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 2:06 PM


Oliver, sometimes it's more than finances holding people back from travel.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 2:12 PM


ASitis: "Oliver, sometimes it's more than finances holding people back from travel."

And it is elitist to automatically assume that it is not, as you just did with Yllas. Besides, why would it be finances if Yllas is jealous of places YOUVE been that Yllas has ONLY read about?

You know, I cant afford to jet off to another country, so should I also be jealous that YOUVE been to places that I have ONLY read about? Tell me, oh wise one! Should I be upset by it?

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 2:24 PM


And there you go again....

Did I say I assumed he couldn't afford to travel Oliver? No. What else does travel take? The ability to "leave" your everyday commitments. The courage to do so. Self-confidence. Social skills......

Should you be jealous of me? Of course not. Are you? I have no idea.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 2:37 PM


Asitis: "Did I say I assumed he couldn't afford to travel Oliver?"

So Im confused. Are you insulting Yllas because she cant afford to leave the US, or are you assuming that Yllas could afford to travel but doesnt because of ignorance or something? Im not sure what you point is with those statements.

In other words, for whatever reason, why do you assume going to a foreign country make you envious of Yllas or anyone, and why do you hold that over Yllas's head? That is what makes you an elitist.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 3:16 PM


Oliver:Are you insulting Yllas because she cant afford to leave the US, or are you assuming that Yllas could afford to travel but doesnt because of ignorance or something?"

I already told you... I didn't say anything about whether yllas could afford to travel or not. I have no idea. As for not travelling beacuse of ignorance... Where do you get that? I suggested other reasons might be inability to leave commitments, courage, self-confidence, social skills......

Oliver:In other words, for whatever reason, why do you assume going to a foreign country make you envious of Yllas or anyone, and why do you hold that over Yllas's head? That is what makes you an elitist.

Come again? Why does my going to another country make me envious of yllas? Huh?


Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 3:16 PM

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 3:33 PM


The envy of Yllas. Pretty easy to understand that slip up.

So why did you pose the question to Yllas Asitis? Are you going to yet again claim that you were not insulting someone?

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 4:15 PM


Oh, so why would my going to another country make me the envy of yllas? Gotcha. Well, it seems that he has an interest in other countries and their culture and history, so perhaps he wishes that he too could travel, but doesn't for whatever reason (such as lack of: funds, time, freedom, self-confidence, social skills,etc)

Why did I ask yllas if it bothers him that I have been to countries he has only read about? Because he seems to have a problem with the fact that I have actually been to some of these places.

No, I was not insulting him Oliver. On the contrary, I was tired of him insulting me over it and was trying to find the source of his anger.

Now do you understand?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 4:37 PM


Asitis, I stand by my original comment. Anyone who can see that much of the world and still be so close-mindedly rude to others is not "wise". Well traveled, perhaps. But not wise.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 13, 2009 7:19 PM


close-minded? Rude? Where's that coming from elisabeth?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 8:11 PM


Asitis: "Now do you understand? "

Thats crap and everyone here knows it.

"I was being insulting when I asked whether or not your weight problem came from laziness! I was just curious!"

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 8:18 PM


That should read "I wasnt." by the way. Didnt want to confuse Asitis. She doesnt think in context.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 8:24 PM


And to think this guy had and his protoge have their finger on the button.

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 8:24 PM


Asitis: "Now do you understand? "

Thats crap and everyone here knows it.

Oliver, it's not crap. I was totally honest with you. There you go again...........

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 8:32 PM


That should read "I wasnt." by the way. Didnt want to confuse Asitis. She doesnt think in context.

Posted by: Oliver at March 13, 2009 8:24 PM

That's the best you've got?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 8:35 PM


And as for travel making me wise, I believe it has given me a perspective I would not have had otherwise

Posted by Asitis.

Your perspective was exactly the same as when you left wherever you came from. Your ideas of abortion to euthansia weren't changed by going to see the "extermination camps" of Germany/Poland.

Or walk about the Vendee where the modern stirrings of genocide were born, and grew into adulthood in the 20th century. You walk on their history/culture, while eating a pastry and some Poituo variety, and never "seeing that culture" from your being such a person of that "wise", blind "perspective".

People know your a person with a certain perspective about you, because you carry your personal Rorschach test with you, wherever you go.

What happens to people of such certain wise perspective,such as you Asitis, is that people who meet such wise perspective, generally tell you nothing of their culture and history.

It's human nature.

Asitis; what is that rock over there?

Citizen; It's a rock found in the river with a rope tied to it which was brought up by my brother.

Asitis; Well to each his own.

Citizen; Yes, to each his own.

As Asitis walks away, the citizen had read her "wise perspective", and didn't want to tell her that rock with the old rope drug up from the river was part of her family history.

To each her own.

Or, as a old Mexican friend told me one day when I has a sty forming in my eye.....You know that's from watching a dog poop!!!!

Now, that's culture, and when I thought back, I did see a dog poop that day. One of the most wise, generous, kind men I have met.

Which led us to trust each other enough to actually discuss the history and culture of modern Mexico.

Ah, those curandero's can make a Gypsy lose their mind.

And those "stop your man from wandering" candles can be worth a good belly laugh.


Posted by: yllas at March 14, 2009 12:07 AM


You might find this instructive!

Posted by: Marita at March 14, 2009 6:28 AM


Asitis, I could point to any number of your posts as close-minded and rude. It was a general statement of how you present yourself on this site.

Posted by: Elisabeth at March 15, 2009 2:33 AM


Really? Well if, on occasion, I have brought myself down to the level of some pro-lifers on this blog I apologize.

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 8:39 AM


My favorite line in all this has to be:

"Yeh.... again. You aren't used clear language."

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 10:57 AM

Posted by: Sandy at March 15, 2009 11:38 PM


Hey Sandy! Thanks for paying such close attention to my comments. Good to know you're reading them! Sorry about that typo. I meant "using". But that pretty obvious. I might ask if you have the cognitive skill of a houseplant. ;)

Posted by: asitis at March 16, 2009 5:47 AM


Oh hahaha, houseplant. That's rich. Keep 'em coming asitis. I love irony!

Posted by: Sandy at March 17, 2009 2:53 AM


Okay, the glib comments aside, the banter, and the wisecracking aside. Embryos are human eggs, ovum from a woman and sperm from a man which has become a human being, granted as one cell, or possibly more, but not quite a zygot. An embryo is a human being. One cannot state it any more clearly. And then aren't all you people who voted for Clinton embarassed at his blatant ignorance of the issue? You cannot call a statue of the most beautiful representation of Venus a beautiful statue, if its made of chicken droppings. Bottomline, its a pile of chicken s__t and nothing else. Making it pretty and trying to cover up its obvious ingredients is not going to make it any more or less of a pile of stinking chicken s__t. Done, over and out.

Posted by: PracticingLiberation at March 18, 2009 8:26 PM


xmnrsf yuxt lzawpsx sqpu
http://antidepress.edrugsweb.com/Compazine.html prochlorperazine maleate oral
http://antidepress.edrugsweb.com/Citalopram.html what is citalopram used for

Posted by: compazine oral at March 21, 2009 11:07 PM