Victory we didn't notice: Pro-abort acceptance of Hyde Amendment as "abortion neutral"

hyde amendment, abortion, healthcare, 2.png

At ReligiousDispatches.org, pro-abort Frederick Clarkson got half his premise wrong, claiming pro-lifers are reaching beyond the Hyde Amendment in our fight to prohibit public funded abortions in healthcare. But Clarkson made a fascinating point, one I think most of us missed...

Last summer President Barack Obama told Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News that there is a "tradition" in Washington "of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care." This benchmark moment in the history of abortion rights in the United States was more than 3 decades in the making.

The ostensibly pro-choice president was referring to the principles of the Hyde Amendment passed 3 years after Roe vs. Wade....

henry hyde, hyde amendment, abortion, healthcare.jpg

Named for the conservative Catholic congressman, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), it proscribed federal funds from being used to provide abortions. The main effect was to remove abortion from the list of medical services that could be paid for through the federal Medicaid program. Many reproductive rights supporters saw it as an affront to poor women....

But a creeping Washington consensus emerged during the current debate on health care reform that took many by surprise: The Hyde Amendment is now seen as a moderate, "abortion-neutral" position that neither advances nor restricts abortion.

The gradual adoption of the principles of the most significant anti-abortion legislation in history as a moderate compromise constitutes a stunning shift in American political and religious life....

Historic pro-choice religious communities see Hyde differently than the current Inside the Beltway consensus. For example, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Hyde, the... Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice... issued a "call to conscience to end this discriminatory and punitive measure"....

I think Clarkson is absolutely right. In the thick of the battle, we didn't see this concession. Although I've read recent calls from the abortion industry to rescind Hyde, which is reperilized every year, it will be that much more difficult here on out, since so many pro-aborts, most importantly Obama, have labeled it abortion-neutral.

In fact, these concessions might have brought permanent passage of the Hyde Amendment that much closer.

[Photo of Congressman Henry Hyde in 2002 via Pete Souza]


Comments:

Is that what you think? From my own anti-anti-choice perspective, I think this debate has opened up a lot of eyes to the economic and social injustices perpetuated by Hyde. But feel free to be wrong... per usual. xoxo

Posted by: Alyce at December 11, 2009 5:04 PM


Who was harmed by the Hyde Amendment? Poor children who were forced to be born because their mothers were too poor to pay the abortionist? Should we take a poll of these poor kids who are now grown and ask them if they would prefer to have never lived? If abortion was so good for poor women, abortionists would be doing them for free instead of begging the government for federal tax dollars. It's all about the money.

Posted by: Janet at December 11, 2009 5:17 PM


The feminists of the 1960's and beyond have succeeded in hypnotizing people in this country that "abortion is good.. abortion is good.. abortion is good.. It's wearing off, thank God. Pro-lifers need to be bold and provide education and support to those who are still on the "pro-choice" fence. The hard-core pro-aborts won't like it one bit... Ain't life grand?

Posted by: Janet at December 11, 2009 5:25 PM


might bring, jill.

no one thinks abortion is "good". pro choice people just happen to be smart enough to see that the world isnt black and white, good and evil, etc. instead of attacking the symptom and wasting your energy, why dont you people try treating the disease (ie poverty, lack of healthcare, institutionalized racism...) and actually do something worthwhile with your lives.

Posted by: l at December 11, 2009 6:54 PM


l,

No. pro-choice people aren't smart enough to realize that abortion kills a human being. That, or they're monsters. Take your pick.

Defending the most defenseless in our society against being ripped apart limb by limb is most certainly a worthwhile endevor.

Posted by: Lauren at December 11, 2009 7:13 PM


pushing your religious beliefs on society does not make them valid facts. abortion does not kill human beings. it certainly destroys embryos and fetuses, which have the potential to become human beings. and it also destroys embryos and fetuses that genetically lack the potential to become human beings. because the issue is not black and white it is not going to ever go away. pro choice people are smart enough to realize that.

Posted by: l at December 11, 2009 7:18 PM


"pro choice people just happen to be smart enough to see that the world isnt black and white..."

Isn't saying that the world isn't black and white a black and white statement? In other words, is it absolutely true that the world isn't black and white?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 7:21 PM


l, the fact that a human is killed during an abortion is not a "religious belief" it is a scientific fact. I think you need to go back to second grade science.

They are not "potential human beings" they are, you know...actual human beings. Sperm and eggs are potential human beings. After amphimixis, they're as human as you or me.

I would stop claiming that your argument is the "smart" one when you're clearly ignorant of elementary science.

Posted by: Lauren at December 11, 2009 7:21 PM


"abortion does not kill human beings. it certainly destroys embryos and fetuses, which have the potential to become human beings. and it also destroys embryos and fetuses that genetically lack the potential to become human beings... the issue is not black and white"

Why are the first statements regarding abortion black and white but not other aspects of the issue?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 7:24 PM


L: "pushing your religious beliefs on society does not make them valid facts."

*yawn*

Another uninformed pro-choicer. Where do they come from? What happened to the SoMG type pro-choicers?

Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 7:34 PM


because of science. show me an embryo that can live outside of a womb and ill reconsider. abortion is illegal beyond the point at which a fetus could live on its own.

PROVE that your religious beliefs are facts using something other than circular logic (ie the bible)

Posted by: l at December 11, 2009 7:44 PM


Good grief, I... how old are you?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 7:47 PM


L: "because of science. show me an embryo that can live outside of a womb and ill reconsider. abortion is illegal beyond the point at which a fetus could live on its own."

So what, 18 years old? I didn't know you could abort teenagers! I'll keep that in mind going forward.

Seriously. Nothing is viable in the truest sense of the word. Besides, the viability argument is falsified by observing conjoined twins. Many conjoined twins cannot live without the other. Does this mean that neither twin is a person and that neither twin is afforded human rights? Your argument just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Not that you would know. You have probably never scrutinized the leftist talking points you bring to any discussion in your life.

L: "PROVE that your religious beliefs are facts using something other than circular logic (ie the bible)"

Are you serious? Who is making an argument from a religious base?

Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 7:57 PM


Good point Bobby. If she is young, maybe I am not the right person to be "discussing" this topic with her.

Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 7:58 PM


i wasnt aware that teenagers needed oxygen and nutrients from their mothers placentas in order to survive. do you people even read things before arguing against them?

conjoined twins do not require their mothers placenta to live. again, read first, then think, then argue. maybe that will help.

do you really respect youth and women so little that you think that anyone who disagrees with you must fall into both categories? im going to guess that its a big yes on both.

Posted by: l at December 11, 2009 8:08 PM


L: "i wasnt aware that teenagers needed oxygen and nutrients from their mothers placentas in order to survive. do you people even read things before arguing against them?

conjoined twins do not require their mothers placenta to live. again, read first, then think, then argue. maybe that will help."

First of all, the placenta derives from the fetus's DNA, so rightfully, the placenta does not belong to the mother, but to the fetus in fact.

Second of all, your argument seems to be built around the exceptionalism of the womb, which is no way established by any discourse. In other words, you seem to be suggesting that a shared womb (pregnancy) is different from a shared kidney (conjoined twins.)

In what way does dependence on a mother's womb negate personhood that dependence on other forms of life support do not?

And no one has impugned you based on gender, only your suspected age, which is fair considering the high correlation between intellectual immaturity and youth.

Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 9:19 PM


"pro-choice people aren't smart enough to realize that abortion kills a human being. That, or they're monsters. Take your pick."

Good point Lauren, it's either one or the other.

Posted by: Jasper at December 11, 2009 9:20 PM


Hey Jasper, don't view things in such black and white. It could be both!

Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 9:24 PM


l,

"no one thinks abortion is "good". pro choice people just happen to be smart enough to see that the world isnt black and white, good and evil, etc. instead of attacking the symptom and wasting your energy, why dont you people try treating the disease (ie poverty, lack of healthcare, institutionalized racism...) and actually do something worthwhile with your lives."


Man, you would have been a star in Nazi Germany. Until we get solutions in place, feel free to kill 'em all. That's what you've advocated here today. Until we address these issues as a society, slaughtering the preborn in these groups is the stop-gap measure that's perfectly legitimate with you.

I grew up poor. Very poor. In a ghetto in Brooklyn till age 14, complete with the rats, mice, roaches, water bugs, silverfish, crime, the works. I never realized that we were poor growing up until I went to college and met solid middle class kids who were miserable wretches that lived off of their parents and never knew an honest day's work in their lives. Half of their parents were divorced.

I only remembered the love we shared around the dinner table, our Catholic family of five children, and simple pleasures like going to Coney Island Beach (where my college peers went to Florida). My upper middle class friends preferred Thanksgiving dinner in our modest home in Staten Island to their own homes, because of the love we shared with ourselves and our guests.

Then I met people like you. People who thought we would have been better off killed. I pity you. I pity the home you came from, such as it must have been. Yes, I was born poor. But I seized the greatness of America and worked my way through college and graduate school. I even got to study post-baccalaureate pre-med/prescience at Columbia University for three years between undergrad and grad school.

To think my stupid mother should have listened to the likes of you. To think of all the solidly middle class college friends who got to see real love, real family at my dinner table, who now use my parents' dynamics in their own marriages. To think of all the good that never would have been if my non-college educated, blue collar parents had aborted their children. Four of us are college educated. One is an executive in a multibillion dollar corporation, one a scientist/professor, one a high school english teacher, one a special ed teacher, and one an EKG technician.

L, you lack vision and soul. You have no hope for the future. Rather than militate for abortion, why not volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center and educate poor women. Teach them literacy and life skills. Help with their babies. Use your contacts to get them jobs. Ameliorate the deficiencies you enumerate here rather than advocating murder, which is not a part of the solution. Make a difference in someone's life. Be the founder of their feast, not their grim reaper.

You see, THAT requires that you put your money where your mouth is. Are you up to the challenge?

And by the way, I worked at Covenant House in Times Square NY for seven years in the 1980's with homeless teens. Five years with single mothers and two years on a unit with kids with HIV/AIDS, before going into science as a second career. I saw more in those seven years than any 100 people should see in a lifetime. What have you done? So take care when you come here and tell us to do something worthwhile with our lives. You have a long way to go before you could fill the smallest set of shoes on these threads.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 12, 2009 2:00 AM


My goodness, pro-lifers, your reasoning skills are fabulous! I was struck from reading Janet's 1st comment down to Gerard's last - with Bobby, Lauren, and Oliver's in between - just how adept the pro-life community has become at cognitive debate. I'm blown away. All (including me!), read and learn.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 5:45 AM


its not a cognitive debate or fabulous reasoning when those debating merely resort to absurd personal attacks.

its extremely offensive to compare the systematic slaughter of fully developed cognizant jews to a womans choice as to what to do with her own body, and a being that doesnt even have the capacity for life outside of that body.

sharing a womb and sharing a kidney are completely different in that, in a womb, both twins are fully dependent on the woman carrying them, while conjoined twins sharing a kidney are codependent on each other. further, sharing a kidney is a terrible example, since people only need one kidney to live, and could thus be separated if that was their choice.

a fetus can not "own" a placenta. it does not have a developed brain capable of complex and abstract thoughts of ownership. to take this further, you say that the placenta is the property of the fetus because much of its dna is the same as the fetuses? well a fetus contains mostly maternal DNA (half of its nuclear DNA and all of its mitochondrial DNA) so by your own logic the mother "owns" the fetus.

you say that the early stages of life are exceptional, but the womb is not? you do know what happens to fertilized eggs that implant outside of the womb, dont you? well they eventually grow big enough to rupture the fallopian tube and the mother bleeds out. because the fetus depends on the mother for oxygen and nutrients, the fetus also loses its potential for life on its own. in order to become a fully formed human being, development must occur in the womb. the womb plays a large role another part of the life cycle you all claim to revere so much... its called gestation, and a fetus must go through it to develop into a baby.

what have i done? ha. ive done the same things as you right down to the columbia post bac program. (aside from the crisis pregnancy center work, as those centers manipulate and guilt many women into making choices they later regret) now im in one of the best medical schools in the country and will support my colleagues who provide desperate woman with reproductive freedom and options and who face up to your bigotry, shaming, and threats of violence. i would have supported and fought for your mother in her choice to bear you as much as i would support any woman who chooses not to become a mother.

i would never tell a complete stranger that they have no hope for the future. i would never judge anyone. you people dont know me and your arguments are so pathetically structured that they eventually all disintegrate into personal attacks.

you say i have no soul? i didnt realize that being anti-choice made you god.

Posted by: l at December 12, 2009 2:37 PM


l,

You are a medical student and can not see the organismal identity of the individual? Cognizant? So I take it you'll be dispatching stroke victims with great regularity?

Personal attacks? Yes they are. Unapologetically so, because they are not academic or theoretical. They are about you, and you are not a very attractive soul, advocating the death of innocents. You never responded to my post on another thread about Scott Gilbert's developmental biology. Did you see it, or were you ignoring it? I addressed it to you.

As a medical student, get this straight. The new organism at fertilization is just that: A new organism. It is human in its identity. It exists, has being. It's developmental program is already unfolding and will continue to do so for the next 120 years if the organism is lucky enough. It is a human being in its earliest stages of development. It is NOT a potential life. It is alive and progressing along its developmental trajectory. Got that?

As a Molecular Biologist I have little patience for graduate and medical students who deny objective biological reality to achieve some Procrustean agenda. Knock it off here and behave in an intellectually honest manner. Biologists don't call embryos potential life. They argue over whether the living, developing organism is entitled to personhood status. If you wish to be taken seriously by doctors, start emulating them. Get with the program. The debate is over personhood status, not potential life.

As for telling a complete stranger that they have no hope for the future, you don't. There, I said it again. Your post indicated that as long as humanity does not achieve Utopia, free from poverty, etc., then abortion is the answer. That's hopelessness and soullessness in action.

Like all pro-choicers, you are given to the one-dimensional thinking of false dichotomy. Either a woman in poverty has a baby OR she aborts to get ahead. Childish, narcissistic prattle.

I've taught many women in Nursing and pharmacy that have had children ranging from embryonic to grown adult stages of life. These women have done better than most undergraduate women who are 20 and single. You CAN have it all, just sometimes on a different timeline. But the raging narcissistic beast says, "I want it all NOW".

In all of my years working with teen mothers at a homeless shelter, many of whom were impregnated by johns while working as prostitutes, none ever claimed to regret having had the babies. To a girl, the ones who had previous abortions regretted them terribly once they had their babies.

You see the world from the purview of a medical student in one of the finest schools in the world. You can't imagine that those naked aboriginals might actually derive great meaning and purpose for their lives in the ghetto, can you? You've never heard prostitutes console one another over the death of a fellow whore, have you? You've never seen junkies share their last cigarette with a fellow junkie, have you? You've never seen people pool their food stamps to help a neighbor throw a feast for an out of town relative, have you?

All you see is red ink on the balance sheet. You don't see the great positive of poor people's lives. So when some poor soul is lost and has no hope for the future and wants to kill her child, you support it. Why? Because you're just as lost and hopeless. Because you have no hope to offer. Because you have nothing of yourself to give. If of course you do have hope to give, and merely withhold it, then you're simply monstrous.

Learn this much from this thread if you learn nothing else at all. Our job as health professionals (My doctoral work and clinical experience are medical microbiology after an MS in molecular) is to give people hope when hope seems lost, when fear and confusion are at their height, and when people’s souls are tried to the breaking point. Anything less and you're a mere technician. Death is never the solution to life's problems. Abortion is a permanent solution to temporary problems.

So you would never judge anyone? Seriously? I hate to tell you, but as Ph.D.'s and M.D.'s, it's our job to judge our peers and subordinates when we see them engaging in illegal, immoral, or unethical behaviors. We are the police in our respective fields. We are the ones who sit on ethics review boards and conduct boards and decide if peers lose their credentials. We judge the people we date severely before settling on a mate (hopefully).

"because the issue is not black and white it is not going to ever go away. pro choice people are smart enough to realize that."

Implies pro-life people are not smart enough to realize that. But you would never judge anyone, especially complete strangers.

Finally, so you don't come off too poorly by showing your partisan ignorance, the following statement is DEAD wrong:

"because of science. show me an embryo that can live outside of a womb and ill reconsider. abortion is illegal beyond the point at which a fetus could live on its own."

The Doe V Bolton decision handed down the same day as Roe makes abortion legal right up until delivery. Truth is stranger than pro-choice propaganda.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 12, 2009 3:32 PM


there is too much wrong with your post to adequately respond to your sad ignorance. i really dont care what you think of me, but if you think it is a physicians job to judge their patients, then im pretty glad you failed to become a physician. you can respond if you like, but i need to study and stop wasting my time trying to convince the blind that there is a world out there to see, so your response will fall on deaf ears. no one aborts to "get ahead", for some it is an incredibly easy choice, and for others it is a difficult one. they are just living their lives. you are the raging narcissist if you actually believe that anyones belief about abortion is the full sum of their "worth". abortion is not the "answer", it is simply the symptom of a bigger problem. by attacking the most vulnerable people instead of finding a cure, you show that you yourself have no worth, no hope, no value. you show that you only see things in black and white and are incapable of understanding and empathy. throughout history women who do not want to be pregnant have found ways to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy, legally or illegally. by making it illegal you condemn many of these people to death, but clearly you dont believe anyone who disagrees with you has any value. so sad that people claim that human life is a miracle, and then contradict that claim as soon as that life is developed enough to have a differing opinion.

the usual hypocrisy of the religious man...

Posted by: l at December 12, 2009 4:39 PM


l,

Try and follow the trajectory of the conversation. You said that I was being judgmental of you (correct-you shamelessly advocate the unspeakable while denying biological reality), while you would never be judgmental of anyone (which is an untruth relative to your posts). The judging of subordinates refers to professionals (I presume that you will be evaluating medical students, interns and second year residents as you progress in training. No one mentioned siting in judgment of patients. Nice whine and dodge though.

Next, I didn't fail to become a physician. Ph.D. programs have the same entrance requirements as med school. I started out seeking a Ph.D.

Next, work on those critical reading skills. I spent 7 long years working with the most vulnerable-teen prostitutes in a homeless shelter in Times Square. And the cure you put forward until Nirvana arrives is abortion.

I'll give you points on the black and white screed. You're absolutely correct. When God commanded Moses, "Thou shalt not murder", He didn't qualify that by saying, "except if you want to exercise your 'choice found in the penumbra of a legal document that won't materialize for another 3,500 years, or if you wish to put your terminal patients down like old dogs, or if a child has some defect..."

THOU SHALT NOT is as black and white as it gets.So yes, we're pretty black and white about that sort of thing here in these parts.

" but clearly you dont believe anyone who disagrees with you has any value."

But you're NOT judgmental, right?

Off topic, and calling a cease-fire for a while. These issues are very good to think about and debate, but please don't let them get in the way of your studies. Your future patients deserve your best and undivided attention NOW, as well as in the future. Med school and grad school are notorious for the volume of material to be mastered. That must be your first priority, as you already have a great pro-life proclivity that propels and sustains you through it all. We wouldn't do that kind of workload and make the sacrifices that we do if we didn't love life.

We can iron out the rest over a beer one day. For now, I wish you the very best success in your continued academic and professional formation. I've found it all most worthwhile in my clinical work.

God Bless.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 12, 2009 8:04 PM


L: "sharing a womb and sharing a kidney are completely different in that, in a womb, both twins are fully dependent on the woman carrying them, while conjoined twins sharing a kidney are codependent on each other. further, sharing a kidney is a terrible example, since people only need one kidney to live, and could thus be separated if that was their choice."

Where do you get codependence? Do you really think anatomy is that black and white? There are plenty of cases where one twin is NOT dependent on the other twin, anymore than the mother is on the fetus. You also assume that the twins have multiple kidneys to share. Often times, as in the case presented by Lauren earlier, there are not enough kidneys for the two twins to live separately.

Im suprised at you lack of knowledge of conjoined twins. Its really pretty common to understand that not all twins can be so easily separated.

L: "a fetus can not "own" a placenta. it does not have a developed brain capable of complex and abstract thoughts of ownership. to take this further, you say that the placenta is the property of the fetus because much of its dna is the same as the fetuses? well a fetus contains mostly maternal DNA (half of its nuclear DNA and all of its mitochondrial DNA) so by your own logic the mother "owns" the fetus."

Its not that the placenta belongs to the fetus BECAUSE of the DNA, but that the DNA clues us into where the placenta comes from. The fetus forms the placenta, just as the fetus forms its other organs. To claim that someone has ownership of another person because of DNA portion is foolish.

When the egg and sperm combine to form the blastocyst there is an individual creature present, whether or not you believe that creature deserves rights. That creature develops a placenta. The mother does not. It is not the mother's placenta. It is really pretty basic science.

Your argument is akin to saying a) that a plant's stem actually is not a part of the plant, because the plant can't own anything and b) an infant belongs to the mother because of the percent chromozone within the infant.

L: "you say that the early stages of life are exceptional, but the womb is not? you do know what happens to fertilized eggs that implant outside of the womb, dont you? well they eventually grow big enough to rupture the fallopian tube and the mother bleeds out. because the fetus depends on the mother for oxygen and nutrients, the fetus also loses its potential for life on its own. in order to become a fully formed human being, development must occur in the womb. the womb plays a large role another part of the life cycle you all claim to revere so much... its called gestation, and a fetus must go through it to develop into a baby."

No one is claiming that the early stages of a fetus are "exceptional." That term refers to a unique characteristic that applies ONLY to that agent. In other words, Megan has made the argument that dependence on the WOMB is different from ANY other kind of dependence. This is an exceptionalist view of the womb.

We are not saying that a fetus be treated any differently than any other child. The parent in charge is responsible to provide food and water and shelter at the partial sacrifice of his or her rights.

L: " "

Right. Who cares? If you follow the recent post on this website, L, you will see that the personal attacks have largely come from those on your side who are unable to produce any cogent response.

I'm also a little confused at your knowledge of placentation. The very fact you thought the placenta was a physical part of the mother casts a lot of doubt on your medical school claims. Do you just not remember basic A&P?

You have yet to answer this question either: in what way does dependence on a mother's womb negate personhood that dependence on other forms of life support do not?


Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 8:16 PM


I don't think this has been said yet on this thread so I will...

God bless Henry Hyde for his decades of fighting for the lives of the unborn while so few of his peers saw the need. May he rest in peace.

Posted by: Janet at December 12, 2009 8:20 PM


Gerald,

"Then I met people like you. People who thought we would have been better off killed."

I'd just like to point out that, as a pro-choice person ("choice" being the operative word) if federal dollars would cover health care for poor people, it wouldn't have been up to people like us to decide if you would have been "better off killed" -- It would have been up to your mother - or, to quote you, your "stupid mother". (I'm not sure if you meant to call your mother stupid there, or suggest that she would have been stupid to listen to us when we say that it was her choice whether or not to keep you.)

At any rate, since you're alive, and happy, and posting to discussion boards, and lighting up my life, I assume she made a good CHOICE in deciding to keep you around. I completely agree with L. I'm not pro-death. I'm not pro-aborting babies. I don't like the idea that a woman would have her options come to this. I am, however, pro-choice.

Posted by: Lici W. at December 13, 2009 7:06 AM


How can you view abortion as a bad thing and then say that you support the option? How can it be bad if you don't believe the fetus even has the right to life in the first place? If it is just a clump of cells, who cares what happens?

If you truly see it as a bad thing, at the very least you are admiting that the fetus has rights that are being sacrificed to preserve the mother's rights.

Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 11:29 AM


I view racism as a bad thing. I view the Klan as a bad thing, but, as a Black woman, I continue to support a person's first amendment right to think and believe as they wish. I would continue to support a person's choice to hate me based on my brown skin - though I think it "bad".

I'm also a carnivore. I generally believe that killing innocent puppies is wrong - yet I love to eat innocent cows all the same.

As a final example, I believe that killing people is generally wrong. That people have rights. But I also believe in "just war", capital punishment, and pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo. In short, I'm full of contradictions, and I'm willing to bet that so are you and my good buddy Gerald - remember, the guy who called his mother "stupid"?

I can't say the exact moment that life begins or that someone has rights. However, I do know that I would not take the decision to abort my child lightly - though I'm not sure what circumstances might happen that would cause me to go to this level. I care about what something has the potential to be - clump of cells or otherwise - but I know that I also have to respect what already is.

I'm not going to say that you have to actively support and take part in something you don't believe in (maybe you don't believe in blood transfusions) but I am arguing with
1) your depiction of pro-choice people as "pro-aborts" and
2) your attempts to take away the rights of others. Just because some people don't believe in blood transfusions, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be convered by Medicare.

Also, I'm assuming, Oliver, that because your name is masculine, you don't have a uterus, and you will never be faced with this choice. Don't try to make my uterine decisions for me.

Posted by: Lici W. at December 13, 2009 3:40 PM


Whoops, my bad, I misread the name. That was Gerard I was replying to. So sorry, Gerard.

Posted by: Lici W. at December 13, 2009 3:44 PM


Awesome watch unborn 4Weeks 4Days old~ heartbeat in action http://bit.ly/2pXiim

The embryo has brainwaves by 6 weeks, 2 days!

From 6 to 6½ weeks, the cerebral vesicles will double in size.1 Individualized brainwaves recorded via electroencephalogram (e-lek’tro-en-sef’a-lo-gram), or EEG, have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.2
Also by 7 weeks, cell groupings resembling taste buds appear on the tongue3 and hiccups begin.4
http://bit.ly/5QenK4

By 8 weeks, 75% of embryos exhibit right-hand dominance. The remainder is equally divided between left-handed dominance and no preference.
http://bit.ly/5KcR28


Interactive Prenatal Development Timeline
http://bit.ly/4LOwmi

Posted by: RooForLife at December 13, 2009 4:23 PM


Sorry for repeat post, the first time I tried it said there was error so I reposted

Posted by: RooForLife at December 13, 2009 4:28 PM


"Also, I'm assuming, Oliver, that because your name is masculine, you don't have a uterus, and you will never be faced with this choice. Don't try to make my uterine decisions for me."

Fine. Men do not posses a uterus. The woman retains the right to choose. But fair is fair-she also incurs 100% of the burden of child-support if the father chooses not to get involved or chooses not to pay. Your choice, your responsibility.

How does that sound to you?

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 14, 2009 7:47 AM


Gerard... I'm one of those nursing students who made it through the program with six children ... and I absolutely believe that it made me a different person, a more careful person, a more empathetic person, and a far better nurse than I otherwise would have been.

The devaluation of humanity that has occurred with the abortion mindset has permeated society to the point that even born children are viewed as disposable. The children I see come through my ER make me want to weep, cry, and take them home with me (if we can get them healthy again) so that they know a mother's love... I see burns, deliberate fractures, beatings, rapes...

And then I see the so called "drains" on society... the poor families, the families who gave birth to children with serious medical issues... and they work SO HARD to take care of their children with either limited means or such high needs (or both)... I walk into one room and the parents tried to kill a healthy kid... and I walk into the next to see a parent fighting FOR their child against all odds.

L - I pray you gain some sense of humanity before you are granted a medical degree. I work with enough residents to know the difference between those who care about the patients and those who care about their status as "doctor"... the latter are pretty worthless. (Had to fight with one doc one night to get him to write orders for a cool mist vaporizer for a croup kid. His exact words: "I'm okay with waiting until the morning shift comes in to make a decision." That's nice, doc, but the respiratory therapist and I are NOT okay with that and NEITHER IS THE PATIENT!)

Posted by: Elisabeth at December 14, 2009 12:03 PM


someone who really cares about their patients respects the decisions they make regarding their own bodies. i would never force someone to bear a child that they didnt want or to abort if they did want to have a child. i hope that you people dont really believe that life is so black and white or that a person can be completely defined by how they feel about one particular issue. because if you do, then you truly have blinders on. i dont know a single pro choice person (future physician or otherwise) who thinks that children are disposable. you devalue humanity when you force people to carry a child to term as "punishment" for having intercourse.

i know that isnt necessarily the argument you are making, but i have certainly heard anti-choice people talk about children in that way... as punishment for being sexually active or raped.

gerard - sounds totally fine to me

Posted by: l at December 15, 2009 6:17 PM


"someone who really cares about their patients respects the decisions they make regarding their own bodies."

That's pleasant poetry. In reality, endocrinologists are notorious for telling their diabetic patients that they shouldn't bother to come back if they will not be more stringent with their diet, and that they will be asked to leave if they don't shape up. Cardiologists are little better.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 15, 2009 7:45 PM


Gerard - it sounds like we agree! If I choose to keep the baby, even after the father has declared that he wants absolutely nothing to do with the child (despite the fact that he helped create it) then I am agreeing to have that person out of my child's life. As long as he is willing to sign away his paternal rights, too.

It seems to happen to a lot of people these days, unfortunately. I'm a teacher - and I happen to know plenty of moms (and a few dads too) who are supporting their kids without the help of the other parent.

Posted by: lici w. at December 16, 2009 4:37 PM


lici,

Actually, no, we don't agree. I was being sardonic.

Parents should have no such right to sign away their responsibilities to their children. That includes the responsibility to see to their continued developmental well-being beginning at conception.

The point I was getting at is that abortion has created the 'walk-away' climate we now see becoming so prevalent. It's almost 80% in the African American community, which has been a ghastly setback for so noble a people, just as their full civil rights were being won.

In truth, I have no more right, or luxury to skip out on my duties as a father than a mother has to skip out on hers.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 17, 2009 4:32 AM


l-"someone who really cares about their patients respects the decisions they make regarding their own bodies".
A fetus, clump of cells, whatever you want to call it--I'll call it a growing baby, in the womb of a mom is NOT the mom. It is it's very own existance. Yes, it requires it's mom for growth, but this does not negate it's own individual-ness. Again, I repeat, this developing body inside a mom is NOT THE MOM. Yes, the mom experiences the affects of the pregnancy which totally affect her body--but all that goes away after the baby is born..poof.. I agree a woman can and should make the decisions regarding her own body. Her body is not her baby's (embyo, fetus, what-have-you), the baby's body is not the mother's. l- what is so difficult to see about this?

Posted by: swimmer at December 17, 2009 2:17 PM


you can call it what you want, but the fact that its entire existence and proliferation depend on the woman carrying it does not mean that its existences is its own. it is a PART of the womans body as long as it is incapable of sustaining life outside of her. also, if you think that all of the affects of pregnancy go away... poof... the moment that a baby is born you are sadly mistaken.

a doctor should give patients judgment free advice in all domains. so, while it may be prudent for an endocrinologist to advise her/his diabetic patients that dietary changes would be beneficial to their health, they should not be allowed to withhold treatment on the basis of how their advice is taken. its not judgmental to state the scientific fact that diet and outcomes in diabetes are correlated. it is judgmental, however, to withhold treatment to those patients unable to comply. many people are not in positions where they can buy fresh fruit and veggies every day and have a healthy diet. just like many woman are not in a position to protect themselves from violence and sexual abuse that may result in an unintended pregnancy.


if you think that parents should have no right to sign away their responsibilities to their children does that mean that you are against adoption?

Posted by: l at December 21, 2009 11:58 AM