New York Times-owned About.com posts on the Abortion/Breast Cancer link

UPDATE, 1/9, 7:30p: I just learned from David Schmidt of LiveAction.org (which is why his group is known for super sleuthing and I'm not... :) that About.com is owned by the New York Times. Sure enough, from About.com's home page...

about.com, new york times, abortion, breast cancer.png

Checking back this morning, About.com blogger Pam Stephan has added to her original post, making it even more condemning. In addition to the blurb I quoted in its entirety yesterday, Stephan has added...

Dolle's research shows that if you started taking birth control pills before age 18, your risk for TNBC is increased by 3.7 times. If you've been using The Pill within the last 1 to 5 years, your TBNC risk is raised 4.2 times. Triple-negative breast cancer is aggressive and strikes women who are under 40, and many victims are African Americans. Survival odds for TBNC are quite low.

As if that news were not alarming enough, a statement by NCI researcher Louise Brinton admits that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. Brinton spearheaded the 2003 NCI workshop about the abortion-breast cancer link (referred to as ABC). That workshop made every effort to assure women that having induced abortions was not linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, and that research did not support an ABC link. Now NCI, usually a trusted institution, is telling us that there is a 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions.

Before I was diagnosed with breast cancer in March 2002, I took birth control pills for about 5 years. They prevented conception, made me a little queasy, but seemed otherwise harmless. In those days, the hormones in The Pill were lower than contraceptives that were produced in the 1980's, so I thought they were safe. After all, a doctor prescribed them for me - so no health risk, right? Maybe they were wrong! As soon as my breast lump was detected on a mammogram, when I was 46 years old, I was told to stop taking The Pill. That was one year before NCI told us that The Pill would not raise my risk for breast cancer. Now, I wish I'd never taken it. Perhaps one's risk is not as simple as taking The Pill, or eating a healthy diet, or a genetic mutation - but if my risk is lower now because of being off contraceptives and never having had an abortion, I'm glad there's something I can do. I just wish agencies like the NCI would get their story straight, so we have as much information as possible, to reduce our risk of breast cancer.

Double wow.

1/8, 12:30p: I've been reading news reports in the conservative/pro-life world (like LifeSiteNews.com) about National Cancer Institute researcher Louise Brinton's reversal of professional opinion to now agree there is a link between induced abortion and breast cancer.

Louise Brinton.pngBrinton's name in all this is a Big Deal, as Dr. Joel Brind, who was there, explained:

Importantly, Brinton was the chief organizer for the 2003 NCI "workshop" on "early reproductive events and breast cancer", a panel which reported that the lack of an ABC link had been "established".

Pro-aborts have, of course, been mum on the revelation about Brinton, which involves her co-authorship of a published study acknowledging the ABC link, except for RabbleProChoice, who naively insinuated the truth in a blog post: If and when mainstream science openly acknowledges the ABC link, the fallout will be enormous for the other side, which is why they so so desperately try to dismiss it....

rabble, abortion, breast cancer.png

Rabble linked back for reassurance to an old RH Reality Check post.

But today the mainstream website About.com, which I've found to sometimes even skew left, posted something on the Brinton bombshell. The piece mentions only Jessica Dolle, but this is about the aforementioned study Brinton also authored...

about.com abortion, breast cancer.png

In 2003, the U.S. National Cancer Institute sought to reassure women that using birth control pills would not raise their risk for breast cancer. NCI also told women that having an abortion was not a risk factor for breast cancer.

Now it turns out that a study published in April 2009 by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center shows just the opposite: oral contraception is linked with an increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer in women who are 45 years old and younger.

The research paper, "Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years," was published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

This research paper features a table of risk factors, which includes induced abortion as one of several "known and suspected risk factors".

Of course, it's too soon to tell whether this is a real breakthrough, but it's certainly something.

That the authors also found a link between abortion and hormonal contraceptives makes this study cataclysmic for liberal feminist ideology.


Comments:

Yes there is a link. It helps a lot of docs lose face since they didn't warn their patients. Time to move on and talk about something else. I have in the past on some boards discussed the actual cell level changes that are the foundation of this higher incidence of cancer.

Posted by: xppc at January 8, 2010 12:48 PM


Angela Lanfranchi MD wrote this paper...
http://www.lifenews.com/oped12.html

Posted by: Angela at January 8, 2010 12:56 PM


Angela Lanfranchi MD wrote this paper addressing the link...
http://www.lifenews.com/oped12.html

Posted by: Angela at January 8, 2010 12:56 PM


I understand why the abortion industry will not admit the link, but what about these women in liberal media? Why are these women so hellbent on denying a possible link? It's a women's issue, no?

Posted by: heather at January 8, 2010 1:11 PM


Hi Heather,

Simple. They don't want to acknowledge it. Would you want to admit something you advocated and promoted might be responsible for causing cancer?
If you were a liberal feminist would you want to acknowledge such a link? Now if this evidence existed against breast implants you would likely be overjoyed. Did liberal feminists howl that a link between breast implants and autoimmune disorders was a lie? Did they demand the evidence and studies to verify it? Oh no, we had to assume there was a connection and crucify Dow-Corning. I understand later studies showed none.

Posted by: Mary at January 8, 2010 1:21 PM


Mary is right, they won't mention it because it weakens their argument. Much like they won't mention the fact that many many women regret their abortions, and have physical and emotional problems that take years to sort out. All about the woman, and should be talked about to help womenm, but boy would all of these weaken their argument.

When a mother aborts a baby who happens to have Ds, they justify that for as long as they can. The pro choice movement will tell them they did this "for the baby". When they tell them it will be hard, what they are really telling them is that they are too weak to handle raising a child who happens to have Down syndrome. Last time I checked, women were working hard to show the world they are capable of anything. Another example of how this goes contrary to the message they are trying to get out there. If we can run any fortune 500 company, and kick but at it often I might add, don't you think we could handle raising a child with Ds, or at the very least giving the child up for adoption for another family to raise? I mean really, are we that weak? Seems to go in the face of their argument that women can do anything they put their minds to doesn't it? Hmmmm....

Posted by: Diane @ IDSC For Life at January 8, 2010 1:38 PM


Hi Mary! Happy New Year!! Great points from you and Diane!

Posted by: heather at January 8, 2010 1:44 PM


Hi Heather,

Happy NY to you and yours as well. Its good to see you back.

Posted by: Mary at January 8, 2010 2:09 PM


Why doesn't the unborn human rights movement launch a class action lawsuit with thousands of plaintiffs and really try to destroy financially the criminal abortion industry once and for all?

At the very least they would have to spend millions on legal fees and would see a hemorrhaging of their business as word got out about the link.

At the same time, this would tell women all over the world never to kill your unborn child if you want to avoid breast cancer.

Posted by: Joe at January 8, 2010 3:09 PM


Jill,

Great post. I've been dealing with this issue for a few weeks on my site, presenting the body of literature for people that shows the connection between breast cancer, OC and abortion.

If people want to see, go to the Categories panel and click "breast cancer".

NCI was fundamentally dishonest in how they came to their conclusion. The discounted the retrospective studies, claiming 'recall bias' in women with breast cancer (As though women without breast cancer would forget having had an abortion when asked).

They looked at two large prospective studies that followed women over time, but didn't allow enough passage of time before drawing their conclusions.

So, yes, the prospective studies at that point did not support a link, and they dismissed (fraudulently and shamefully) the data that did support a link.

Abortion destroys everything it touches.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at January 8, 2010 3:12 PM


Gerald, thanks for covering this on your site. How's it going for you?!

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at January 8, 2010 3:23 PM


Are we talking about correlation or causation here? The earlier a woman gives birth and breastfeeds the less likely she is to get breast cancer, so it makes sense why there would be a correlation between birth control, abortion, and breast cancer(assuming women having abortions and using birth control are giving birth later).

Posted by: Ella at January 8, 2010 3:49 PM


I wonder where are the studies that indicate that recall bias is unreliable?

Breast cancer pamphlets accept that a full term pregnancy reduces cancer and also breast feeding. A women with no children is more likely to have breast cancer. A woman delaying children is also more likely to have breast cancer.

An abortion ends pregnancy. Even indirectly Abortion indirectly increases breast cancer.

Posted by: Chantal at January 8, 2010 8:03 PM


I suppose it's a tough choice for a lot of women. Slight uptick in breast cancer risk, or live in a society where being poor and having a baby is a real issue. I suppose though - get government out of health care and helping poor people...that's the answer.

I'm not quite sure the point of this article. Are the pro-birthers happy that these women are more likely to get breast cancer?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 8, 2010 10:53 PM


As one who has protested the Komen Race for the Cure
and their grants to Planned Parenthood for nearly a decade,
this is welcome news!

Joel Brind, PhD, has been trumpeting the abc link for at least 15 years!

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at January 9, 2010 12:12 AM


I'm not quite sure the point of this article. Are the pro-birthers happy that these women are more likely to get breast cancer?
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 8, 2010 10:53 PM
*****************************

Uh...I believe the point is that women have the right to know breast cancer is a significant risk when they choose abortion.

Posted by: Kel at January 9, 2010 12:25 AM


The statement:

"pro-birthers"

from a supposedly:

"Ex-GOP"


My ass you are. I can smell b.s. from a mile away, and you're smelling like a freshly fertilized cow pasture in the middle of summer right about now. With the terminology you use, and the ideas that you admit make no sense you espouse, you either were spirited away to some liberal underground re-education camp in San Francisco where you underwent weeks and weeks of psychological conditioning at the hands of Barney Frank, or you were never a righty in the first place.

Posted by: xalisae at January 9, 2010 2:41 AM


Xalisae - I can't produce any sort of voting record for you, so all I can do is tell you some of my votes and you can choose whether or not to trust a preachers-kid or not. Voted GOP against Clinton. Voted Bush his first time - a third party candidate his second time. Voted Obama last election. Voted GOP senator last election when living in MN (Norm Coleman). Voted GOP in the state house rate, voted Dem in state senate. Election before, voted Dem in US senate (couldn't stand the GOP guy).

Against the act of abortion, but feel that the GOP has absolutely no working plan in regards to actually doing anything about abortion - so I care more about things that will reduce the rates of abortion.

I'm feeling pretty okay in my statement of using pro-birth after reading through comments for close to a month.

No camps - though if they had a zip line, I might sign up! :-)

Don't be so threatened of scared x - I'm a good guy - just not a straight ticket guy anymore, and lean more left after the Bush years.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 7:56 AM


Whenever there is a clear correlation not easily explained by other factors, the general statistical inference is causation. A study that controlled for other factors would help. Although multiple regression analysis could also show a higher incidence among those who had abortions. One British actuary showed that abortion was a stronger indicator of breast cancer risk than childlessness at the population level. Those studies were done on European nations which are more genetically homogenous than the US population, so some differences could emerge if more racial groups were investigated.

Individual risks as currently understood are reflected in risk calculators:

http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm

Posted by: hippie at January 9, 2010 8:24 AM


I remember when estrogen was moved from the list of suspected carcinogens to the list of known carcinogens. It doesn't take much to figure that taking it for whatever reason would increase cancer risks.

Posted by: hippie at January 9, 2010 8:34 AM


Wow. And again Wow. I can't help but think that this reversal has to be related to the unrelenting intercession coming from LIFE prayer activists all over this nation. This revelation will hurt Planned Parenthood where they live. If we are smart - as a movement - we will press this advantage and demand defunding of PP as they are the nation's leading dispenser of both hormonal birth control and abortions; and the recipient of over 300 MILLION tax dollars to promote these unhealthy/deadly practices. Margaret Sanger's dark legacy is being eroded daily as her eugenicist roots are exposed and now both hormonal contraception and abortion - Planned Parenthood's bread and butter - are irrevocably linked to the scourge of breast cancer.

For more on Sanger's agenda go to www.bound4life.com and see what is going on in Houston, TX. Watch the video - it will open your eyes to the demonic foundation of Planned Parenthood like never before.

Posted by: Amy at January 9, 2010 8:40 AM


Just an observation. Even if the link is proven, I doubt it will stop a single abortion. The choice is either: A. go through with a pregnancy you don't want and make a lifetime commitment to a child, which might force you to drop out of school, be a single mother, etc. or B. face a slightly higher risk of breast cancer years down the road.

I'd bet the overwhelming majority of women would choose "A." A cancer they *might* get in 20 years is not going to be the deciding factor in radically altering your life to have a baby.

Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 9:15 AM


Ashley - part of the thing is, it really can't be conclusively proven. You can show strong correlations, but unless you get a couple of groups together, balance all other factors and then force one of the groups to get abortions and study the rates after - then all you are going to get is correlations.

And I think you are right on the fact it won't change behavior. Another well documented factor is having kids later in life...but of course we're never going to hear somebody say "I chose to have babies earlier than I wanted so I wouldn't get cancer."

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 9:28 AM


EGV 10:53PM,

Of course we are NOT happy women are at an increased risk for breast cancer. This is a horrendous disease and I've seen its devastation first hand. We don't celebrate anyone being at increased risk of any type of cancer caused by certain types of behavior.

What we are happy about is that women will hopefully be advised about the risk they are taking, especially women with a family history who are apparently at higher risk. I'm sure you are the first person to demand that "women's health advocates" inform women of these risks and will be outraged if this information continues to be withheld from women for solely political reasons.

Posted by: Mary at January 9, 2010 9:36 AM


Ashley and EGV,

Knowing the dangers of cigarette smoking, drug abuse, AIDS, and drunk driving have not stopped people from engaging in dangerous behavior. People you would think have the intelligence and education to know better still kill themselves, and others, with cigarettes, promiscuous sex, drugs, and drunk driving.

Still, I'm sure you would agree that people have a right to be informed of the risks they are taking. If you save even one life from harm or death then you have accomplished something, don't you agree?

Posted by: Mary at January 9, 2010 9:42 AM


Mary -

What do you think though if a law were passed that said that anybody under 21 that was pregnant and was planning on keeping their baby was going to have to be told the future job prospects rates, poverty rates, and other statistical issues for those who have a baby in their teens (or I suppose under 21 in my example). I mean, what is the right or the limit of information to folks?

I'm not saying I have the right answer - I'm just saying that if making an informed decision is the goal in this, should a full list of pros and cons be mandated (you know, to take the politics out of it).

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 9:43 AM


EGV,

You haven't spent too much time working with these young women have you EGV? I've advised these girls time and again of what deliberately (yes you read that right)becoming pregnant at such early ages means... a life of welfare dependency, poverty, and hardship. It does not have to mean that since there are programs to assist these young women, but the road is still difficult.

Why do they deliberately become pregnant? Because they are little girls living in fantasy worlds that babies are toys. Their friend has a baby so they want one. Our society glamorizes illegitimacy among its celebrities then is shocked when teenage girls get the message.

I have urged all along that women be honestly advised of the research concerning an ABC link and to investigate, not blindly accept being told there is no cancer risk by people who have everything to lose if a cancer risk is exposed. Yes, keep the politics out of this and be completely straightforward with women.
As I said, if the research implicated breast implants and not abortion, feminists and the media would be going ballistic.

Posted by: Mary at January 9, 2010 9:54 AM


(*sigh*) Logic, where have you gone...?

Forgive the length of this comment, Jill, but there are some instances of nonsense that need thorough dissection--at least once.

Ex-GOP Voter wrote:

I suppose it's a tough choice for a lot of women. Slight uptick in breast cancer risk, or live in a society where being poor and having a baby is a real issue.

I have to hand it to you: I've rarely seen a more bland portrayal of "choosing to have one's own child ripped apart", coupled with such a minimalist portrayal of one of the primary killers of women in industrialized nations ("slight uptick"?), all within a concice package of 2 sentences which say so very nearly nothing.

Just to be pedantic, for a moment (since that's often the only way to untangle abortion-tolerant verbiage): you're (with all due respect) being rather muddle-headed, here, and you're relentlessly hiding behind what philosophers call "conversational implication". There's a certain timid luxury in saying, "it's a tough choice for a lot of women", and leaving conversational implication to fill in the implicit: "and therefore whatever those women choose (or, more usually: whatever the people who coerced those women into abortion choose) is more excusable and less deserving of your censure, you judgmental cretin!". If someone "calls" you on your implication, you can easily retreat with a flustered and indignant, "Hey, I never said that! I only said it was a tough choice! Wow! Paranoia much?"

Look at your last phrase: "or live in a society where being poor and having a baby is a real issue." On its face, it's almost completely vacuous--as informative as me saying, "Y'know, no matter where you go, there's always the weather to consider--it's a real issue." Lots of things are "real issues": the existence of grapes, or the temperature of the average fresh cow pie (thanks for the image, Xalisae!), or any number of inanities. I assume (on very scant substantial data) that you meant to suggest that being poor and having a baby is a burden, and therefore a bad thing (all other things being equal), and therefore a sufficient reason to allow innocent children to be killed by abortion... and to that, I can only say that you're spouting your own biased nonsense.

Now, if you meant something quite different, then you're welcome to correct me; but please be a bit less vague and nebulous, when you do.

I suppose though - get government out of health care and helping poor people...that's the answer.

You're being sarcastic, I assume... but the muddle is back, even here. "Helping poor people" is a bit like the cliched "Mom and apple pie": who could possibly be against it, right? But there's the not-so-small matter of HOW to help the poor, and by what means, and whether those means entail moral evils or not (i.e. things which people with functioning consciences worry about, when making these sorts of decisions). You assume (without making it explicit) that the federal government is the best agency to entrust with ACTIVE programs to "help the poor" (which is rather far afield from the original topic of abortion and breast cancer, to be sure), though I can only wonder at your apparently high opinion of governmental efficiency. You also apparently think that abortion can "help poor people", but you apparently haven't given even 10 seconds' clear thought as to HOW, or whether your starting assumptions are correct (e.g. whether a poor mother is "helped" in any meaningful way by having her children killed). As an illustration: if a single mother had five children and was struggling to make ends meet, would you recommend the slaughter of three of her five children, on the brotherly suggestion that she'd have far fewer worries with three less mouths to feed and backs to clothe? If not, then you'll really have to make clear what you see as the difference between that, and your position.

I'm not quite sure the point of this article. Are the pro-birthers happy that these women are more likely to get breast cancer?

Kel and Xalisae already addressed the... er... lack of critical thought in this comment, but I really had to address your reply to Xalisae:

I'm feeling pretty okay in my statement of using pro-birth after reading through comments for close to a month.

See, here's where that annoying conversational implication comes back to bite you; it's what you DIDN'T say that was so important (and about which you were either disingenuous or oblivious). Certainly, every pro-life person on this forum can be described as "pro-birth" (not only as opposed to "killing the baby in the womb", but as a general openness to new life); but are you seriously not aware that, in the way you framed your statement, you distanced yourself from the so-called "pro-birthers" (whom you accuse [implicitly] of being "happy that "these women are more likely to get breast cancer"), and that you're not one of them? What, exactly, does that make you? "Anti-birth?"

Aside from the stupidity of the accusation (I can't believe that you truly thought anyone on this forum would be happy at increased breast cancer risk--it seems to be a rather cheap rhetorical way to scold those whom you perceive to be your opponents), you've really missed the main point of the original post, in a truly spectacular fashion. Here it is, one more time:

The "pro-choice" denial of an abortion/breast cancer link was faulty, and their manifold attacks on pro-lifers (and any other sane people who could see the medical data) on that point are now shown to be either rash, or dishonest, or both.

Against the act of abortion, but feel that the GOP has absolutely no working plan in regards to actually doing anything about abortion - so I care more about things that will reduce the rates of abortion.

I'll go out on a limb, here, sir, and say that--at least on this particular point--you are a liar. You are not against the act of abortion. You may regret the perceived "necessity" (much as you might lament the necessity of a root canal), but you are not against the act, per se. If you have a correction on that point, I'm all ears... but given your comments about "being poor and pregnant being a real issue", etc. (see above for lessons on conversational implication), I don't envy you the task.

Posted by: Paladin at January 9, 2010 10:53 AM


EGV wrote, in reply to Mary:

What do you think though if a law were passed that said that anybody under 21 that was pregnant and was planning on keeping their baby was going to have to be told the future job prospects rates, poverty rates, and other statistical issues for those who have a baby in their teens (or I suppose under 21 in my example). I mean, what is the right or the limit of information to folks?

May I gently request that you examine your starting assumptions?

You assume that "under 21 and keeping your baby" is somehow deviant from the moral (i.e. sane) norm--and that doing so would require an extraordinary decision. That, friend, is crazy-talk. I presume you were using sarcasm to criticize the "full disclosure of abortion effects" idea, but think about what you're saying: you're drawing moral equivalence between "keeping a baby" vs. "killing a baby". You might as well try to say that one should have all the facts handy before, after careful and soul-searching deliberation, choosing NOT to slit the throat of the next passer-by!

I'm not saying I have the right answer - I'm just saying that if making an informed decision is the goal in this, should a full list of pros and cons be mandated (you know, to take the politics out of it).

You presume that politics is the core issue--and that's one of your perennial errors. This is a moral issue, and it would exist, even if both the Democratic party and the Republican party (and all other parties) were obliterated beyond recall. This is an issue determined by standards of SANE MORALITY--not politics. Does that clarify?

Posted by: Paladin at January 9, 2010 11:02 AM


I think I may have the solution. What we need to do is to recommend to women that they wait till after they've had the baby to kill it. This way the risk of breast cancer is reduced. Also as an added bonus all the other negative effects of abortion are eliminated. A final set of benefits would be all the negative consequences of having a baby. You know, like low income, possible abusive environment, may interrupt a career or schooling or otherwise interfere with lives.
It seems to me we may have missed something here though... Not sure what it is... Oh yah, my bad, the born baby is a living human being we can't just kill for these types or reasons. But wait a minute, what's the difference?

Posted by: Matt at January 9, 2010 11:13 AM


Paladin -

Yes, I'm sure I fell into some philosophical traps along the way. It's also unfortunate that I became a liar along the way. Maybe I fell into some philosophical traps and some twisted logic, but my point isn't to try to "win" any sort of debate or use big words to feel smart and cute about myself. You assumed a lot of things, and maybe that makes you more comfortable with yourself, me, and how life fits together. Congrats. I though, don't typically jump to call people liars even if I don't agree with them.

I can't go one by one through your statements - I simply don't have the time. If there's certain things you want me to address, feel free to ask me. Quite certainly I'm a liar anyways, so you can make up your own truth - but that's your right as the smart philosopher who catches people in their logical trap and then feels the right to call them liars. Good for you smart guy.

Here's my issues and my beliefs:

I think abortion is a terrible thing. My family would never choose abortion, and if I were advising somebody on the decision, I would advise and steer against abortions.

Abortion is legal in this country. Therefore, lots of women have abortions. I do not feel that women wake up and say "I'd like to get pregnant so I can go get an abortion." I think when it gets to that point, there's a terrible struggle going on (for the majority of women, I'm sure not all).

The strategy of the right seems to be this:

We'll work on two fronts. The first front is obstruction. We'll tell women they'll get breast cancer, be depressed and suicidal, and try to block their paths to clinics. We'll post info on the internet, take videos and pictures, and pass laws about filling out forms, waiting longer for visits, driving farther for abortions - all that jazz.

Legally, we'll work to overturn r v wade. I believe, and nobody has said differently - that the path is getting GOP presidents in who put GOP judges in. Then a legal challenge will come from a state that passes a law, and R v Wade will be overturned. Then, the various states can bicker within themselves on the laws. The end result will be much like the death penalty, where states choose - though in this case, people can travel - so I think the pro-lifers goal in this is a NIMBY approach - just go to New York, but not in my backyard.

Lastly (my pro-birth statement), we (I'm talking like my perception of the pro-life movement I've witnessed) want you to have the baby, but we're VERY against health care, social services, and anything else that might be a hurdle. We're not to fond of our taxes being raised, and quite frankly, you made a poor choice with getting pregnant in the first place - so if you are broke because of health care bills and can't stay afloat because you can't find a job that covers child care costs - well, again, your bad. Just don't raise my taxes.


So Paladin - you are the smart guy - rip my comments apart and tell me all of my philosophical short comings. I'm sure there are many.

All I know is that I take a different approach, and while I know it involves abortions still happening - I think we as a society need to do everything we can to build services up, prevent pregnancy, better healthcare, and build a situation and a life where abortion happens much less frequently.

Is it a shallow pipe-dream? I don't know - the GOP was in office 20 of 28 years - where was the overturning of R v Wade and how many states have abortion outlawed? Maybe the GOP pimps the vote out, talks a good game, and doesn't have the guts when it comes to actual legislation.

Thanks - going to go out and do some lying now. Maybe read some books on least harm theory - get smartre so eye dont get maid fun off.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 11:27 AM


{go through with a pregnancy you don't want and make a lifetime commitment to a child, which might force you to drop out of school, be a single mother, etc. }


Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 9:15 AM
__________________________________________________
Ever heard of ADOPTION, Ashley? Just because a woman carries a baby to term doesn't mean she's 'forced' to keep it and raise it herself. Adoption is a loving, unselfish option in that situation.

Posted by: Pamela at January 9, 2010 11:46 AM


Thanks for including "But I didn't vote for candidate B here because I just can't stand that guy!". That really sheds light on your frame of thought, and that frame looks pretty empty from here.

It seems to me you just went from voting for republicans because you really didn't know anything about who to vote for and that's who it seemed everyone was voting for to voting for democrats because you don't really know who to vote for and lately everyone's been voting for democrats. But that Obama fella looks pretty good, right? Much better spoken and fancier than that dummy Bush.

Wow...what a loss the GOP has suffered at your depature, and with you on their side, the dems certainly cannot fail!

But I suggest changing your handle to "uninformed voter". Remind me to thank you and your abundant ilk when my grandchildren are paying their Chinese overlords and I'm being carted away to Carousel a la Logan's Run in the Obamacare system. At least the president looked suave, am I right? 9_9

Posted by: xalisae at January 9, 2010 11:51 AM


xalisae -


First off, if you're going to quote me, quote me. The problem you just did is you made a false quote, and then attacked that false quote - so you just attacked something that didn't even exist. Very odd.

My issue with the GOP has a couple of components - but a main one is best summed up by Huckabee - this is partially quotes with some analysis by CNN - from late 2008:

"Huckabee said Republicans have lost their reputation as people who believe in curtailing spending and attempting to balance the budget and have a new label: the "budget busters," who spend more than they can pay back while priding themselves in not raising taxes.
"But it's not that they do it by curbing spending, they just kick the can down the road and put the burden on our grandchildren," he said, adding that he considers it "morally wrong" to indebt future generations. Huckabee boiled down the blueprint for his party's future to a three-step plan: "Clarify what the principles are that we want to govern by; get elected on those principles because we are authentic in believing them; and thirdly, when elected -- implement those principles and show the benefits."

(back to my thoughts)

The GOP under Bush - I have no idea if they were the GOP. A few points:

- They cut taxes during a time of war
- They pushed through a bigger health care expansion than the one being pushed now without paying for it. What did Hatch say about that recently? Six years ago..."it was standard practice not to pay for things,"
- Why was it practice not to pay for things? Clinton balanced the budget in part because of an internet expansion he had nothing to do with - but also congress had paygo during his year - paid for legislation. Thrown out in the Bush years because of the recession and wars - but then they cut taxes to further kill the budget.

Add that in with the "great"(I'm being sarcastic) gains the GOP made with abortion, poverty, welfare, health care, social security, immigration...and I started to wonder if they really were for anything except for watching things get worse?

So yes, I probably got swept up a bit in Obama - but I also think that in regards to health care and the economy, two massive issues, Obama was a better pick than McCain.

So it goes deeper than just disliking Bush (and I didn't even get into the Patriot act or torture - but that's for another day) - but if it makes you more comfortable in your viewpoints to believe I'm just uninformed, that's fine.

What isn't fine though is making up beliefs, attributing them to me, and then attacking them. That's just wrong.

Oh, and for the record, I voted Coleman over Franken - but I guess I was just beeing stoopid.

:-)

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 12:21 PM


Mary - sorry for passing by your post earlier - being hit from a few sides today.

You are correct though - I don't work in a crisis center or anything like that - and I believe you 100% that there is a lot of that going on, and it is a shame (the gals living in the "fantasy" world).

I think the number one thing that would help in the abortion battle is good, loving parents raising their kids up right.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 12:27 PM


EGV,

Don't be too hard on yourself for getting "swept up" by Obama. Sociopaths have an uncanny ability to charm and manipulate. My first red flag went up when I saw crowds mesmerized by him, the slathering media was another. His behavior since only reinforces my initial impression of him as a sociopath.

Also, concerning the GOP and abortion. It was not as if the GOP could wave a magic wand. Laws had to be passed, social attitudes changed, and courts circumvented. Incremental laws have been passed. Social attitudes are slowly changing.
It took decades, almost 2 centuries, of struggle, setbacks, frustration, and disappointment, and finally a Civil War to end the evil of slavery.

IMO McCain was a poor candidate, the lesser of the two evils. He tried to hard to be for everything and ended up standing for nothing.
He was the dream "moderate" Republican that "reached out" to everyone. I only hope Republicans have finally gotten the message. People want the Republicans to stands for something, not to be watered down Democrats.

Posted by: Mary at January 9, 2010 1:27 PM


Mary -

I don't feel bad for my Obama vote though - I think he kept up from falling into a depression, and he's on the verge of passing massive reform in one of the biggest areas of the countries GDP.

In regards to abortion though - I probably left the hardest part of the whole thing out - and that is an actual law. SD didn't pass it and nor did Colorado. Imagine if somebody had to actually put together a full law to vote on as well. Do you think there's any chance a law would pass that truly treated abortion as murder, and gave a pregnant woman and her doctor the death penalty or life in prison because of it?

You are right though - Republicans need to me known for something and stand by it. The GOP is up right now, but it is not for what they stand for, it's because they aren't Dems. When it comes to actual elections, not sure if that will be enough to get excited about.

Oh, one other thing - the only place I've seen crowds like that (Obama's crowds) are in Sarah Palin rallies. Just my two cents.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 1:48 PM


EGV,

According to some job stats we are in a depression, especially among black Americans.

Are you referring the this "health care" debacle that he insists on ramming down the throats of the American people who don't want it? You know, the one with bribes, late night votes, and secret meetings that exclude the public? Yeah that one.

I would want to go back to pre-Roe. States made their laws and determined punishment. Roe struck down all state laws. Women thrown in prison for abortion? No more than I want to see junkies thrown in prison for shooting heroin or smoking crack. Do I want to see abortionists and drug dealers punished? Yes. Is this being inconsistent? Probably.

Posted by: Mary at January 9, 2010 2:00 PM


Mary -

Yes - that economic stats are still awful - I give credit to the current administration for keeping them from being worse. The hand that was dealt was awful.

You are correct - I have a different view of the health care situation, and am excited to see the final product (cleaning up the Nebraska situation for instance). Has it been a good process? Not entirely, but better than the Medicare process expansion.

And your last statement is interesting - I've seen that a few places on this board, and quite frankly, points to logic that doesn't say a baby is a person. If a baby is a person, and killing one is murder - and the mother willfully goes to get that baby murdered - how is that different legally from hiring a hit man? Both would have to get full punishment, unless, you are saying that a baby isn't a person and it isn't quite murder. While I agree with your junkie scenario, there's a big difference between drugs and murder.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 2:06 PM


"Ever heard of ADOPTION, Ashley? Just because a woman carries a baby to term doesn't mean she's 'forced' to keep it and raise it herself. Adoption is a loving, unselfish option in that situation."

It's an option a tiny, tiny percentage of women pick. I wonder why? Because very few people want to be pregnant for nine months and go through delivery in order to produce a baby for someone else. Anyone who thinks a woman should be pressured to do that--and feel "selfish" if she has qualms--has absolutely no compassion for pregnant women.

Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 2:06 PM


Oh come on EGV,

The hand he was dealt is awful? What president hasn't inherited a mess? Certainly Roosevelt and Reagan did. Did they whine incessantly about the mess they inherited? Did Nixon whine about inheriting the Vietnam War? Whatever you think of any of these presidents they, unlike the manchild we now have in office, took responsibility without blaming their predecessors. For heaven's sake, just when does Obama become responsible for anything?

So you have no issue with these back room negotiations and bribery? You have no issue with the American people having this bill shoved down our throats?

That's how the laws were pre-Roe and I would like to see them go back. Also, murder is a legal term. If you drive drunk and kill someone, I'm sure the family will accuse you of murder, so might any number of people. The law may say, depending on circumstances, you are guilty of manslaughter and may get a minimal sentence and probation.

Yes it is inconsistent. Its inconsistent in my state that a child rapist/murderer is walking the streets after serving 20 years in prison while some guy who knocked over a couple of liquor stores serves longer. Its inconsistent that in my state you get the opportunity to kill people five times by drunk driving before you get a felony, but a college student I know got a felony for letting someone sell marijuana from his apt.

Does all this show fairness, consistency, and respect for human life? I don't think so.

Also, proving a woman had an abortion would be virtually impossible. Forcing her to subject herself to an examination, illegal.

Drugs don't equal murder? Some might disagree with you. The drug dealer might well be viewed as a murderer by loved ones grieving over a relative dead from an overdose.

Posted by: Mary at January 9, 2010 2:33 PM


Tiny. Tiny. Very few.
How many is that, Ashley?

Actually women that value a child's life above their own and long to rise above their present life circumstances and give the gift of life to another couple CAN and DO choose to put their baby up for adoption. 9 months and some stretch marks make a woman into a hero. I know several of these heroes. They are strong, proud and determined to give their child a wonderful chance at life. As opposed to having them suctioned out of their wombs. They do the honorable thing out of love, not out of fear.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 9, 2010 2:56 PM


I don't recall too many quotes "whining" about what was inherited. I do think folks need to remember what he inherited, and give time to recover. You mention Reagan - he inherited an unemployment rate of 7.6 - and it went to 9.7 before going down into the 5's. Takes times.

Look, Obama's number one domestic priority was health care, and Obama won the election easily. This bill isn't being "shoved down people's throats". Part of the opposition is because it isn't strong enough. Take a look at poll numbers and the public option.

A couple of questions because I don't want to assume things:

1) If it is impossible to prove a person got an abortion, how is it going to be possible to prove a doctor performed the abortion?
2) What punishment should a woman get who gets an abortion?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 3:09 PM


EGV wrote:

Yes, I'm sure I fell into some philosophical traps along the way.

Oy. Is that what "being morally and logically incoherent" boils down to, for you? "Falling into philosophical traps"... as if you'd merely made an obscure error on picayune details of philosophical minutae? You say that you're "against abortion", but then sneer at others on this board as "pro-birthers" (implying that you're not). Had you even gone on to insult others with terms like "right-wing extremist" or "single-minded zealot", you'd still have been wrong... but you'd have allowed yourself membership in the pro-life camp. But you content yourself with being "not pro-birth", while being "against abortion" (I do wonder what other options you entertain, when speaking of pregnant women.) That's simply dishonest, fella.

It's also unfortunate that I became a liar along the way.

I agree. Perhaps you're even lying to yourself. All I know for certain is that you cannot possibly hold the contradictory views you've mentioned while still being sane. Since your writing style isn't that of a maniac, I'm left with the conclusion that at least one of your statements (e.g. "I'm against abortion" vs. "[you] pro-birthers") is false.

Maybe I fell into some philosophical traps and some twisted logic, but my point isn't to try to "win" any sort of debate or use big words to feel smart and cute about myself.

Ah... so that's what I'm doing. I thought I was refuting your argument, and solidifying the absolute case against abortion. If the use of technical terms annoyed you, then please excuse me; but would you seriously have been happier with me saying "you're full of it"? Seriously: this isn't rocket science.

You assumed a lot of things,

Apparently I'm not alone, friend (see your assumptions, above). But again, I can only go by what you say and do; when you denigrate pro-lifers by calling them "pro-birthers" and asking whether they're "happy about increased breast cancer risk", and when you smugly and chucklingly invite Xalisae not to "be threatened or scared of you", I can only assume that you're abortion-tolerant (what the secular world wrongly calls "pro-choice"), that your complaints about your wounded dignity are self-serving, and that your protestations about being "against abortion" are mere smoke.

I can't go one by one through your statements - I simply don't have the time. If there's certain things you want me to address, feel free to ask me.

All right... start with this one:

Do you think direct and procured abortion is allowable in any circumstances at all? If so, what circumstances?

I think abortion is a terrible thing. My family would never choose abortion, and if I were advising somebody on the decision, I would advise and steer against abortions.

So you have an emotional aversion to it. Okay. Would you support making abortion illegal in all circumstances?

Abortion is legal in this country.

Right. Should it be, in your mind?

Therefore, lots of women have abortions.

Right, again. Are they committing a moral evil, by doing so? And shouldn't civil law be allowed to forbid it, even given the mixed motives and inability to "cure everything in one blow"?

I do not feel that women wake up and say "I'd like to get pregnant so I can go get an abortion."

Right. Just so, with many murders: a murder "of passion" usually isn't premeditated, either, but it's still illegal... and it SHOULD be. Do you disagree?

I think when it gets to that point, there's a terrible struggle going on (for the majority of women, I'm sure not all).

Most likely. I fail to see how that's relevant to whether abortion should be legal, or not.

The strategy of the right seems to be this:

(*sigh*) You really are a political creature, aren't you? Can you lay aside "left and right", "Dem and GOP", for just a few moments, and talk about the MORALITY of having someone tear apart a child within the womb, and about why that shouldn't be forbidden by any sane legal system?

We'll work on two fronts. The first front is obstruction. We'll tell women they'll get breast cancer, be depressed and suicidal, and try to block their paths to clinics. We'll post info on the internet, take videos and pictures, and pass laws about filling out forms, waiting longer for visits, driving farther for abortions - all that jazz.

"Jazz." Mm-hmm. You seem less than enthusiastic about that "jazz"; correct?

Legally, we'll work to overturn r v wade. [...] so I think the pro-lifers goal in this is a NIMBY approach - just go to New York, but not in my backyard.

I see. Has anyone on this forum presented that view to you? Or is this simply one of your assumptions that you, after arguments with scattered political conservatives (which is not at all the same as "pro-life", mind you), brought to this forum without so much as asking about it?

Lastly (my pro-birth statement), we (I'm talking like my perception of the pro-life movement I've witnessed) want you to have the baby, but we're VERY against health care, social services, and anything else that might be a hurdle.

Here's where you go off the tracks completely. You wrongly assume that, because "we" are against the current so-called "health care reform" bills, we are somehow indifferent to (or hostile toward) "health care" as a universal concept. Balderdash, sir. I, and many others (on this thread alone) have pointed out that "support for health care" is not at all the same thing as "support for federal take-over of much of the current health care apparatus in the country" (do you really think that the federal government is the ONLY ONE who could possibly manage health care successfully?); and it has NOTHING to do with "abortion mandate" (which is in the current bill). You really need to narrow your brush while painting your opponents, friend.

We're not to fond of our taxes being raised, and quite frankly, you made a poor choice with getting pregnant in the first place - so if you are broke because of health care bills and can't stay afloat because you can't find a job that covers child care costs - well, again, your bad. Just don't raise my taxes.

I see. So... those who disagree with your political views (and pet solutions) are heartless cads who'd make Ebenezer Scrooge (before his conversion) look saintly by comparison. You decried alleged "assumptions", above; care to address some of your own? These statements of yours are caricature-ridden nonsense.

So Paladin - you are the smart guy - rip my comments apart and tell me all of my philosophical short comings. I'm sure there are many.

"Philosophical." Right. In one sense, you're right: I never should've used the word; it gave you a handy rock to hide behind, in trying to dismiss my comments as "mere unreal and impractical) philosophy". I'm talking about the crime of ripping children apart in the womb, EGV, and your tolerance of it; if you consider that "high philosophy" (about which you won't bother your head), then I don't know what to tell you.

All I know is that I take a different approach, and while I know it involves abortions still happening - I think we as a society need to do everything we can to build services up, prevent pregnancy, better healthcare, and build a situation and a life where abortion happens much less frequently.

Okay... in all candour, if you answer nothing else, answer me this: why can we not do all of these, while ALSO MAKING BABY-KILLING ILLEGAL? You seem to be saying, "We've worked exclusively with our right hand, and that didn't work; let's see what working exclusively with our LEFT hand will do!" Any chance BOTH could be used?

Is it a shallow pipe-dream? I don't know - the GOP was in office 20 of 28 years - where was the overturning of R v Wade and how many states have abortion outlawed? Maybe the GOP pimps the vote out, talks a good game, and doesn't have the guts when it comes to actual legislation.

(*sigh*) For the love of all that's holy: who's talking about the GOP?? If you can talk for even a few lines without referencing politics, this whole tiresome exchange might well have been worth something...

Posted by: Paladin at January 9, 2010 3:15 PM


EGV wrote:

A couple of questions because I don't want to assume things:

:) Mm-hmm...

1) If it is impossible to prove a person got an abortion, how is it going to be possible to prove a doctor performed the abortion?

First, what makes you think it's impossible to prove that a woman got an abortion?

Second: don't you think the existence of abortion mills (whether Planned Parenthood, or other) might make that task (of discovery) a wee bit easier? Wouldn't one of the effects of anti-abortion laws be to shut those places DOWN?

Third: don't you think it's possible that anti-abortion laws would clamp down on med schools who TRAIN abortionists? You don't just grab a razor curettage and vacuum, and start thrashing around! (Well... on the other hand, maybe some abortionists DO...)

Not every abortion will be detected; just as not every "standard" homicide will be detected. That has nothing whatever to do with the issue.

2) What punishment should a woman get who gets an abortion?

I note that you pass over "punishment for the abortionist in silence! Any chance you could have HIM/HER convicted of first-degree murder? (You're far from alone, in abortion-tolerant evasion of discussing punishment for the abortionist...)

As for the woman: it depends on how knowledgeable, coerced, mentally stable, etc., she is--just as would be the case with any other homicide. Some women might well be so deceived by the "blob of tissue" propaganda that they might merit no punishment at all. (I suspect a large number of women would fall into this category... but I do think they'd be helped/served by NOT allowing them to repeat that horrible act, yes?) Others, who kill their children in order to stay looking good in a bathing suit, might merit life in prison. But I do think that, if the legal system were "on board" with the recognition of unborn human personhood, they could at least NOT undercut us (by deception/evasion/etc.) when the woman is being TOLD of the homicide that took place. Don't you?

Posted by: Paladin at January 9, 2010 3:30 PM


First of all, who talks like that? "as if you'd merely made an obscure error on picayune details of philosophical minutae?"

Second - if I were dictator of the land, I'd outlaw abortion except for rape/incest/health of mother. I'd need more research in regards to day after pills and implant days and such -but in general, I think abortion is murder and society ought not have it.

Third - not using fancy enough words here...but your suggestion of making it illegal ain't gonna happen. Best case is a few states pass laws limiting it, and we see trafficking across borders.

Fourth - the reason I tie the GOP/Dem situation so fully into it is because many on this board links the Dems to evil, and the GOP to God Himself. I'd talk more on that, but obviously you aren't quite in that camp.

The reason I use pro-birth is because most pro-lifers have no problem frying a murderer, bombing citizens in other countries, and extend the hand of "life" to the brief moment when a baby is born - and then send them on their way with a pat on the behind and a happy "good-luck".

Again, I'm just a liar and pretty stoopid- so if you can continue to dial things down, that would be great. Five letters or less per word would be great - I mean, I don't get to hang out all day reading Philosophy books and debating with great minds like yourself - so you'll have to speak slowly sir.

I think you threw out about 10 questions, but dialed back to only a couple of ones in the end - so again, fire anything you think I've missed and would like to hit again.

I get one question for you though - in your abortion ban, what's the penalty for the mother and doctor who go through with an abortion?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 3:38 PM


Paladin -

You'll have to ask Mary - I was referring to her quote "Also, proving a woman had an abortion would be virtually impossible."

I'll clarify more on the second question.

Woman in Texas goes and has her baby aborted in week 17. She's (legally) of sane mind. Should be it first degree murder, subject to the death penalty?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 3:42 PM


EGV, 3:09PM

Check the polls at realclearpolitics.com and you will find the American people definitely oppose this bill.

Also, why not have the debate televised? It was Brian Lamb of C-span who wanted this but for some reason Pelosi says no. Certainly if this is so supported by the American people, she should be only to happy to televise it.
My goodness shouldn't Obama be outraged that Pelosi isn't allowing the president to keep his promise to the American people? You know, that promise Obama made several times that deliberation on this bill would be televised? You'd think Obama would want to keep his promise and would make his outrage at Pelosi apparent. Why do you suppose they don't want this on C-Span EGV??

Whining? Come on EGV, when isn't Obama or his media lapdogs blaming Bush, for the economy, national security breaches, etc? When all else fails his critics can be accused of racism. Does he start any speech without reminding us what he inherited? Reagan inherited higher unemployment than Obama and Obama's has already climbed higher. But I never heard Reagan remind anyone of what he inherited. Nixon caught plenty of crap about Vietnam, though he inherited it from LBJ. Again, the public wasn't reminded of this fact, nor did Nixon remind anyone of it, when Nixon was criticized for his handling of the war.

1. You could probably prove an abortion with a dead or injured patient, assuming the injured woman tells who the doctor was. Doctors performing illegal abortions tended to be considerably more careful and so were not likely to get caught. As far as I know only the ones with dead patients got caught. If a woman showed up injured in the ER, it would be her word against the doctor's right? Doctors must have been pretty careful since the year before Roe v Wade the death rate from illegal abortion was at an all time low.
Also, patients were highly unlikely to complain, no matter what.
As a former policeman told me, police knew darned well who the professional hitmen and big time drug dealers were. Proving anything was another matter.

2. I've already told you EGV I do not think women who have had abortions should go to jail just as I do not think junkies should go to jail. As far as I know aborted women did not go to jail and PL people never advocated they should. Again, proving an abortion took place would be virtually impossible unless there were complications. Then the woman could claim she was never pregnant but thought she was and she panicked and tried to self induce. Again, who can prove otherwise?

Posted by: Mary at January 9, 2010 6:58 PM


Hey Jill,
In case you missed this on Twitter, the article I was mainly linking to was this one, from the American Cancer Society: http://tinyurl.com/532l

And since you conveniently cut off my blog before the bulk of it, here's what you missed from the ACS:
"Research on abortion and breast cancer
Research study problems

Many studies have looked at a possible link between abortions and an increased risk of breast cancer. But because of the nature of the topic, these studies have been hard to do. This may help explain why study findings vary.

Before 1973, induced abortions were illegal in much of the United States. So when researchers asked a woman about past pregnancies, she may not have been comfortable saying that she had an illegal abortion. Even though abortion is now legal, it is still a very personal, private matter that many women do not like to talk about.

Studies have shown that healthy women are less likely to report that they have had induced abortions. In contrast, women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories. This may be because they are looking for anything that may be linked to the cancer.

The likelihood that women who have breast cancer will give a more complete account of their abortions than women who do not have breast cancer is an example of recall bias. Recall bias like this can cause studies to find links that don’t exist.

Research study design

Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer used a case-control study design, one that is very prone to recall bias (see above). In these studies, women with and without breast cancer were asked to report past abortions. The researchers then compared the frequency of abortions in women with breast cancer (the cases) to those in women without breast cancer (the controls). It is likely that the higher rates of reported abortions in breast cancer cases (versus the controls), as seen in many of these studies, were not true findings because of recall bias."

Please fix this when you get a chance,

Love,

Rabble

Posted by: Rabble at January 9, 2010 7:31 PM


Paladin, while I truely enjoyed reading your comments and will have to stop by your blog, I'm afraid you seem to be answering a fool in his folly here. Ex either doesn't get it, or is pretending not to. You're not going to be getting to far with this one. It's hard to see if you refuse to ever open your eyes.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at January 9, 2010 10:56 PM


The panel was appointed after anti-abortion groups and their supporters in Congress asserted that the cancer agency was playing down the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Posted by: ps3 hdmi kabel at January 10, 2010 4:45 AM


Elizabeth -

Maybe you will have to enlighten me - the same questions are open to you, and I'd love to hear your response. You've already called me a fool, though we've never met - a dangerous little place to put yourself in both theologically and in general civil discussions, but I'll look past that.

So where am I being foolish? Should I vote straight ticket GOP? Do they have some secret plan I am missing out on?

Or is my characterization of the pro-birth movement hit too close to home? Or am I missing something?

Come on - you call me a fool - I'd like to hear more than a cute little remark from you - where am I wrong here? What am I missing?

What is the law going to be - abortion happens in your perfect world and the cops come in. Death penalty for both? Life in prison?

I think you owe some thoughts here - if you are going to go out of your way and interject yourself into a debate that you weren't asked to be in - and then you choose to insult somebody without offering even a suggestion of what you believe, or why you believe I'm wrong, then I think you either owe me an apology, or owe me a few of your thoughts.

So let's here them Elizabeth - where am I such a fool here?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 10, 2010 9:09 AM


Mary -

Let's give the people what they want then! The public option has always polled pretty high - google it and check results for yourself. That's my point on some of the opposition being not because of the reform, but because it doesn't go for enough. Public option continues to get over 50% of support - so if you are going to argue that we shouldn't have this bill because it isn't what the polls support, then you should support them passing a public option.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/poll-public-option-way-more-popular-than-senate-health-bill/

You'll have to post some quotes from Obama on whining - I've seen many experts attributing blame, but am not remembering from Obama himself (which is a massive difference) - so just send some quotes - I'm sure he's had some - Bush had a lot - all presidents talk about the situation them came into.

I'll rephrase my last question.

Police, in the state of Texas, walk into the middle of an abortion. Baby has just died. In your opinion, what charge should their be (man1, man2, murder1, murder2, etc...), and what should be the penalty options for both the mother and the doctor.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 10, 2010 9:16 AM


Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 9, 2010 3:38 PM

"I get one question for you though - in your abortion ban, what's the penalty for the mother and doctor who go through with an abortion?"

--------------------------------------------------

X,

Let me break this down for you.

You seem to think that most pro-lifers are opposed to the death penalty for people who murder pre-natal children, either directly, or by being complicit in the act.

Here is a little syllogism for your consideration.

If the prenatal child is a human being then 'elective abortion' is homicide.

In most states the crime of homicide is broken down into different 'degrees'.

For a finding of first degree homicide, which would usually expose the convicted murder to the possibily of the death penalty, there are several elements of the crime which must be satisfied.
1. mens rea
2. premeditation
3. motive
4. opportunity
5. actually comitting or being complicit in the killing of the victim.

This is not an exhaustive list but you get the idea.

If a woman in her right mind who has just given birth contracts with the the neo natal intensive care nurse to suffocate her new born child, the mother would be just as guilty as the nurse.

If a pregnant woman in her right mind contracts with an aboritionist to kill her pre-natal child, then she would be just as guilty of murder as the abortionist.

In both cases each would be elligble, and in cases each should be given the death penalty.

To not do so discriminates against the victim.

Justice is supposed to be blind to both the status of the victim as well as the accused.

(This principle is found in the 'book'. Also see Blackstones commentaries on common law.)

As individuals we can 'choose' to forgive any offense or crime that is committed against us. We can choose not to press charges.

The lone exception is murder. A man already dead cannot express his forgiveness for the one who murdered him.

Even Jesus could only ask the Father to forgive those who were murdering HIM.

Jesus did not say, "Because they do not know what they are doing Father [humans are stupid], I forgive them and you must forgive them as well because I do."

HE could not require the Father to do it. The Father did it as an act of HIS own will. HIS own choice.

[It is written somewhere the Lamb of GOD, slain before the foundations of the earth were laid.]

It was only afer Jesus was resurrected that Peter found forgiveness from Jesus for Peter's repeated denials.

That must have been a pretty miserable three days for the 'little rock' Pete.

Jesus never repealed capital punishment that was established in the 'law' in the 'civil sense'.

If anything HE reaffirmed it with HIS comments about the millstone being tied around a persons neck and being tossed into the sea.

In the spiritual sense Jesus made a way for us to be forgiven and redeemed and restored into fellowship with GOD and with one another from any offense we might commit, save one.

The one exception is NOT murder.

Society executed some men for crimes against humanity even though what they did was perfectly legal in their nation at the time they did it.

"The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedlingly fine."

In the slavery days of the U.S.A. it was against the 'law' to murder your slaves. Even though the law recognized them as humans society practiced a clever sophistry of viewing then as not quite equal with real humans.

Today most humans, stupid as we are, recognize and condemn that hideousness as the bigotry it was and is.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 10, 2010 9:56 AM


Thanks Ken - you are the first person to answer that question and logically say the doctor AND pregnant woman should really qualify for the DP.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 10, 2010 10:26 AM


EGV,

Did you ever check out Realclearpolitics that has a number of polls from various organizations with various political persausions? The American people oppose or this bill.

Why is bribery necessary? Why are secret sessions closed to C-Span necessary? Why are midnite votes necessary? Certainly none of this is necessary if the representatives are acting on the will of the people, would you not agree?

When Obama graced our city with a "town meeting" he spent at least the first 15 minutes with the same tiresome dissertation I have heard time and again on how he inherited his present situation.
In fact I was embarassed for him since if I have heard it before so has everyone else and its getting tiresome.
Its not that I wasted my time going to this farce, but it was televised.

What exactly are the laws of Texas governing abortion, child abanonment, newborn infanticide?
What are the laws governing homicide by drunk driving? Whether this is murder 1,2,3, or manslaughter is determined by the state as is the punishment, just as any other crime is.

Posted by: Mary at January 10, 2010 12:22 PM


Mary -

Maybe I haven't spelled it out enough, or I'm missing it on the RealClear site. The polls on the site ask about the CURRENT plans. I'm talking about a PUBLIC OPTION. If there's polls on the RealClear site - please let me know. The polls on the public option though show that a majority of folks want a public option, so if that is your argument (that this bill is against the will of the people) - then lets push for a public option. Polls:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/12/sixty-percent-americans-support-public-option/

In regards to how the senate and house handled it - I have no issues. I didn't like the final Nebraska situation, and glad that they are fixing that now. In regards to timing, both sides played a LOT of games, and quite frankly, it was a better process than either the patriot act or the Bush medicare entitlement. Was the process perfect? Far from it - but better.

If you could link to a news story regarding that event, I'd be more than happy to read it. Again, I've seen lots of experts (and non-experts) complain about the inherited situation in regards to the current situation (of anything - the wars, economy, etc...) - but haven't seen much from Obama himself - certainly not 15 minutes of rambling. Would love to read on it though.

In Texas, murder one is death penalty eligible. Would the mother and doctor both be charged with murder one if a policeman caught the abortion in the act? If you were writing the law - would you make abortion death penalty eligible for both parties?

Drunk driving is not death penalty eligible, nor is it labeled as murder.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 10, 2010 1:46 PM


EGV,

Go to RCP and type in "polls on public option" in the search area.
Click on RCP-Horse Race Blog-Does the Public want a Public...
It should be the second article listed.

Yes that is so big of them to fix the Nebraska bribe, now how about the Louisiana one? Senator Mary was sure proud of that one! How dare you suggest she took only $100 million! So you have no problem with your representatives conducting business in the dark of night and in smoke filled rooms? So be it.

Just listen to your guy and you'll hear it EGV. I don't have access to any more or less TV than you have. I watched it on the TV coverage of a local townhall farce. As I said I was embarassed for him and could almost repeat his rambling right along with him since I've heard it enough times. Of course he's got his lapdogs in the media and elsewhere making excuses for him. MSNBC's Peter Wolff even suggested this latest terrorist attempt was an intelligence consipiracy against Obama! When all else fails they cry racism!
Hey, what do you think of Harry Reid's rather bigoted commentary about Obama not having a "Negro dialect", unless of course he wants to have one? Sounds just like something out of 1950's Mississippi. I digress.

Drunk driving isn't murder? All in the point of view my friend. You haven't seen too many dead victims of drunk drivers in the ER have you? I've seen plenty. Drunk drivers shouldn't be executed? In some countries they are. Personally I do not think they should be.

Would I make abortion Murder 1? No. It could be extremely difficult to prove and if anything, the doctors would likely be released or the charges reduced or plea bargained down. Prison sentence for the doctor, yes, for the woman no, as was the case before Roe. As I have told you before EGV, I would go back to pre Roe state laws and regulations that put the abortionists in jail.

Posted by: Mary at January 10, 2010 3:13 PM


EGV wrote:

First of all, who talks like that? "as if you'd merely made an obscure error on picayune details of philosophical minutae?"

:) Well... I do, for one, when necessary. If it makes you feel any better, no: I don't bring out the technical terms when chatting with the average friend about the weather. But you *are* talking about a life and death issue, with many complicating factors; is it really so onerous for you that I try to be careful with my terms? Honestly...

Second - if I were dictator of the land, I'd outlaw abortion except for rape/incest/health of mother. I'd need more research in regards to day after pills and implant days and such -but in general, I think abortion is murder and society ought not have it.

Okay: that's more information than I had before. But help me out: you wouldn't outlaw abortion in cases of rape and incest? Can you explain why not? I mean, if abortion is murder, then why is it any "less murder" if the child's father is a rapist and/or blood relative of the mother?

Perhaps you'd like to recite that view to Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape and almost aborted?

To quote her: "Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, "I think your mother should have been able to abort you."? It's like saying, "If I had my way, you'd be dead right now." And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life "except in cases of rape" because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most people don't put a face to this issue -- for them abortion is just a concept -- with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue.

Here's her web page, if you'd like more information:

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/

(The HTML hyperlink code wasn't working, for some reason.)

Third [...] your suggestion of making it illegal ain't gonna happen.

Certainly not, if no one ever tries. I admit, I don't have your crystal ball, but I vaguely remember such defeatist talk about slavery, civil rights, suffrage for women, etc. But more to the point: should we TRY? You don't seem to think so.

Fourth - the reason I tie the GOP/Dem situation so fully into it is because many on this board links the Dems to evil, and the GOP to God Himself.

The first is far easier to establish, since they've enshrined abortion as a key plank in their platform. The second is nonsense.

The reason I use pro-birth is because most pro-lifers have no problem frying a murderer, bombing citizens in other countries, and extend the hand of "life" to the brief moment when a baby is born - and then send them on their way with a pat on the behind and a happy "good-luck".

And you're painting with as wide a brush as ever, I see. You're speaking nonsense, friend... and I invite you to ask the members of this forum (if they're amenable) whether thy agree with your caricature of them, or not.

Again, I'm just a liar and pretty stoopid- so if you can continue to dial things down, that would be great.

Oh, good grief... lay off the histrionics, will you? You claim to be pro-life, and yet you've trotted out "pro-choice" talking points at almost every opportunity (e.g. "what punishment will you give an abortive mother, huh? And having a baby and being poor is a real concern!") You're an apologist for the pro-choice camp, and I nailed you for it; you can't be that, and pro-life at the same time, and I'm convinced that you're not ignorant of that fact. Get over it.

I get one question for you though - in your abortion ban, what's the penalty for the mother and doctor who go through with an abortion?

I believe I already answered that, on [January 9, 2010 3:30 PM]. Go look, please.

If it helps, my view about the death penalty is that of the Catholic Church: it's allowable in some limited circumstances (e.g. if there's no secure way to keep the criminal from harming others again--such as a third-world country village with no secure jail cell, or in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where jails were flooded and inaccessible), but not if reliable means for restraining the criminal (and safeguarding others) are available (e.g. life imprisonment in a secure facility). I personally don't think the death penalty is warranted in the United States, so you needn't bother with that tack, when talking to me.

Woman in Texas goes and has her baby aborted in week 17. She's (legally) of sane mind. Should be it first degree murder, subject to the death penalty?

The week of the pregnancy is irrelevant to the case. Sanity is only one factor, as I discussed earlier. A woman can be sane, and yet deceived (cf. the disinformation campaigns of Planned Parenthood and their ilk). Read my previous reply, if you would. And if she *is* guilty of first-degree murder (i.e. fully-informed, free consent to murder her child--which is possible, though unlikely in our country's climate), then I would likely have her punished by life in prison... though with possibility of parole, eventually, if she truly recognizes the evil she's done and repents of it.

Posted by: Paladin at January 10, 2010 5:59 PM


All this talk about the abortion link to breast cancer, and what we should charge mothers who abort with etc. are all distractions from the main point.

The main issue here is what are the unborn? If they are individual human beings and human beings like you and me deserve the right to life etc. then no justification for abortion is adequate.
If however the aren't humans like you and me then no justification for abortion is necessary. So who cares how many happen?

Yes it is very important that women should be told all the info relating to aborting that is currently available. Even if it's just possible that they may increase their chances at getting cancer, they should know of that possibility. There are many proven harms that result from aborting one's unborn child for many, if not most, women. Women need to be properly informed and it's quite clear that Planned Parenthood (among other abortion providers) is not properly informing women about the choice they are facing. Not to mention making sure that the woman is not being coerced into aborting her child!
With regards to the penalties for abortions if it were to be made illegal, this is a bit of a silly argument since the laws pertaining to homicide are already in place. As with any homicide the penalties are handed out on a case by case basis after hearing all of the factors involved.

Posted by: Matt at January 10, 2010 8:13 PM


Matt,
The abortion breast cancer link is not irrelevant to me or my life. I was never told before my abortion that breast cancer was a real risk. I was never told that there were ANY risks at all!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 11, 2010 7:09 AM


Im from New Zealand, & have been through an abortion. We have a very reliable system, needig three legal requirements A)a blood test B)vaginal swabs (for STDs & STIs) C) an ultrasound to establish gestational age. we are also provided with pamphlets brimming with information, including pros & cons. On the day, we are given access to counsiling, & must be checked by two registered doctors. In all of this, all women are made aware of consequences & potential dangers of an abortion. The abortion MUST be carried out before 12 weeks. Only in serious life-threatening situations will they consider a late-term abortion
All you "pro-lifers" are acting like the only option is to ban abortions period. However, this will lead to several unseen consequences. Like it or not, women are always going to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, so isn't it better to have a professional do it, than a dangerous back alley abortion? What abut girls who are raped? Forcing her to carry the baby full term, potentially dropping out of school or a career in the process, can have a serious, lasting psychological effect on her.
Also, not all women who have abortions are cold hearted sluts wanting a quick fix. I have only slept with one man, my partner of 6 years. My 1st pregnency was ectopic, & therefore lethal to my health. It was either get an abortion, or die myself. Im not exactly proud of what I did, but I'm not ashamed of it either. If things could have turned out differently, great, but they did'nt. We are now expecting the arrival of a healthy baby girl. However, I am against late-term abortions, especially if there is a chance for the baby to survive. That's plain creul & selfish.
The truth of the matter is, not every abortion is nessecary, but some are. If you really are "pro-life" then think about the mothers life to. Sometimes, it's not her fault.

Posted by: Kiwi Girl at January 11, 2010 7:13 AM


Kiwi Girl,

The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is NOT considered an abortion.

Why don't you and all of your silly "post abortive" friends skip on over to some proabort blogs and sing the praises of abortion??!!

Blah.Blah.Blah. Your arguments are so tired.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 11, 2010 8:41 AM


Kiwi Girl wrote:

What abut girls who are raped? Forcing her to carry the baby full term, potentially dropping out of school or a career in the process, can have a serious, lasting psychological effect on her.

It can have a lasting effect on their unborn daughter, too, I'd think; ripping a person to pieces usually does.

Having your daughter killed can also have serious, lasting psychological effects on a mother... true?

But perhaps you might read Rebecca Kiessling's story ( http://www.rebeccakiessling.com ) before you walk too far down that mental road? (A tiny bit of her story is quoted above, at January 10, 2010 5:59 PM.)

Posted by: Paladin at January 11, 2010 9:10 AM


Whoops! Sorry, Elizabeth; I missed your post completely, for some reason!

You wrote:

Paladin, while I truely enjoyed reading your comments and will have to stop by your blog,

:) Take your time; I've not updated it in months, so you needn't worry about rushing to catch new information!

I'm afraid you seem to be answering a fool in his folly here. Ex either doesn't get it, or is pretending not to. You're not going to be getting to far with this one. It's hard to see if you refuse to ever open your eyes.

:) That's what Socrates, at the old Hannity forums, used to tell me all the time! I have a bit of Quixote in me, I think. And while EGV is ornery and snarky, he's far from some of the trollish basket-cases I've tried (mistakenly) to debate in the past.

N.B. to you, EGV: believe me or not, as you like, but I have no personal animus against you. You've annoyed me, certainly... but I have no vested interest in "winning a debate" with you. I'm interested in the truth, and in getting people to drop their errors... especially if those errors have life-or-death consequences (such as your opinions about abortion, which help perpetuate it). Nothing would make me happier if we could fight side-by-side, someday; but until you lose the abortion-tolerant garbage that you've currently embraced, I can only take the role of debate opponent, with you.

Posted by: Paladin at January 11, 2010 10:42 AM


Paladin,
You have a great writing/debating style. How did you learn to be so logical? Do you have recommendations/reading suggestions for a high school student on where to begin to improve their logical thinking skills?

Posted by: Janet at January 11, 2010 11:33 AM


Janet wrote:

You have a great writing/debating style.

:) You have a great talent for making me blush!

How did you learn to be so logical?

Self-defense, mostly. My dad loves to debate/argue, and when he and I ever disagreed, he'd always wipe the floor with me, when I was young (which wasn't exactly fair, granted!); so I ate and drank all the math/logic I could get, so as not to get clobbered all the time (because it was pretty frustrating)!

(Ironically enough, I found out his secret: he just thought and argued QUICKLY, not necessarily logically; he'd fire off 10 objections, and--while I was still working on the first, he'd fire off 10 more. Later, I'd find that 9 out of the 10 were full of logical holes... but when I tried to bring that up, I'd get another fist-full of objections that I'd need 4 hours each to analyze. Necessity forced me to get faster, as time went on!)

That was probably more information than you needed... :)

Do you have recommendations/reading suggestions for a high school student on where to begin to improve their logical thinking skills?

Oh, goodness. Let me think:

1) G.K. Chesterton. Get every book of his that you can find (and start with "Orthodoxy"); not only is he a consummate thinker and debater, but he's really funny. (Some people need a little time to warm up to his style of humour, I've found.)

2) Peter Kreeft. He's a great fan of Socrates (who basically invented logic, as we know it), and he brings it down to a "digestible" level. (You can also read the actual dialogues of Plato, but they can be a bit dry and/or confusing with the references to 2500-year-old political events.)

3) Take lots of math classes--especially classes which emphasize proofs (e.g. Geometry, Abstract Algebra, Calculus, Formal Logic, Number Theory, etc.). As a math teacher, I admit that I'm biased, on this one... :) It's not strictly necessary, but it can definitely help!

4) If you have a very strong faith, and you're willing to "absorb without swallowing everything", you could take some philosophy classes. Warning: most such classes are taught by atheists/agnostics, nowadays... and they love to try to tear theism (and especially Christianity) down. If they offer an "argument" against Christianity that you can't yet refute, don't panic--nothing has been said by them that Christian theologians haven't smashed to pieces, many times over. (Check out St. Thomas Aquinas, if you'd like to go to one of the best sources!)

Let me know if you'd like other suggestions; you're running the risk of having me natter on about a favourite topic of mine! :)

Posted by: Paladin at January 11, 2010 12:15 PM


Paladin,

Ha. I enjoyed your story about your debates with your father!

I'm not the high schooler I was referring to, although I do need help myself. I may be too old.... :)

I have a high schooler who likes math so that's a plus. I will need to figure out how to encourage her to do this type of reading. She's mostly interested in fiction right now. I've heard "Orthodoxy" is pretty difficult (needs to be read over); I'm half way finished with "Common Sense 101:Lessons from G.K Chesterton", and have read "The Unaborted Socrates" by Kreeft. Both great reads. And, yes, I have a strong faith.

So....
What other Kreeft title would you recommend? St. Augustine? (Tough to narrow down, I'm sure.) I'd like to hear any other ideas you might have. Thank you for your comments!

Posted by: Janet at January 11, 2010 1:06 PM


Hi, Janet!

You wrote:

Ha. I enjoyed your story about your debates with your father!

I enjoy them, too, now that they're in the past tense--and safely in memory! (Now, I just sit and listen to him talk politics, about which I usually couldn't care less; he gets an audience, and I get a break from debating grief, so we're both happy!)

I'm not the high schooler I was referring to, although I do need help myself. I may be too old.... :)

:) No such thing, milady!

I have a high schooler who likes math so that's a plus. I will need to figure out how to encourage her to do this type of reading. She's mostly interested in fiction right now.

Hm. Maybe one or more of the following?

1) Lord of the Rings (hey, everybody likes those!): great moral clarity, high-level language, excellent grammar!

2) If you don't mind a Catholic source, any of the books by Fr. Francis Finn, S.J. (and it was from an era when "S.J." wasn't a red flag for heresy!); "Tom Playfair", "Percy Winn" and "Harry Dee" are the most popular, but "Claude Lightfoot" is also excellent, as are any of the others. TAN publishing has them in package-deals:

https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/623/keywords/finn/

3) the "Fr. Brown" mysteries, by G.K. Chesterton are good.

4) the Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis (the books, not the movies: the first movie was poor, and the second was a travesty--C.S. Lewis must've rolled over in his grave, to see the noble Trumpkin the dwarf, the honest and kind Caspian, and the rest turned into spoiled, snotty, surly, petulant bad-teenager-esque characters!)

5) the "Space Trilogy", by C.S. Lewis (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength); they're a bit more intense and involved than Narnia, and some of the science fiction is outdated, but the stories and lessons are excellent, as is the training in thought and vocabulary!

I've heard "Orthodoxy" is pretty difficult (needs to be read over);

Hm. Maybe... especially if you need to get used to his style and vocabulary. C.S. Lewis and/or J.R.R. Tolkien may by good people with whom to start, before moving to Chesterton.

I'm half way finished with "Common Sense 101:Lessons from G.K Chesterton", and have read "The Unaborted Socrates" by Kreeft. Both great reads.

I have the "Unaborted Socrates", too... but I first read "Socrates meets Jesus". That is a must read!

And, yes, I have a strong faith.

Praise God! Now, if your daughter has the same, she can go into the lion's den of college philosophy. (Just be available to answer questions when she gets the full-frontal assault!)

Posted by: Paladin at January 11, 2010 1:56 PM


Paladin, Janet, and other Catholic parents, I have a question for you. Can you recommend a good Catholic magazine for teens? I'm trying to find something appropriate for a soon-to-be 13 year old boy. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm finding myself fairly ignorant on Catholic teen resources. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Fed Up at January 11, 2010 3:38 PM


Hm. Magazines, not off hand... but seriously, let him see Fr. Finn's books for boys (referenced above--see the link to TAN publishers); not only are the stories very engaging (and timeless), but boys get a big kick out of the style... and one book even gives the origins of American football (in the context of the main story, which is richly and solidly moral).

If he's into sports, you might check out the DVD called "Champions of Faith" (do a search on your favourite DVD-selling site); it's mainly baseball, but there are some phenomenal stories of Catholic sports heroes (Tommy LaSorda, John Morales, Mike Piazza, etc.) that I'd never heard before.

Posted by: Paladin at January 11, 2010 3:51 PM


Paladin @ 1:56 PM,

She loved The Chronicles of Narnia books and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy so I bet she'll love the other books as well. Thanks so much for your time and great information!

Posted by: Janet at January 11, 2010 6:17 PM


"Paladin, Janet, and other Catholic parents, I have a question for you. Can you recommend a good Catholic magazine for teens? I'm trying to find something appropriate for a soon-to-be 13 year old boy. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm finding myself fairly ignorant on Catholic teen resources. Thanks in advance."

Posted by: Fed Up at January 11, 2010 3:38 PM

I wish had more for you, but here are a few ideas.

Magazine - Love One Another
Web site: loveoneanothermagazine.org
Light reading for teens, young adults and families.

Books/web site - Theology of the Body for Teens
Web site: tobforteens.org
Popular Jason Evert book on the virtue of chastity.

An interesting web site for teens that I just happened upon -
Dumb Ox Productions
dumboxproductions.com/about.asp


Posted by: Janet at January 11, 2010 6:35 PM


Paladin -

My eyes are misty after reading the Paladin-love fest. I'm glad you can be the hero and the great logical force that this board needs. I mean, you attack my beliefs (heck, called me a liar, which I think gives me great latitude in my next 125 posts are so), but there's been at least two pro-birthers on this board now who have told me that the penalty for a woman getting an abortion, in their mind, should be counseling. I think it is time to rally the troops and hold some sessions!

You are right on the rape and incest really - if the argument is that it is murder, it shouldn't matter. I'm torn though, I'll admit - on the thought of a loved one being raped, and then going through with having the baby. I know, it is horrible even to me - but hey, close your eyes, think of the situation, and it is a tough place to be in. Luckily, it's very rare, and I think things like the morning after pill are probably in order on that one.

Thanks for answering my question - it's just further validity that what you said was the only logical choice, and confirms further that the chance of that every going into law is slim to none. What was the final vote in South Dakota on a pretty scaled down bill? And that when a GOP president won the state total by 5 or 6 points?

So thus, why I don't feel like a bad person for not voting with the GOP. I feel like their plan is unworkable. Certainly, I agree with Donald Miller when he says he wishes the Dems would do more to reduce abortions - but I'm simply not going to vote for a GOP candidate who gives the issue lip service and little else.

We might be reaching the end of this one, but I've appreciated the conversation. You've actually been less hostile than many on this board of Christ-loving folks (I'm a preachers kid - so seeing how some of these folks act is, well, a bit eye-opening). I've been pretty snarky, and you've handled it well (even with calling me a liar!).

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 11, 2010 7:54 PM


Carla,
1st- I didn't say that the abortion-breast cancer link info was irrelevant, just that it can be a distraction from the main issue. Plus if you read my whole post you'd see that I did, in fact, say that women need to always be given all of the information in order to make the decision.
2nd- I as a Pro-lifer do not appreciate the way you represent pro-lifers (if you are in fact pro-life) when you talk to people the way you addressed Kiwi Girl. That is both uncalled for and entirely unhelpful! It would be better if you said nothing.

Kiwi Girl,
No Pro-lifer I've heard of is against the procedure to save a mother's life that almost always ends up killing the unborn within her when in fact it is necessary. If the intent is to save lives (not end one) that is not murder. However, I have 2 questions for you.
1. Who do you suppose did the illegal abortions that took place in the past, before it was legalized (and would certainly perform the majority of abortions if they were made illegal in the future)?
2. Seriously, Have you ever heard of any woman going into some alley and having some stranger perform an abortion right there in the dark with dirty tools? I mean really, isn't that a bit of a lame argument that is only used for it's rhetorical force? While it is true that some women have died from performing their own abortions or having an untrained person do it those cases were never the norm. Almost all illegal abortions were performed by doctors in clinics, not very different from the way they happen today. And women still sometimes die as a result of legal abortions!
Us Pro-lifers believe that all abortions are unjustified because they wrongfully take the life of an innocent human being! And that that is worse than all of the alternatives.

Posted by: Matt at January 11, 2010 8:37 PM


Ex-GOP,
I'm curious, all other issues aside, how do you figure voting for the most Pro-Abortion candidate ever, over one who claims to be Pro-Life, to be the right decision for reducing abortions?
Second, if abortions really are wrong ( and it seems to me you agree they are) why wouldn't we keep trying to change people's minds and to change laws to stop them?
Seems to me the best way to drastically reduce the number of abortions is to simply make them illegal, and since I believe they are objectively wrong all the time, no matter how difficult the alternative might be, are we not justified continually trying to defend those who's lives are being taken?
Doesn't it seem a little disingenuous to you when people who claim to be pro-abortion-choice say they want the number of abortions reduced? I mean, if they aren't wrong, who cares how many there are? But if they are wrong why would we allow them at all?

Posted by: Matt at January 11, 2010 8:58 PM


Thank you, Paladin & Janet!

Posted by: Fed Up at January 11, 2010 9:58 PM


Hi Matt,
I am a post abortive mom, a prolifer and a moderator on this blog. I have had to read the ramblings of at least 4-5 so called "hard abortion cases" in the last couple of weeks. Women who only come here as trolls to disrupt the threads and to say that they don't regret their abortions in the least.

Sorry for the tone. I get tired of the games from the pro aborts.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 11, 2010 10:50 PM


Carla, thank you for all you and the other mods do here. IMHO, you have nothing to apologize for.

Posted by: Fed Up at January 12, 2010 12:20 AM


Carla,
I appreciate your apology and more so your explanation. As a moderator here I've no doubt you put up with a lot! I also struggle with frustration at stupidity and tired , bad arguments that we have to knock down over and over. I almost always have to delete what I write at least two or three times before posting so as not to offend! And still I sometimes do.
However we must keep our standards higher! We must not use bad manners or bad arguments lest we turn off those who might be coming around to our way of thinking. Our arguments are solid and that is why those who disagree with us must resort to bad reasoning, bad arguments, bad tactics and/or bad manners!
I am relatively new to the debate but have learned a ton already. I think the most useful thing I have learned came from Scott Klusendorf. It was this, we must constantly simplify the issue and bring it always back to "What are the unborn?" This issue trumps all others and really makes the whole debate quite simple. By always asking, "Could we kill a toddler for the same reason?" we will be able to show that until the other side can prove that the unborn are not the same as any other human being like you or me, the arguments fail and abortion is unjustifiable.
So, keep up the good work!
A brother in the fight for life.

Posted by: Matt at January 12, 2010 12:46 AM


EGV wrote:

My eyes are misty after reading the Paladin-love fest. I'm glad you can be the hero and the great logical force that this board needs.

(*sigh*) You've not lost your dramatic touch, I see...

I mean, you attack my beliefs

Let's be clear about this: yes, I most certainly did attack your beliefs; I admit that clearly and boldly. I attacked them, not because they were yours, but because they were WRONG, and they help perpetuate the deaths of innocent children--perhaps despite your best intentions. Again: believe me or not as you please, but it was nothing personal. I'd have attacked such nonsense if it'd come out of anyone else's mouth, including my own. (Hint: it used to!)

(heck, called me a liar,

You do seem extremely offended by that. That wasn't my intent, believe it or not; my intent was to get you to recognize the glaring divide between the two parts of your own head: the part that "hates abortion", and the part that sneers at "pro-birthers" (honestly: search your heart and mind, and find what in you could possibly have come up with such a loathsome epithet in the first place! Even the most rabid "pro-choicers" aren't so far afield as to scorn birth for those who *want* it!). You, friend, are not pro-life, nor are you very close to it at all, yet. You can be... but you'll never get there by taking a snapshot of your "non-pro-birther" position, pasting the words "pro-life" on the bottom, and then smilingly holding it up for everyone to see! You're so unaccustomed to listening to yourself, and examining your own manner, wording, etc., that you talk out of both sides of your mouth, perhaps without paying it much heed.

Do I attribute malice to you, or specific attempt to deceive? No... not at present, anyway. But you're intelligent enough (based on what I've read of your comments, anyway) not to embrace two contradictory positions mindlessly. You do so, I suspect, because you don't like the idea of being "not pro-life"; and you lie to yourself whenever you're forced into a corner on the subject. Men and women who've procured abortions are familiar with the phenomenon: "I did something which is primally evil, but I don't want to think of myself as evil, and I see no other way out; so I'll lie to myself, and say it was all fine." (That, by the way, is why Christianity is the only sure remedy for that disease: if forgiveness through Christ is possible through true repentance--since He paid the price already, and we need only appropriate it and cooperate with it--then we can escape the horror of knowing that we're a criminal. The self-loathing can end, rather than being endlessly buried under the sandstorm of self-lies.)

but there's been at least two pro-birthers on this board

...which obviously doesn't include you, yet. Right?

who have told me that the penalty for a woman getting an abortion, in their mind, should be counseling. I think it is time to rally the troops and hold some sessions!

It's time for you to get your thoughts clear, and stop being muddle-headed, sir. Counseling is not a "penalty", first of all. Second, there's no iron-clad rule for how to punish murderers (or semi-innocent dupes in a murder); that's left to the prudential judgment of those who have authority in the matter. Third: the main point was the acknowledgement that abortion is never justified (a fact which you haven't yet come to believe).

More in the next comment; this is getting long, even for me.

Posted by: Paladin at January 12, 2010 8:07 AM


Thank you, Matt.(I think.) :)

There are those whose only intention here is to incite, use several different monikers, disrupt the threads and refuse to argue thoughtfully, civilly or intelligently. If you have the time, patience and better manners for that be my guest.

Case in point....where did Kiwi Girl go?


Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 12, 2010 8:51 AM


EGV wrote:

You are right on the rape and incest really - if the argument is that it is murder, it shouldn't matter. I'm torn though, I'll admit - on the thought of a loved one being raped, and then going through with having the baby. I know, it is horrible even to me - but hey, close your eyes, think of the situation, and it is a tough place to be in.

No one is denying that it's horrible. I ask only that you don't compound the horror by forcing the mother to become at least an unwilling accomplice in a subsequent murder; that's *not* doing her any favours, no matter what her feelings (or yours) might say at any given moment. There's no rape so horrible that it can't be made worse by the murder of an innocent. Surely you see that?

Look: I sympathize with where you are. I was there, myself: it's quite easy to let your heart run away with your head, especially when innocent people are violated. But I tell you that you (and I) simply don't have the luxury of "following our hearts" if our hearts are running amok (and ignoring all sane reason and morality)! If the heart is an untamed stallion, the intellect has to "break" it and tame it again.

Luckily, it's very rare, and I think things like the morning after pill are probably in order on that one.

I'm sorry, but you're lapsing into nonsense, again. The "morning after pill" specifically causes abortions, in making the womb hostile to the implantation of the new (days-old) baby; the baby quietly dies--a silent, unseen abortion--and no one on-site may be the wiser. Killing children at age "5 days" is no better than killing them at age "9 months"; again, we can't let "our hearts" make the decisions for us, in these matters; they simply don't know HOW!

Thanks for answering my question - it's just further validity that what you said was the only logical choice, and confirms further that the chance of that every going into law is slim to none. What was the final vote in South Dakota on a pretty scaled down bill? And that when a GOP president won the state total by 5 or 6 points?

Argh. EGV, drop the political horse-apples, will you? I couldn't possibly care less about the GOP, the Dems, the Green party, or whatever other pet political group that fascinates you! Let me say this unequivocally: if the GOP dissolved from the face of the earth, I wouldn't lose so much as a wink of sleep about it. I'm here to defend morality and life, not political buddy-buddy groups that happen to infest America... is that now clear?

So thus, why I don't feel like a bad person for not voting with the GOP.

I hope you know, at least now, that I couldn't care less about that. My votes parallel the GOP in most cases (though not all) on life-issues, but that's almost coincidence; there are good-hearted and faithful GOP politicians, and there are phonies, and only their votes and efforts matter, in the end--NOT their political affiliation.

I feel like their plan is unworkable.

But here's another point, again: that does not excuse them (or you) from trying. The mere fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't cure all racism in a "flash" is no reason why it shouldn't have been done. The mere fact that the first few hundred attempts to end slavery in the Western world didn't work was no reason not to try a few hundred more. That's a life-lesson for you. EGV: if you fall 100 times, you only need to get up 101 times (counting the time you first rose to start the journey) in order to succeed.

Certainly, I agree with Donald Miller when he says he wishes the Dems would do more to reduce abortions - but I'm simply not going to vote for a GOP candidate who gives the issue lip service and little else.

So you're willing to vote for someone who doesn't even "give lip service", but actively and aggressively *promotes* abortion as a "right"? Even if you were right (and you're not, mostly, even concerning the GOP), surely you see a difference between someone who neither helps nor hurts (no matter what his verbal hypocrisy) and someone who actively takes a knife and attacks? "The GOP is weak and flabby in defense of the unborn, so I'll throw in with the people who enable, promote and defend the unborn's killers"? Have some sense!

Posted by: Paladin at January 12, 2010 11:29 AM


Hi Ex,
The women I know who had abortions after they were raped deeply regret that abortion. It did not heal the trauma of the rape. Rape was one trauma. Abortion another. It compounded their pain.
I also know women who were raped, became pregnant and gave life to their children. They have never REGRETTED having that child! In fact, they are thankful that someone so precious could come out of something so completely horrifying.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 12, 2010 11:54 AM


Matt -

Sorry for the delay in answering this - busy work week. Good question though - thanks for asking. In my opinion, I think the GOP takes advantage of the votes of pro-lifers. The GOP held the white house 20 of 28 years, and what sort of gains were made? Furthermore, does the GOP even have a workable plan to end abortion? Overturn r v wade and let the votes state? Heck, South Dakota couldn't even pass a ban in a year they voted for an unpopular party (McCain won but the ban lost).

So for me, I look to policies that I believe were in place, would reduce the number of abortions. A stronger lower class - expanded healthcare - more sex ed funding/education - stronger family/work protection. I know, it is far from a perfect solution, and I can 100% see why folks disagree with that position. I'm just saying I'm not going to blindly vote for a party that gives good lip service, and then would rather spend their power the way they do, not the way that they are voted to do.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 16, 2010 8:14 AM


Paladin -

Sorry to you as well for the delay. Life called (well, work, a Bible study night, and out with friends - busy week).

Just a few clarifications/questions on things I picked up on.

The "liar" thing - of course I'm going to be offended - not a great way to start out any conversation with somebody. You pride yourself in your debate skills, but the first thing you really did was paint a broad brush of assumptions about me and called me a liar as well. So yes, I do take offense to that and should take offense to that.

Next point - I can see your Biblical point on the Plan B product. I can also see how a catholic would link it to not using birth control and getting in the way of the option for life. I will also say that in a legal sense, I'd much rather see somebody using Plan B than having a traditional abortion. Much different scientifically in regards to how they are done and how it works.

Next point - So the punishment doesn't matter? Well heck, let's do it then - massive abortion ban in place tomorrow - anyone who violates it (doctor or woman) gets fined $10! This is great - I mean, I didn't see a compromise that would work so well for everyone, but if the consequences really don't matter, and you aren't going to attack those on the board who think the woman should just get "counseling" - well, we can ALL be in agreement!

Last point - my pro-birth reference actually came from an Evangelical pastor. His view and my view is many pro-lifers are very concerned about babies getting born, and then want to get the heck out of their in regards to actually supporting LIFE (because big government programs are anti-American you know). So let's put an abortion bill to the test? Ban abortions - expand healthcare and funding for pregnant families - put in better workplace protections for young families and single mothers - more job programs and training and maybe stronger tax subsidies for day care - let's just put it all on the table and put it to a vote for something that would require birth, and then fully support the family. That's why I'm comfortable with the phrase pro-birth. They want to change the laws so that abortion is illegal, but they don't want to fund the things that will actually then give the kid and the family a chance in life. Again, just my opinion on it.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 16, 2010 8:29 AM


Ex-GOP,

A phrase that Pro-abortion-Choicers love is, we want to reduce the number of abortions, or the need for them etc. (my paraphrase), yet the President you have now (who seems to love that phrase even more than most) is the most Pro-Abortion candidate ever!!! Just look at his voting record. While I agree that you're not going to get abortion made illegal anytime soon, wouldn't you agree that someone who takes funding away from Crisis Pregnancy Centres and gives it to abortion mills is a liar when they claim to want to reduce the number of abortions? Why not give as much (if not more) money to the people who actually do help women in crisis situations, namely CPC's (heck they'll help pretty much any women regardless of their situation!)?
Just by getting Obama elected the abortion rates have gone up!! They have to have gone up because of taking funding from organizations who help women choose life and giving it to abortion mills. If he was really about reducing the number of abortions why wouldn't he give money to CPC's and further, take money away from the abortion mills that are woefully neglecting to properly inform women? We've all heard the stuff that's coming out about Planned Parenthood lately.
You see, I do not believe people are sincere when they claim to want abortions reduced yet think they should be legal. If they are wrong like killing any other human being why allow them at all? If they are not killing human beings why reduce them, who cares how many there are?
With some people I suppose it could be that they really are ignorant. They just don't understand the issue. But with people like the President of the USA? C'mon! You gotta be at least a little smarter than the average person to get there, wouldn't you say? So, when smart people say that, I just don't believe they really mean it!
And when smart people elect Obama over McCain and say they think he was the better candidate for life!!??! I gotta think they're being disingenuous as well!! (Even though McCain wasn't perfect! At least he wasn't promising to sign FOCA as his first presidential act!!!)
I could go on but I've ranted enough for now, lol!

Posted by: Matt at January 16, 2010 11:58 AM


Matt -

Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush. GOP help the Presidency for 20 out of 28 years. How much closer are we to an outright abortion ban because of those years?

Sure, a GOP President will fund things differently than a Democratic president - things like global funding policies that flip every time somebody new is elected. But in regards to the big steps of actually banning abortion, are we substantially closer?

Working off the quite reasonable assumption that abortion is never going to be outlawed nationwide (take a look at the public opinion polls and the thoughts on r v wade being overturned. then look at the SD vote and the Colorado vote) - then I think a voter can look at two candidates and ask which candidate will most impact the socioeconomic factors that impact abortion.

Now, I'll say flat out that while I'm against abortion, that was NOT my number one issue in the Presidential election. I liked McCain quite a bit - but once he brought in Palin, I questioned his general sanity and the safety of the country if something were to ever happen to him.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 17, 2010 9:22 AM