LATimes: Man arrested on suspicion of "murder" of his "unborn child"

Well, this unfolding story is tragic and curious. From the Los Angeles Times, yesterday:

Joshua Woodward, murder, unborn baby, abortion, fetus, Humpty Dumpty.jpg

A 37-year-old man was booked early this morning on suspicion of murder in the death of an unborn child believed to be his, Los Angeles police said.

Joshua Woodward, whom police described as a businessman with "ties to Chicago and Miami," was taken into custody by homicide detectives about 3:15 a.m. today.... He was booked... and is being held in lieu of $2 million bail, police said.

Woodward's arrest followed an investigation of "the suspicious circumstances of a miscarriage" reported Oct. 19, around the 13th week of gestation, police said. They released no other details....

Most interesting is phraseology. S/he is an "unborn child" when the mother wants him/her but "fetus" when she doesn't. And it's "murder" when the mother doesn't want her "unborn child" killed and "abortion" when she wants her "fetus" killed.

Searching for any liberal blog opinion on this story, I came upon the following entertaining (if I can use that word related to this topic) YouTube video in a post by RAMZPAUL....

I'm not sure if this guy is for real or if this is schtick. I think it's the former. But he actually nails the reason for the dichotomy. Warning, a little bit of coarse language...

[HT: Kris C.]


Comments:

Yes, definitely a bit of bone dry humor here. The old "it's my body" argument obviously doesn't stick if the woman claims that the unborn is an actual BABY, so this guy's explaination is the only one that really works. Excellent!

Posted by: MEL at October 26, 2009 7:52 PM


When I hear the word 'feminist', I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.

yor bro ken

ps:Jack Nicholson from 'As good as it gets'.

Posted by: kbhvac at October 26, 2009 9:02 PM


EXACTLY! You're right Jill. He nails it!

Posted by: Marie at October 26, 2009 9:21 PM


the analogy with the Star Trek episode is quite good - it's from the original series and is called The Cage.
The aliens are Talosians who can create alternate realities, so Gloria Steinem and her sister feminists are star dates ahead of their time.

it always comes back to Star Trek........

Posted by: angel at October 26, 2009 9:42 PM


Hey pro-aborts you cannot have it both ways. It can't be a baby when you want it and a fetus when you don't want it.

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 26, 2009 9:55 PM


Another great storyline for Law & Order :)

Posted by: Ed at October 26, 2009 10:11 PM


Hey pro-aborts you cannot have it both ways. It can't be a baby when you want it and a fetus when you don't want it.
Posted by: Prolifer L at October 26, 2009 9:55 PM

Sure it can. Fetus = unwanted preborn baby.

Posted by: Hal at October 26, 2009 10:51 PM


LOL! that guy is spot on.. I'm changing to pro-choice, it makes so much sense!

Posted by: Jasper at October 26, 2009 11:05 PM


Hal,

You not getting it. This is a case where the father didn't want the fetus but the mother did. So you are saying that if the mother wants the fetus it is a baby and the father is guilty of murder? But if the father wants the baby and not the mother her child is actually a fetus and it is Ok to kill him or her?

In other words the intrinsic value of the child is totally dependent on his or her mother's preference?

Don't you realize how illogical that sounds???

We all understand why you think that way. I'm very, very sorry Hal, but the truth is, like so many other post-abortive moms and dads that visit this site, you and your wife believed a lie and were deceived into killing your unborn children.

We are sorry.

Your heart can be healed, in Christ.

In fact, that is why He came.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OF5iaFNE7Q

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 5:31 AM


Ok...

If the mother and father want the fetus, it is a baby.

If the mother and father don't what the fetus, it's not a baby.

If the mother wants the fetus and the father doesn't, or if the father wants the fetus and the mother doesn't, you flip a coin.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 6:57 AM


One of my friends had an abortion and said "fetus, embryo, it" and then a few years later when she married, planned and conceived a much wanted child and it was "the baby," and when they found out it was a girl "my little girl" etc...i pointed out the irony of that and she got very angry with me and said "how dare you compare my baby girl who I PLANNED with the THING I aborted! They are not the same at all!" I couldn't comprehend how being planned or unplanned affects the biology of a baby.

She then went on to insinuate that since my son was an "accident" he was not human when I carried him. But she could not explain at exactly what moment he became human.

Posted by: Sydney M at October 27, 2009 8:54 AM


It truly is amazing Sydney.

“The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?  But I, the Lord, search all hearts
and examine secret motives. I give all people their due rewards, according to what their actions deserve.” Je 17:9-10

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 9:05 AM


"So you are saying that if the mother wants the fetus it is a baby and the father is guilty of murder? But if the father wants the baby and not the mother her child is actually a fetus and it is Ok to kill him or her?

In other words the intrinsic value of the child is totally dependent on his or her mother's preference?"

Yes, you're beginning to understand.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 9:12 AM


Hal, Jews were once unwanted and murdered. Are you saying their value was based on their being wanted?

Blacks were unwanted and traded like cattle and beaten to death by their masters. Was that okay? Afterall their value, according to you, was based on their being wanted. That determines personhood it seems.

Casey Anthony--you familiar with this woman? She killed her two year old daughter. Is that okay? After all, she was the MOM and she decided she didn't want her daughter so her daughter was then not a human anymore, correct?

Hope my mom still wants me today or I'm in big trouble. And my three year old better not give me any trouble today or else....

See where this kind of logic leads? Someone else wanting or not wanting you does not affect your personhood! Humanity and personhood is given to us BY GOD not by fellow man. "We hold these truths..." all men are endowed by their CREATOR...you know what I'm talking about, right Hal?

Posted by: Sydney M at October 27, 2009 9:21 AM


Of course I agree that the man who caused the death of his unborn child should be prosecuted for murder.

I find this humorous in a twisted, disgusting sort of way though. Pro-choicers simply cannot be serious. Who really believes that people ARE what we SAY they are?? Really? Reality is determined by what we WANT it to be? Um, no, that would be fantasy-land.

Let's say you have 2 women sitting next to each other on a bus. They are both pregnant - same gestational age, etc. One woman's child is "unplanned and unwanted". The other woman has been longing for a baby for years and finally will have the child she wants. Think about it. There is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in either child. They are both human beings with value. The same value. Just because the mother of the first child "doesn't want it", doesn't change what the child IS. Just because the mother of the second child "wants it", does not change what it is. They are both human beings with value. Regardless of what other people think.

How rediculous and illogical does it get? Another person's humanity is not determined by what you THINK it is. Black people during the time of slavery were thought of as less than human, but that didn't make it so. They were and are fully human just like the rest of us. The opinion of pro-slavery folks didn't change their humanity. Nazi rhetoric didn't change the humanity of the Jewish people either. Although that regime considered Jews to be less than human, they were and are fully human.

It's amazing that people don't see this illogical nonsense for what it is.

Posted by: army_wife at October 27, 2009 9:37 AM


Sydney, no, I don't know what you're talking about. gotta run. Have a great day everyone.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 9:43 AM


Great posts guys. We need to continue to pray for Hal that the walls and lies he's hiding behind come down.

If he was to admit to the truth of what both of you said, all of a sudden, he's got a big problem - he's got to deal with the fact that he and his wife were deceived into killing two of his children.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 10:28 AM


Lord, have mercy.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 10:30 AM


Fetus is Latin for baby!
abortionreality.com

Posted by: Ariel G. at October 27, 2009 10:45 AM


Hi Ed. How are you? The post here have been great. I agree we need to keep praying for Hal because his heart needs to be transformed by Christ. What an ironic news story for the pro-aborts to try to justify the difference between a "unborn child" and a "fetus" being the difference between "wanted" versus "unwanted". WOW!

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 27, 2009 11:09 AM


Sigh. Its from the Declaration of Independence Hal. you're a lawyer and you don't know what the Declaration of Independence says?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thats in the second paragraph of that great American document. A document of human rights. And life is granted to us, not by moms, not by the government, but by our CREATOR. You don't have the right to take that away from your children, Hal. i don't have the right to take that away from my son. Its a right granted by God, not by fellow man.

Posted by: Sydney M at October 27, 2009 11:56 AM


Anyone else besides me notice that Hal's level of engagement in the discussion is often vastly different from thread to thread? Actually, it seems to be two extremes. One extreme is fully involved in the discussion, considering every word being exchanged and acknowleding where/why he agrees and explaining where/why he disagrees. The other extreme is very detached, one-sentence answers with a flippant tone. I realize that he is usually fairly brief in his responses no matter what, but am I the only one that notices that there are two distinct Hals?

Posted by: Janette at October 27, 2009 1:15 PM


Sorry Janette. I think it's a function of different levels of interest and time constraints.

Sometimes, like now, I'm posting while doing other things and I don't get too involved.

And then there's topics where we've said all we can say and I just want to throw in a flippant comment to remind you I'm lurking.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 2:08 PM


Have you ever considered keeping it to yourself if you're feeling "flippant"?

Posted by: xalisae at October 27, 2009 2:28 PM


Sometimes, like now, I'm posting while doing other things and I don't get too involved. And then there's topics where we've said all we can say and I just want to throw in a flippant comment to remind you I'm lurking.
Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 2:08 PM

-Im with you on that one, Hal. I was once quite active on the board but have pretty much stopped altogether in the past few months because frankly, I don't think we're getting anywhere in terms of understanding. I don't want to be a blowhard and just admire my written handiwork. I thought this could be a vehicle for discourse, but most times it's not. Its too exhausting. And yet, here I am again...at least when the subject/discussion taps on a nerve and I feel compelled to respond. Now I'm choosier as to when I engage - it's so pointless to sit here and offend each other.

Posted by: Danielle at October 27, 2009 2:29 PM


Have you ever considered keeping it to yourself if you're feeling "flippant"?
Posted by: xalisae at October 27, 2009 2:28 PM

I will give serious consideration to your suggestion.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 2:53 PM


Hey Prolifer! Good to see you on the board as well. It truly is amazing the lengths to which the human mind and heart will bend, stretch and contort the truth in order to justify...murder.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 3:04 PM


Hey Prolifer!

Good to see you on the board as well. It truly is amazing the lengths to which the human mind and heart will bend, stretch and contort the truth in order to justify...murder.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 3:04 PM


Hal (and you too Danielle, good to see you're still lurking in the background, we haven't given up on you :),

Just to pick up on your earlier comment.

I understand your position that you believe it should be you and your wife's perogative (maybe just your wife's) whether or not you "terminate" or care for your unborn children.

My position is that God in Heaven gave you all of your children and that in His Eyes, they are all precious and valuable. And like all gifts from God, (e.g. your talents, gifts, intellect, social standing, etc.) they require faithful stewardship.

God placed you and I here on Earth with a mission. There is a war waging on this planet between good and evil. Did you see where 5 young men raped a 15 year old girl outside her high school dance last Friday in CA while up to a dozen people stood around and watched and none of them reported it?! A 15 year old girl! 5 guys! It's right out of Sodom and Gomorrah! No one came to her aid or even reported it to authorities!

I could go on and on about the evil rampant in our world. The point is Jesus came to Earth, fulfilled dozens of prophecies and taught His disciples about a new Kingdom. His Kingdom is Righteousness, Peace and Joy. And anyone who gets fed up with their own iniquity and this sin-sick world He invites to come, repent, be saved and become His Child! That's right, He adopts you as His very own.

Then it really starts to get fun. Not only are you given a new life, bound for Heaven, but He empowers you with His Spirit to go back into a lost and dying world to rescue those in peril.

You're right. Any woman, in this country, in this window of time, has the legal right to kill her unwanted unborn child if she so desires. Your aborted children are waiting in Heaven for you now, growing and being taught by angels and saints, hoping you will come to your senses, and seek out the One Who died for you.

God will have His Bride, His Church that He will have purified from the pollution of this world by the work of His Spirit.

The tide is turning Hal. We have Truth and Love on our side. You should really seriously consider how great a life you could have fulfilling your calling and destiny in God.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 3:18 PM


Ed, I'll take your comments in the spirit you intended them. Thank you for your kind thoughts.

Needless to say, we see things differently. I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 3:54 PM


Fair enough Hal.

Are you familiar with the International Justice Mission. They've been featured on Dateline NBC and do a great work fighting for those trafficked into forced prostitution and other forms of slavery.

You can check them out at IJM.org. As a lawyer, you might find their work interesting.

I know Gates and Buffet thought enough of their organization to give them $5,000,000 over the next 5 years to see what kind of an impact they can make on the epidemic of child prostitution.

All's not gloom and doom out there. There are some people out on the front lines making a difference.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 4:21 PM


Hal,

You keep the flippant comments coming and we'll give you our best shots :)

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 4:24 PM


Alright Hal -

I've seen the smug "now you're beginning to understand" remark on your posts many times. The one above can be taken two ways: either as agreeing with the point of view that the value of someone's life is determined by being "wanted" or "unwanted" by her or his mother; or perhaps as an indictment of the mother of your child after you and baby were victimized by the mother's decision to abort. I suspect it is the former and that you are in full agreement with "choice".

Either all lives are valuable or none are, there is no middle ground. If even one life is expendable, then we are all expendable. To be consistent, the pro abortion philosophy must include the acceptance of the decision of all mothers, from now on, to abort all pregnancies. It is their choice after all, to decide who lives and who dies. If you can't accept that, then you are against abortion and for abortion at the same time, which is impossible. How convenient it is for the pro abortion forces to sit comfortably typing about "choice" and "privacy" and have the luxury and privilege to contemplate these all-powerful theories. No one ended their lives after all. What makes your life more valuable than the 3000 lives forsaken today? You certainly must acknowledge your mother's right to choose your life or death. To what do you attribute your life? Luck? Timing? Why do you have such a hard time acknowledging the intrinsic value of both lives - mom and baby?

So, wanted vs. unwanted is the key? I totally reject your rationalizations and pseudo reasoning. Children who are not wanted for a minute, an hour, a week or month by one person are still wanted by and have value to hundreds, thousands and millions of us.

I have been part of three pregnancies and there is no doubt that a pregnant woman's emotions run the gamut. Why should a life be ended because a mother to be had a bad day, week or month? Difficult situations? Yes. A life unworthy? No. How dare you sit and pass judgment on the abortion victims without ever having to confront them, all with the apparent ease of picking petals off a flower . . . Live . . . Die . . . Live . . . Die. Well you can confront me. Tell me my life is not worth it. Tell me I should not have been born. As a child conceived through rape, I belong to a group that is classified by many, even by some who think they are pro life, as automatically abortable and worthless. An "exception" allowed to be discarded. Society, through law, saved me. My mother, traumatized and alone, secretly struggling, saved me. So go ahead, take away my life, take away my children, all to preserve those precious "privacy" rights. When faced with an unwanted life saved, all your "wanted" vs. "unwanted" theories of life's value come crashing to the ground. The triumph of privacy can never erase the trauma and pain caused, or heal the damage done by an abortion.

I would like to remind anyone interested of the conceived in rape website - http://www.rebeccakiessling.com

Every Life Matters

Posted by: jsable at October 27, 2009 5:06 PM


jsable, I certainly acknowledge my mother's right to terminate her pregnancy when I was conceived. I was "wanted" and she didn't. Great. Your mother wanted you too, and you were born. Great again. If your mother or my mother made a different decision, we wouldn't be here. I'm not angry about that but you seem to be.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 5:16 PM


I was surrendered for adoption. I'll never know if she wanted me or not. My value is not based on the value granted me by one person.

Posted by: jsable at October 27, 2009 5:57 PM


jsable,
Amen and amen to your comments!! Thank you!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 27, 2009 6:41 PM


jsable, excellent post at 5:57. I could not agree with you more!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 27, 2009 6:55 PM


it sounds as though your life means very little to you, Hal.

Posted by: xalisae at October 27, 2009 6:56 PM


Jsable,

You rock! My hands are on the keyboard but in my heart I'm giving you a standing ovation!

Thank you for your comments.

We may take great consolation in the fact that there is One Who sees, loves and values every child conceived. And every child who dies prematurely He receives and not one is lost.

I truly appreciate your bold, militant stance for Life. As Eric stated earlier, it is our duty to try to defend and protect His innocents in this world filled with depravity.

To say that one person has the power to choose life or death over another person is such a perversion of our God-given free will and His Justice, it boggles the mind that someone could hold that opinion.

When that person is a child's own mother, it demonstrates the power of the enemy to deceive, the vulnerability of a mother's heart in spite of her maternal instincts, and the power of friends, family and "health care professionals" to counsel, deceive and mislead.

I stand with you in righteous indignation against those who would advocate murder. That is what we are talking about, plain and simple. We must stand uncompromisingly for Life and Justice for the most vulnerable of our generation.

Every Life Matters and is precious, no matter how small.

Amen jsable, amen.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 7:52 PM


Hope you had a great weekend Carla!

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 8:00 PM


Duty calls, gotta run.

Man, this website is addicting.

Posted by: Ed at October 27, 2009 8:02 PM


Its okay Hal and Danielle. Feel free to lurk. Feel free to give me a flippant comment too once in a while. I don't bruise that easily.

Posted by: Sydney M. at October 27, 2009 9:09 PM


This is infuriating to me. For once I agree with the "pro-lifers" here--this is absurd. Under no circumstances whatsoever should anybody ever be charged with "murder" for killing a fetus. Assault or battery of the mother carrying the fetus? Maybe, depending on the situation. The fetus itself, however, cannot and does not count as a "person" for the purposes of being the victim of "murder."

Posted by: Sean at October 27, 2009 9:43 PM


Sean, why couldn't a human fetus/ offspring be murdered?

Hal, if the mother wanted her fetus/ offspring to be born, do you think that the man who killed the little boy or little girl fetus should be prosecuted for murder?

I mean, staying with your position that it's truly up to the mother to decide, why shouldn't the killer be prosecuted?

Posted by: Mary Ann at October 27, 2009 10:47 PM


There are no unwanted children.

You find one, let me know--I will want him or her.

That is why Hal has to say the decision is only that of the biological mother. Because no child is truly unwanted.

One of my children has been born for almost a year and a half. She has a personality, likes and dislikes, and some ability to communicate. Occasionally she is able to get her hands on food without assistance, but she is by no means capable of independence. (Of course, nor are most of us--even those capable of buying food would often be in poor straights without someplace to buy it from). If I got tired of feeding my daughter from my food, spending my time and resources attending to her needs, it doesn't matter. I am legally required to do so. I may not kill her. Even if I called DSS and said I didn't want my daughter anymore, please come get her, I would be obligated to see to her needs until they did so, or else be charged with abuse.

I don't want to get rid of my daughter, and I take care of her needs even on those occasions I am a little tired of it. But in most ways she is still totally dependent on me--or at least, on someone.

Another of my children has been growing, developing, and changing for seven months. I can already see some differences from his sister in his personality. He is more active and more stubborn, I think. He has preferences as well--positions he likes to be in, for instance. He is not born yet. Sustaining him has not been easy. I was on progesterone and a drug to control blood sugar early in my pregnancy, and now am injecting myself daily with insulin and following a restrictive diet. I have to eat on a schedule. If I decided I was tired of all that, I could have him killed. I am sure I could find a murderer to sign off that this is for my health due to gestational diabetes, if it is even necessary to do so. I have no legal obligation to feed him or care for him until he could be taken elsewhere. But it is no more necessary to kill him in order to no longer sustain him than it would be for my daughter. If I decided I did not want my son, he could be taken from my body without harm to either of us (beyond what an unplanned birth at this point would entail). Delaying this process and giving him steroids to strengthen his lungs and chances would be no different from the delay that might be experienced if I called DSS to take my older daughter. It most likely would be quicker, even, than the delay before I could kill him.

Why do I have the legal right to kill one of these children, yet if I so much as don't feel like feeding the other, I am legally liable?

These are not my only children; I have at least one more, and possibly a lot more. Through no direct fault of my own (I do have a condition which may be a cause of this, and it's possible that a change in diet alone could have averted their deaths), these children died after developing between 10 and 21 days. I love them very much, and while they were here I cared for them just as I did for their sister and brother. Legally, I had no obligation toward them. Many people would prefer to ignore their existence. But they were also my sons and daughters. They never were accorded any rights by the law. And that isn't right either. They did have a right to live, even if their lives might have been short no matter what I did. They did have a right to be treated as people, as human beings who matter. They did have a right to dignity. And as far as I was able and knew how, I did these things for them. But it shouldn't have depended on whether their father and I wanted them (and we did, desperately).

When I think of Joseph, Isaiah, Elisha, Enoch, Ruby, Maranatha, Michael, and Ebenezer, I cannot stand silently by when someone claims that children have no rights before birth. I cannot condone the use of children less than a week younger--children still alive who, given a chance, might grow to birth--for medical research. I cannot bring myself to have my children injected with a substance made from two children, older than any of my deceased children were when they died, for the sake of preventing a disease that's almost dead anyway. And all of the children who are killed--I am willing to be their mom! If I could not I would not rest 'til I found someone who could and would. So in a way, the ones being killed could be my children.

There is no child who does not deserve a chance at life, and for the sakes of my children--born and unborn--and all who have been murdered before birth, I will continue to speak out against the barbarism of a massacre of an entire class of human beings, the denial of their most basic right and all rights contingent upon that, and the dehumanization of unborn children--those who die of natural causes before birth, those who are born, and those who are murdered.

Posted by: ycw at October 28, 2009 7:33 AM


Hal,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that time constraints often affect your posts. It's obviously the same with me, I'm usually scarce because I'm busy.

But, still, there are times when I suspect you can't dismantle an argument and so you choose to be flippant instead. Perhaps this is due to lack of interest, but I don't think that's always the case. In this thread, instead of engaging Sydney, you said that you didn't know what she was talking about and you had to go. Obviously, you were still around, "lurking" as you put it. I think you didn't want to take on the task of challenging some pretty solid arguments, so you shrugged it off.

I could be wrong. I don't know you. But this is my honest impression.

Posted by: Janette at October 28, 2009 1:39 PM


I'm sorry Janette, Sydney was writing gibberish:


Humanity and personhood is given to us BY GOD not by fellow man.
Posted by: Sydney M at October 27, 2009 9:21 AM

How can I respond to that? Of course I was flippant. That's not "some pretty solid argument."

Posted by: Hal at October 28, 2009 3:24 PM


Hal, come on. As if that's all Sydney said ...You know it wasn't.

By the way, where do your rights come from? What makes you worthy of life and liberty? If not for the constitution, would you be a person worthy of life? If so, where does that worth or value come from?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 28, 2009 4:21 PM


I'm with Bethany on this one. Sydney touched on way more than God-related arguments. So her incorporating her belief in God in part of her post caused you to automatically dismiss her entire argument as gibberish? That's, well, pretty shallow.

Posted by: Janette at October 28, 2009 4:29 PM


I'm sorry, I can't take seriously any argument that relies in any part, on what "God" wants.

Posted by: Hal at October 28, 2009 5:13 PM


Cop out.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 28, 2009 5:39 PM


who's being flippant now Bethany?

There was nothing deep and thought provoking in Sydney's comment. There is nothing that deep in any of our comments. No one influences, we only reinforce what we like and take shots at what we disagree with. Through it all we get some idea of the personality behind the screen name, and get a little familiar with each other. But there is not even room for discussion when one participate thinks her rights come from God and another participant thinks that's hogwash. Let's go back to the original post and let me give it a try:


"Hal, Jews were once unwanted and murdered. Are you saying their value was based on their being wanted?"

No, I'm not saying that.

"Blacks were unwanted and traded like cattle and beaten to death by their masters. Was that okay?"

No,that wasn't okay.

" Afterall their value, according to you, was based on their being wanted. That determines personhood it seems."

No, my point only applies to pre-born humans.


"Casey Anthony--you familiar with this woman? She killed her two year old daughter. Is that okay? After all, she was the MOM and she decided she didn't want her daughter so her daughter was then not a human anymore, correct?"

Not familiar with her. But, no. I don't think Casey Anthony should have killed her two year old daugher.

Ok, we've had a nice respectful debate. Thanks everyone.

Posted by: Hal at October 28, 2009 5:56 PM


Hal, I disagree with you and think that logic can and does convince people all of the time.

People who truly are concerned with truth can and WILL change their minds based on evidence. I've seen it happen- I know it does.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 28, 2009 6:14 PM


Hal, if a Jew's value wasn't based on being wanted, what was it based on?

I have the same question for slaves - what do you base their value on? What makes them worthy of life and liberty? If not wantedness, what could you base it on?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 28, 2009 6:18 PM


Hal: No, my point only applies to pre-born humans.

So you are enacting a criteria for personhood upon another group of humans which devalues their lives to the point it becomes legal for them to be treated in any way desired by another group of humans, to the point of extermination. And you fail to see the parallel here how, exactly, Hal?

Posted by: xalisae at October 28, 2009 6:32 PM


If I could kill my son when I was pregnant with him, then why can't I kill him now? What if my husband leaves me, or we don't have enough money, or I develop health problems (all the reasons women give for aborting)Whats the difference? How does passing through the birth canal magically make him a human being? Thats stupid! That is idiotic!

How can you be a lawyer and have such poor reasoning skills Hal? You just don't want to debate me because I use too many exclamation points!!!!!

Posted by: Sydney M. at October 28, 2009 10:43 PM


I am pro-choice and believe what he did was wrong. BOTH parties must agree to terminate a fetus. You can argue Christ all you want but people have different religions and beliefs....

Posted by: Maral at October 29, 2009 1:21 AM


BOTH parties must agree to terminate a fetus.

so if a man doesn't want the abortion and the woman does, you disagree with her making that choice?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 29, 2009 8:06 AM


I'm still chuckling that Hal thinks the Declaration of Independence is gibberish.

Posted by: Sydney M at October 29, 2009 9:02 AM


Sydney, I love your exclamation points!! I don't want to debate you because it's a futile exercise. You won't change my mind, I won't change your mind, and neither of us will change anyone else's mind either.

Abortion has been legal for 30 years, and around for thousands of years. Maybe you'll get it prohibited, maybe you won't. Maybe there will be some limits imposed, maybe there won't. I don't really care. I care more about universal health care, more about equal rights for gays and lesbians, a better foreign policy, more respect for the Constitution and laws of our nation. With Obama, we're making progress on the things I care about. And...abortion rights seem pretty secure. Life is good, I'm happy and grateful. Go end abortion if you think you can. I won't stop you.

Posted by: Hal at October 29, 2009 11:05 AM


Hal, You don't sound very happy. You sound defeated. Is everything OK?

Posted by: Janet at October 29, 2009 12:23 PM


Hal, do you think the man in this case should be prosecuted for murder?

The mother wanted her fetus/ offspring. The father didn't, and killed the little boy or little girl fetus/ offspring.

If the choice for life or death of a fetus/ offspring is entirely up to the mother, as you often assert, the man/ father should be prosecuted, right?

Posted by: Mary Ann at October 29, 2009 12:30 PM


Respect for the Constitution of which Country, Hal?

Posted by: jsable at October 29, 2009 1:28 PM


Without LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is NOT possible.

How many of the 1000s of women who have had abortions were LIED to about fetal development, about the procedure being as "easy as having your tonsils removed", about complications, etc? How many of them were pushed into abortion by an abusive boyfriend or husband? How many of them don't know the TRUTH?


Abortion has NOT solved this country's problems, Hal. We still have poverty, child abuse, drug abuse, etc, etc.

50 Million abortions have NOT solved anything.


Many women don't want the abortion, they don't NEED the abortion. They are led to believe its their ONLY "Choice" because that's what they are told. They are told they can't go to school and raise a child, they can't work and raise a child.

They are lied to about the fetal development (one woman I read about who decided against abortion thought the heart didn't begin to beat until 6 months). Many are told the child is just "a piece of tissue" or "a blood clot".


Every child is wanted by SOMEONE. Childless couples long for a child through adoption, but there aren't many children available because of abortion. There are couples willing to adopt a special needs child (Downs for example) but ~ 90% of Downs babies are ABORTED before birth.


Wake up America, Abortion is NOT the solution to the problem.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 29, 2009 3:37 PM


Janet, thanks for asking. I am actually very happy. Maybe that's why I grow tired of this debate.

Posted by: Hal at October 29, 2009 5:56 PM


Yes Hal. I am 29 years old. I realize I survived Roe V. Wade!

Posted by: Sydney M. at October 29, 2009 10:25 PM


Still waiting, Hal.
I'm not trying to debate you, just want to know your conclusion on this particular case.

A yes or no is fine.

Posted by: Mary Ann at October 30, 2009 12:57 AM