Live tweeting abortion, Part VI: ABC News and detractors

Read Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, and Part X. Pro-lifers can share their thoughts at #livetweetingabortion.

Well, with the abortion circus Angie Jackson has created around herself it's interesting to know it's this sideshow here she's got on her mind. ABC News has a camera crew at her home right now, and here's what she just tweeted...

Jill Stanek, abortion, angie jackson.png

and a few minutes before that...

jill stanek, angie, abortion, 2.png

Given all that, it is this tweet Angie wrote earlier today I'd like to focus the rest of this blog post on...

jill stanek, angie jackson 3.png

So with all the attention I'm apparently giving and receiving, I'd like to take this opportunity to divert attention to a particular little detractor Angie would like to forget about, her 4-week-old baby. Too bad ABC will never have the opportunity to interview him or her and ask what s/he thinks about all this.

Here's a glimpse of Angie's baby's amazing development before s/he died, via the Endowment for Human Development...

Had Angie asked the abortion clinic sonographer to turn on the sound, which they refuse to do otherwise, she would have heard her baby's heartbeat, which began beating around Day 21.

Here are other facts about Angie's amazing and intricately developed little 4-week-old guy, who she at various times called a "parasite," "thing," "it," "roach," "squatter," and "tapeworm." (Angie, did you mention those descriptions to ABC News? No worries, I've saved the tweets.)...

  • The brain has differentiated into the 3 main parts.
  • Specific parts of the eye, such as the retina, the future pigment of the retina and the optic stalk are identifiable.
  • Mouth with a tongue is recognizable.
  • Thyroid, lymphatic system, gall bladder, stomach, intestines, and pancreas continue to form.
  • Upper limb buds are visible as ridges and the lower limb buds begin to develop.
  • The first thin surface layer of skin appears.
  • Such a miraculous detraction, now dead, or a "carcass," as Angie called him or her.

    [Thanks to Bryan Kemper and Twitter friend Jill for helping me keep track of Angie's prolific tweets]


    Comments:

    What's really funny is that you think that little fetus is ethically equivalent to a fully developed person. Which, of course, you're fully entitled to believe.

    What's not so funny is that you think women should be forced against their will to assume the increased mortality risk associated with childbirth, in accordance with your personal religious convictions.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 4:00 PM


    You were once a tiny unborn baby, growing in YOUR mother's womb, Maikeru48.

    What species of embryo/fetus were YOU when your mother was pregnant? Please enlighten us.


    My sister in law is pregnant with her and my brother's 4th child (oh, the horrors! They've gone beyond 2.1!)

    We have BABY showers not FETUS showers.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 25, 2010 4:05 PM


    Congratulations LizFromNebraska, you've completely failed to address a single word I typed.

    Do you believe women should be forced against their will to assume the mortality risk associated with childbirth? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 4:08 PM


    Maikeru48, this isn't about "personal religious convictions." It is about science. The Endowment for Human Development is not a partisan pusher of propoganda, but a neutral sharer of the truth.

    Posted by: Kelsey at February 25, 2010 4:10 PM


    To Maikeru48:

    Angie's choice, if she didn't want to have a baby, was to not have sex. Believe it or not, the primary purpose of sex is to "make babies." The pleasure that you get from sex is a fringe benefit; it may be a nice fringe benefit, but it is a fringe benefit nonetheless. In fact, the fringe benefit is there so that you would want to "make babies."

    In any case, what does "ethically equivalent" really mean? Does this term mean that someone could be "ethically greater" or "ethically lesser" than someone else? Am I "ethically greater" than you because I may have 5 college degrees and you dropped out of high school? Am I "ethically lesser" than you because you might be able to hunt your own food and grow your own vegetables and I have to go to the supermarket to get my food?

    BTW, have you checked the increased mortality rate in women whose pregnancies suddenly stop, either through a miscarriage or an abortion? And I don't think I read anywhere that Angie was in imminent danger of dying when she chose to do what she did.

    One last thought...thanks to the idea that abortion should be legal and accessible, most western nations are facing a demographic winter, i.e. they are not having enough babies to replace the dying therefore their societies are slowly disappearing. That's a really helpful thing for a nation to be going through.

    Posted by: ed at February 25, 2010 4:21 PM


    Maikeru48, the "mortality risk associated with childbirth" is a direct consequence of the decision to have sex. And yes, I am generally in favour of allowing nature to take its course when a woman becomes pregnant.

    Posted by: Melissa at February 25, 2010 4:23 PM


    Maikeru,

    Do you see the irony of the fact that your opening comment didn't address a single word of the original post?

    Posted by: Laurie at February 25, 2010 4:24 PM


    Kelsey, the EHD has never asserted that personhood begins at childbirth and for you to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The question of when personhood begins isn't the province of science, it's the province of religion and philosophy, and you folks aren't entitled to use the law to force the millions of people who disagree with your religious/philosophical beliefs to comply with them.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 4:25 PM


    Step one: Tweet your abortion with the stated goal of getting people to discuss it.
    Step two: Watch as people who disagree with you discuss it.
    Step three: Claim that Jill Stanek is trying to send killers to your house.

    Where, in any of these discussions, has ANYONE wished for Angie's death? The primary emotions I've seen are sadness and sympathy. Sure, it's easy to become angry when a helpless human being is victimized, but MURDEROUS anger? Haven't seen any of that.

    Posted by: Kelsey at February 25, 2010 4:29 PM


    Maiker,
    When does life begin? Please give facts to back it up. Cite some sources.

    When does personhood kick in? Facts please.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 25, 2010 4:29 PM


    Seriously?

    Personhood is not something we develope consensus on. Personhood is the state of being a person. Last I checked people were persons and humans beings were people. Not roses or dalmations or computers. If you're a human, you're a person. If you're a person, you're deserving of the rights afforded people.

    Is it really this difficult?

    Posted by: Laurie at February 25, 2010 4:29 PM


    Maikeru48, As a mother of three, two delivered, one to be delivered in October, I truly pray that you will realize one day the absurdity of what you say. If a woman chooses to have sexual relations with a man, then she as well as he should take full, adult responsibility for their choice, not cowardly actions (though difficult for most who choose abortion). I was a single mother, I also am an adoptee who's biological mother was young and a perfect candidate to have an abortion with me (by today's standards and reasonings). She chose the more noble, more loving road of not only delivering me, but also trusting strangers to raise me. I am forever grateful to her, my biological father (who denied I was his until after my birth) and God. After having met my biological mother, she has stated numerous times that she knows she made the right choice though it was very painful for her. There is nothing buy joy in her eyes when she sees me and how my life has been.

    All life deserves respect of dignity. A fetus is just a stage just like adolescence and is commanded to be treated as such. Just because you do not see the equality in both stages of development does not make it so. There are TRUTHS in this world, you have the right to choose to ignore them (which you obviously do) but one day may mercy fall at your door when you truly need it (and trust me, you will).

    Posted by: Gina at February 25, 2010 4:30 PM


    Maikeru48, do you think Angie's son should be forced to have his little brother or sister taken away?

    BTW, you assume childbirth is less safe than abortion, which isn't true. There is no evidence that abortion is safer than childbirth because 'complications from induced abortion' gets white-washed as a cause-of-death on death certificates.

    Posted by: Cranky Catholic at February 25, 2010 4:33 PM


    "Kelsey, the EHD has never asserted that personhood begins at childbirth and for you to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest."

    Of course they've never asserted that, because that's a pro-choice fiction. They and the community of embryologists as a whole have, however, asserted that human life begins at conception. http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php#fertilization

    How is your belief that a person magically becomes "ethically equivalent" to others when they pass through the birth canal scientifically justified?

    Posted by: Kelsey at February 25, 2010 4:35 PM


    Maikeru--

    From the EHD website:
    "Biologically speaking, fertilization (or conception) is the beginning of human development." (http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php#fertilization)

    You seem to want to exclude human beings in their earliest stages of development from being persons.

    Is that it? Do you really think that it is permissable to kill a very young human being just because he is unwanted?

    Posted by: Melissa at February 25, 2010 4:37 PM


    Ed, you're not entitled to tell Angie or any other woman what her choices are. Until you've established that a fetus is entitled to the same ethical consideration as a fully developed human, which you haven't, what she does with the fetus and her reasons for doing so are her business, and none of yours.

    Secondly, it's dishonest to lump miscarriages in with abortions re: mortality and claim that this somehow invalidates the fact that abortion is statistically safer than childbirth. And the fact that Angie may have been healthy at the time she aborted doesn't change the statistical possibility that she might have encountered complications later in pregnancy.

    Third, the lower birth rates in developed nations has little to do with abortion access and more to do with the fact that lower infant mortality rates and increased prosperity have led people to choose to use birth control and have smaller families.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 4:37 PM


    Maikeru48: Angie (and every expectant mother) is not entitled to use the law to justify killing her child. Majority rule doesn't determine right and wrong. What if the majority of America wanted to kill you? What if the majority decided you weren't a person? I (and every other pro-life person I know) would fight for your life. Angie's baby deserves nothing less.

    Posted by: Courtney at February 25, 2010 4:40 PM


    We don't need to establish that a fetus is entitled to the same ethical consideration as any other living human being. Our premise is simple. Human beings at all stages of life are entitled to the right to life. It is the pro-choice fiction that somehow a woman's right to choice trumps a fetus' right to life.

    Posted by: Melissa at February 25, 2010 4:46 PM


    Maikeru48 - not everyone who is prolife is religious. There are secular, even atheist prolifers, including some who frequent this blog.

    Posted by: Phillymiss at February 25, 2010 4:49 PM


    Are there any other mammals that kill their own in the womb intentionally?

    Posted by: Gina at February 25, 2010 4:49 PM


    "The question of when personhood begins isn't the province of science..."

    At least you guys FINALLY!!! admit that you don't base your argument in science any longer.

    Are you a member of the human species? Does the law protect every juvenile member of the human species (minus those killed in an abortion, of course) AND adult members of the human species who comply with those laws, even from their own mothers? Why then, should one set of humans-just because they are under a certain age-be allowed to be killed by their mothers legally when that is impermissible in any other context?

    And, let me ask you a question that none of the Twit-wits could or would answer, maybe you will here:

    A man comes up to you and says "I am going to initiate an action which, after its completion, will cause you to materialize in a room with no doors, no windows, and no way out. A section of the wall will fall away 9 months from now, at which point you will be compelled to leave. The only method of sustenance for you will be 2 tubes built into the wall: 1 for feeding you, and the other to remove your waste. I will be solely responsible for feeding you and cleaning up after you. I have already decided, however, that I do not want such a responsibility, so at the time you are placed there, instead of filling your feeding tube with sustenance, I will give you poison, at which point you will die."

    Would you agree to such a thing?

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 4:57 PM


    Amazing!
    We just watched (via tweets) the painful execution of a human being, and the perpetrator is rewarded by being in national media. We are really a messed up society.
    Please join me on praying for her soul and the souls of her supporters.

    Posted by: Maria at February 25, 2010 4:58 PM


    Thank you Phillymiss, keeping in mind those like me. :)

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 5:01 PM


    Oh, I get it: this chic took to Twitter to discuss her abortion because she cares, like, soooo much about women's rights...

    Pop quiz: how many women a day die in Uganda due to lack of prenatal care?

    What is the current state of education for women living in Afghanistan?

    What percentage of the world's women live in extreme poverty as compared to men?

    God, my guess is that she wouldn't know, much less care.

    Bullshit- she didn't do this for "concern for my fellow womanz" but for attention.

    Posted by: Vannah at February 25, 2010 5:02 PM


    Maikeru48,

    You asked, "Do you believe women should be forced against their will to assume the mortality risk associated with childbirth?" YES because otherwise she is going to commit the murder of another human being. We all assume mortality risk with every day activities: driving a car, walking down the street, taking a shower (may slip and fall and break our necks etc...). Mortality risks are every day risks. You are asking the wrong question. It comes down to this simple truth: just because something has been made legal does NOT make it right. We all know in our deepest parts (God gave us all a conscience whether we ackowledge Him or not) that killing our babies in the womb is WRONG. You know it, too.

    Posted by: Deb at February 25, 2010 5:08 PM


    Vannah, Angie did say she was working for obtaining water for people in developing countries, which is a good thing.

    No problem, Xalisae. We need to be more inclusive. I mentioned my ex-husband is a Jewish Buddhist and he is prolife. There's probably even some prolife Unitarians somewhere -- come out, come out, wherever you are!

    I heard of a prolife Satanist once, but for some reason, that didn't sit well with me . . .

    Posted by: Phillymiss at February 25, 2010 5:11 PM


    Maikeru48,

    Ok, Here's the deal. Life begins at conception. All sane people will agree with that. It all boils down to personhood right?

    We could take the long route and have you give a list of your standards for personhood such as level of development which you have already done. As we argue, it will be shown that your standards for personhood are completely arbitrary.

    Viability,size,location....it doesn't matter. So, rather than going that route, I'll take a different approach.

    So, you can begin by enlightening us as to when personhood is attained. Considering the stakes of this argument involves innocent human life, I want 100% assurance that what is being destroyed in the womb is not an innocent human person.

    It's the "DON'T SHOOT!" Principle.

    If I am in the woods hunting and I see the bushes moving in the distance, do I shoot? It could be a deer but it could also be a fellow hunter.

    Unless you can show how a fetus is not a person with 100% assurance, then DON"T SHOOT! If I am not sure what is moving in the bushes and I shoot anyway, it's at the very least negligence. If it turns out to be a deer, I am simply lucky, but I am still negligent. If it turns out to be a fellow hunter, I have killed an innocent person.

    If you want to argue in favor of abortion, let's at least save some time and have you begin only with arguments in favor of abortion that DON'T also support infanticide.

    Posted by: psalm at February 25, 2010 5:11 PM


    QUOTE
    What's really funny is that you think that little fetus is ethically equivalent to a fully developed person. Which, of course, you're fully entitled to believe.

    What's not so funny is that you think women should be forced against their will to assume the increased mortality risk associated with childbirth, in accordance with your personal religious convictions.
    Posted by: Maikeru48

    AND

    Kelsey, the EHD has never asserted that personhood begins at childbirth and for you to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The question of when personhood begins isn't the province of science, it's the province of religion and philosophy, and you folks aren't entitled to use the law to force the millions of people who disagree with your religious/philosophical beliefs to comply with them.
    Posted by: Maikeru48
    END QUOTE


    Maikeru48,

    You went from person to personhood in your comments, which are two different things entirely.

    A human being has 46 chromosomes, 23 from female egg, 23 from male sperm. Each has their own DNA, and the blood types of mother can be very different from her children.

    A baby in utero (fetus) is ethically, morally, physically and in every way, distinct from its mother, so in answer to your first question, yes. As that baby grows, it goes through stages, including, but not limited to neonate, toddler, youth, teenager, young adult, middle age, and senior, until finally, natural death. That individual never changed from the moment of conception as far as its being unique.

    That individual is entitled to the SAME basic right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness as is its older sibling, parent, neighbor from the moment of fertilization, because it IS a uniquely different person/individual/human being from its mother.

    The 'mortality rate' from pregnancy is rare (speaking as an OB/Gyn nurse of many years). The mortality rate of 'safe abortions' seems to be becoming more known as time goes by, and things are not covered up as much as they had been at one time, but those statistics are skewed by other factors already mentioned above.

    Do I think a woman, who chose to have sex (which is designed biologically toward reproduction) should be 'forced' to carry the child to term? Yes, if you want to call it forced, then I guess you can. However, I learned LONG ago that EVERY right has a corresponding DUTY, and the DUTY usually causes the RIGHT to come about in the first place. The RIGHT to choose is prior to Conception. After conception, the RIGHT of another HUMAN BEING comes into play, and mother's 'right' stops where that baby's begin... and her DUTY is to respect that person's life just as she would yours.

    Posted by: WI Catholic at February 25, 2010 5:19 PM


    "YES because otherwise she is going to commit the murder of another human being."

    "Murder" is a legal definition. Abortion (with limitations past viability depending on the law of the state) is legal - hence, not murder.

    "killing our babies in the womb is WRONG."

    Not the consensus of the legal, medical, and religious community.

    "they are not having enough babies to replace the dying therefore their societies are slowly disappearing."

    So let's deny women the right to contraception and abortion so as to turn them into happy breeders in order to increase the population. Hmmm, starting to sound like "The Handmaidens Tale."

    "Do you believe women should be forced against their will to assume the mortality risk associated with childbirth?" YES

    Like I said - women as breeders. Forcing women to have babies is as reprehensible as forcing them to abort. It denies the personhood of women in that it denies them the right to control their destinies. But yeah, let's go back to the dark ages when women were merely the recipient for sperm. Sex for reproduction only. Sounds as clinical as what goes on in in-vitro labs -oh, yeah, that's bad, too!

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 5:28 PM


    "What's not so funny is that you think women should be forced against their will to assume the increased mortality risk associated with childbirth," -Maikeru48,

    Seems to me that anytime you add surgery to the mix, you increase risk for complications.

    So, are you saying that a pregnant woman at let's say 10 weeks who is not having an abortion is at more risk for harm than a pregnant woman at 10 weeks who decides to have an abortion?

    Posted by: psalm at February 25, 2010 5:34 PM


    Posted by: WI Catholic at February 25, 2010 5:19 PM

    You identify as a Roman Catholic. How do you deal with the theologies of other religious faiths that do not believe as you do that life begins at conception? The position of your church, vis-a-vis abortion, is very different from that of the Episcopal, Unitarian, UCC, Methodist, Lutheran and Reform Judaism. Are they "apostate" creeds? Should the women who belong to these faiths be subjected to the dicates of your faith?

    And

    "and mother's 'right' stops where that baby's begin"

    So the rights of a fetus supercede that of the woman who is carrying it? Thankfully the law doesn't see it that way. Interestingly, the Torah doesn't either.

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 5:36 PM


    First of all, would YOU like to take a shot at answering what I said, Artemis?

    Secondly, "...women as breeders. Forcing women to have babies is as reprehensible as forcing them to abort."

    Ummm...no? The only way we would be forcing women to have babies is if we were forcefully inseminating them against their will. Where exactly have you seen us advocating this? Where did we ever speak out against things like tubal ligation and vasectomies? The fact that YOU cannot seem to handle the SCIENTIFIC FACT that childbirth is a natural consequence of pregnancy, and pregnancy is what happens when a couple copulates successfully (biologically speaking), is not OUR shortcoming. Sorry if reality doesn't suit you.

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 5:43 PM


    Should be "Talmud" - the body of Judaic teachings. BTW, I do find the tweeting of something as personal as an abortion a little strange. But whatever. I'm concerned about her personal safety. As we saw with Scott Roeder, there are a lot of zealots out there who think "God" allows them to do anything. I do fear for her safety.

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 5:44 PM


    "The fact that YOU cannot seem to handle the SCIENTIFIC FACT that childbirth is a natural consequence of pregnancy"

    Right. And fat stomachs are the result of eating too much. That doesn't mean that liposuction should be illegal.

    "Where did we ever speak out against things like tubal ligation and vasectomies?"

    You might not have a problem with the above; but your some of your religious fellow travellers do.

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 5:50 PM


    I was "on the fence" about abortion before coming here. But, after reading through the posts, I've come to realize something very simple, yet very powerful:

    Basic human rights = the right to life. Period. You can try to justify the suppression of these rights any way you want, but the bottom-line remains the same. Logically, how can I say I support human rights if I simultaneously say it's ok for an entire portion of our human society to be exterminated? It's simple: I can't.

    As a side note, I am so impressed by how much more ethically and scientifically sound the pro-life arguments on this site are than the pro-choice ones. Perhaps it's just due to the specific pro-choice people here, but the pro-choice side sounds facile, illogical, and devoid of any scientific truth. It's ironic because that is the portrayal the pro-life side usually gets by the mainstream media!

    Posted by: Impressed at February 25, 2010 5:51 PM


    "You identify as a Roman Catholic. How do you deal with the theologies of other religious faiths that do not believe as you do that life begins at conception?"

    I will answer this one. When life begins is a matter of science not Theology. The teachings of the church delve into and expand on concepts of human life and personhood but science tells us when life begins.

    You don't have to be Catholic to know when life begins. To deny life begins at conception is to make a scientific error, not a theological error.

    Maybe you don't quite understand where the Church stands on certain issues and why it teaches what it does.

    Posted by: psalm at February 25, 2010 5:51 PM


    A man comes up to you and says "I am going to initiate an action which, after its completion, will cause you to materialize in a room with no doors, no windows, and no way out. A section of the wall will fall away 9 months from now, at which point you will be compelled to leave. The only method of sustenance for you will be 2 tubes built into the wall: 1 for feeding you, and the other to remove your waste. I will be solely responsible for feeding you and cleaning up after you. I have already decided, however, that I do not want such a responsibility, so at the time you are placed there, instead of filling your feeding tube with sustenance, I will give you poison, at which point you will die."

    Would you agree to such a thing? Would you fight this person? Why? Even if it was your mother? Why or why not?
    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 4:57 PM

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 5:52 PM


    Melissa, the mortality risk associated with heart disease is a direct consequence of the decision to eat poorly, exercise rarely and (in some cases) smoke. Are you generally in favor of allowing nature to take its course with people who have heart disease? I'm not.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 5:53 PM


    Bottom line is what right to you folks have to tell me (or any other woman) what we should do with what's inside our bodies? What next - dictating what kind of treatment we should receive for hemorrhoids?

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 5:57 PM


    Maikeru48 - Now show us how heart surgery will directly cause the death of an innocent 2nd party 100% of the time and you might have a working analogy there, kiddo!

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 5:58 PM


    Carla, I don't claim to have an answer to that question, just an opinion. I'd say that personhood begins when a fetus has a fully developed brain and can survive independently separate from the umbilical cord, but I'd also say that that's my philosophical opinion, and I wouldn't force a woman to assume the risks associated with childbirth in order to comply with my personal beliefs about when personhood begins.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 6:01 PM


    "the death of an innocent"

    The law doesn't see it that way; but as you say, laws can change. Thakfully, the liklihood of that happening in the more progressive and educated areas of this country are slim to none. Sorry. Reality bites, don't it!

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 6:02 PM


    Artemis,

    Get Well Soon.

    Maikeru48,

    You are correct to say that personhood is not the formal object of the scientist's study. I say this as a scientist. Personhood is a moral and legal status belonging to organisms of the species Homo sapiens based upon the KIND of organisms they are-human.

    Embryology has pronounced clearly and consistently that a new human organism exists from the moment of fertilization. This is biological FACT. That's all I can say as a doctor of molecular biology. Personhood is the provence of philosophy, theology and jurisprudence.

    As a citizen, a Christian (Roman Catholic), I have a say in this matter. The equal protection of the law is MY concern as much as any constitutional scholar's. They are as much MY laws, as the legal scholars, by virtue of citizenship.

    When persons within society begin saying that personhood is not an intrinsic attribute of members of our species based on the KIND of organisms they are (human), but rather conferred based upon some arbitrarily contrived set of standards, I start thinking about our long dark past with this thinking:

    Slavery
    Literacy tests
    Segregation
    Genocide against Native Americans
    Forced Sterilizations of the developmentally delayed and disabled.
    Concentration Camps in WWII for Japanese Americans

    All of which were upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States-the same as Roe v. Wade.

    Every time we have outsourced morality and decency with the issue of personhood, a holocaust has ensued.

    And then came Roe.

    We are all our brother's keeper.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 25, 2010 6:03 PM


    Artemis -

    I'll ask you the same question I asked the other guy. "Right. And fat stomachs are the result of eating too much. That doesn't mean that liposuction should be illegal." Tell me where/how liposuction 100% certainly ends the life of a non-participating 2nd party, and you'd have yourself a valid point. Otherwise, sorry, no.

    "You might not have a problem with the above; but your some of your religious fellow travellers do."

    I've had a tubal ligation. Everyone here knows it. The CC members of this board have told me they don't necessarily agree with what I have done, for religious reasons. NEVER have they EVER told me that they think what I have had done should be illegal. Lies and fallacies. :)

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 6:03 PM


    Laurie, the question of what constitutes a person (human BEING), as opposed to mere human LIFE, is far more complicated than you're making it out to be. It's a question that religious scholars, philosophers, and blowhards with opinions for thousands of years now, and we're scarcely closer to having an answer than the first people who dealt with the question were. To suggest otherwise is arrogant.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 6:05 PM


    "As a citizen, a Christian (Roman Catholic), I have a say in this matter. The equal protection of the law is MY concern as much as any constitutional scholar's"

    And as citizens, non Catholics who hold pro-choice positions have as much say as you do. And what, exactly, do you say to non Catholic scientists who do not believe as you do, Nadal? Do you castigate them for not believing the truth as defined by your all male, celibate (!) Majesterium? Or do you deal with them at all?

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 6:08 PM


    Gina, women who choose to have abortions ARE taking full, adult responsibility in doing so, based on their own beliefs and their own priorities. Just because you disagree with their decision doesn't make it any less mature or responsible.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 6:09 PM


    Artemis,

    Antitheistangie's argument that continuing her pregnancy was life-threatening has no medical support. No doctor made that claim. She started making the argument as an 'it could be life-threatening' argument because her labor with her firstborn was long and difficult. I'm sure that if Ms. Jackson had not made the 'choice' to end her child's life in utero, she would have been cared for by medical professionals. I have yet to hear anyone here argue that pregnant women should die for their unborn children. However, Ms. Jackson never even bothered to get a medical professional's opinion on the matter.

    See, the right to life supercedes the right to 'bodily autonomy'... Hence, the woman who chooses to engage in the life-creating act of sex has a personal responsibility to carry the unique and individual human being to birth. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.

    Posted by: maryrose at February 25, 2010 6:09 PM


    Artemis says, "I have no argument. I acknowledge that you are right, but the law is on my side. I do not care about that 2nd party, neither does the law yet, nanny nanny boo boo."

    My goodness, your side sounds so educated and mature. I wonder if those who supported slavery ever said "Yeah, but the law's been like this forever, you'll never change it, lol!"...

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 6:11 PM


    Courtney, a woman's right to choose abortion is not now (thankfully) and never will be (hopefully) about what a simple majority of the population wants. It's about the fact that there is no ethical consensus before the moment of birth about when personhood begins, and that a woman should have the right to decide for herself, in consultation with her doctor, whether or not to assume the mortality risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth in accordance with her own beliefs.

    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 6:13 PM


    Maikeru: "The question of when personhood begins isn't the province of science, it's the province of religion and philosophy..."

    K.

    My "religion and philosophy" just decided that Maikeru isn't a human being. See how easy that was?

    Posted by: bmmg39 at February 25, 2010 6:15 PM


    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 6:11 PM

    Slavery involved post born humans. Abortion involves pre born future life dependant on the host. Liberty for a sentient "post born" is a basic right. The "rights" of a "pre-born" fetus are secondary to the rights of she who carries it. But love the slavery/abortion link. It's just so specious. LOL.

    And BTW, how are those "personhood" initiatives working out? How bout the court striking down the latest anti-choice legislation out of Oklahoma. How bout Planned Parenthood opening up in Massachusetts despite the entreaties of the anti-choice crowd. Those of us who are pro-choice will resist you every step of the way. "Our bodies, our choices."

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 6:20 PM


    "Laurie, the question of what constitutes a person (human BEING), as opposed to mere human LIFE, is far more complicated than you're making it out to be."

    Only when you're trying to obfuscate the situation in the name of your agenda. ^_~

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 6:21 PM


    Artemis,

    I have a first name. Use it. If you insist on being a snot I can flame your rear end as well, so let's keep it civil.

    Pro-aborts ought to have every bit as much legal right to butcher babies as whites should to own slaves.

    Federal troops ought to have as much right to murder Native Americans as their forbears did.

    The government ought to have the renewed right to forcibly sterilize people with autism, Down S. and mental illness.

    We ought to be able to strip ethnic groups of their property and rights and incarcerate them in concentration camps as we once did.

    Whites ought to have the right to relegate blacks to the margins as an inferior underclass once again.

    Right Artemis? You twisted little beast. Surely you agree that we who once enjoyed the right to practice all of this, protected by the Supreme Court are at a disadvantage, no?

    My all male celibate clergy condemned every one of those practices too.

    Now, my little coward, you ran away from my question on another thread. I ask it again here. Share with us how your life is richer and fuller, how the world is better off for your having killed your baby and prevented all that would come with its life and its never to be born progeny. You see it as such a glorious good, so please share with us your sagacity.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 25, 2010 6:21 PM


    Maikeru, in most case the woman does not even KNOW the name of the abortionist. How can this be called a doctor/patient relationship?

    Posted by: Phillymiss at February 25, 2010 6:21 PM


    A man comes up to you and says "I am going to initiate an action which, after its completion, will cause you to materialize in a room with no doors, no windows, and no way out. A section of the wall will fall away 9 months from now, at which point you will be compelled to leave. The only method of sustenance for you will be 2 tubes built into the wall: 1 for feeding you, and the other to remove your waste. I will be solely responsible for feeding you and cleaning up after you. I have already decided, however, that I do not want such a responsibility, so at the time you are placed there, instead of filling your feeding tube with sustenance, I will give you poison, at which point you will die."

    Would you agree to such a thing? Would you fight this person? Why? Even if it was your mother? Why or why not?
    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 4:57 PM

    Once again, the silence says it all. "As long as it's not ME getting killed, I don't care."

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 6:26 PM


    "Twisted little beast" - ewww, can't you smell the misogyny. Bless me father for I have sinned in thought, word, and whatever.

    What business is it of yours, Nadal, what I did with my body. But let me indulge you. I don't know if I aborted. I had a late period and did some stuff (you know, all the nasty stuff that women do when they can't get an abortion) that resulted in a late, very heavy, very long period. But whatever, I was able to continue my education and I didn't give birth to the child of a sick, psycho creep. Win/win.

    But love the ad-hominems, Nadal. I answered your question, so now you can answer mine. Tit for tat. And BTW, I do hope that your department head knows the kind of vitriol that you spread on this blog....

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 6:27 PM


    Artemis, it is very sad that you bought into the lie that you could not continue your education without killing your child.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2010 6:34 PM


    I wouldn't waste time arguing with Artemis. He ran away from my engagements with him weeks ago as well.

    I am open to honest intellectual debate. Artemis cannot engage in such.

    Posted by: psalm at February 25, 2010 6:36 PM


    Artemis,

    Don't play the victim when you are the one showing up and hurling the ad hominems. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

    Funny you should mention misogeny. This was my post at 6 AM.

    http://gerardnadal.com/2010/02/25/pro-life-academy-the-dignity-of-women-i/

    Just because people happen to call you on your behavior doesn't mean that they equate your noxiousness with being a woman. Your noxiousness is not at all a function of womanhood, but actually part of the sequellae arising from womanhood that has been degraded through abortion.

    But that was your 'choice', as is your vicious tongue with all you don't see eye to eye with.

    But by all means play up the misogyny card. Kinda like a squid laying down some ink to cover its retreat.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 25, 2010 6:40 PM


    Maikeru48

    Personhood is a concept used only to deny rights to certain groups of human beings for the benefit of others.

    It is a way we dehumanize those we wish to do harm to. Perhaps you can think of a time when a group was labled "non-person humans" without their rights being stripped away, but I cannot.

    You are welcome to continue down that road, but do not pretend that your claims hold any ethical support.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2010 6:44 PM


    Kudos to Miss Jackson. What she is doing is a very brave and creative way of using new technology. I hope to see more women coming forward and using Twitter (and other new technology) in such a creative way.

    Posted by: MissE at February 25, 2010 6:45 PM


    MissE, would you also consider it "brave and creative" for a mother to write a detailed account of killing her born children?

    If not, you can understand why we would take issue with this stunt.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2010 6:49 PM


    Wow!! I LOVE YOU PEOPLE! ALL of you! The Pro-Choice people who have the courage to come here and comment give the Pro-Lifers an opportunity to educate and inform. I am truly grateful for this.

    Impressed - I am so grateful that you expressed what you have experienced here in such an eloquent way. While I have been Pro-Life my whole life, I too am always sooooo impressed with the responders on this blog. They are extremely well-informed and consistent in their convictions, aren't they? While I consider myself a somewhat well-spoken person, I am constantly humbled by the Pro-Life people on this blog who say / write what I am feeling so much better than I ever could...especially, of course Jill Stanek herself.

    Thank you to you all. My heartfelt appreciation for your conviction, knowledge, and willingness to take the time to share your thoughts. As I am about to give birth to my third child, I do not forget that mine are some of the lucky ones who have survived Roe v Wade. I do not forget there are many, many others who should also be born this week but will not be. They are, as you are, in my prayers.

    "Pray for me as I will for thee that we may merrily meet in heaven." ~ St. Thomas More

    Posted by: MamaMT at February 25, 2010 6:49 PM


    I love how the contributors to this blog have named the "baby" that was aborted by this wonderful girl. It is quite enjoyable to watch you actually debate a name for this fetus. I am so happy that Angie has come forward with this story through twitter. She is a brave woman and I admire her for putting her story out and defending herself from the pro-life crowd. I will continue to fight for Angie's right to control her body!!!

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 6:52 PM


    Jake, A)How is bragging about killing her child brave?

    B)The child she killed was not part of her body. By killing it she was not "controlling her body" she was actively destroying another human being.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2010 7:01 PM


    Impressed: You made my day. :)

    xalisae: No, I would not agree to it. :)

    Artemis: Gerard calling you a twisted little beast is not misogynistic. If he called you a twisted little bitch, THAT would be misogynistic. He's insulting you because you think killing babies is okay, not because you're a woman.

    Having said that, Gerard: I don't think that was a particularly helpful or productive comment. It just makes Artemis feel victimized and encourages her to come back to defend herself. Besides, she's so obviously unhappy that I've got to admit I feel sorry for her. Happy people don't go to websites for the sole purpose of insulting other people.

    MissE: Angie Jackson is making your side look irresponsible and spiteful. Trust me, you do not want to support this woman. Of course, you won't believe me and you will, which is going to backfire on you and not me.

    We can debate religion all we want, but you can't debate obvious, proven, and accepted science. Scientifically, a new being is created once the sperm meets the egg. He/she - I say he/she because the embryo already has a gender - is a genetically separate person from either parent, with his or her own unique set of DNA. By the time a woman figures out she's pregnant, her unborn child already has a beating heart.

    Here's a question for the pro-choice people here, though I'm betting they won't answer it like they're not answering xalisae's question: Let's say you're a conjoined twin. The level of conjoinedness between you and your twin is such that if the two of you were separated, she would die but you would live. She does not want to die. Unlike with a pregnant women and her baby, your twin is going to be using your body to live for the rest of her life. Being a conjoined twin makes your life difficult. It always has and it always will. You don't like your twin sister and you don't want to keep her alive. If you could find a doctor willing to separate you - which would lead to your sister's death - would you be justified?

    Posted by: Marauder at February 25, 2010 7:13 PM


    "I will continue to fight for Angie's right to control her body!!!" -Jake

    And I will continue to fight to keep innocent babies from being butchered in the womb. I'll look forward to comparing arguments, ideas, and facts to see who here is fighting for the right side.

    Posted by: psalm at February 25, 2010 7:18 PM


    Jake: If a baby is merely a part of a woman's body, like an appendix or a thyroid gland, then why does he or she have a different set of DNA than her? And if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why does it need "defending?"

    To "Jesus" -- you're obviously trying to offend, but not everyone here is Christian. Even though I am a Christian, methinks that you're rather puerile. Seems like it's past your bedtime.

    Posted by: Phillymiss at February 25, 2010 7:19 PM


    Maikeru48 (@6:13pm): You claim there's no "ethical consensus before the moment of birth about when personhood begins" and thus a woman gets to dictate that for herself. But that's not what the law says. The Court in Roe declared that "the word 'person, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn" (410 U.S. 113, 158 (1973)). This isn't an ambivalent position on personhood. This is a statement of law. As others have pointed out, an action isn't right simply because it's legal. Until you can give some reason for discriminating based on place of residence (i.e., the uterus/birth canal), or point to some intrinsic change that takes place at birth, you have no reason to place personhood at birth. Being reliant on others doesn't cut it. Some people never become self-sufficient, and others become reliant at some point later in life. That doesn't mean they're not persons.

    Posted by: Courtney at February 25, 2010 7:19 PM


    Marauder: congratulations on carrying on the proud anti-choice tradition of bringing up wild, irrelevant analogies to try and prove how awful abortion is. Conjoined twins? Really? Any other freaks of nature that you'd like to invoke in an otherwise unrelated discussion?

    Posted by: MissE at February 25, 2010 7:20 PM


    Maruader,

    I appreciate your insight and admonishment. However, Artemis is not at all a victim here. If she feels victimized then she needs to learn the fundamental contingencies asociated with social reciprocity.

    In acting like a twisted beast, she is spoken to as such.

    In acting as a respectful blogger, she is treated as such.

    Artemis uses victimhood as a club to beat down her opponents where she cannot win on the merits of argument. Feeling genuine victimhood would be a healthy step forward for her.

    Right now she is so anesthetized by rationalizations that she is genuinely cut off from herself.

    People act as crazy as we allow them to.

    God Bless.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 25, 2010 7:30 PM


    LOL artemis,

    Not one word in my response was religiously oriented, yet you respond to me on a religious basis. Why?

    How do I 'feel' about other religions isn't at all important, either. Sorry, but I don't 'feel' anything about other religions, and my argument isn't dependent on any, including mine. But I also did not identify myself as a Roman Catholic--there are 22 different Rites, artemis.
    As for the Talmud... artemis, if you are Jewish, you KNOW that there are vastly different opinions among the Orthodox... and that there are also people like Nat Hentoff who also have never used religion to defend pro-life issues.

    You certainly went off topic replying to me, didn't you?


    Rights without Duties is LICENSE. Not good, artemis. Not good at all.

    EVERY right has a corresponding Duty, and our rights end where anothers' rights begin. Basic Civics lesson.

    I am all for 'choice'. YOUR choice comes before conception. Abstain from sex if you don't want to deal with the outcome of the act.

    Funny that you bring up Scott Roeder, but failed to mention Harlan Drake.

    QUOTE

    Posted by: WI Catholic at February 25, 2010 7:31 PM


    Maikeru48,

    Seems to me that you and other pro-aborts are rather good at evading the most important questions thrown your way. You duck, dodge, change the argument...whatever it takes.

    Shouting a slogan is not making an argument.

    Making assertions without reason to back them up is not a convincing way to argue a point.

    I know it must bother you when repeatedly you can't answer the tough questions. I don't know what your particular circumstances are but sooner or later the truth will find you.

    This isn't a trivial debate. It should alarm you that your arguments are so easily refuted.

    You should be concerned that you cannot defend your position (which involves killing an innocent human being) without falling into scientific or logical error.

    From a moral standpoint, your position is indefensible when all factors are considered. Yet you still shout the same slogans, still make the same weak arguments.

    Posted by: psalm at February 25, 2010 7:32 PM


    My last entry was directed at Artemis, Jake, MissE, and the like and not just Maikeru48.

    Posted by: psalm at February 25, 2010 7:36 PM


    Painful to think that the baby I just lost Sunday is the same age as the baby this 'Angie' just killed. :(

    Posted by: Pamela at February 25, 2010 7:44 PM


    Maikeru48 wrote:"[T]he lower birth rates in developed nations has little to do with abortion access and more to do with the fact that lower infant mortality rates and increased prosperity have led people to choose to use birth control and have smaller families."

    According to the Guttmacher Institute, it is estimated that 23 million pregnancies occur every year in developed countries and that 28 percent of them (6.44 million) end due to induced abortions (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.pdf). Please do not tell me that birth control is lowering the birth rates when developed countries are killing 28 percent of their young on purpose.

    And before you yell at me that these numbers are made up by pro-life people, the Guttmacher Institute was started decades ago by Planned Parenthood and they conduct research in support of the abortion industry.

    Posted by: ed at February 25, 2010 7:45 PM


    Artemis, a misogynist would have to be someone who hates women as whole. I personally have had no problem with Dr. Nadal. I'm pretty sure it's just you, thereby disqualifying him from actually being a misogynist. You guys love to lie. It makes our job so easy.

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 7:51 PM


    The law doesn't see it that way; but as you say, laws can change. Thakfully, the liklihood of that happening in the more progressive and educated areas of this country are slim to none. Sorry. Reality bites, don't it!

    Posted by: Artemis at February 25, 2010 6:02 PM


    51% of the country now identify themselves as pro-life, only 42% as pro-choice. I have talked to 3 people this week who said that they were pro-choice. After about 5-10 minutes of talking about the scientific facts, they all changed their mind. Most people who call themselves pro-choice just aren't informed.

    While the pro-choicers abort, the pro-lifers give birth. We are gaining more future pro-lifers everyday. Many christians who believe in the preciousness of every human life have large families.

    The post-abortive women who regret their 'choice' and go on to have more children, teach their children the awful truth about abortion.
    Our side is growing, by birth and by truth and evidence.

    By the way, Carla, you're my hero.

    Posted by: Heather M at February 25, 2010 7:53 PM


    The abortion debate is not a religious one, but rather a civil rights one.

    For example, see Peter Kreeft's Apple Argument Against Abortion. Religion doesn't play into it at all.

    Posted by: JoAnna at February 25, 2010 7:58 PM


    Oh, note to Jill: Angie's statement that you "tried to send killers to her house" gives you excellent grounds for a libel suit against her.

    Posted by: Marauder at February 25, 2010 7:59 PM


    MissE says "congratulations on carrying on the proud anti-choice tradition of bringing up wild, irrelevant analogies..."

    MissE, analogies are the way that we (as in, all discussing philosophical ideas) examine the ethical underpinnings of the issue. Her example looked at the arguement of bodily domain. If it can not be applied to the twins, it is not a sound argument.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 25, 2010 7:59 PM


    Posted by: Maikeru48 at February 25, 2010 6:01 PM
    -----


    See the problem I have is that persons are not killed - human beings are killed.

    Could you explain how personhood is attached to your body?

    Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at February 25, 2010 8:00 PM


    Posted by: Kelsey at February 25, 2010 4:29 PM

    "Step one: Tweet your abortion with the stated goal of getting people to discuss it.
    Step two: Watch as people who disagree with you discuss it.
    Step three: Claim that Jill Stanek is trying to send killers to your house."

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

    Reminiscent of Chastity Bono 'publicly announcing' that she would be submitting to gender re-asssignment surgery and then asking the Bono informed public to respect her 'privacy'.

    Angie, if you are so self possessed that you would publicly 'tweet' your hemorhoid surgery, or prostate surgery, or breast augmentation, or penile ehancement, and then whine because some of the 'public' cricicizes or ridicules your 'choice' not only to do submit the surgery, but to inform us of your 'choice', then you are as cluesless as a potted plant.

    I do not know who to mourn more, your dearly departed child or your sperm donor.

    yor bro ken

    yor bro ken


    Posted by: kbhvac at February 25, 2010 8:01 PM


    No answer yet, at least not from any pro-choicer. So, I'm going to keep reposting until I get one:

    A man comes up to you and says "I am going to initiate an action which, after its completion, will cause you to materialize in a room with no doors, no windows, and no way out. A section of the wall will fall away 9 months from now, at which point you will be compelled to leave. The only method of sustenance for you will be 2 tubes built into the wall: 1 for feeding you, and the other to remove your waste. I will be solely responsible for feeding you and cleaning up after you. I have already decided, however, that I do not want such a responsibility, so at the time you are placed there, instead of filling your feeding tube with sustenance, I will give you poison, at which point you will die."

    Would you agree to such a thing? Would you fight this person? Why? Even if it was your mother? Why or why not?
    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 4:57 PM

    Once again, the silence says it all. "As long as it's not ME getting killed, I don't care."
    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 6:26 PM

    *crickets*

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 8:08 PM


    JoAnna,

    I love Dr. Kreeft! The apple argument is good. He has talks on pro-life logic & philosophy and a refutation of moral relativism available on his website for free download.

    http://www.peterkreeft.com/

    Posted by: psalm at February 25, 2010 8:21 PM


    Impressed: I'm so impressed with you!! I take encouragement from you that there are folks out there like you, on the fence, willing to be open to think about something in a new way, and even post about your new learning and conviction! Keep it up!

    Pamela - I'm so sorry for your loss.

    Posted by: Deb at February 25, 2010 8:33 PM


    Impressed:

    thank you so much. Hearing that is the most encouraging thing I've heard in literally a week.

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 8:51 PM


    Maikeru48: mortality rate? This is the USA. Very few women actually DIE from 'pregnancy'. This isn't India or another third world country.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 25, 2010 8:57 PM


    Pamela,
    I'm so sorry for your loss.

    Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2010 9:18 PM


    Impressed,
    I too am grateful to hear your voice on this blog!!
    There are some amazing prolifers here!!

    Hugs to you, Heather!! :)

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 25, 2010 9:20 PM


    Phillymiss wrote: "Jake: If a baby is merely a part of a woman's body, like an appendix or a thyroid gland, then why does he or she have a different set of DNA than her? "

    Ummm..where did I say that a fetus is merely part of a woman's body?? I am simply stating that a woman has a right to NOT be pregnant, even after an enjoyable night of unprotected sex. I am fully aware that eliminating a fetus is eliminating a potential human being. I am simply arguing that this CHOICE is often times better then actually bringing a child into this world. This isn't that complicated...try to keep up.

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 10:21 PM


    Pamela....I am so sorry for your loss! I am thinking of you and your sweet baby! My friend lost a baby the same age as Angies too last week. :-( All three of these babies (yours, my friends and Angie's ) are now in heaven being held by the angels.

    Artemis....why ever would you be dumb enough to sleep with a sick, psycho creep in the first place? I mean, you didn't figure out he was a sick, psycho creep until you decided to kill his baby? You obviously didn't wait to get to know him before you hopped into bed with him or you would have known he was a sick, psycho creep and you wouldn't have slept with him and aborted his baby! And we wonder why STD's are on the rise. dumb.

    Jake--I bet you do like Angie don't you? I bet you can't wait to get your hands on her and use her for your sexual gratification. And if she gets knocked up you know she'll have another abortion...and that kinda turns you on doesn't it? Thats why you support Roe V. Wade...you can use women like meat and get away with it... sleazeball. I just kow you're probably on Megan's list.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 25, 2010 10:30 PM


    Hey,

    This is the other Ed. And with all due respect to ed, I'd just like to toss out my opinion that I believe the primary purpose of sex is for enjoyment. I think it's an awesome gift for married couples.

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 10:34 PM


    Let me be even more blunt...killing a potential baby is more humane than bringing into the world addicted to crack, bringing into a world where it will be abused, sexually or physically. I love the argument that pro-choice people don't understand the consequences of an abortion. Here is a clue...and I offer this free of charge...we are aware of the consequences, we just don't think that it's all that bad. In fact, we think that a woman's right to choose overrides the potential life of a fetus.

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 10:35 PM


    Jake,

    Where do you think you will go when you die?

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 10:38 PM


    Sidney M. wrote
    "Jake--I bet you do like Angie don't you? I bet you can't wait to get your hands on her and use her for your sexual gratification. And if she gets knocked up you know she'll have another abortion...and that kinda turns you on doesn't it? Thats why you support Roe V. Wade...you can use women like meat and get away with it... sleazeball. I just kow you're probably on Megan's list."

    Haha...well played...turning my belief that a woman's right to choose is somehow a get out of free card if I impregnate a woman. What you fail to acknowledge though, is that I support a woman's right to CHOOSE!! I would post the dictionary definition for you but I gather you are smart enough to look it up yourself. Basically though, what it means is that I think it should be up to the woman to make the choice. I don't wish to force anyone to do anything. Oh wait, keep up if you can, that means I don't want to force a woman to have a baby. However, if she wants to have the baby, then I don't want to force her to abort it either. Hmmm, I guess I leave it up to her. Crazy huh?

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 10:45 PM


    Ed,
    Who knows!! Certainly not you. I feel like that I will ultimately be ok...you on the other hand..I have my doubts!!!

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 10:47 PM


    It seems like emotions are running a little high but I'm not trying to be judgmental Jake.

    I was just curious if you've ever given it much thought, about life after death.

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 10:49 PM


    It never gets old seeing the arguments of pro-choicers get annihilated by truth, scientific fact, and sound logic.

    Jake, did you bother to read the posts that came before yours?

    Posted by: segamon at February 25, 2010 10:50 PM


    "killing a potential baby is more humane than bringing into the world addicted to crack, bringing into a world where it will be abused, sexually or physically."

    As someone who has worked extensively with special needs children who were born addicted, I find you disgusting.

    As someone who has relatives that are survivors of sexual abuse, I find your words callous and inhuman.

    As someone who is a survivor of abuse, I'd like to see how you like being recommended to die, since that is what you are doing here. Please, try it sometime.

    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 10:52 PM


    yeah....you let the woman "choose". Right. I've seen you helpful men before, just sittin back and letting the women "choose". My many friends who have had abortions were met with stony silence from their partners. Cause the men were letting them "choose". The emotional desert these women were lost in...

    and in one case the boyfriend coerced my friend into aborting twice. Let me tell you about the dysfunctional anger in that relationship...phew.

    We women don't want you men to emotionally divorce yourselves from the choice. We want you to say "I love you and I love our baby and I will help you raise this child." Thats what women want..we want men to finally be MEN!

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 25, 2010 10:52 PM


    Ed..emotions are not running high, I am just fighting for what I believe. Let me ask you, where do you think you are going to go when you die, and why? I have thought about it yes. I am quite comfortable with my ultimate destination...are you, and why?

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 10:53 PM


    This is just my third post on this thread. I realize there is another ed posting here as well.

    (gotta change my user name)

    Is there anything you need right now? I'd like to pray for you.

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 10:53 PM


    I had a very real experience with God when I was 13 years old, and several since.

    He is awesome!

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 10:54 PM


    Sidney M wrote "We women don't want you men to emotionally divorce yourselves from the choice. We want you to say "I love you and I love our baby and I will help you raise this child." Thats what women want..we want men to finally be MEN!"

    Ummm...hey Sidney, here is a news flash, not all men want a baby. I think that if they are in a position where a woman is pregnant and they are involved, then they must support the woman and child financially, or support the woman if she decides to abort. Stop blaming men though, really, it is beneath women in general. If you are coerced, well, then you are weak. Sorry if that seems cruel, but really it is up to you. Embrace your power, don't shy away from it!!

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 11:00 PM


    Back in the day, many moon ago, my father had left us so the lack of supervision caused me to get into some trouble and I started smoking pot.

    I went from a straight A student to actually flunking a class in two short years of middle school.

    I met a guy who invited me to a Bible study and I accepted Christ as my Savior. I gave up smoking pot for 3 months, had no desire. I really felt like a new person.

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 11:01 PM


    That's great, lets end abuse by killing the victims. How about wiping out hunger by killing the hungry or eradicating AIDS by killing the patients.

    Posted by: Heather M at February 25, 2010 11:03 PM


    Ed....good for you! I am happy, but I am curious, did God tell you that you should interfere with a woman's body? Just curious. In your pot induced funk, did Jesus tell you that abortion is wrong? I am not being flip here (ok, I am kinda being flip), but what does you stopping smoking pot and getting good grades have to do with this issue?

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 11:03 PM


    "potential life of a fetus."

    Jake,

    Maybe I'm missing something. If the fetus is only potential life, abortionists should maybe stop wasting their energy terminating the fetuses, no?

    The life we're talking about isn't potential, and you've pretty much owned up to that fact, so why you use deceptive wording is a little confusing. Perhaps calling the fetus 'potential life' makes you sleep better at night. However, science has clearly proven that, upon conception, the fertilized ovum is, in fact, real, unique and individual human life. The potential for human life exists prior to conception.

    Your arguments and fallacious logic is all over the place. Sometimes you argue that abortion is best for the mother, sometimes you argue that abortion is better than life in unpleasant conditions... you're horribly inconsistent. Furthermore, you can't use abuse to legitimize murder. Two wrongs do not a right make.

    It's sad to see the mindset of modern 'liberated' Americans. This is where moral relativism leads. Using one unpleasant circumstance to justify another, and holding no one accountable to any set standards because 'you can't know what it's like to be them'...

    Posted by: maryrose at February 25, 2010 11:03 PM


    so then I was in a new high school where my mother thought I could get away from the drugs.

    But they found me

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 11:05 PM


    Jake wrote

    "Ummm...hey Sidney, here is a news flash, not all men want a baby."


    Yeah, I know Jake. So stop trying to make yourself out to be the champion of women's choice. you just proved my point! Its about YOU not wanting a baby. Thus the coercion. Get an abortion b**** or else!

    Oh, but if we women are too scared, or financially unprepared, or emotionally afraid or whatever to do it on our own...well then, here's Jake's pro-woman words:

    "If you are coerced, well, then you are weak. Sorry if that seems cruel, but really it is up to you"

    Your words paint the true picture Jake. you are not pro-woman. You just don't want to be bothered, period. Its up to us. Leave you out of it...don't bother you with it at all. Just get the abortion and shut up about it, right Jake? We're just weak if we feel coerced...hmm.. You're just sooooo pro-woman Jake. You're the ultimate sexist.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 25, 2010 11:09 PM


    Many things happened Jake. God made it really clear to me he didn't want me to smoke anymore. All my friends thought I was under some kind of curse because whenever I smoked, something bad would happen to me.

    It was just my loving Father correcting me.

    Also, at that time I saw a movie called Silent Scream. Have you seen it?

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 11:10 PM


    Hey Maryrose...I disagree. I have never said that a fetus is actually human life. I have maintained all along that it will become a life. I mean...that is basic biology. A woman, if impregnated, and without complications (including abortion), will ultimately give birth to a baby. This is pretty basic stuff. I argue that indeed, sometimes it is best for a mother not give birth to a baby. I also argue that sometimes it would benefit a potential baby if a mother decides to eliminate it before it is born. They are two separate issues, I just happen to think they are both relevant. I don't think I am all over the place, I just happen to think that both arguments are legit.

    Posted by: jake at February 25, 2010 11:11 PM


    This is kind of a tough format for this and it's taking awhile for my posts to load, but I just wanted you to know that Jesus is the best friend you could ever have.

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 11:12 PM


    There is another similar video here

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 11:15 PM


    That movie Silent Scream really made an impression upon me as far as abortion is concerned.

    What do you think?

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 11:17 PM


    Sidney Wrote: "Oh, but if we women are too scared, or financially unprepared, or emotionally afraid or whatever to do it on our own...well then, here's Jake's pro-woman words:

    "If you are coerced, well, then you are weak. Sorry if that seems cruel, but really it is up to you"

    Umm...yeah, that is what I said. I admitted that a man should financially support a woman and her baby. I also feel that a man should not be coerced into providing emotional support to a baby if they don't want to. I think a man is weak if he is forced into that situation. I feel a woman is weak if she is forced into having an abortion. Stop trying to twist my words so that I am forcing women into having abortions. If that is what you read, then I can't help you with basic reading comprehension. If you are too uneducated to keep up then I guess you should bow out.

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 11:19 PM


    You know what the problem is. It's getting to the end of the month and this blog is so large it's taking a while to load.

    Jill,

    I'm not sure if anyone else is having a problem with slow loading but you might want to consider archiving twice a month.

    I've got a bunch of other windows open too which isn't helping.

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 11:20 PM


    Ed,
    I think you should re-read my posts. Pointing out videos of fetuses getting aborted is not going to change my mind. It is irrelevant to my point of view. I believe that a woman's choice overrides the potential life of a fetus, and that often times it is beneficial to eliminate a fetus when the circumstances are not ideal. I realize that this is not in line with the majority of the readers of this blog, but that is what I believe. Also, your Jesus comment is irrelevant, I have a lot of great friends that I would put far ahead of Jesus.

    Posted by: jake at February 25, 2010 11:24 PM


    Impressed, welcome to this side of the fence; you just made my day.

    A friend of mine who does pro-life missionary work full-time recently commented that when it comes to knowledge about human reproduction and development, pro-lifers are some of the best-educated out there. We really do know our facts. Some do get too emotionally worked-up at times to debate, but the majority of us are still able to succinctly and coherently argue our case long after the other side has run out of "facts." [Such as the mortality rate from abortion v. childbirth: 1.62 times higher risk of death (from all causes) in women who abort than in women who give birth, 2.5 times higher risk of suicide. Source: Southern Medical Journal, 2002. The latest findings I can find that supported that childbirth is riskier than abortion are based on a study published in JAMA in 1982, conducted between 1972 & 1978, by "the Family Planning Evaluation Division, Center for Health Promotion and Education" of the CDC. Maybe not the least biased source....? (Anyone else out there know of other, more recent sources supporting this?)]

    In addition to knowing our facts, I personally think many of us go to great pains to obtain them from "neutral" sources, as we are aware that abortion advocates are probably not going to respect anything other than that. I can't say that my experience has been the same when it comes to "the other side." I don't want to stereotype; I'm just saying that that has been my experience.

    I am very happy to see your well-worded epiphany and hope I speak for all of us when I say we hope to hear more from you in the future. You seem like a logical, and respectful person. I'd be happy to correspond more with you...


    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Pamela, my dear, I am so sorry to hear of your loss. I fully sympathize...our little one was between 8 & 10 weeks.
    Praying for you & your loved ones.

    Posted by: Lisa at February 25, 2010 11:24 PM


    No Jake, the fetus doesn't "become" a life. That is not basic biological fact. I am not as learned as Gerard Nadal, but I was a bio major in college (my emphasis was entomology, none the less, it is a branch of zoology and so I think a I know a thing or two about prenatal development of different species). And again, I do not currently work in the field of science...but as far as I remember, my biology textbook said human life begins at conception. It is only the moment of conception (not implantation, not birth) that 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 chromosomes from the father combine to form a genetically unique human being.

    As a mom, I had my first ultrasound at 5 weeks after conception. Thats about as old as Angie's murdered baby. My son had a head, with a FACE, arms and legs jutting out and a huge beating heart in the middle of his chest. He was very much a live. It didn't take a genius to see that. He looked human. Maybe he didn't look exactly like me, but even now as a three year old he doesn't look like me or his father. He is a child. As an embryo and a fetus, he was still my son, just in a different phase of development. As a toddler he doesn't look like he did when he was unborn, nor does he look like he will as a teenager.. but his looks have nothing to do with his humanity.

    And let me tell you about his dependence on me. Holy cow. It was easier to be pregnant. He is so DEMANDING of my time and attention...all day long I have to feed him, play with him, wash his hands, help him potty, read to him...I mean if dependence is the prerequisite for personhood then maybe my son still hasn't achieved it.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 25, 2010 11:25 PM


    I meant independence is a prerequisite for humanity. My brain is mush at this late hour...I'm going to bed cause I know my little boy will be up at the crack of dawn!

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 25, 2010 11:28 PM


    "I mean...that is basic biology"

    It's basic biology that by the time most women realize she's pregnant (8 weeks or so?) her child already has eyes, hands, feet, and a beating heart. Every person no matter what age has potential but they are always human, from their very beginning.

    "Your words paint the true picture Jake. you are not pro-woman. You just don't want to be bothered, period. Its up to us. Leave you out of it...don't bother you with it at all. Just get the abortion and shut up about it, right Jake? We're just weak if we feel coerced...hmm.. You're just sooooo pro-woman Jake. You're the ultimate sexist."

    Exactly. Jake, are you honestly saying that any woman who is 'coerced' into anything is just weak? I guess any woman who is coerced into having sex when she doesn't want to is a-okay too. And the women who are in an abusive relationship they have trouble getting out of- just weak people that shouldn't reproduce.
    Sickening.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at February 25, 2010 11:28 PM


    Jake,

    I never read your posts, just kind of jumped in at the end there.

    I realize you would put your friends ahead of Jesus because you don't know Him.

    You don't know what you're missing.

    Well I'm on eastern time, gotta hit it.

    Good night.

    Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 11:29 PM


    Sidney,
    Ok...fine, I will rephrase my position.I believe that a woman's choice overrides the life of a fetus (I removed "potential" for you), and that often times it is beneficial to eliminate a fetus when the circumstances are not ideal. Is that better?

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 11:31 PM


    Jake,

    according to merriam-webster.com/

    Life
    1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

    Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but all of those definitions fit an embryo. Furthermore, as human embryos have human DNA which is unique from their parents' DNA signatures, the human embryo is absolutely human life.

    By the way, your words "killing a potential baby" indicate your acceptance of the reality of the embryo's life (otherwise killing him/her would be impossible), if not the personhood of the embryo. You accepted before I ever mentioned it, the life of the fetus. I never said you accepted the fetus as human, although it isn't actually in question. Fact is, from the moment of conception, the fertilized ovum that results from the procreative act of a human male & female is distinctly human. Not potentially human. DNA signature is determined at conception, and therefore, the zygote is neither undefinable nor 'part of the mother'. He or she has a specific genetic signature unique to him or her, complete with gender, by the way.

    In case that wasn't clear enough for you, the human zygote/embryo/fetus is a living human from the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg. Denial of this fact is just that-denial.

    Posted by: maryrose at February 25, 2010 11:33 PM


    Prettyinpink..

    So is it okay to coerce a man into being a father? Just curious, and answer carefully. I do not believe in coercion at all. Not sure how you got that I do. No one should be coerced, including coerced into having a baby. I swear, trying to twist words is a weak way to win an argument. Let me try to state it as plainly as possible:
    1) I don't think a woman should be forced to have a baby
    2) I don't think a woman should be forced to have an abortion
    3) I don't think a man should be forced to provide emotional support to a baby he doesn't want
    4) I do think a man has responsibility to support mother and child if woman decides to give birth
    5) I don't think any man or woman has the right to force the opposite (or same sex) partner to have sex

    Is this clear???

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 11:39 PM


    You can rephrase away. I dont think anyone's "choice" should ever override anyone else's life. So I don't I should be able to say "Hey...my son is being such a brat today. I don't choose motherhood anymore. I am going to get rid of this toddler." Some women have done that...Susan Smith, Andrea Yates...go to parentsbehavingbadly--that website is full of women making the choice to rid themselves of their children. Don't their choices override their kid's lives? Or only in the first 9 months? Why only in the first 9 months...why not after birth too? WHY NOT?

    Circumstances change Jake. Abortion is forever. My friend had an abortion coerced by her parents. She was a drunk after that. Then years later got pregnant again. Planned another abortion as she faced pressure by family again. I was able to talk with her (she was my employee). I encouraged her to have her baby.

    She did. Today her little girl is 2. All the circumstances that were leading her family to say "just get rid of it" are GONE. She is married to the father, they have a nice little house, they both stopped drinking and grew up and the father got a good job and they are responsible with their money (finally!) and the mom is back in school. She actually thanked me for talking her out of the abortion. She held her newborn baby girl in the hospital and cried "I can't believe I almost threw her away!" I will never forget that moment. Abortion solves no problems Jake.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 25, 2010 11:41 PM


    Maryrose,
    See my repsonse to Sidney...I will repost for you.

    "Ok...fine, I will rephrase my position.I believe that a woman's choice overrides the life of a fetus (I removed "potential" for you), and that often times it is beneficial to eliminate a fetus when the circumstances are not ideal. Is that better?"

    Let me further illustrate, a woman's choice overrides the human zygote/embryo/fetus that you boringly define in your post.

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 11:43 PM


    Pamela, I'm so sorry for your loss! My grandmother lost a few children to miscarriage, and she said that if the Lord took them, then Heaven must have needed another angel.

    Jake, a fetus is not a potential life. When cells split and breathe oxygen, that means there is life. Something that is dead doesn't breathe, and it's cells don't split.

    You "pro-choicers" (as if you really give a woman all of the information she needs to make an informed choice) usually argue that abortion is a considerable amount safer than childbirth, but now you're saying that you know that it is deadly, you just don't care? Have you been to the RealChoice site? Have you read the many, MANY horrific abortion stories? How deranged do you have to be to think that to cause a person that kind of mutilation and abuse is alright?

    Posted by: Amy at February 25, 2010 11:46 PM


    Jake: own up to your words.
    " do not believe in coercion at all. Not sure how you got that I do."
    You do not seem to have a problem with coercion if you stand by your previous statement. The person coercing the woman in question is not at fault there; only the woman is. I find the carelessness in that remark appalling.

    " I swear, trying to twist words is a weak way to win an argument."
    There was no 'trying'. The nature of your statement reads the same way the following does. Regarding "coerced sex", stop blaming men though, really. If you are coerced, well, then you are weak. Sorry if that seems cruel, but really it is up to you. Embrace your power, don't shy away from it!!
    You don't find anything wrong with the way you word that? Doesn't take a lot of 'twisting' to read something disturbed in that.

    If you truly believe that women should not be coerced, why not apologize and take back your previous statement?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at February 25, 2010 11:49 PM


    Sidney,
    Well bully for you and your friend. And actually, bully for me too. I have two wonderful boys!!! I am grateful for them everyday. However, I am not naive to think that Abortion solves no problems....I know for a fact that abortion solves many problems. Maybe not for you, maybe not for me, maybe not for your friend, but trust me, cause I speak from experience, abortion can and does solve many problems. And again, a woman should have ultimate control over her body, and yes, that overrides the life of a zygote.

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 11:50 PM


    Jake,

    Hey, if your conscience allows you to support the killing of living humans because they're inconvenient or might suffer during their lifetime, you just vote that way. I just wanted you to admit it's human life we're talking about and not merely "potential life".

    I never expected you to walk away from the convenience of moral relativism.

    Have a lovely evening.

    Posted by: maryrose at February 25, 2010 11:52 PM


    i think its a riot Jake tries to imply that I am somehow stupid or uneducated and yet he can't grasp the concept that coercion can be passive

    A man can coerce a woman into an abortion by saying "Have an abortion or I'll

    a) break up with you
    b) kick you out of the apartment
    c) withhold financial support
    d) kill you

    or a man can say "Well, hey, its your decision. But I don't want to be coerced into fatherhood. I don't want to be a father. So you're on your own if you want to continue the pregnancy but it really is your choice." And then he emotionally retreats, and becomes unavailable emotionally. THAT IS COERCION Jake! This isn't rocket science here.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 25, 2010 11:54 PM


    Which 'problems' has abortion solved Jake?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at February 25, 2010 11:55 PM


    Maryrose,
    My conscience is clean...thanks though.

    Pretty in Pink
    Please point out where I said that coercion is acceptable. I think it is deplorable. I also think that there is an element of weakness to those who allow themselves to be coerced. But I do see your point, I was a bit harsh. I am not for coercion, I do not wish to see anyone coerced, nor do I wish to see anyone coercing another person. I hope that clears things up for you.

    Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2010 11:58 PM


    Sydney you are ON it today!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at February 25, 2010 11:58 PM


    So a woman can only kill a zygote? You do realize how early that is in the pregnancy right, Jake? So once the child is an embryo, fetus, toddler, teen...no more life overriding, huh? your choice of words is interesting to me. It was a fetus, then an embryo, now you're using the scientific term "zygote" in an effort to dehumanize the unborn. nice try.

    When did your boys become human beings with rights? It is sad to me a father would have such a cold heart towards children.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 26, 2010 12:00 AM


    Sidney,
    I think it is a RIOT that you think that I am supporting coercion. I do not. I don't think a man should coerce a woman, nor do I think a woman should coerce a man.

    Posted by: Jake at February 26, 2010 12:00 AM


    Alright all...this has been lovely...but I do have to work tomorrow!!! Have a lovely evening, and to all the women out there, be strong!!! Don't let the man get you down!!!

    Posted by: Jake at February 26, 2010 12:05 AM


    "Please point out where I said that coercion is acceptable."

    You.just.don't.get.it. The MINUTE you say that coercion is just the result of a "weak mind" that is when you put blame on the object in question. You don't have to say "I think coercion is acceptable" to imply as such. Context Jake!

    Don't just say it for us though. Think about how you said that and internalize it a bit. What does it mean to say the woman is 'weak'? What does it mean to say that a woman is 'strong'? The fact that you have a view of women's decision making as a dynamic between 'weak' women and 'strong' women, rather than women and the men they create their children with in an equal partnership- that is an unhealthy view. Just think about it.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at February 26, 2010 12:06 AM


    how does a woman coerce a man, Jake? The man CHOSE to have sex, right? I mean, the woman didn't tie the man down and ride him like a cowgirl, right? meaning, she didn't rape the poor man! The man chose to have sex. i mean, I think , I THINK most adults know where babies come from

    Sex makes babies Jake. If you have sex you KNOW you could impregnate a woman. So if you CHOOSE to take those risks and the woman does get pregnant it IS coercion if you walk away from that woman and say "Hey! Don't coerce me into fatherhood! Don't be weak! Do it on your own!" That is coercion. It most certainly is!

    I was on the pill when I conceived my son. My husband was not actively trying to become a father but yet he assumed those risks when he had sex with me. I conceived. If my husband had said " Hey I am not ready for fatherhood." that would be a form of coercion. He is PASSIVELY coercing me towards his choice that i abort.

    Thank God my husband is a good, kind man who loves life. He and I were shocked, scared..I won't bore you with all the details but there were a lot of "circumstances" going on that could have easily led to an abortion. but I never wanted an abortion. I wanted my husband to be a man and stand up and tell me he loved me and wanted our child. And he did. And thats why i am madly in-love with him till this day. It is incredibly sexy to me to see a man that values his wife and his children.

    Alright. Nice debate, Jake. But I'm out. I am gonna be so tired tomorrow morning! Have a good night.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 26, 2010 12:09 AM


    Sorry, one more post for Sidney...as I stated before to Maryrose....
    "Let me further illustrate, a woman's choice overrides the human zygote/embryo/fetus that you boringly define in your post." I really don't care what you call it. I am just using your words so you can keep up. Call it what you want...but ultimately, a woman has a right to her body, which includes eliminating a zygote, embryo, fetus. Toddlers and teenagers are irrelevant to the conversation since they are, you know, outside the mothers womb. Good night to all the lovely ladies out there!!! Be Strong!!!

    Posted by: Jake at February 26, 2010 12:11 AM


    While I don't agree with Jake's attitude in general regarding abortion, I do think he right regarding an ADULT woman's culpability in choosing to have an abortion. Ultimately, she is the one who makes the decision. Unless we are talking about violence, no one can force her to go against her will.

    No strong minded, intelligent woman with a sense of self worth would have a medical procedure as drastic as an abortion if that is not what she wants. A guy could threaten to leave her and scream all he wants about not wanting to have a child, but a smart women is able to realize this is just a guy who has no right to tell her to undergo someting she can't undo. A woman with self-respect would cut him to the curb anyway for not caring about her feelings. Only a women so under a man's control that she can't make her own family and medical decisions would allow herself to be coerced. That is clearly a form of weekness. As someone who dumped a guy for pressuring me to get breast implants I can see that.

    Posted by: Nicole at February 26, 2010 12:22 AM


    I will point out that female-on-male rape is more common than some people think...

    Posted by: bmmg39 at February 26, 2010 12:37 AM


    Hey...where are all the "girl power!" PC gals to look at Jake's post? On twitter the other day they were talking about how PC men need to speak up...well there it was! If a man gets you to do something you don't really want to through manipulation, it's YOUR weak little fault.

    "Don't let the man get you down!!!"

    We're not, Jake. Not anymore. It's time for dudes like you to step up to the plate.

    Posted by: xalisae at February 26, 2010 12:54 AM


    OK, first of all, I am firmly pro-life. And FWIW, I'm Catholic. I couldn't believe all these comments and don't have the time to read all the tweets, but . . . I feel sorry for her.

    I went to her blog. I almost wonder if she was even pregnant. She actually sounds like a nice, but damaged, woman who is mentally ill - which she discusses openly on her blog, so I am not trying to insult her.

    She talked about being on/off her meds, starting around Christmas until about January 17th - that was as far back as I felt like reading. Look at the drugs she was supposedly on. If she just quit taking them as directed, who knows where her mind was? Her body was probably in withdrawal and she looked and sounded strange. Where in the world are the RL people who are supposed to care about her? That so called "man" in her life sounds like a loser, so why is she the only one being demonized?

    The dates somehow don't seem to add up re the supposed pregnancy, either. Is there any chance this is a hoax that got out of hand?

    So who knows? And the part about going back for more pills doesn't ring true. If the first dosage didn't "work", repeating it could have killed her, and it's hard to believe that even the most incompetent abortionist on the planet would run that risk for $500. But it wasn't clear which "pills" she went back for, she was on so many.

    Without condoning what she did, if she really did abort herself, I hope she gets a good attorney to go after the abortionist who gave deadly chemicals - apparently twice - to a mentally ill woman without doing a history of current and recent medications, or consulting with the mental health person who prescribed them. Informed consent? Then narcotics and two different antibiotics, without warning her that the vicodin itself could have caused her vomiting. Can you spell malpractice? The abortionist seems to have a DEA license so maybe it needs to be reviewed a little early.

    If she really did abort herself, may the baby RIP. If this is a hoax, may she find some practical help around the apartment, like cleaning and childcare. She actually needs that anyway from the sounds of it.

    Funny timing too -- just as they are trying to pass a very pro abortion health care bill that America has rejected, here comes a poster child for abortion. It might be more fruitful to start calling Congress, instead of helping this sad story go viral. Either way, she needs to heal.

    It's too late at night for this. I need some sleep. PP gives me nightmares they are so evil.

    Posted by: sabella at February 26, 2010 12:54 AM


    Hi Jill, thanks you for the outstanding job you do here. And thanks for exposing all of Angie's lies.

    It's a shame that ABC did such a horrible job journalistic-ally, but what else can we expect from the dinosaur media?

    I do have on small complaint. That video is showing a drawing of a 4 week old baby that is not accurate. That specific drawing seems to based on the what we now know are the bogus Haeckel embryo drawings.

    Here is an actual photo of an embryo at 4 weeks gestation. http://archive.student.bmj.com/issues/1204/education/images/view_3.jpg

    Posted by: Cherie28 at February 26, 2010 1:30 AM


    Posted by: Jake at February 26, 2010 12:11 AM
    ------

    Jake - do you depend upon others to not kill violently you?

    Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 26, 2010 5:46 AM


    Nicole,
    We know that we are responsible. But post abortive women have been LIED to, deceived, coerced and forced to abort. I was never shown an ultrasound, I was never told a thing about fetal development, I was never told I COULD have the child or put it up for adoption. I was told it was a bunch of cells. Man, did I learn the hard way. Yet, I got what I paid for, didn't I? My daughter died. Call it weakness, call it weak minded call it stupid, call it whatever you want but I wanted help and abortion was sold to me as help. I was alone in my decision. I was terrified. It was not discussed as "drastic" it was nothing, a simple procedure, no big deal, you can get on with your life. I BOUGHT THE LIES, Nicole.

    You may not have read enough abortion stories of regret. http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org
    A good place to start.


    Maybe you could watch my story as well
    http://outcrywisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-story-at-faith-community-church.html

    That is for you too, Jake. :)

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 26, 2010 6:52 AM


    I understand the need to blame someone for abortion so why not the women getting them? For those who already feel such shame and loss of self the judgment only drives us to silence.

    The blame can be place squarely on the Evil One. The Prince of Darkness. I am talking about Satan who is the deceiver. The evil that is abortion was his idea. He revels in the destruction of unborn human life.

    How will abortion be ended??
    They will overcome him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony. Revelation 12:11
    Abortion stories of regret will help to bring the evil industry down.

    Pray to end abortion.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 26, 2010 7:17 AM


    Jake: So you think it's better for a child to be aborted than be born and end up being abused. So if, God forbid, some pedophile kidnapped your sons and sexually abused them, would you think it would have been better if your sons had never been born?

    Back when there was slavery in America, slaves were abused. Do you think it would have been better if all the little slave babies had been aborted?

    You would never have the guts to look an abused person in the eye and tell them, "It would have been better if you had never been born. Here's a list of some famous people who were abused as children. According to you, it would have been better for all these people if their mothers had aborted them.

    Oprah Winfrey
    Maya Angelou
    Tom Petty
    Chevy Chase
    Sinead O'Connor
    Christina Aguilera
    Sandra Dee
    Billie Holliday
    Carlos Santana
    Fiona Apple
    Marilyn Monroe
    Missy Elliot
    Johannes Brahms
    Virginia Woolf
    Ellen DeGeneres
    Josephine Baker
    Andrew Jackson
    Harriet Tubman

    Lauren: Thanks. :)

    Posted by: Marauder at February 26, 2010 7:47 AM


    Abortion doesn't always create problems, much as the pro-life side may not want to admit it. I grew up in a pro-life household and was told the same thing my whole childhood- women who choose abortion always regret it. I got married at 20 and had my daughter at 23. I was ecstatic to find out I was pregnant again when she was 8 months old. When I was about 4 months along, I found out that there were severe problems with our second baby. We transferred care to a high risk doctor, planned to give birth at a hospital with an NICU and went from there. A later ultrasound found out that my son had no kidneys, a hole in his heart, all of his internal abdominal organs were outside of his body and I had no amniotic fluid. He had no chance of survival. The doctor offered a termination and all I could say was "I don't believe in abortion". But then I started to lose weight, I started to swell from water retention. I was in severe depression, I was unable to work, I could barely care for my 14 month old daughter. So after talking with my husband and my doctor, we induced labor at 26 weeks. My son was born with bruises on his face from where he was banging against my uterus due to the lack of amniotic fluid. His leg was bent backwards from the lack of room in my uterus. He was not being cared for by my body, my body was abusing him. I held him until he died peacefully in my arms. I read story after story of how I would regret my choice and five years later I still think I did the right thing for my family. And as for the good that came from it? I still miss him everyday but I was able to move forward, and begin to heal three months earlier. I was able to get pregnant again right around my due date and in the following year I gave birth to a little boy who I wouldn't trade for the world. Had I carried to term, my almost four year year old wouldn't be here. He has a speech and language disability, which prompted me to go back to school and I am close to graduating with my certification in teaching children children with speech and hearing disabilities. My experience did not destroy me and I don't regret it at all. The only thing that I wish is that he hadn't had to suffer.
    And for whoever said that it was a lie that you couldn't have a child and an education? It may be true that you can do school and have kids, but it's not a path I would recommend. It's worked for me because I have a supportive husband, a mom who watches my kids for me whenever I need and sisters who help out whenever they can, but even still this has been the hardest thing I've ever done. I survive on little sleep, I've missed classes due to having to take them to the doctor, which has affected my grades. I was consistently unable to make it to one of my classes on time because of my two year old having a hard time getting dropped off in the morning at daycare, which caused me to miss a quiz and cost me a letter grade in that class. I wouldn't give my kids up for anything, but I can see why someone wouldn't be anxious to jump into this situation, especially if they don't have a supportive partner and family.

    Posted by: J. at February 26, 2010 8:49 AM


    A REAL MAN does not abort his child(ren) or encourage the mother to abort their child(ren). A REAL man embraces fatherhood and ALL of his children, BORN & UNBORN. A REAL MAN knows that abortion is SHIRKING responsibility.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 26, 2010 8:53 AM


    Maikeru48:

    You are a poster child for secular humanism.

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at February 26, 2010 9:09 AM


    J, from the sound of your story that is not an abortion. No one is saying it is immoral to induce labor early if the mother's life is in danger. If your life was truly in danger and you had to induce labor and your son died that was not the intention to KILL your son. Your intention was to end a dangerous pregnancy and unfortunately your son died. Your son had so many medical problems, but I know if you could have saved him you would have done anything to do that.

    I know women who had such high blood pressure they had to induce labor at 24, 25 weeks to save the mother. The babies died unfortunately but that was not the intent. The intent was to save the mother. Its not like you allowed the doctor to mutilate your son in your womb to kill him. You were trying to save your life. I am sorry for your loss. I have a son too...and I can't imagine your pain. I'm so sorry.

    Nicole...what you say is NOT TRUE. I have a few friends who have aborted. They are not weak-minded little girls. And yet they were coerced into abortion. A lot of the coercion were subtle threats to withdraw love, friendship and support if they did not have an abortion. My friends did not WANT abortions. In fact the one friend was so torn up about it she became quite a drunk. Another friend is just an angry bitter person today. The other friend bottled all her emotions concerning her two abortions but now has been trying to conceive a fourth child (her first two were aborted and then she had a boy) and she hasn't been able to conceive in the last three years and doctors tell her she may never be able to again. I know she resents her boyfriend for pressuring her to abort and I know she looks at her son and feels anguish that she took his siblings from him.

    Strong women can be coerced. I used to think the same as you, that no woman would choose abortion is she didn't WANT it, right? But now I see I was so so wrong. Women don't want it, and thats what makes me so fuming mad at men like Jake who withdraw support and love from pregnant partners and claim its not coercion! Women deserve better than abortion!

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 26, 2010 9:15 AM


    Sydney, Amen!

    Don't forget parents either. When I was in highschool, my mother told me if I got pregnant she would make me abort or kick me out of the house.

    That's quite a threat to a 16 year old. I never got pregnant while under her roof, but I know if I had, she would have followed through on her promise.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2010 9:46 AM


    Another woman is also livetweeting her abortion http://twitter.com/nextthurs

    Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2010 9:58 AM


    Hello.
    I have read MOST of these posts, but had to just stop and say something...

    I always thought of myself as pro-choice. It never really seemed like a question to me, it was obvious that I shouldn`t force my view on someone else. I also never thought about what I would do if I got pregnant. I had some friends who had abortions, and some who didn`t.

    And then, 3 weeks ago, I thought I was pregnant. And, even though I was terrified, I also started to think about what I was going to do when my baby was born.
    THAT was the moment that I became pro-life. Even though it turned out I wasn`t pregnant, I loved my baby from the first moment. I realized that I could NEVER kill my baby, my child, and just continue with my life.

    Well, that is all, I guess.

    Just wanted to share :)

    Posted by: jodes at February 26, 2010 10:07 AM


    Question-what kind of follow up is done on women who chemically abort? Do they just wait and see if infection sets in? How would you know if the 'process' has been completed?

    Posted by: Jill Guidry at February 26, 2010 10:08 AM


    Jodes, thanks for sharing your story. :)

    Jill, I think it depends on the clinic.

    This whole thing just makes me so sad. I guess what really bothers me is how callous these women are about killing their children. Even if we accept their premise that they do not have an obligation to continue their pregnancy, it still isn't something to be celebrated.

    It's sort of like how we don't have an obligation to save a drowning child. Even if someone chooses not to save the child, you would think they would consider him for a second. Having a party and dancing over his grave would be disgusting.

    Yet, that's exactly what these women are doing. It breaks my heart.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 26, 2010 10:12 AM


    Lauren, that is so sad! I don't have a daughter yet, but if I ever do I know I will tell her that if she got pregnant I would hep her be the best mom she could be. That is truly sad.

    My friend who was a drunk was coerced into her abortion by her mom, so I hear what you're saying. After the abortion this girl would go to every bar in town and get drunk. Then she would call her mom and her mom would come pick her up. When my friend would get in the car she would scream at her mom "I hate you! you made me have an abortion!"

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 26, 2010 10:19 AM


    J,
    I am so sorry for what you have been through.

    I echo what Sydney has said. I have a friend who went through the same thing. An infection had set in and was killing her. The pregnancy had to end or she would have died. Labor had to be induced and her little boy later died in her arms. She loves her son, he has a place in her family, a place in her heart. In no way does she think she had an abortion. She would probably slap someone in the face for even suggesting it. :)

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 26, 2010 10:24 AM


    It is crazy how so many people are drawn to madness. I hope this whole twitter thing leads to people seeing how insane abortion is.

    Posted by: why does abortion exist at February 26, 2010 10:27 AM


    Oh jodes, praise the Lord! I remember that you've been on this blog for a while. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 26, 2010 10:30 AM


    J,

    Thank you so much for sharing. I agree with Sydney- you did NOT have an abortion. Your story brings up an excellent point that many pro-choicers misunderstand about right-to-lifers. We do not believe that every pregnancy needs to be carried to full term, such as in your case. You did not have your child killed. You removed the child, with the hopes that he would survive, but with all likelihood that he would die. However, not taking any action would have resulted in possibly your death, so something had to be done. But KILLING is what can never be done. There is a WORLD of difference between what you did (removing the child to save your life, hoping that he would live) and an abortion (directly killing an innocent unborn as a means or an end). I would have made the exact same choice in your situation and would probably advise anyone else to do the same. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 26, 2010 10:35 AM


    I would just like to say that the pro-abort tactic of separating 'person' from 'human life' is a detestable lie.

    We're talking about life and they think playing semantics is valid. How sick is that?

    It's a life, it's human, it's a PERSON from conception and you gave up your choice not to be pregnant when you CHOSE to have sex. It is NOT your body. I'm 42 and still a virgin and it absolutely sickens me how people think choosing someone else's death over avoiding sex is a valid choice. Sometimes the evil and blindness in this world astound me. This girl Angie is one selfish self-absorbed unit.

    Posted by: Mark at February 26, 2010 10:49 AM


    Hey Bobby, I`m surprised anyone remembered me :)

    Posted by: jodes at February 26, 2010 10:56 AM


    Oh of course! Like Alexandra and others before you, you were an EXTREMELY reasonable pro-choicer in the sense that you were easy to talk to and not throwing around fighting, mean-spirited, and uncharitable words. I could genuinely tell that while you felt strongly about your beliefs, you sincerely wanted to know ours and why we believed teh way we did. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 26, 2010 11:21 AM


    Bobby, you are so kind!
    I believe that for any choice I make, whether it`s to take a certain job, sign up for soccer or move in with my boyfriend, it is not a true choice unless you are actually informed.

    Also, I find that the best way to become informed is to go where there are differing view points and I can ask questions or talk with many different people.

    And, although I haven`t said anything for a LONG while, I still come and read all the time... slightly addicted I am... :)

    Honestly, the best reading is one where people are passionate, different, and still manage to be respectful.

    Posted by: jodes at February 26, 2010 11:27 AM


    Heck, I even remember Oliver commenting on how reasonable and down to earth you were... and Oliver is not an easy dude to impress!

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 26, 2010 11:29 AM


    aaahhh, careful with the compliments, or my head will swell!

    Also, thanks! Made me smile to be remembered, and so nicely too!

    Posted by: jodes at February 26, 2010 11:34 AM


    Jodes,

    In all of our lives, tests such as the one you describe come our way. As St Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:13, God keeps His promise and provides us with a way out. You listened to the voice of God within you and responded with the faith of a mother's heart, knowing that somehow it will all work out. That's the epitome of womanly beauty.

    Your children, when they come, will be blessed with you for a mother! Thank you for shining your light in all of our lives today.

    God Bless

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 26, 2010 12:00 PM


    Mark: Good for you. :) There are so many people who think there's something wrong with reaching a certain age without having had sex (and whatever that age is seems to be dropping, unfortunately). That's why I was pleasantly surprised by that movie "The 40-Year-Old Virgin"; I thought it was just going to be about making fun of the guy because he was a virgin, but by the end of the movie he's decided that there's nothing wrong with being a virgin and he doesn't have sex until after he and his girlfriend get married. (And not even because of religious principles, either - just because that's what he and his girlfriend decide to do.)

    Posted by: Marauder at February 26, 2010 12:01 PM


    "Call it what you want...but ultimately, a woman has a right to her body, which includes eliminating a zygote, embryo, fetus. Toddlers and teenagers are irrelevant to the conversation since they are, you know, outside the mothers womb."

    Aha! So, in your mind, Jake, abortion is ok as long as you can't see the fetus? Try http://www.abortionno.org and look at what aborted people look like outside the womb.

    Man up and do that - then we can have an honest discussion about human rights.

    Posted by: 3 sons at February 26, 2010 12:13 PM


    Gerard, thank you for that!! I always wonder now if I am going to be a good mother, and that is the most wonderful compliment you could have given me.
    Thank you so much for that.

    Posted by: jodes at February 26, 2010 12:17 PM


    J - thanks for sharing your heartbreaking story. I agree with the prolifers here that what you did was much different than those of women who abort for social reasons.

    Posted by: Phillymiss at February 26, 2010 12:56 PM


    J - in your case, that was NOT an abortion. You wanted your son and the early induction was to save BOTH of you. Unfortunately, your son died after birth. The big difference is YOU held him til he died.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 26, 2010 1:43 PM


    Jodes,

    You're welcome. When my wife gave birth to our son, our first child, I saw depths of love that were astounding from a girl that I already knew as one of the most loving I'd ever known.

    Your decision to keep what you thought was the child within your womb was an act of removing any barrier to passionately loving your children. When they arrive, that love will flow like a raging river, of that you may be sure.

    God Bless You.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 26, 2010 3:35 PM


    Gee, no proabort spin on that ABC piece, was there? Angie is painted as some kind of saint, and they conveniently ignored the hundreds of times she used the soapbox built on her dead babys back to abuse others. She lobbed enough f-bombs to nuke a third world country, and *shes* the victim? Oh, my bad, radical feminazis are always the victims, especially when they are the aggressors. Business as usual for the loony left. Speaking of, while Angie have the nads to post a comment here, or will she just keep sending her minions in to do her dirty work for her? Feh.

    Posted by: Jill Guidry at February 26, 2010 4:19 PM


    Wow, JAKE my friend, crack open a biology book or do a google search on when human life begins. And yes, I have a degree in science and work in the medical field.

    A fetus is not a "potential" life, it is an ACTUAL life and a potential adult. It is an embryonic human, a fetal human, a newborn human, a teenage human....

    I simply don't have the time to point out the numerous flaws in your logic. It seems to me you are arguing with emotion and not reason.

    You think it's ok to kill an innocent human person because of potential circumstances which could negatively impact them? Huh? How does that work? How can you predict the future? How do you arbitrarily decide that baby x will have a less than desirable life (by your standards) so its ok to kill them in the womb? YOU may experience hardship, pain, sickness, addiction... in your life. Should someone be able to kill you to save you from potential harm? Does that sound sane to you?

    Why should't the fetal human have the same rights as you or I?


    Who would be so arrogant or insane to decide they have the power to dictate the standards by which human life may be snuffed out in the womb?

    Posted by: psalm at February 26, 2010 4:50 PM


    Ms. Jackson posted a link to the I'm Not Sorry website. Have you ever read these stories, from post-abortive moms who claim to be perfectly happy with their "choice"?

    "The cramps kept coming. I felt a bizarre urge to push. Strange, since there was no real baby being birthed, but really, if you think about it, my body was essentially doing the same, just in miniature.

    "After a few more minutes of intense cramps, I saw it.

    "That’s right. I saw the embryo. A little clump of whitish-pink. I cupped it in my hand. I stared at that little cluster of ‘what might have been’ in wonder. In that moment, I loved it.

    "Then I let it go. " -Mariah's Story


    "When I got to the hospital I was terrified, but I somehow gained this inner strength, knowing that it was what I had to do, and that it was right. I was the first of the day, and the procedure from the time I laid on the table to they helping me up, was not even 5 minutes... and I won't sugarcoat it, it did hurt as I know everyone knows that its not exactly a good time, but its not mind shattering pain, and it's over as quick as it comes, when they helped me up I said God please forgive me, and it was over."-Abbi's Story

    "Having an abortion was the hardest thing I’ve ever done… I thought I would regret it, and be sad but that so wasn’t true… I mean I was sad for about a week but then I thought about it less and less… now I almost never think about it…"-Vickey's Story

    "I was scared, and Adam wasn’t helping. He agreed to come with me to the clinic the next morning. He never showed. The other women at the clinic were supportive, and I felt like I wasn’t doing it alone. I took the first pill and went to a job fair. I went to my part-time job the next day, and took the pills at night. Adam was supposed to be with me – he showed up after going to a party. I went through it alone."-Julie's Story

    "My mother and I got up really early to go to the abortion clinic and I cried the whole way to the clinic. I had a feeling like I was playing God, that I was interfering with God’s plan and it made me feel really horrible. When I got there protesters were in the front of the clinic screaming at me and my mother about what we were doing was wrong and evil. I remember sitting in the room of other expectant mothers and all these other girls where acting like nothing was wrong. They were acting like they were at a normal doctor just to get a check-up. I sat there feeling guilty but I had to remind myself that it was best for me at the time. The abortion was easy and the pain was tolerable. I cried for like 2 days after that. And can you believe that the boy that had gotten me pregnant had the nerve to ask me back out after the abortion?"-Heather's Story


    These girls ALL sound upset, hurt, and in complete denial. These are their happy stories?

    Posted by: maryrose at February 26, 2010 5:06 PM


    Oh yeah. Sounds like abortion solved all their problems, and they weren't sad about it in the least.

    Posted by: xalisae at February 26, 2010 5:26 PM


    No answer yet, at least not from any pro-choicer. So, I'm going to keep reposting until I get one:

    A man comes up to you and says "I am going to initiate an action which, after its completion, will cause you to materialize in a room with no doors, no windows, and no way out. A section of the wall will fall away 9 months from now, at which point you will be compelled to leave. The only method of sustenance for you will be 2 tubes built into the wall: 1 for feeding you, and the other to remove your waste. I will be solely responsible for feeding you and cleaning up after you. I have already decided, however, that I do not want such a responsibility, so at the time you are placed there, instead of filling your feeding tube with sustenance, I will give you poison, at which point you will die."

    Would you agree to such a thing? Would you fight this person? Why? Even if it was your mother? Why or why not?
    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 4:57 PM

    Once again, the silence says it all. "As long as it's not ME getting killed, I don't care."
    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 6:26 PM

    *crickets*
    Posted by: xalisae at February 25, 2010 8:08 PM

    Posted by: xalisae at February 26, 2010 5:44 PM


    Jake,

    I will leave you with this tonight.

    This argument boils down to personhood. You want to think and act as if only some humans are persons. All of your other arguments are secondary and tertiary concerns. Answer the important questions. No slogans "right to choose". No avoiding the issue.

    Here is your chance to educate us. Answer ONE fundamental question.

    1) What is the criteria for personhood?

    You may think you are being heroic for standing up for "womens rights" but consider that your position is void of logic and scientific truth. Also consider the innocent female babies that die because of a worldview such as yours. Don't you see a contradiction.

    Lastly, from one guy to another. A man should be willing to die in battle before he would let any harm come to his wife or unborn child.

    There's nothing manly about participating in the killing of ones own unborn child. There's nothing manly about allowing the emotional, physical, and spiritual pain of abortion to befall your wife.

    Think it through my friend. When you decide to open your mind and see through the lies and rhetoric you have been fed, we can have a productive conversation.

    Posted by: psalm at February 26, 2010 6:41 PM


    I think her child was just 2 weeks old, if she's counting from LMP.

    Posted by: Nulono at February 26, 2010 8:31 PM


    Hey Jake,

    Maybe you could look Angie up? You definitely wouldn't need to worry about being coerced into caring for a baby if she got prego. But she might kill you when shes done using you to impregnate her...kinda like a black widow spider does to her mates.

    Posted by: truthseeker at February 26, 2010 10:29 PM


    I was horrified when I read about Angie's choice to abort and blog, and then I felt extreme sadness we were reading in real time about someone dying. I felt compelled to to go her youtube postings to read more and to understand more. She has a most unusual take on religion due to growing up in a cult. She is angry at God, and questions why, if He exists, does He allow sickness and horrible things to happen. She says her family has rejected her and don't even wish her a happy birthday anymore. I think she is very vulnerable in her mental state now, especially after this abortion. I think we all need to say a prayer for Angie to find God again in her life. At this point, witnessing to Angie will just make her mad, however she does respond to Christians that send messages to her if you are so gifted in that area. I just have to back away when someone is so sad/angry and in need of so much help, and let's face it she does not know us. I pray for someone in her life to be able to reach her.

    Posted by: Eileen at February 26, 2010 10:46 PM


    Eileen, Angie needs an exorcism.

    Posted by: truthseeker at February 26, 2010 10:56 PM


    And like you Eileen, I avoided posting on this or keeping up with it until now cause it was so deranged and I figured she was doing it for attention.

    Posted by: truthseeker at February 26, 2010 10:58 PM


    Jake:

    4) I do think a man has responsibility to support mother and child if woman decides to give birth

    So... if a man has sex, whether or not he took precautions, whether or not he wanted a child, even if the woman lied about using protection, he must support his offspring and the woman financially for a minimum of 18 years.

    If a woman becomes pregnant, it is totally immoral to expect her to support the child for 9 months. Even if the sex was unprotected, she was trying to get pregnant, or the daddy wants the baby.

    What a double standard!

    Even if wantedness determined humanness--which it does not--you ignore many other people who might want the child: Dads. Older siblings. Grandparents. Adoptive parents.

    But even if all of these desperately want the child, his deadbeat mom can not only neglect him but kill him. You must be a self-hating man to want no rights but 18 years of responsibility.

    Posted by: ycw at February 27, 2010 6:30 AM


    Pamela, I am so sorry you lost your baby. It is so hard to hear about people killing their babies when you long for one. I also do not understand God's purpose in giving precious children to people like Angie.

    I hope that God will give you another child soon, one that you will one day be able to hold in your arms. I hope that you are able to determine what is going wrong and find a way to correct the problem, if necessary.

    And I'm sorry Angie's baby died, too. Because he didn't deserve it either.

    Posted by: ycw at February 27, 2010 6:42 AM


    "While I don't agree with Jake's attitude in general regarding abortion, I do think he right regarding an ADULT woman's culpability in choosing to have an abortion. Ultimately, she is the one who makes the decision. Unless we are talking about violence, no one can force her to go against her will.

    No strong minded, intelligent woman with a sense of self worth would have a medical procedure as drastic as an abortion if that is not what she wants. A guy could threaten to leave her and scream all he wants about not wanting to have a child, but a smart women is able to realize this is just a guy who has no right to tell her to undergo someting she can't undo. A woman with self-respect would cut him to the curb anyway for not caring about her feelings. Only a women so under a man's control that she can't make her own family and medical decisions would allow herself to be coerced. That is clearly a form of weekness. As someone who dumped a guy for pressuring me to get breast implants I can see that."
    Posted by: Nicole at February 26, 2010 12:22 AM

    So only the strong-minded deserve to control their future and make informed choices? Way to be a feminist, Nicole.

    I once was looking at (but not commenting on) an "abortion debate" board.
    One thread concerned what the women would do if their daughters got pregnant. A woman said that while she believed in choice (all of them there did) she would get down on her hands and knees and beg for her grandchild's life. She was attacked for coercion. Another mom--and all of these daughters were under sixteen--said that while she would "support her daughter either way," she would expect her to get a job and an apartment like an adult if she wanted to do adult things like have a baby. No one suggested this was coercion.

    Posted by: ycw at February 27, 2010 8:06 AM


    Hey all. You should look into Peter Singer's rationale. I agree with it wholeheartedly! It really gets to the point instead of trying to haggle about a definition of life. It's a quite simple utilitarian argument.

    http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm

    Posted by: dz at February 27, 2010 11:34 AM


    dz,

    Seriously, quoting Peter Singer isn't going to add anything productive to this debate. Peter Singer has a warped view of humanity. According to him, parents should be allowed to kill their children up to 30 days after being born. Sort of a 30 day warranty.

    I don't think he has gone back on this crazy idea.


    Posted by: psalm at February 27, 2010 12:52 PM


    DZ, Utilitarianism is a hopelessly flawed and debunked ethical system. It is open to exploitation by its very nature and excuses any number of horrific events in order to fulfil someone's idea of the "greater good."

    Peter Singer also believes in infanticide. I'm not sure he is who you should tie yourself to if you hope to be taken seriously.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 27, 2010 3:21 PM


    Hi Truthseeker,
    Thanks for the suggestion, but I am going to pass. I am happily married with two wonderful children. I don't need to look Angie up. I do respect her though.

    Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 4:54 PM


    xalisae wrote: "A man comes up to you and says "I am going to initiate an action which, after its completion, will cause you to materialize in a room with no doors, no windows, and no way out. A section of the wall will fall away 9 months from now, at which point you will be compelled to leave. The only method of sustenance for you will be 2 tubes built into the wall: 1 for feeding you, and the other to remove your waste. I will be solely responsible for feeding you and cleaning up after you. I have already decided, however, that I do not want such a responsibility, so at the time you are placed there, instead of filling your feeding tube with sustenance, I will give you poison, at which point you will die."

    One question, just so i fully understand this hypothetical, does the room feel me in the room for nine months? Does the room get a choice as to whether or not I have to live in it for nine months. What if the room doesn't want me in it for nine months.

    Do you see how ridiculous these questions are, yet you completely remove the role of a woman in your pathetic example. So how is it even relevant?

    Posted by: Jake at February 27, 2010 5:34 PM


    Don't worry, Jake, "the room" will be just fine, thanks for your concern. Because, you see, "the room" was actually built exclusively for that purpose! The rest of the house can go on functioning just fine because that room was meant specifically for the task of housing people such as those who are transported there!

    By the way, one does not usually "answer" questions with other questions. When that is offered as an "answer" to a question, it usually doesn't suffice.

    And I see you've also missed the entire point: that it is not one's rights OVER the other's rights, it's a matter of SHARED rights, and in order to have that, you have to see BOTH points, not just one. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable to think of yourself in the position of those whose lives you advocate the legality of stealing from them. I've been "the house", Jake, and I've had "the room", and it had no impact on my personal liberty or freedom WHATSOEVER. It always amazes me how people who have children can fail so utterly to give them the consideration they deserve when in utero.

    Posted by: xalisae at February 27, 2010 5:58 PM


    Thanks for all your good thoughts and support everyone. It is still difficult to think about or talk about, even almost 5 years later. The problem that I have is that Jill herself has described my very situation as an abortion- when I shared on another site, she linked my story and compared what I did to a woman who had chosen to carry to term and utilize prenatal hospice services and what a beautiful choice she had made as opposed to the horrible choice I had made in not allowing my pregnancy to be carried to term. A contributor/commenter from this site came onto another site and told me that I should have my parental rights stripped away from me if I thought allowing my child to die was the right decision for him or my family. Individuals who have posted their condolences on this very thread remarked in that thread on my horrible choice not to carry to term and actually said "to my knowledge a baby stays safe and protected by the amniotic fluid in the mother's womb until birth".

    Posted by: J. at February 27, 2010 9:45 PM


    Hey Jake,

    Maybe you could look Angie up? You definitely wouldn't need to worry about being coerced into caring for a baby if she got prego. But she might kill you when shes done using you to impregnate her...kinda like a black widow spider does to her mates.
    Posted by: truthseeker at February 26, 2010 10:29 PM


    unless Jake is a lesbian, she won't be looking Angie up any time soon.

    Jake is not a man....

    Posted by: angel at February 28, 2010 2:24 PM


    Jake,
    I am curious. Would you consider telling your partner you are happy she is with child coersion?
    Do you and your partner ever have sex but agree beforehand you don't want children, so you agree that you will abort offspring you might conceive or is that a decision you make on the fly?

    Posted by: truthseeker at February 28, 2010 8:50 PM


    J.
    You didn't want to harm your baby. There is nothing wrong with the choice you made.

    Posted by: truthseeker at February 28, 2010 8:52 PM


    J....so sorry if comments made by others had hurt you. Maybe they didn't understand the situation fully? If your life was in danger and you delivered to save your life then your son's death was not the INTENT and it is NOT an abortion.

    There have been stories, heartbreaking stories, from other moms who found their children had a lot of medical problems and the pregnancies were very hard on the moms, but their lives were not in danger. These moms talked of being induced early with the INTENT of letting their children die. See the difference? You loved your son. you always will. I hope the pain in your heart will lessen. I cannot even begin to imagine the intense heartache you must feel. You were a good mom and your son's death was not in your hands. HUGS HUGS HUGS. We are thinking of you and your boy.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at February 28, 2010 9:41 PM