Jivin J's Life Links 4-2-10

web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • Scott Roeder was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of abortionist George Tiller. The judge set Roeder's eligibility for parole at 50 years.

  • The Rockford Register Star has an article on abortion protests at the Northern IL Women's Center in Rockford.The abortion clinic's owner is upset and complains the police aren't doing their jobs while the police say the 40 Days for Life events went smoothly....

  • After being contacted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Duke University's Women's Center has reversed their decision on allowing a pro-life group to put on a discussion about being a mother on campus:
  • Only hours after FIRE exposed Duke's decision to public scrutiny yesterday, Women's Center Director Ada Gregory wrote to the group to say that "mistakes were certainly made that should not have occurred" and that she had "taken steps to ensure that such an incident will not happen again."

    stup.jpg

  • William Saunders responds to Bart Stupak's attacks on pro-life organizations:
  • I have no desire to attack Rep. Stupak personally. No one knows what promises or representations were made to him in the 11th-hour whipping of House members for the vote. We also do not know precisely what his choices and limitations were, real or perceived, or the exact number of votes that were still in play. However, we do know that the final vote in the House on the health care reform bill was 219-212. Thus, on the face of it, since 216 votes were needed for passage, it appears that if Stupak and even three other pro-life democrats had withheld their votes, the bill would not have passed. Would that have been a good outcome? You bet it would - not because, as Stupak argued, pro-life Americans oppose comprehensive health care reform (many do not), but because the bill marked a massive expansion of abortion (as I will explain below).

    Now, Congressman Stupak may disagree with that assessment, and he may honestly believe President Obama's executive order was the best deal for pro-life Americans. However, for him to suggest, as he did in his op-ed, that pro-life opposition to the deal that he struck is "disingenuous at best" - and that the deal he reached is somehow significantly "pro-life" - is simply untrue.

    [Stupak photo via LifeNews.com]


    Comments:

    Today's sentencing didn't come as a surprise to me. It's about the norm for murdering someone.

    Posted by: Heather at April 2, 2010 11:32 AM


    No, Heather, it's not.

    My cousin was murdered the same month as Tiller in Kansas and his killer's trial was held at the same court house.

    His murderer got 7 years.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 2, 2010 12:06 PM


    auren, I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. I guess I may have thought this way because in Cleveland, most murderers get life in prison. It's usually without the possibility of parole. It also depends on the circumstances. And sometimes it carries the death penalty. We don't have the Hard 50 here.

    Posted by: Heather at April 2, 2010 12:13 PM


    Sorry lauren...my capital l's aren't working.

    Posted by: Heather at April 2, 2010 12:17 PM


    It's ok, Heather. The whole thing just bothers me. I mean, essentially, the state of KS has said that a man who killed thousands and thousands of children's life is more valuable than my cousin, a 23 year old who hadn't hurt a soul.

    I know that the circumstances are different, but it's how it feels.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 2, 2010 12:19 PM


    It's ok, Heather. The whole thing just bothers me. I mean, essentially, the state of KS has said that the life of a man who killed thousands and thousands of children is more valuable than my cousin, a 23 year old who hadn't hurt a soul.

    I know that the circumstances are different, but it's how it feels.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 2, 2010 12:20 PM


    lauren, I think you know that I am on your team. In any event, I also believe that Tiller was a serial killer, but the Pro Death crowd was going to toss a major hissy fit tantrum had Roeder not been given the max sentence. I guess that's why I wasn't a bit surprised. And yes. I guess that is where the saying came from. life is not fair. You can sure say that again!! My deepest sympathy goes out to you and your family over your cousin.

    Posted by: Heather at April 2, 2010 12:33 PM


    Yeah, it's not so much that I'm upset that Roeder got the max sentence, I think he deserved it.

    It just makes me mad that the guy who both kidnapped and killed my cousin got off with so little time. I mean, he had 7 different charges at one point, yet he got 7 years!? What the hell, KS?

    Seeing someone else get punished so harshly in the same jurisdiction is just a big smack in the face, you know?

    Posted by: Lauren at April 2, 2010 12:37 PM


    Lauren:
    {{{{{{{{{HUGS}}}}}}}}}

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 2, 2010 12:49 PM


    Lauren: I'm so sorry to hear about that. Just trying to figure out how he got seven years - were there plea bargains involved? Did he get convicted of manslaughter instead of murder?

    On the Duke thing, a campus Women's Center not wanting to allow a discussion on student motherhood in their building speaks volumes.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 2, 2010 12:57 PM


    He was able to plea out of several of the charges by turning on the people who owned the ranch where he killed my cousin. It had been invovled in drug trading and such and a known place for criminal activity.

    That was another HUGE issue that bothers me about the whole thing. The police knew for MONTHS that there was a body (my cousin) on the property, but they had to jump through tons of hoops to be able to get onto it so that they wouldn't jeprodize the ongoing drug investigation.

    He still had to face murder charges, but they were reduced to 2nd degree. He also retained the kidnapping charge.

    The people who owned the ranch received harsher punishment because of the drug trafficking than he did for the murder.

    My cousin wasn't involved in any of the trafficking, but was murdered because he was going to turn on his "friends" when he realized what was going on.

    There are so many things that made the case horrible, like the fact that they sent my aunt and uncle the WRONG remains, and then somehow mixed his remains with someone else's. It was just a nightmare. Throughout the whole thing, was the background of the Tiller trial.

    In fact, one of the comments from the news reports of his death was anger about how much media attention Tiller was getting at the expense of those who were interested in finding out what was going on with my cousin's case.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 2, 2010 1:06 PM


    Lauren,
    How awful. More time for drug offenses than a murder is just wrong. The drug dealers should be put in a work camp doing hard labor. None of this three square meals and internet and exercise equipment for them. Prisoners live better than half of our population which is why they keep messing up and going back. Your cousin's killer should be in for life, no parole.

    Posted by: Janet at April 2, 2010 2:13 PM


    Thanks everyone. Sorry for getting so emotional, it's just a bit of a raw nerve.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 2, 2010 2:58 PM


    I do not support what Scott Roeder did. He killed someone in church who was not a direct and immediate threat to anyone else, the only situation in which it is morally defensible to take a human life.

    However, the person he killed was not an innocent human being. The person whom he killed had killed 60,000 human beings. 60,000! This is an absolutely horrific crime. No one had stopped George Tiller from killing for 36 years. The federal and state governments had completely failed to protect the unborn victims of Tiller's horrendous crimes. The unborn human rights movement had failed to protect them.

    Scott Roeder understandably believed that something had to be done to stop this evil. Unfortunately, he did the wrong thing. However, there were severe mitigating circumstances. He didn't kill for his own benefit, he did it to save the lives of the unborn. He may in fact have saved unborn lives, because someone like George Tiller, a late term specialist, could not be easily replaced.

    It is a mistake for our movement to demonize people like Scott Roeder. Criticize what he did, but understand why he did it. Since he killed someone who had killed a large number of people and would continue to do so, I felt that this should have been taken into consideration and he should have been given a lesser sentence. If the unborn are to be treated as real human beings, that would have been a just outcome.

    Posted by: Joe at April 2, 2010 4:44 PM


    Interesting article by William Saunders. I'm still perplexed though:

    - An employer offers health insurance that contains abortion. The government doesn't tax it. This is okay.

    - An person buys health insurance made cheaper because of the government. Insurance contains abortion. This is not okay.

    I get the concern about the expansion of abortion (though I still don't see it at the CHC level) - what I don't get is why there's no outrage on regular plans that have existed for years?

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 2, 2010 5:00 PM


    Quick quiz. What do you call a guy who killed thousands of babies? A murderer.

    What do you call a guy who kills the guy who kills thousands of babies? A murderer.

    Oddly enough, Roeder became what he hated most. To defend him at all is to cheapen life, plain and simple.

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 2, 2010 5:01 PM


    Canadian Medical Association Journal publishes study of motherhood and suicide.

    Basically mothers less often commit suicide and the incidence falls as the number of children rises. More kids = less suicide.


    Association between parity and risk of suicide among parous women

    Chun-Yuh Yang 1
    1 The Faculty of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan


    Abstract
    Background: There are limited empirical data to support the theory of a protective effect of parenthood against suicide, as proposed by Durkheim in 1897. I conducted this study to examine whether there is an association between parity and risk of death from suicide among women.

    Methods: The study cohort consisted of 1 292 462 women in Taiwan who had a first live birth between Jan. 1, 1978, and Dec. 31, 1987. The women were followed up from the date of their first birth to Dec. 31, 2007. Their vital status was ascertained by means of linking records with data from a computerized mortality database. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios of death from suicide associated with parity.

    Results: There were 2252 deaths from suicide during 32 464 187 person-years of follow-up. Suicide-related mortality was 6.94 per 100 000 person-years. After adjustment for age at first birth, marital status, years of schooling and place of delivery, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.68) among women with two live births and 0.40 (95% CI 0.35–0.45) among those with three or more live births, compared with women who had one live birth. I observed a significantly decreasing trend in adjusted hazard ratios of suicide with increasing parity.

    Interpretation: This study provides evidence to support Durkheim's hypothesis that parenthood confers a protective effect against suicide.


    http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/cmaj.090813v1?ijkey=1c36fdc2cebbf297059fc3c9ee93ffa44b5c1525&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

    Posted by: hippie at April 2, 2010 5:07 PM


    That makes sense. I've suffered through bouts of major depression and the one thing that makes me get up every day and do what I have tom regardless, is my children. They also bring joy and even though life has gotten more complex and even more difficult over the years, my responses have grown more measured and balanced and the duration and frequency and intensity of my depressive spells has decreased.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 2, 2010 5:12 PM


    New study indicates that self esteem peeks in middle age.

    It also notes that women have lower self esteem.
    Hmm, unrealistic expectations and unachievable goals, maybe?

    Full journal article:
    http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-98-4-645.pdf

    Short press release:
    http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/03/self-esteem.aspx

    Posted by: hippie at April 2, 2010 5:28 PM


    not tom, "to," -- typing with squirmy 7 month old on lap

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 2, 2010 5:46 PM


    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 2, 2010 5:01 PM


    Quick quiz.

    What do you call a guy who publicly professes what he is NOT but does not acknowledge what he is?

    RINO


    yor bro ken


    Posted by: kbhvac at April 2, 2010 8:16 PM


    What do you call the German officer who attempted, but failed, to assasinate Adolph Hitler the duly elected leader of the republic of Germany?

    A hapless hero.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at April 2, 2010 8:20 PM


    Who fired the shot that killed Benito Mussolini?

    Three hundred Italian sharpshooters.


    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at April 2, 2010 8:22 PM


    Posted by: Joe at April 2, 2010 4:44 PM

    It's exactly like I said: anti-choice loonies consider Scott Roeder a hero. This post is a nice piece of proof for that. If it was up to me, at least half the people who post at this site would be under some form of police surveillance. The next act of anti-abortion violence could very well come from a regular user of this site.

    Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 8:47 PM


    1 Tim 1:8-10 8 Now we recognize and know that the Law is good if anyone uses it

    lawfully

    [for the purpose for which it was designed],

    9 Knowing and understanding this: that

    the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God),

    but for the lawless and unruly,

    for the ungodly and sinful,

    for the irreverent and profane,

    for those who strike and beat and [even] murder
    fathers

    and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers,

    for manslayers,

    10[For] impure and immoral persons,

    those who abuse themselves with men,

    kidnapers,

    liars, perjurers —

    and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine. AMP

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

    So the 'law' is good for those who use it 'lawfully'.

    The 'law' is not enacted for

    the righteous,

    but for those who are law unto themselves.

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

    Prov 24:11-12 11 Deliver those who are drawn away to death, and those who totter to the slaughter, hold them back [from their doom].

    12 If you [profess ignorance and] say,

    "Behold, we did not know this",

    does not He Who weighs and ponders the heart perceive and consider it?

    And He Who guards your life, does not He know it?

    And shall not He render to [you and] every man according to his works? AMP

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

    RINO,


    Those being drawn away to death includes the pre-natal children.

    Those who are staggering to destruction are the baby killers and their accomplices.

    Our obligation to God is to try to save them both.

    For it is God's will that none should suffer eternal death, but that 'ALL', 'TODOS' should come to know HIM and the SON whom HE sent and inherit abundant eternal LIFE.

    "And shall not He render to [you and] every man according to his works?" AMP

    The good news for all of us is that those who are covered by the blood of Jesus do not get what they otherwise would have 'earned',

    The compensation for sin is death. Not just mostly dead but eternal death.

    yor bro ken


    Posted by: kbhvac at April 2, 2010 8:53 PM


    Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 8:47 PM


    "Posted by: Joe at April 2, 2010 4:44 PM

    It's exactly like I said: anti-choice loonies consider Scott Roeder a hero."

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

    Anne

    Joe never even intimated that Scott Roeder was a 'hero'.

    You need to adjust your tinfoil hat. Your reception is distorted.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at April 2, 2010 8:58 PM


    Posted by: hippie at April 2, 2010 5:07 PM

    "Interpretation: This study provides evidence to support Durkheim's hypothesis that parenthood confers a protective effect against suicide."

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

    Hippie,

    Experience has taught that insanity is hereditary.

    You get it from your children.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at April 2, 2010 9:02 PM


    "Our obligation to God is to try to save them both."

    I mistyped. Should have read:

    "Our obligation to God is to try to RESCUE them both."

    Only God can save.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at April 2, 2010 9:04 PM


    It's exactly like I said: anti-choice loonies consider Scott Roeder a hero. This post is a nice piece of proof for that. If it was up to me, at least half the people who post at this site would be under some form of police surveillance. The next act of anti-abortion violence could very well come from a regular user of this site.

    Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 8:47 PM

    Luckily, it's NOT up to you... pesky thing, that FIRST AMENDMENT. Not that I expect that a pro-abort would care about First Amendment rights... at least not for anyone other than fellow pro-aborts.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 3, 2010 4:03 AM


    Roeder was no hero, but Tiller was no innocent.

    Tiller was criminal and a mass murderer of babies, and prosecuted as such by Kansas DA, and it was only when the DA was replaced, the charges were dropped. Tiller subverted justice by having his cronies, who he funded and who he has ties to, get into power.

    To say he was an innocent man under the law is like saying OJ Simpson is innocent just because he was found not guilty.

    This info is what we all needs to be reminded of everytime we have posters like Anne trying to wickedly make out Tiller to be some hero, when in actuality he was a monster and a mass baby killer:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=93586

    How Sebelius subverted the Tiller abortion trial

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: April 02, 2009
    1:00 am Eastern

    © 2010

    On Friday afternoon, March 27, it took a Wichita jury just 45 minutes to acquit Dr. George Tiller of 19 misdemeanor charges relating to his prolific late-term abortion business.

    Tiller needed help. And for those paying attention, the real help came not in the courtroom but in the proverbial back room where, some three years earlier, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius engineered the deal that would keep Tiller's practice alive.

    Sebelius persuaded Paul Morrison, the popular Republican district attorney of the state's most affluent county, to switch parties and run against sitting Attorney General Phill Kline.

    Kline had proved deadly serious in bringing Tiller to justice, a move that had the potential to throw a major wrench in the Democratic fundraising apparatus.

    "The Emerging Brave New World" covers the gradual dehumanization of human beings that has invaded American culture

    With Tiller's massive financial support behind him, Morrison ousted Kline. Before leaving office, however, Kline had filed 30 counts against Tiller for performing illegal late-term abortions.

    In other words, Tiller stood accused of taking the life of 15 fully viable unborn babies whose mothers were equally healthy, in utter disregard of Kansas law.

    While Morrison was reviewing these charges, Sebelius honored Tiller and his staff at an elegant but extremely discreet soiree at Cedar Crest, the governor's mansion.

    Among the more revealing of the photos taken at the event is one of Sebelius holding a T-Shirt presented to her by Tiller, which reads, "Trifecta 2006: Sebelius, Parkinson, Morrison." In the photo, Sebelius points at Tiller as if to acknowledge his contribution to that victory.

    To no one's great surprise, Morrison dropped the felony charges Kline had brought against Tiller. As Morrison interpreted the law, if a doctor said an abortion was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, that was good enough for the AG.

    Given the exposure, Morrison had to charge Tiller with something. He resorted to the avowedly "technical" charge that Tiller used a second confirming doctor who was not financially independent as the law required.

    To put this in context, it would be as if the Nuremberg justices charged Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess with violating Germany's clean air act.

    After reluctantly axing Morrison for his role in an impressively seamy sex scandal, Sebelius appointed obscure Democrat Stephen Six the new attorney general.

    Six picked up where Morrison left off. He announced he would not conduct any further investigation of Tiller as such was "an invasion of privacy." Instead, he continued with the watered down case against Tiller that he had inherited from Morrison.

    Six apparently was none too keen on conviction. In Wichita last week, critics, with some justification, accused the state of throwing the very case it had brought to trial.

    The state put only one witness on the stand, Kristin Neuhaus, a marginal doctor who had no other practice but to rubber stamp Tiller's abortions.

    Although allegedly friendly, Neuhaus proved hostile and answered the state's questions only grudgingly. The state offered no other witness and no physical records to prove a financial affiliation.

    Meanwhile, Tiller's defense attorney, Dan Monnat, argued that every abortion Tiller performed was a heroic effort to save the mother from severe and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. The jurors were told nothing different

    Posted by: Punisher at April 3, 2010 7:27 AM


    More from the article:

    Monnat continued that "in this one-witness prosecution" the state was simply continuing a persecution initiated by "anti-choice politicians." The media had been telling the jurors this all along.

    Monnat suggested that if the state were serious and Tiller were operating anything but a legitimate medical facility, the state would have charged Dr. Tiller with more serious crimes. The jurors could only nod in assent.

    What is more, Monnat insisted, Tiller only requested the services of the good Dr. Neuhaus on the advice of the state, specifically the then executive director of the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, Larry Buening.

    Buening, a Tiller friend and Sebelius appointee who has since resigned in disgrace, denies that he told Tiller that by using Neuhaus "all of your problems would go away."

    It is likely, however, that the state did not call Buening for fear that Buening's denial would melt under oath.

    And finally, Monnat argued, the one witness the state called, Kristin Neuhaus, denied the relationship the state claimed.

    The state's best witness was Tiller himself. In answering a question about Neuhaus, Tiller stumbled, "When she was working for me – correction, when she was providing consultations for the patient ..."

    On another occasion, Tiller referred to Neuhaus and said, "When someone new is going to join your organization ..."

    Tiller's flubs comprised most of state's closing arguments. One wonders how its attorney would have closed if Tiller had refused to testify in his own defense?

    For those who care, here is what really happened at Tiller's clinic. Neuhaus would sign a form letter claiming the mother would "suffer severe impairment of a major bodily function" – as required by law – if a late term abortion were not performed.

    Neuhaus offered no diagnosis. Often she did not even see the patient. All patients were served up by Tiller, and all of Neuhaus's income came from Tiller except for the limited income she has received as a laser hair technician.

    As to Tiller, he performed late-term abortions on viable children for any reason whatsoever. He routinely twisted statements by the mother that she wanted to attend a rock concert, a prom or compete in the rodeo into "severe impairment of a major bodily function."

    For years, Tiller has used the revenue from these abortions – he boasts of having aborted 60,000 plus "fetuses over 24 weeks" – to buy off the state's "moderate" establishment, including the sitting governor.

    The jurors, to be sure, did not learn any of this. A Tiller conviction would not have looked good on the record of our new secretary of health and human services.


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


    Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 3, 2010 7:28 AM


    Anne:

    I have been saying for years that you opponents of unborn human rights are completely intellectually dishonest and irrational. Your comment is yet more confirmation of that unhappy fact of life.

    I did NOT say Scott Roeder was a hero. I said he should be punished, but given a lesser sentence because of the mitigating circumstances in this case.

    The real villain here was George Tiller who killed 60,000 innocent people (Scott Roeder killed one guilty person). Tiller's crimes were far worse than Roeder's. I do not believe that Tiller deserved the death penalty (I oppose the death penalty for everyone) but felt that he should have (and in a just society would have) received life in prison for his crimes.

    You abortionist activists believe in killing ALL human beings in the unborn stage and taking away from each one of us our entire human lifespans. Therefore, you cannot believe we have a right to a human lifespan and must believe we can be killed throughout our lives. Following from this, you can have no objection to the killing of George Tiller or anyone else. In fact, you would have supported killing Tiller in the unborn stage and depriving him of his whole life, part of which Scott Roeder took away. You therefore logically cannot object to what Roeder did. Do you begin to see the contradictions and paradoxes in which you are trapped when you out of weakness fall prey to your psychological need to believe in abortionist fallacies?

    The real reasons George Tiller was killed were two. One, because the corrupt Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her government allowed Tiller to continue to commit his crimes when they could have stopped him.

    Two, the Democratic Congress and Barack Obama could have passed and signed a federal statute in January 2009 to prohibit the killing of unborn children under all circumstances, if they had so desired. Had they done so, George Tiller would be alive today.

    Their moral corruption and inhumanity prevented them from taking this noble course of action. As a result of their inaction, George Tiller is dead, as are over a million unborn children whose lives could have been saved if the Democratic Party politicians on Capitol Hill had any moral strength and decency at all.

    Posted by: Joe at April 3, 2010 9:36 AM


    I realize I'm going back a bit here, but...

    "It is a mistake for our movement to demonize people like Scott Roeder. Criticize what he did, but understand why he did it. Since he killed someone who had killed a large number of people and would continue to do so, I felt that this should have been taken into consideration and he should have been given a lesser sentence."
    Posted by: Joe at April 2, 2010 4:44 PM

    No, it's not. As pro-lifers we must outright reject Roeder's actions as wrong on their face. In an ideal world, Tiller's occupation and his many criminal charges would have been brought up at Roeder's trial. He would have been portrayed as the twisted, horrible individual he was.

    And then Roeder would have then been found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Because he killed someone. Period. If every human life is equally valuable, then it doesn't matter if you cold-bloodly murder a serial axe killer or a five-year-old. You're still wrong.

    Posted by: Keli Hu at April 3, 2010 10:22 AM


    Joe - question - tell me about the federal statute that could have been passed by the Democrats in January? I'm not aware of any bill that came up.

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 3, 2010 10:42 AM


    No bill came up or was introduced.

    Any member could have introduced legislation in January 2009 to prohibit the killing of unborn children.

    Legislation to protect human beings from violence throughout our lives should pass the House 435-0 and the Senate 100-0. That we could not even muster a majority to protect the lives of our children shows what a morally depraved species we are.

    Keli Hu: If they catch and kill Osama Bin Laden for killing thousands of people, would you give them life in prison or a lesser sentence?

    Posted by: Joe at April 3, 2010 12:51 PM


    Joe - how many times did the Republicans introduce it during Bush's years? You rail on the Democrats, but how about the party that campaigns for life?

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 3, 2010 1:44 PM


    The Republicans should have introduced it also. I was simply pointing out that even though it was not done before now, the Democratic Congress could have done it last year.

    The fact that they absolutely would not and the Republicans did not shows the lack of regard for human life which has always plagued our species.

    Posted by: Joe at April 3, 2010 2:06 PM


    So just to be clear - the GOP held office 20 of 29 years on a pro-life platform, and didn't make this pronouncement...the Democrats held office 9 of 29 years, and don't run on a pro-life platform - and you call out the Democrats? Really Joe?

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 3, 2010 2:58 PM


    I don't understand why you are harping on this. I recognize that the Republicans have failed the unborn but the Democrats are much worse.

    What is your point?

    Posted by: Joe at April 3, 2010 3:31 PM


    "Keli Hu: If they catch and kill Osama Bin Laden for killing thousands of people, would you give them life in prison or a lesser sentence?"
    Posted by: Joe at April 3, 2010 12:51 PM

    If they catch him and kill him, he won't get any sentence at all. And do not conflate justice with vigilantism. Scott Roeder acted outside the law, and murdered someone doing it. Tiller acted outside morality, but so did Roeder. Bin Laden, if he is ever caught, ought to come under our laws (since it's the US he offended), and justice would demand that he at least go to prison for the rest of his life, if not be executed.

    But do not try to say that an execution carried out under the law, with due deference given to a just ruling, is functionally equivalent to murdering someone in cold blood. You know it isn't.

    Posted by: Keli Hu at April 3, 2010 3:44 PM


    You know full well I was not saying that.

    I asked you if the military decided just to kill him instead of capturing him, should they be punished or get away with it?

    Posted by: Joe at April 3, 2010 3:52 PM


    What would you think about a pro-choice extremist who assasinated such anti-choice extremists as Randall Terry, Joe Scheidler and Alan Keyes? I would never condone this, but I wouldn't miss these awful guys the least bit.

    Posted by: Robert Berger at April 3, 2010 4:07 PM


    Joe - my point is that you said this:

    "The real reasons George Tiller was killed were two. One, because the corrupt Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her government allowed Tiller to continue to commit his crimes when they could have stopped him.

    Two, the Democratic Congress and Barack Obama could have passed and signed a federal statute in January 2009 to prohibit the killing of unborn children under all circumstances, if they had so desired. Had they done so, George Tiller would be alive today."

    In light of the next few conversation points, do you see how silly you are being politically to call out just one party?

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 3, 2010 4:16 PM


    I'm sorry Robert, but how many humans have Randall Terry, Joe Scheidler and Alan Keyes killed? It's a poor analogy. You also malign these men by suggesting that they were complicit in the murder of Tiller. Roeder was the lone actor in Tiller's death. He needed no encouragement from anyone. His act flowed from his personal outrage over Tiller's infanticide.

    Had Roeder actually plugged in to genuine pro-life advocacy work he would have had a legitimate and legal avenue of working within the law to effect change. So don't hold up men who sponsor such legitimate activities as somehow causal agents in Roeder's murderous intent.

    I don't support the killing of abortionists. Most are lost souls who loathe the work that they do, who have sunk to the bottom of the pond in medicine. They need to be restored to their dignity as healers, and this beastly practice outlawed.

    Get away from the hysteria Robert. I've seen much better from you.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 3, 2010 4:29 PM


    "What would you think about a pro-choice extremist who assasinated such anti-choice extremists as Randall Terry, Joe Scheidler and Alan Keyes? I would never condone this, but I wouldn't miss these awful guys the least bit."


    We got plenty of pro-choice extremists to choose from there in regards to acts you constantly judge the pro-life movement over a few. A few examples are quoted from the link below:

    http://tree-in-the-sea.blogspot.com/2008/05/pro-abortion-violence.html

    On the other hand, whenever a pro-abortionist (abortionist or pro-abortion advocate) kills or beats up pro-lifers or other people, the local media usually reports fairly on the incidents. However, the national and international news services usually consider such incidents beneath their notice. This means that interested parties must dig a little in order to find documented evidence of pro-abortion violence. It also means that almost everyone is astonished when they are told that pro-abortionists have committed more than fifty murders over the past thirty years.

    In 1998, pro-abortionist Byron Looper, a county property assessor, was running for office against pro-life state Senator Tommy Burks. Looper shot Burks in the left eye with a heavy-caliber pistol near a pumpkin patch where Burks planned to take schoolchildren on a hayride that day, then boasted to his friends "I did it, man, I did it! I killed that dude!"


    INCIDENTS OF PRO-ABORTION VIOLENCE AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES 2,297
    * While it is true that all abortionists impersonate real doctors, we are limiting ourselves in this case to incidents where charges were actually brought by medial authorities.
    ALABAMA
    Birmingham ---- Assault (2 incidents)
    According to a former employee of his abortion mill, abortionist Bruce Lucero asked for a baseball bat, then got a tire iron and went outside his New Woman Health Care abortion clinic and assaulted a pro-lifer, hitting him in the back and arm. While on trial for the assault, he was escorted to the judge's chambers by two police officers and convicted of contempt for continuing to talk during the trial after the judge instructed him to be silent. He was given a suspended sentence and was fined. A security specialist testified that Lucero told security guards that he wanted the pro-lifers "hurt," and that just prior to his testifying, the security specialist received a phone call threatening his family. On another occasion, Lucero slammed a man into a post while the man was talking to a patient about to enter the building; the man was treated by paramedics at the scene.
    Birmingham News, March 21, 1993 and July 3, 1991; Post-Herald, November 14, 1990

    Huntsville ---- Murder
    In 1993, pro-abortion activist Eileen Orstein Janezic murdered 51-year old pro-life activist minister and radio talk show host Jerry Simon. After killing Simon, she held police at bay with a pistol for six hours while spouting quotes from Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible."
    World Magazine, September 18, 1993; "Pro-Life Leader, Pastor Murdered by Avowed Satanist." Life Advocate, November 1993, page 7.

    Mobile ---- Reckless Endangerment
    The director of The Ladies Center abortion mill, Patricia Mitchell, pointed a handgun at two pro-lifers as they drove away from the clinic after a picket. She was subsequently convicted of reckless endangerment.
    "Mobile Abortion Clinic Director Convicted of Gun-Related Charge; Attorney Appeals Case." Gulf Coast Christian Newspaper.

    ALASKA
    Kodiak ---- Felony Vehicular Assault (3 counts)
    Pro-abortionist Byron Pierce deliberately drove his vehicle off the road and into a group of pro-life picketers, which included many children. Pierce told officers that he intended to "plow through" the picketers. Pierce was charged with three counts of felony assault.
    "Man Sentenced for Vehicular Assault on Pro-Life Picketers." Life Advocate, February 1994, page 17; Issues Update. "Rolling Roughshod Over First Amendment Rights." Celebrate Life!, May-June 1994, page 8.

    Phoenix Area [Tempe] ---- Vehicular Assault
    At the Family Planning Institute abortion mill, a pro-abortionist nearly hit pro-lifer Kathleen Mooney with his car.
    April 24, 1984. Vivian Warner. "On This Picket Line, Trouble." National Catholic Register, May 13, 1984, page 1.


    Phoenix Area [Tempe] ---- Vandalism
    In April 1984, pro-abortionists vandalized the Tempe Right to Life office.
    Vivian Warner. "On This Picket Line, Trouble." National Catholic Register, May 13, 1984, page 1.


    Little Rock ---- Assault and Destruction of Property
    Abortionist Tom Tvedten admitted that he wrested a camera from the hands of a pro-lifer who had photographed him and smashed the camera on the cement and on the man's vehicle with the intent of destroying it. He also admitted in a deposition that he was not board certified or board eligible, that he counseled abortion patients for approximately 30 minutes in groups of twelve, and that in order to receive individual counseling the woman would have to specifically request it. The Arkansas Medical Board agreed to the temporary closing of his office after allegations of excessively prescribing controlled substances. Medical Board minutes state that his medical licence had been suspended for three months, and his motion to reapply for DEA certification was denied. Also, a lien showed unpaid federal taxes of $20,963.
    Arkansas State Medical Board Minutes of April 8 and September 16, 1983; Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated April 29, 1987; and deposition in Perry County Circuit Court Case #CIV 87-105-A.


    Fresno ---- Assault (4 incidents)
    On March 28, 1981, at the Family Planning Associates Medical Group abortion mill, four pro-abortionists attacked pro-life picketers, wrenching picket signs away from them and beating several of them with the signs.
    "Anti-Abortion Pickets Claim Signs Taken by 4 Assailants." The Fresno Bee, March 30, 1981.

    Fresno Area [Silver Lake] ---- Vandalism
    Pro-abortionists defaced a pro-life church with red paint, red coathangers, and posters accusing the church of "crimes against women" in March 1989.
    Bill Soucie, comments in personal videorecording of the incident.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 3, 2010 4:33 PM


    More examples:

    .
    Los Angeles ---- Sexual Assault (2 incidents)
    On April 18, 1992, pro-abortionist Julie Schollenberger of the Clinic Defense Alliance was arrested for sexual assault against a female participant of Operation Rescue. Also, about a dozen homosexuals, dressed up as Jesus Christ, danced and mocked Christianity, using crude and offensive language in front of pro-life women and children. The pro-abortionists held makeshift crucifixes, applied red dots of paint to their hands (mocking the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) in efforts to shock and offend Christians. To the tune of the song Hokie Pokie, they sang, "You put your crucifix in, you take your crucifix out ..." A male clinic escort assaulted a female pro-lifer from behind and simulated sexual acts on her, and was arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department.
    Press release, Operation Rescue of California, April 21, 1992.


    Los Angeles ---- Sexual Assault
    At the HER Medical Clinic abortion mill, a pro-life woman in a dense crowd felt a pro-abortion man press his body against her. He hissed in her ear, "I bet you like that don't you?" Then the man started making explicit sexual comments as he pushed against her. Another pro-abortionist said, "She's one of those frigid ones." The first pro-abortionist said, "I like `em that way," and then he made various sexual movements.
    American Anti-Persecution League, December 1993 fundraising letter, and personal testimonies.

    Los Angeles ---- Assault
    In March 1991, a member of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) member severely bit pro-lifer Chris Keys twice.
    Operation Rescue National, Violence and Disruption Report, December 10, 1994.

    Redding ---- Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW) and Assault (4 incidents)
    Pro-abortionists at the Redding Feminist Women's Health Center (FWHC) abortion mill have a long and vicious history of committing violence against pro-life rescuers and picketers. In June 1993, a pro-abortionist attempted to run down pro-lifers Debbie McCallister and Walt Runyon with his truck. In July 1993, a pro-abortionist wrested Ron Walters' picket sign away from him and beat him with it. Ron was taken to a doctor for severe bleeding. In August 1993, a clinic worker threw rocks at pro-lifer Steven McCallister. On September 24, 1993, abortionist Carl Serratt and others kicked, punched and jumped on pro-lifer Richard C. Rudolph after stealing his picket sign. On December 2, 1993, a pro-abortionist soaked pastor Steven McCallister and his video camera with a garden hose.
    Redding Police Deparment Report #93-51505, lawsuit #124449 filed by Rudolph on September 23, 1994 in Shasta County Superior Court. Operation Rescue National, Violence and Disruption Report, December 30, 1994.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 3, 2010 4:36 PM


    I did not call out just one party. I admitted that the Republican Party had not served the unborn well at all.

    However, the Democratic Party is still much worse because they are committed to the destruction of unborn children.

    Posted by: Joe at April 3, 2010 6:18 PM


    Joe - this conversation really isn't going anywhere at this point - you are right - you blamed one party, then were questioned, and then sort of blamed the other party (again, after being questioned).

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 3, 2010 7:16 PM


    I made a series of arguments which I thought were sound, but never mind.

    Posted by: Joe at April 4, 2010 3:48 AM


    I suppose in Joeland, there are different standards for what passes for a sound argument. Categorical syllogism, Joe style: premise 1) I feel really strongly about abortion. premise 2) I don't need facts or evidence or proof or any of that fancy-pants stuff and it doesn't matter if other people disagree with my completely arbitrary opinions. Conclusion: abortion is evil and should be banned! Every member of Congress should discard their own beliefs and the wishes of their constituents and bend to my political will!

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 9:07 AM


    Gerard Nadal, supposedly you're a well-educated man. But are you really naive enough to believe that"outlawing" abortion will in any way stop it?
    All this would do would be to make abortion more dangerous for women.
    And I'm sick of all these sensational,emotion-laden terms anti-choicers use for abortion, such as "infanticide","baby-killing","slaughter","holocaust",
    and all that garbage. It does nothing but inflame the enotions of gullible people who have been conned into thinking that abortion can be stopped.
    No, Terry,Scheidler and Keyes haven't killed any one. Yet. But if they got political power they most certainly WOULD kill people, including doctors who perfomred abortions, and others considered accomplices. They would turn America into a right-wing,totalitarian,theocratic
    nightmare state if they got power.
    And don't think they don't want it. If you think Obama is bad, he's nothing compared to power-hungry,unscrupulous,hypocritical,sanctimonious,
    narrow-minded,intolerant and ruthless scoundrels like these three.
    Think I'm indulging in hysterical,over-the-top exaggeration? Well, you're WRONG.
    Kathleen Sebelius was a corrupt governor? You're saying that only because she has the sense to be pro-choice.
    And if Obama and the Democrats had made abortion illegal in 2009, Tiller would still be alive?
    What kind of insanity is this?
    There would still have been plenty of abortions. Did prohibition stop people from consuming alcoholic beverages?
    My God how you people here and anti-choicers everywhere delude yourselves. Unbelievable.
    And yes, Terry,Keyes,Scheidler and other anti-choice fanatics DO indirectly contribute to the murder of abortion doctors with their infalmmatory rhetoric and mindless hatred.
    They make a mockery of everything that Jesus stood for. And they have the nerve to call themselves "Christians". They are wolves in sheep's clothing.

    Posted by: Robert Berger at April 4, 2010 9:25 AM


    Anne:

    You are being completely ridiculous, just like all good abortionists.

    You are trying to argue killing human beings is not a crime. Killing human beings at any point in our lives violates our rights and is therefore a crime. Can you prove otherwise? Can you demonstrate that we do NOT have a right to live a human lifespan in accordance with our nature?

    The unborn human rights position which I have taken is a product of several decades of serious philosophical thought. It is not a matter of "arbitrary opinions".

    The unborn human right philosophy is logically derived from placental mammalian biology. It thus differs from the anti unborn human rights mentality, which appears to be based upon the psychological and cultural needs of abortionist activists, and which has no philosophical foundation which I am able to discern.

    If you can prove that we do not have a right to live according to our nature, I am willing to consider your arguments.

    By the way, all members of Congress have an obligation to protect all of our natural rights, including the foundational human right, the right to life itself. If they are unwilling or unable to perform this basic task, they should be replaced.

    Posted by: Joe at April 4, 2010 9:31 AM


    Robert:

    You seem to have this obsession with this "idea" that we cannot possibly stop the killing of unborn children. Why exactly do you believe this? Do you believe all laws are ineffective? Do you support laws against murder, rape and armed robbery? Clearly, we cannot completely stop those crimes, but do you not believe we can reduce them at all?

    I believe very strongly that you can greatly reduce and suppress abortion crime (prenatal homicide).

    If OB-GYN's and other medical professionals who might kill unborn children or refer mothers to criminal abortionists know that pregnant pro-life volunteers will be working undercover to try to expose them, do you think some of them might stop? Each of them who stops is one less abortionist committing crimes against children. If they continue, undercover policewomen will arrest them very quickly.

    When they are arrested, they can be replaced with police sting fake criminal abortionists. We can eventually have these all over the landscape. Any mother who is considering committing an abortion crime will have to reckon with a minefield of police stings designed to catch her before her baby is killed. Many mothers, especially those who are conflicted, will not want to take this risk and will be deterred. Others who insist on going ahead will be caught and their children saved.

    To say that we cannot save all the children is reasonable; to say we can save absolutely no unborn children is absurd. Clearly, with vigorous and aggressive enforcement we can greatly reduce the incidence of abortion crime in our society.

    Prenatal homicide is actually a very difficult crime to commit. You need a building, lighting, electricity, someone with a certain level of skill, specialized equipment and it can take 10 to 20 minutes or even longer. It is a far cry from a 5 second drug deal on a downtown street corner.

    Repeat customers are rare and so the criminal abortionist must continually make himself vulnerable by advertising through many channels including word of mouth. The lines of information and communication are exceptionally vulnerable to infiltration and disruption by the standards of almost any other crime.

    To suggest that you can do nothing to stop abortion crime is preposterous. A disciplined highly motivated, sustained and vigorous police enforcement campaign backed up by an army of hundreds of thousands of aggressive and relentless pro-life volunteers anxious to flush out any and every criminal abortionist would go a long way to rid the world of this horrific crime against children.

    I believe your position that we cannot stop abortion crime is based on your need to believe this, as is your position that killing our children is not a crime in the first place. You would be well advised to take positions based on logic, not psychology.

    Posted by: Joe at April 4, 2010 10:00 AM


    Gotcha, Joe. You've engaged in "decades of serious philosophical thought" and, philosopher king that you now are, know much better than half a century's worth of Supreme Court justices, the entire body of Congress, the vast majority of American citizens who do not want abortion criminalized, medical practitioners, the numerous Christian denominations that do not consider abortion immoral, etc.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 10:04 AM


    Posted by: Joe at April 4, 2010 10:00 AM

    The lengths you would go to strip women of their constitutional rights to bodily privacy are incredible. Either you have a very wild imagination or you spend hours every day fantasizing about ways to force your morality on everybody else. Color me impressed (and disturbed).

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 10:08 AM


    "The lengths you would go to strip women of their constitutional rights to bodily privacy are incredible."

    Bodily privacy does not extend to violating civil rights of others to life, liberty, and property.

    Sorry, there is no constitutional right to get rid of your own unborn child. The Supreme Court had to invent it out of thin air. Such a decision is just as wrong as the Dred Scott decision, which made up history of its own as well.

    Saying it is right to privacy has the same intellectual honesty as slaveowners claiming that their right to own slaves is based on PRIVATE property. Privacy issue, yes, was employed back then, too, and as today, it is still equally bogus.


    "Either you have a very wild imagination or you spend hours every day fantasizing about ways to force your morality on everybody else. Color me impressed (and disturbed)."


    That's rich since you are forcing your morality (or I should say immorality) on the unborn human beings by giving others the right to dispose, maim, abuse, and kill them all at once.

    And ironic again, since slaveowners also play card of abolitionists were religious zealots who were forcing their morality and religion unto them.

    Again, like them, you are dead wrong.

    Sorry, but the founders who gave us the Constitution many times over believed religion and morality are essential to our laws and institutions.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 11:07 AM


    amen to Anne.

    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 11:09 AM


    "Sorry, there is no constitutional right to get rid of your own unborn child. The Supreme Court had to invent it out of thin air. Such a decision is just as wrong as the Dred Scott decision, which made up history of its own as well."

    Nothing was invented out of thin air. Saying that the Constitution doesn't protect abortion rights just because it doesn't explicitly mention abortion is dishonest and stupid. It's like saying the right to free speech doesn't cover written words because they are not literally spoken and thus "speech" (which actually was the belief of a few past Supreme Court justices). Our founding fathers made it illegal to involuntarily compel private citizens to house soldiers via the 3rd Amendment, and yet you think they would want women to be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies?

    "Sorry, but the founders who gave us the Constitution many times over believed religion and morality are essential to our laws and institutions."

    Really? Which religion? Which denomination? Do you think that includes the Christian denominations that don't consider abortion to be immoral?

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 11:21 AM


    PLEASE do not equate slavery with pregnancy. The analogy disrupts the unity of the mother/fetus dyad and implies that fetuses are "trapped" or "imprisoned" inside their mothers. The analogy cheapens motherhood. Women are not simply holding cells for unborn children. This kind of thinking opens the floodgates for all kinds of government intrusion. Are we going to start criminalizing pregnant women for taking Prozac out of fear that psychotropic meds will hurt unborn children? Are we going start fining women who miscarriage for suspicion of malfeasance?

    Women deserve to make informed decisions about their bodies and their pregnancies. Even if fetuses WERE conferred the rights of personhood, a woman shouldn't be forced to sustain a developing fetus. If women who seek abortions are characterized as delusional or helpless, then how can we expect them to be competant mothers?

    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 11:26 AM


    Anne: Nothing was invented out of thin air. Saying that the Constitution doesn't protect abortion rights just because it doesn't explicitly mention abortion is dishonest and stupid.

    Me: No, it is not. It is dishonest and stupid to claim the Constitution saw abortion as fundamental right, when those who wrote themselves said at the time when the unborn can move, and established as human life, abortion was to be banned under common law. They saw that at a certain stage where the humanity of the unborn can be established back then with the limited science they got, it needed to be banned as crime against the unborn.


    Anne: It's like saying the right to free speech doesn't cover written words because they are not literally spoken and thus "speech" (which actually was the belief of a few past Supreme Court justices). Our founding fathers made it illegal to involuntarily compel private citizens to house soldiers via the 3rd Amendment, and yet you think they would want women to be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies?

    Me: They DID in fact banned abortion at the point when they believed the unborn is human.

    Not just think. KNOW!

    Anne: Really? Which religion? Which denomination? Do you think that includes the Christian denominations that don't consider abortion to be immoral?

    Me: Sorry, but your issue is with history. Nearly all the original state constitutions stated Christian denominations and Protestant religion. The treaty of Paris stated the God they worshipped is that of undivided Trinity. The Northwest Ordinance voted and signed into law by the very same ones who set up and gave us the Constitution mandated religion and morality as essential to our laws and institutions. George Washington said the exact same thing in his Farewell Address.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 11:30 AM


    Why do you privilege a fetus' right to life over a woman's right to control her body? You argue that we should not kill human life at any point during the life stage, but WHY? [Please do not invoke fears that abortion will enable the devaluation of (born) human beings, because it hasn't been proven. I'm pretty sure WAR is reponsible for devaluing human life, but how many of you are staunch pacifists?] If you want to talk about life stage, technically gametes are part of an individual's life stage. One could extend the protections of personhood back as conceivably far as possible (Can we criminalize smokers for polluting their bodies and thus making them less conducive to carrying healthy pregnancies?).

    Why does it not make sense to mark birth, or even viability, as the point marking entrance to the human community?

    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 11:37 AM


    Megan: PLEASE do not equate slavery with pregnancy.

    Me: The shoe fits perfectly many times over, in equating slavery with abortion.

    I didn't equate slavery with pregnancy. Your pro-choice side of the debate is the one doing that not me.

    Slaveowners historically did in fact argued for right of privacy ("private" property, rings a bell in your history books?). So do you now when you argue for right of privacy to destroy another human life.

    Slaveowners historically did in fact claimed slaves are their properties. You do the same with the unborn.

    Slaveowners historically did claimed abolitionists were trying to force their religion and morality unto them. Your side do the same thing now.

    Slaveowners historically did in fact dehumanized the slaves to justify what they did. Your side do the same to the unborn.

    Megan The analogy disrupts the unity of the mother/fetus dyad and implies that fetuses are "trapped" or "imprisoned" inside their mothers.

    Me: No, it suggests the unborn are fully humans and not trashes to be disposed of if mothers do not want them.


    Megan: The analogy cheapens motherhood.

    Me: No, abortion cheapens motherhood AND human life.

    Megan: Even if fetuses WERE conferred the rights of personhood, a woman shouldn't be forced to sustain a developing fetus.


    Me: She made that choice when she chose to have sex. So did the guy made the choice with her. BOTH of them shared responsibility.

    You are basically demanding a right to treat the unborn as your property even if the unborn is human to point of killing the unborn.

    You are right in a way- slavery and abortion are not equal. Abortion is FAR WORSE than slavery, with advocates for both simply using the SAME TIRED RHETORIC.


    Megan: If women who seek abortions are characterized as delusional or helpless, then how can we expect them to be competant mothers?

    Me: It's your side who wants to play argument abortion is needed for so-called helpless women. It's sure not our side doing that.

    But let's apply your argument to mothers who kill their kids. By your logic, since those who do kill their kids after birth are delusional or whatever, they should be allowed to kill their mids after birth since they would not be competent mothers had they made the CHOICE not to kill their kids?

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 11:38 AM


    Megan: Why do you privilege a fetus' right to life over a woman's right to control her body?

    Me: Your rights stop at another person's nose, that's why. If your rights infringe on the first basic right, which is to life, then it should be unlawful.


    Megan: You argue that we should not kill human life at any point during the life stage, but WHY? [Please do not invoke fears that abortion will enable the devaluation of (born) human beings, because it hasn't been proven.


    Me: It has been MORE THAN PROVEN. Science textbooks do in fact state life begins at CONCEPTION.

    But let's turn the argument back to you: if you believe it is ok to make up rules as we go along to allow murder at any stage of life, then you should have no problem making it legal for male serial killers to go after females in college level.

    Your argument is sick, and when taken to its logical conclusion has grim results for anybody, not just the unborn.

    Usually in history, the ones who lose the most when such argument carries the laws are the FEMALES!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Megan: I'm pretty sure WAR is reponsible for devaluing human life, but how many of you are staunch pacifists?] If you want to talk about life stage, technically gametes are part of an individual's life stage. One could extend the protections of personhood back as conceivably far as possible (Can we criminalize smokers for polluting their bodies and thus making them less conducive to carrying healthy pregnancies?).

    Me: We do in fact punish pregnant mothers for ENDANGERING their unborn by taking drugs.

    Megan: Why does it not make sense to mark birth, or even viability, as the point marking entrance to the human community?

    Me: Because it would be deny humanity to those who are humans.

    It would be doing what the slaveowners did to blacks and Native Americans, what the Nazis did to Jews, what the Asian and European mafia today are doing to female sex slaves, etc., etc.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 11:44 AM


    "Every member of Congress should discard their own beliefs and the wishes of their constituents and bend to my political will!"


    As Roe v Wade did with the will of the people in many states?

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 11:47 AM


    Nope, we don't prescribe abortion for anyone. Women themselves are in the best position to decide whether they can sustain a pregnancy and bring a child into the world, not you or the government. And no, abortion does not give license to kill extant children--do you actually have an example of this occurring?

    If you've ever spent a day working in a juvenile detention center, you'd see the results of bad parenting. Of women who decide to have kids and just can't take care of them. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs in the world and women should enter into it as prepared as possible.

    I'm sorry, but sex doesn't mean pregnancy contract. A friend of mine, a MARRIED woman with a six year old girl, just had an abortion because she couldn't support another kid--financially, emotionally, time-wise. Try telling married women not to have sex. Or should they just be prepared to get pregnant all the time?

    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 11:47 AM


    I read like 80 percent of the people (even those who are pro-choicers) do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions. Yet abortion group advocates want Congress to DISREGARD the will of the people there, too!

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 11:48 AM


    No, my argument isn't sick. By making abortion legal you mark personhood at the point of viability or birth. Abortion doesn't mean "nobody is a person in need of protection." We protect the born, the living. No serial killers allowed, in other words. And you didn't answer my question, really: HAS abortion lead to the devaluation of the lives of BORN individuals? HAVE we started allowing serial killers to murder women because, legally, we don't consider embryos to be people?

    No. Stop scaremongering.

    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 11:55 AM


    Megan: Nope, we don't prescribe abortion for anyone.


    Me: No, you just demand the right to have it for any reason whatsoever.

    Megan: Women themselves are in the best position to decide whether they can sustain a pregnancy and bring a child into the world, not you or the government.

    Me: Yeah, but your side constantly demand we pay for your abortions and demand the government make us do so.

    If abortion is murder, and any bio text can validate that on grounds life begins at conception, then it is not a right one should have unless to save oneself or similar extreme cases.

    Your arguments are no different than if one has said: "Women themselves are in the best position to decide they can keep mothering the child after birth or getting rid of the child by murder, not you or the government."

    Just because women have their children do not mean they should be the ones also to kill them before or after birth. Your arguments are now just not just arguing the unborn is the woman's body, but now arguing women know their circumstances so they should do whatever they want.

    If we apply that to after birth, even those on your side would be calling such mothers selfish and heartless. Sorry, but the mentality you expressed here on before birth is the same mentality as that.

    Megan: If you've ever spent a day working in a juvenile detention center, you'd see the results of bad parenting. Of women who decide to have kids and just can't take care of them. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs in the world and women should enter into it as prepared as possible.


    Me: If they can't parent give the kids to those that can.

    By your logic, it should be acceptable for mothers to kill their babies one day or hour after they are born once they believe in their own heads they cannot parent to keep their own kids from growing up to bad.

    The attitude is equally selfish. And is not about the kids.

    It's narcissism and me first, no matter who gets hurt or killed in the process.

    Megan: I'm sorry, but sex doesn't mean pregnancy contract. A friend of mine, a MARRIED woman with a six year old girl, just had an abortion because she couldn't support another kid--financially, emotionally, time-wise. Try telling married women not to have sex. Or should they just be prepared to get pregnant all the time?

    Me: If they know they cannot afford to have another kid, that's their fault still if they do get pregnant out of their own choice to have sex. Period.

    You are not responsible to keep another human alive, UNLESS you are responsible in the first place for putting the human in position to DEFEND ON YOU.

    That's what sex and resulting pregnancy IS.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 11:56 AM


    "HAVE we started allowing serial killers to murder women because, legally, we don't consider embryos to be people?"


    No, but the reason why they exist is because 1) they are bereft of the idea of sanctity of life and 2) they are bereft of any morals other than what pleases or serves them.


    The justifications for abortion always ends with the mothers doing it because the unborn is inconvenient to them.

    If mothers had done it to the born they would be considered selfish and narcissitic. Your mentality is the same as that.


    Megan: No. Stop scaremongering.

    Me: Oh, that's what your side do, always constantly playing card people are out to take rights of women to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

    It is scaremongering on your part.

    If a woman has an unborn child, the child is another human being with another body who feels his or her own pain.

    Do you believe pregnant women have four hands, four arms, four legs, four feet, two heads, two hearts, two brains, etc.?

    Do you believe pregnant women with unborn male child has a penis as her organ?

    After all, if the unborn male is the woman's body as you so claim, then that means the pregnant woman has a penis, too.

    Yeah, gross. But precisely why your argument that the unborn is woman's body and not another is so off-based. And precisely why your argument that we are taking away rights of you to do whatever you want with your own body is so off-base.

    Kathy Ireland got it right on the penis analogy there in regards to the pregnant woman and the unborn.

    When you have to dehumanize the unborn, eventually that opens the door to others being dehumanized, too.

    It is not scaremongering to point out facts: 1) your side do indeed dehumanize a whole class of humanity, 2) your side does in fact treat the unborn as property in ways slaveowners did to slaves and then WORSE.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:04 PM


    I refer you to Liz Stanton, one of the earliest feminists who did indeed see abortion as a form of women enslaving their children (not to mention murder):


    "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:06 PM


    "Me: No, it is not. It is dishonest and stupid to claim the Constitution saw abortion as fundamental right, when those who wrote themselves said at the time when the unborn can move, and established as human life, abortion was to be banned under common law. They saw that at a certain stage where the humanity of the unborn can be established back then with the limited science they got, it needed to be banned as crime against the unborn."

    "At the time when the [fetus] can move", or as it is better known, quickening, which usually occurs after 18 weeks of gestation. Traditionally (long before Roe v. Wade), abortion was legal up to the point of quickening. Blackstone, one of the major influences on the founding fathers, marked quickening as the point when legal personhood begins, and noted that killing a fetus after that point would not even be murder, but simply a misdemeanor. The founding fathers didn't even consider it necessary to explicitly mention abortion in the Constitution, probably because they didn't think that anyone would ever be crazy enough to want it banned and thus saw it as a non-issue.

    "Me: They DID in fact banned abortion at the point when they believed the unborn is human."

    Uh huh. And now you want to ban abortion completely, not at the point of quickening, and you're lecturing me about what the founding fathers intended?

    "Me: Sorry, but your issue is with history. Nearly all the original state constitutions stated Christian denominations and Protestant religion. The treaty of Paris stated the God they worshipped is that of undivided Trinity. The Northwest Ordinance voted and signed into law by the very same ones who set up and gave us the Constitution mandated religion and morality as essential to our laws and institutions. George Washington said the exact same thing in his Farewell Address."

    State constitutions, ancient acts of Congress, and farewell addresses are irrelevant here. The Constitution makes no direct mention of God or any religion whatsoever.

    "As Roe v Wade did with the will of the people in many states?"

    Supreme Court justices are not elected representatives. The Supreme Court is not a democracy and its job is not to enforce the will of the people, its job is to interpret the Constitution.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 12:06 PM


    This has been an interesting debate to watch - and what I've liked is that except for a few lapses, I think you folks have actually acted like adults!

    My quick question to Punisher - this is what always interests me - what does the law look like - specifically:

    - What exceptions would you allow for and abortion would be legal?
    - What is the punishment for a doctor who performs an abortion?
    - What is the punishment for the women who gets an abortion?

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 4, 2010 12:07 PM


    Anne: Uh huh. And now you want to ban abortion completely, not at the point of quickening, and you're lecturing me about what the founding fathers intended?


    Me: No, I don't want to ban abortion completely. Not in the case of mother's life in danger, and I am torn on the case of rape and incest (I do believe it is wrong, but I can't judge women who do so).

    The problem is you claim abortion is fundamental right of privacy that should be ALLOWED in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES at EVERY STAGE OF PREGNACY.

    The founders did not hold to that.

    And apparently you can't read what I wrote.

    I didn't say the founders banned abortion in all stages. I said they banned it at the point where they believed based on science info of the times human life began in the woman's body.

    Regardless, though they did retained abortion like you said at QUICKENING.

    Which means your argument that abortion is right guaranteed by the Constitution is indeed stupid and intellectually dishonest, to use your own words!

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:11 PM


    Punisher - one down, two to go:

    - What is the punishment for a doctor who performs an abortion?
    - What is the punishment for the women who gets an abortion?

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 4, 2010 12:13 PM


    "Blackstone, one of the major influences on the founding fathers, marked quickening as the point when legal personhood begins, and noted that killing a fetus after that point would not even be murder, but simply a misdemeanor. The founding fathers didn't even consider it necessary to explicitly mention abortion in the Constitution, probably because they didn't think that anyone would ever be crazy enough to want it banned and thus saw it as a non-issue."


    Your arguments are so hilariously self-refuting.

    You admit at some stage in pregnancy the founders did indeed BANNED abortion when they believed human life began (which is precisely MY POINT) then turn around and said they don't believe anyone would be crazy enough to want it banned.

    Apparently, they were "crazy" enough to want it banned at the stage they believed human life began!

    The founders in that regards were NOT PRO-CHOICERS no matter how much you spin it!

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:14 PM


    "- What is the punishment for a doctor who performs an abortion?"


    Life in prison without possibility of parole.

    (I am opposed to the death penalty because it is inequitable and too many cases of bad science convicting people, and overzealous prosecutors and other problems with the legal system.)


    "- What is the punishment for the women who gets an abortion?"

    Depends. If they didn't know the unborn is human and are misled by those doing abortions who should know better, then prison time, but more like 10 years.

    If they knew, life in prison.

    Those don't apply to exceptions I mentioned above.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:17 PM


    Thanks Punisher - most folks won't even answer that. That is where it becomes an interesting political sell. Logically, you'd have to treat the woman like somebody who hires a hit man - I mean, if you truly put a baby in the womb on the same par with the baby out of the womb - and either one takes that baby to have it killed - logically, I don't know how a person wouldn't argue for life in prison (if they don't accept the death penalty - I agree with you - against the DP).

    But while it is easy for folks in society to say they are against abortion, when it gets to actual punishments - well,it gets interesting.

    Also gets interesting when people actually have to vote for it - see South Dakota and Colorado.

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 4, 2010 12:21 PM


    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:11 PM

    My arguments are self-refuting? You think abortion is murder and yet you would still allow it in cases of rape and incest? Suddenly you can't judge women for committing murder in those circumstances, but you don't seem to have any problem judging women in all the other dire circumstances where abortion is sought.

    The founders did not ban abortion at all. Nothing whatsoever. Yes, I believe the Constitution protects abortion as a right, and yes, I believe that right should be extended to abortion under any circumstances and at any stage of pregnancy.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:14 PM

    Again, the founders never banned abortion at all. You are either dishonest or misinformed.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 12:24 PM


    "But while it is easy for folks in society to say they are against abortion, when it gets to actual punishments - well,it gets interesting."

    Alot of that has to do do with what pro-choicers often refuse to admit exist in pro-lifers- their own compassion for pregnant women facing tough choices in life, lead them to be a little bit inconsistent when it comes to punishment.

    It is ironic- since if prolifers had said what I said, they would be branded as anti-women, and if they are inconsistent as you rightfully pointed out, they would be branded as hypocrites by many pro-abortionists and pro-choicers.

    I can have compassion, too, for those who made these choices which I find wrong, but there has to be consequences. I do feel our prison system is also broken. I do feel life in prison should not be to where the person left there is cut off from all contact with family, spouse, etc., if they have reformed in prison. And even leniency eventually if they over many years show they are remorseful and changed.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:25 PM


    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:17 PM

    Really? If I shoot someone then claim I didn't know they're human, would Judge Punisher give me a lenient sentence for murder also?

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 12:28 PM


    "The founders did not ban abortion at all. Nothing whatsoever. Yes, I believe the Constitution protects abortion as a right, and yes, I believe that right should be extended to abortion under any circumstances and at any stage of pregnancy. Again, the founders never banned abortion at all. You are either dishonest or misinformed."

    You, Anne, are embarrassing yourself with these statements.

    Your own source state:

    " Traditionally (long before Roe v. Wade), abortion was legal up to the POINT OF QUICKENING. Blackstone, one of the major influences on the founding fathers, marked quickening as the point when legal personhood begins, and noted that killing a fetus after that point would not even be murder, but simply a misdemeanor."

    Your own source contradicts itself, and so did you.

    If abortion is allowed only up to time of QUICKENING, then that means it is BANNED at that point and afterwards.

    No, you want to see you want to see, even when your own source contradicts yourself AND you.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:29 PM


    "The founders did not ban abortion at all. Nothing whatsoever."

    What part of "up to the point of QUICKENING" do you not get? They did in fact retained common law against abortion at point of quickening and after. You are in serious denial there.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:31 PM


    And Anne is indeed revising history.

    Here is more info on founders and abortion:

    http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html

    The Declaration of Independence draws a very clear line between sanity and insanity by proclaiming the existence of certain self-evident truths that all rational men should recognize: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    A self-evident truth is, by definition, evident to anyone who is sane. Persons who do not accept that all human beings are endowed with an inalienable right to life—for example, the 82 percent of Americans who think abortion should be legal—are, by this definition, insane.

    The right to life is inalienable because it is not of human, but of divine origin. 1 Because man does not create himself, he cannot deprive himself of the primary goods that are inherent to human existence: life, freedom and happiness. Just as no government can deny its citizens these inalienable rights, neither can a man deprive himself of these rights. The “inalienable” right to life thus precludes abortion as well as suicide.2

    A Closer Look at Roe
    But what about Roe vs. Wade? Does a “penumbra,” or shadow, of the 14th Amendment guarantee a right to privacy that includes the right to an abortion?

    The fact is, as Justice Byron White’s dissenting opinion in Roe vs. Wade concluded, there is “nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgement.” Indeed, just as the logical development of the Declaration’s recognition of man’s inherent liberty required federal intervention to abolish slavery, the Declaration’s acknowledgment of the inalienable right to life would seem to favor federal intervention to end abortion. 3

    James Wilson’s “Lectures on Law,” given at what eventually was to become the University of Pennsylvania, clearly affirm that the right to life encompasses the unborn. Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798. Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life?

    Wilson clearly answers this question: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”4

    Given Wilson’s exegesis, one cannot doubt that the Founders recognized that unborn infants are owed the full protection of the law. The key question thus becomes the point at which the unborn fetus becomes an unborn child.

    Wilson, in agreement with the limited medical jurisprudence of his time, assumed that life begins with the “quickening" of the infant in his mother’s womb. As taught by Aristotle, the quickening was the point at which the fetus was infused with a human, rational soul. John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, first printed in 1839, defines the quickening as follows: “The motion of the foetus, when felt by the mother, is called quickening, and the mother is then said to be quick with child. This happens at different periods of pregnancy in different women, and in different circumstances, but most usually about the fifteenth or sixteenth week after conception….”

    One of the sources of both Wilson’s and Bouvier’s opinion is William Blackstone’s widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). Blackstone’s discussion of the quickening observes: “Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb… this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor…"

    The ancient law referred to by Blackstone is best articulated by Henry Bracton (1216-1272), the renowned “Father of the Common Law.”5 As Roe reluctantly admits, Bracton categorized the abortion of a “formed or quickened” fetus as a form of homicide, “the slaying of man by man.” Wilson seems to agree with Bracton on this issue, and thus affirmed that the inalienable right to life applies just as much to unborn, quickened human beings as it does to any other human beings. The fact that Blackstone emphatically characterizes abortion as “a very heinous” crime suggests he may sympathize with the ancient law on this matter.

    Needless to say, the Founders undoubtedly recognized that unborn infants older than 15 weeks possess a constitutionally protected and inalienable right to life. Given that, according to Planned Parenthood, at least 90 percent of all abortions occur in the first trimester, this conclusion seems almost irrelevant. To begin with, however, the obvious intentions of the Founders as well as the weight of the common law compel the Congress and the courts to prohibit abortion—for any reason—in the second and third trimesters. Abortions performed during these late stages are clearly murder—and cannot be justified by a penumbra of the 14th Amendment, the mother’s health or a woman’s “right to choose.”

    Pro-abortionists assert that any restrictions on access to abortion in even the second and third trimesters are bound to result in the prohibition of abortion altogether. By the same logic, however, society would have no right to forbid any crime. The reason abortionists claim that women have an absolute right to an abortion at any time is because they recognize that even the right to an abortion during the first trimester is arbitrary. Douglas Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame, discussed this point in his 22 April 1996 statement before the House Committee on the Judiciary. Kmiec’s analysis of internal Supreme Court memoranda related to Roe vs. Wade revealed that Justice Harry A. Blackmun, author of the Roe majority opinion, even admitted to his fellow justices that “you will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point…is equally arbitrary…” (emphasis added).

    What are we to make of this shocking statement? Perhaps the justices did not know that an infant’s heart begins beating at five weeks or that at eight weeks brain waves can be measured or that at 12 weeks the child can and does cry and sometimes sucks his thumb.

    Abortion is legal today not because the justices did not know when life begins, but because the justices—as well as the 82 percent of Americans cited earlier—do not know what liberty is. For most Americans, liberty is the subjectively defined right to do whatever you can get away with. Sandra Day O’Connor memorialized this faulty conception of freedom in her 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision, which claimed that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    America’s Founding Fathers would have condemned such an opinion as madness. Because both life and liberty are “endowments” or “gifts” from God, the proper exercise of liberty requires that man adhere to the “laws of God and Nature’s God” in the use of his freedom. When James Wilson stated that life begins with the infant’s “quickening,” he was not making an “arbitrary” decision as to who is human and who is not. Wilson’s opinion was based upon a reasonable assessment of the best scientific, legal and philosophical opinions available at the time.

    Had Wilson and the Founders had access to the discoveries of modern biology, they certainly would have agreed that life begins at conception. Medical discoveries in the years following the American Revolution increasingly encouraged American and English lawmakers to come to this conclusion. In 1803, for example, England adopted a law known as Lord Ellenborough’s Act that made it a capital offense to “cause and procure the Miscarriage of any Woman quick with child.” The law established severe penalties for aborting infants in the first trimester as well: “…if any Person or Persons…shall procure to be used or employed, any Instrument or other Means whatsoever, with Intent thereby to cause or procure the Miscarriage of any Woman not being, or not being proved to be, quick with Child at the Time of administering…that then and in every such Case the Person or Persons so offending, their Counsellors, Aiders, and Abettors, knowing of and privy to such Offence, shall be and are hereby declared to be guilty of Felony, and shall be liable to be fined, imprisoned, set in and upon the Pillory, publickly or privately whipped. …"

    Bouvier, citing Theodric and John Beck’s 1835 Elements of Medical Jurisprudence, himself questions the age-old idea of the quickening, noting that “physiologists, perhaps with reason, think that the child is a living being from the moment of conception.” More to the point, Bouvier’s entry, “Foeticide,” comments that “recently, this term has been applied to designate the act by which criminal abortion is procured.” Such scholarship soon bore fruit, with Maine, in 1840, becoming the first state to ban the abortion of infants “quick or not.”6

    Subsequent federal and state laws banning abortion altogether were a logical development of the Founding Fathers’ absolute reverence for the self-evident and inalienable right to life. It is no accident that the Declaration, as written by Thomas Jefferson, characterizes the right to life as the first of those three foundational rights for the sake of which government itself is instituted. Where there is no guarantee of the right to life, legitimate political authority simply does not exist. Where there is no guarantee to life for both the weak and the strong, the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all are themselves at risk. The “New Freedom” heralded by the Supreme Court and other partisans of the Sexual Revolution has thus turned into nothing less than a new enslavement. Only when we as a nation return to our faith in the Creator who gives us life and liberty will we again be truly free.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:32 PM


    Here is what James Wilson, founding father, signeer of Declaration and Constitution, and one of earliest Supreme Court justices said:

    “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is PROTECTED BY THE COMMON LAW In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. BY THE LAW, life is PROTECTED not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

    If abortion is such a fundy right as Anne claimed according to founders, they would have stated that common law violated such rights.

    Not one founder ever did.

    Unlike on issue of slavery when many founders did indeed state it violated God's law, natural law, and founding principles.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:36 PM


    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:29 PM

    Again, show me where the founding fathers banned abortion in any way. They didn't. I brought up Blackstone (an influence on the philosophy of the founding fathers, not a legal authority) to show you how abortion traditionally has been legal in some capacity in virtually all of western civilization and that nonsense about "life beginning at conception" is a very recent idea/talking point.

    "If abortion is allowed only up to time of QUICKENING, then that means it is BANNED at that point and afterwards."

    Abortion being allowed until quickening is a matter of common law (and maybe some state laws, but that's irrelevant when discussing the Constitution); there has never been a federal law of any sort banning abortion after quickening. You are extremely obtuse.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 12:37 PM


    "The founding fathers didn't even consider it necessary to explicitly mention abortion in the Constitution, probably because they didn't think that anyone would ever be crazy enough to want it banned and thus saw it as a non-issue."

    So since they did not ban rape and other heinous crimes that must mean they think no one would be crazy enough to want those banned, too? Silly.

    Regardless, pure history revisionism. Common law ban against abortion at the moment human life is considered beginning in the woman's body did exist.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:38 PM


    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:36 PM

    Really? Too bad the words of James Wilson (one among many founding fathers) expressing his private opinion don't constitute law, huh?

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 12:41 PM


    "Abortion being allowed until quickening is a matter of common law (and maybe some state laws, but that's irrelevant when discussing the Constitution); there has never been a federal law of any sort banning abortion after quickening. You are extremely obtuse."


    No, you are being extremly obtuse. By your logic, since rape is not mentioned as banned by the Constitution, then we should allow that since it has irrelevent to discussing the Constitution.

    Get real.

    The reason why common law is RELEVENT is because it defined when life began AT THE TIME, and where life is defined as such, and agreed on by the founders, then to take away human life at point of quickening (which is when founders saw human life began) and after or to have laws allowing for such would directly violate the fifth amendment against no one's right to life, among other rights, shall be taken away without due process of the law.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:41 PM


    "Really? Too bad the words of James Wilson (one among many founding fathers) expressing his private opinion don't constitute law, huh?"

    Too bad he stated what was actually the law of the times, and too bad also he also stated what Blackstone stated: it is against common law to abort once quickening takes place.

    The founders including Wilson RETAINED those common laws in place against abortion and other things.

    You claimed they saw abortion as fundy right.

    Then prove they removed the common law against abortion.

    You made the claim they were a bunch of pro-choicers.

    Put up or shut up, troll.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:45 PM


    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:38 PM

    Common British law. Our society is based on code law and the judicial interpretations thereof; you cannot have common law in the United States without it being based on relevant statutory law. You are ranting about literally nothing.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 12:46 PM


    "Common British law. Our society is based on code law and the judicial interpretations thereof; you cannot have common law in the United States without it being based on relevant statutory law. You are ranting about literally nothing."


    No, I am ranting about your woefully ignorance of the Constitution, our history, and common law.

    You are merely parroting pro-choice claims founders were pro-choicers on abortion in all stages of it.

    Rubbish.

    Guess what? This history major degreed fella have read Blackstone's commentaries on common law, granted in abridged version.

    You made a fool of yourself claiming Blackstone and common law did not ban abortion at all, by claiming it was legal til quickening.

    Then when that no longer work, you play card common law is irrelevent, when it is YOU WHO BROUGHT IT UP.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:50 PM


    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:41 PM

    Do you even understand how common law works in this country? Do you? "Common law" is the simple practice of courts interpreting code law.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:45 PM

    There was no common law to remove. William Blackstone's writings have no legal effect whatsoever in the United States and never did--they were only an influence on the founding fathers.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 12:51 PM


    Anne: Common British law. Our society is based on code law and the judicial interpretations thereof; you cannot have common law in the United States without it being based on relevant statutory law. You are ranting about literally nothing.

    Me: You are woefully ignorant there or just downright dishonest:


    This refutes Anne's rantings about common law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law


    Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law
    In common law legal systems (connotation 2), the common law (connotation 1) is crucial to understanding almost all important areas of law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts, torts and property do not exist in statute, but ONLY IN COMMON LAW (though there may be isolated modifications enacted by statute). In almost all areas of the law (even those where there is a statutory framework, such as contracts for the sale of goods,[16] or the criminal law),[17] legislature-enacted statutes generally give only terse statements of general principle, and the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the common law (connotation 1). To find out what the precise law is that applies to a particular set of facts, one has to locate precedential decisions on the topic, and reason from those decisions by analogy. To consider but one example, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"—but interpretation (that is, determining the fine boundaries, and resolving the tension between the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses) of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch,[18] so that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by CONSULTING THE COMMON LAW.[19]

    In common law jurisdictions, legislatures operate under the assumption that statutes will be interpreted against the backdrop of the PRE-EXISTING COMMON LAW and custom. For example, in most U.S. states, the criminal statutes are primarily codification of pre-existing common law. (Codification is the process of enacting a statute that collects and restates pre-existing law in a single document—when that pre-existing law is common law, the common law remains relevant to the interpretation of these statutes.) In reliance on this assumption, modern statutes often leave a number of terms and fine distinctions unstated—for example, a statute might be very brief, leaving the precise definition of terms unstated, under the assumption that these fine distinctions will be inherited from pre-existing common law. (For this reason, many modern American law schools teach the common law of crime as it stood in England in 1789, because that centuries-old English common law is a necessary foundation to interpreting modern criminal statutes.)

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:53 PM


    The common law is irrelevant. The Founding Fathers are irrelevant. Nineteenth Century statutes are irrelevant.

    The only thing that matters is that we human beings have inalienable natural rights. These rights are derived from and based upon our nature as living beings. Since we are placental mammals, we have a right to live the way God or Nature created us to live, living through both the necessary unborn stage and the necessary born stage.

    I can give you a detailed refutation of every abortionist fallacy I have ever encountered (and all abortionist "arguments" are fallacies). However, this is not even necessary.

    The simple and unarguable fact is this:

    Once you establish that we are in fact placental mammals you settle the "debate" in favor of unborn human rights for all time.

    Posted by: Joe at April 4, 2010 12:55 PM


    Anne: Do you even understand how common law works in this country? Do you? "Common law" is the simple practice of courts interpreting code law.

    Me: Yes, I do. I took classes on that.

    You are woefully ignorant. Much of our statutory laws are indeed based off common laws, not the other way around.


    Anne: There was no common law to remove. William Blackstone's writings have no legal effect whatsoever in the United States and never did--they were only an influence on the founding fathers.

    Me: More ignorant garbage. Common law as borrowed from England was retained in America.

    Such as anti-sodomy laws that existed til recently in many states.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:56 PM


    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:50 PM

    History major? I can believe that, because your area of expertise sure as hell isn't law. Blackstone's work didn't "ban" anything at all, it's an analysis of 17th century British common law. It has no legal effect whatsoever. I pointed out that abortion was traditionally legal until the point of quickening to disabuse you of the notion that the idea "life begins at conception" is something longstanding and universal in western civilization.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 12:56 PM


    "I pointed out that abortion was traditionally legal until the point of quickening to disabuse you of the notion that the idea "life begins at conception" is something longstanding and universal in western civilization."


    You apparently can't read since I didn't say the founders banned abortion at conception. I said they retained ban on abortion from the point THEY (the founders) believed life began. I never said they saw it at conception.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:59 PM


    "You are woefully ignorant. Much of our statutory laws are indeed based off common laws, not the other way around."

    What the statutory law is based on is completely irrelevant.

    "Me: More ignorant garbage. Common law as borrowed from England was retained in America."

    It only becomes "retained" once it has been codified.

    "Such as anti-sodomy laws that existed til recently in many states."

    And anti-sodomy laws did not magically appear in these states, they had to be brought into existence through the proper legislative channels.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 1:01 PM


    "History major? I can believe that, because your area of expertise sure as hell isn't law.

    You are neither good nor great at law or history in this matter. Don't kid yourself.


    "Blackstone's work didn't "ban" anything at all, it's an analysis of 17th century British common law."

    I never said Blackstone's work banned anything. You raised it up to use as proof abortion was allowed in all stages, then have eggs on your face when it is shown NOT to be the case at quickening and after.

    I said common law did in fact banned abortion in England and then in America at founding, as Wilson testfied to. Or you want to believe you know common law better than Blackstone? Or you believe you know how common law operated in America better than Wilson at its inception?

    Foolish.


    "It has no legal effect whatsoever."

    Never said the book did. I said the common law did.

    As usual, when you can't refute, put words in people's mouth and distort facts.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 1:03 PM


    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 12:59 PM

    Right, and you're completely wrong. The founding fathers did not retain any laws relating to abortion. Are we clear on this historical fact or do you wish to keep repeating it by quoting irrelevant nonsense like the private writings of the Constitution's signers, stupid interpretations of the Declaration of Independence, state laws, etc.?

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 1:04 PM


    "You are neither good nor great at law or history in this matter. Don't kid yourself."

    Your severe deficit in both of these areas is apparent.

    "I never said Blackstone's work banned anything. You raised it up to use as proof abortion was allowed in all stages, then have eggs on your face when it is shown NOT to be the case at quickening and after."

    No, I didn't. I already explained why I brought it up, multiple times. I'm not going to explain again.

    "I said common law did in fact banned abortion in England and then in America at founding, as Wilson testfied to. Or you want to believe you know common law better than Blackstone? Or you believe you know how common law operated in America better than Wilson at its inception?"

    There is no common law in the United States until statutory law has been interpreted by a court. Do you understand this?

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 1:07 PM


    "Right, and you're completely wrong. The founding fathers did not retain any laws relating to abortion. Are we clear on this historical fact or do you wish to keep repeating it by quoting irrelevant nonsense like the private writings of the Constitution's signers, stupid interpretations of the Declaration of Independence, state laws, etc.?"

    In other words, you understand English common law better than Blackstone and you understand our founding principles, abortion, and common law better than one of its founders (one of onl six to sign both the Declarlation and Constitution).

    Somehow Wilson's statements about what the law is is irrelevent, but somehow your rantings about abortion and the Constitution is relevent. You really delude yourself there.

    You simply don't like evidence facts are not on your side so you say they don't count, they are irrelevent, etc., as if you know more, but you offer zero rebuttals to what those things actually state.

    That's most telling of all.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 1:08 PM


    "In other words, you understand English common law better than Blackstone and you understand our founding principles, abortion, and common law better than one of its founders (one of onl six to sign both the Declarlation and Constitution)."

    Once again... completely irrelevant. I should never have even brought up Blackstone because you are terminally incapable of understanding the concept of common law and how it works in this country.

    Posted by: Anne at April 4, 2010 1:14 PM


    "There is no common law in the United States until statutory law has been interpreted by a court. Do you understand this?"


    I guess then you are the expert and the legal experts need your education then since they should have known that the common law of England was not accepted in America at its founding (sarcasm):


    http://www.f-f-a.com/comlaw.htm#1
    WHAT IS COMMON LAW?

    In order to understand the **PURE TRUST and its basis under the Constitution one should become familiar with the definition of Common Law.

    COMMON LAW. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of these principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usage's and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usage's and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. The "common law" is ALL statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies BEFORE the American revolution. People v. Rehman, 253 C.A. 2d 119, 61 Cal. Rptr. 65, 85. "Common law" consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. Bishop v. U.S., D.C. Tex., 334, F. Supp. 415, 418.

    As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals.

    Calif. Civil Code, Section 22.2, provides that the "COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State."

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 1:14 PM


    "Once again... completely irrelevant. I should never have even brought up Blackstone because you are terminally incapable of understanding the concept of common law and how it works in this country."

    It is relevent. YOU DISMISS Blackstone's understanding of the common law on abortion.

    And likewise, you DISMISS James Wilson as well, so apparently according to you, Wilson was terminally incapable of understanding the concept of common law and how it works in this country.

    NO, it is YOU who is guilty there of what you charged others.

    You are a legend at law and history in your own IMAGINATION.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 1:17 PM


    I guess according to Anne, legal experts lack understanding of common law since their site says the common law was adapted in America from England, whereas Anne said no common law was in place at time of America's founding, not even from England.

    This quotes from this site refutes her nonsense:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/common-law

    Is the body of judge‐made law that was administered in the royal courts of England (King's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, and Exchequer Chamber)—in contrast with other bodies of English law administered in different courts, such as equity (see Injunctions and Equitable Remedies), admiralty, canon law, and the customary law of the borough and manorial courts. William Blackstone described the common law as the general customary law of the realm as interpreted by the royal judges, the “living oracles” of the law. The phrase “common law” is sometimes used in contradistinction to “civil law,” which describes the code‐based legal systems of continental Europe (and nations influenced by Europe) that descend ultimately from Roman law.

    The common law WAS RECEIVED IN THE American colonies and ADOPTED AS THE BASIS of American legal systems after the Revolution in the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court is a common‐law court. The Court early held, however, that there is neither a federal common law of crimes (United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 1812) nor a federal civil common law (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834). In American practice, the common law is one of two legal systems (the other being equity), now merged in all jurisdictions including the federal, that are the basis of the American legal order.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 1:22 PM


    Curious that pro-lifers tend to be men and happy mothers--women who consider motherhood a woman's highest calling. If men carried pregnancies abortion would not be an issue.

    We have WAR, we have POVERTY, we have terrible inequities, which are results of patriarchy, not abortion. Rapists and serial killers exist because women's bodies are devalued, plain and simple.

    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 1:28 PM


    Anne: Our society is based on code law and the judicial interpretations thereof; you cannot have common law in the United States without it being based on relevant statutory law. You are ranting about literally nothing.

    Me: I refer you to another law expert site:

    http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c070.htm


    The U.S. is a common law country. In all states except Louisiana (which is based on the French civil code), THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND WAS ADOPTED AS THE GENERAL LAW OF THE STATE, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has NO STATUTORY BASIS; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Thus, 'common law' is used to fill in gaps. Common law changes over time, and at this time, each state has its own common law on many topics. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 1:28 PM


    Megan:

    Wrong. Women support unborn human rights more than men do. If men were more like women, very likely our support for basic human rights (of the unborn) would increase.

    Posted by: Joe at April 4, 2010 1:33 PM


    "Curious that pro-lifers tend to be men and happy mothers--women who consider motherhood a woman's highest calling. If men carried pregnancies abortion would not be an issue."

    Curious that you spout the propaganda you side constantly spouts about how it is about men's need to control women, and if men had abortions, it would not be an issue.

    Sorry, but whether done by female or male, it is still MURDER.

    And the fact that prolifers take the side of the mother against her father or her boyfriend or her husband if she wants to keep the baby puts the lie to your claim there.

    "We have WAR, we have POVERTY, we have terrible inequities, which are results of patriarchy, not abortion."


    Abortion involves terrible inequities. And abortion is patriarchy's best friend, when those aborted are female unborn because fathers and mothers alike all over the world don't value them.

    The fact pro-lifers take stand on behalf of these female unborn puts the lie to your notion that we don't care about women. The fact that we take stand against forced abortions also puts the lie there to that notion.

    If it is about control what women do we would be for forced abortions not against it.

    "Rapists and serial killers exist because women's bodies are devalued, plain and simple."

    Abortions when done many times IS serial killings.

    And guess who gets victimized the MOST by abortions worldwide by far?

    FEMALE babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 1:35 PM


    More sets of facts that refute Anne's claims at founding, America did not for the most part adopt English common law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States

    Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary English cases. This was because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until the mid-19th century; lawyers and judges, as creatures of habit, used English legal materials to fill the gap.[22] But citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people.[23] The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910.[24] Today, in the words of Stanford law professor Lawrence Friedman: "American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite a British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone; but current British law almost never gets any mention."[25] Foreign law has never been cited as binding precedent, but merely as a reflection of the shared values of Anglo-American civilization or even Western civilization in general.[26]

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 1:55 PM


    Megan:

    "Curious that pro-lifers tend to be men and happy mothers--women who consider motherhood a woman's highest calling. If men carried pregnancies abortion would not be an issue.

    "We have WAR, we have POVERTY, we have terrible inequities, which are results of patriarchy, not abortion. Rapists and serial killers exist because women's bodies are devalued, plain and simple."

    Wrong Megan. Rapists and serial killers exist because the WOMEN THEMSELVES are devalued, despised, hated. The attack on the woman is THROUGH her body, precisely because her body is sacred. Part of that sacredness resides in her being the one through whom new humans come into existence.

    Satan hates humans, which is why the womb is ground zero for his assault on humanity. Rapists and serial murderers are more motivated by rue malevolence from hell than from mental illness.

    On this Easter, genuinely wish for you another child to help mold you into the dignity you have abandoned. I also wish for you complete healing.

    http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 4, 2010 3:50 PM


    Should have read:

    "...motivated by TRUE malevolence..."

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 4, 2010 4:00 PM


    Should have read:

    "...motivated by TRUE malevolence..."

    "On this Easter, I genuinely wish for you another child to help mold you into the dignity you have abandoned. I also wish for your complete healing."

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 4, 2010 4:01 PM


    If any of the founding fathers had even mentioned abortion at one of their meetings to
    discuss the constitution,let aone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind!
    Abortion was not even an issue at that time.
    It wasn't even something that people discussed.
    We have no way of knowing what they would have thought of the issue today of they could miraculously come back.
    People who are opposed to abortion conveniently use the constitution,and their own subjective interpretation of it, as an excuse to make abortion illegal again.
    People who are opposed to many things, such as pronography,homosexuality,or this or that do the same with these issues, despite the fact that the constitution says absolutely nothing about what
    things individual Americans are allowed to do.
    Theoretically, any one who opposed anything
    could use the constitution as an excuse to advocate banning virtually anything.

    Posted by: Robert Berger at April 4, 2010 4:51 PM


    "If any of the founding fathers had even mentioned abortion at one of their meetings to
    discuss the constitution,let aone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind!"

    Sorry but by common law, abortion once quickening occurs was indeed illegal in Britain AND America.

    And I already quoted one founding father, James Wilson, who signed both Declaration and Constitution, who indeed stated abortion was illegal in the US at the point of quickening and after, at the time when they believed that was when human life began based on the knowledge they had at the time.

    "Abortion was not even an issue at that time.
    It wasn't even something that people discussed.
    We have no way of knowing what they would have thought of the issue today of they could miraculously come back."


    Yeah, except for the fact Blackstone pointed out that common law forbid abortion in England and its colonies, and founding father James Wilson pointed out the same about our nation when it was founded.

    But don't let facts get in the way of your rants and bigoted remarks everyone who disagree with you are crazy.

    "People who are opposed to abortion conveniently use the constitution,and their own subjective interpretation of it, as an excuse to make abortion illegal again."

    More bigoted rant from you not based on reality or how we think.

    No, we used the own words of founding fathers in regards to what they meant then in regards to the terms they used.

    The fact is abortion as by your own post's admission was illegal once, was it not?

    So we did not invent the idea abortion was antithesis to our founding principles.

    "People who are opposed to many things, such as pronography,homosexuality,or this or that do the same with these issues, despite the fact that the constitution says absolutely nothing about what
    things individual Americans are allowed to do."


    More ignoramus ranting.

    Homosexuality was forbidden by common law at the time.

    And Jefferson, the so-called secularist, himself proposed castration for that which he saw as crime against nature.

    Your argument is absurd and laughable on a grand scale.

    The Constitution also said nothing about rape, incest, etc., etc. So does that mean making laws legalizing them are constitutional or consistent with the principles of the Constitution?

    We use the Constitution to point out abortion is inconsistent with the principles of it, like right to life and liberty. Just as founders like James Wilson did.

    And just as many of them indeed do on issue of slavery, causing it to abolished in all the states in the North and having it banned in the NW Territory as well as by compromise with slaveowners, have the slave trade banned as of 1808.


    "Theoretically, any one who opposed anything
    could use the constitution as an excuse to advocate banning virtually anything."

    No, we simply pointed out the words of the founding fathers as to what they intended.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 4, 2010 5:04 PM


    Dear Redeemer: pro-choicers support women who want to have their babies, too, hence: reproductive freedom.

    Hello, Gerard. Gosh, you sure do flip-flop a lot, hm? Once day I'm stone cold and evil, the next I'm in abject denial. What a magnanimous gesture, to keep giving me the benefit of the doubt! Here me: I'm post-abortive and I'm not suffering. I terminated a six-week-old pregnancy because I do not have the financial or emotional capability of supporting a child. I could not have provided for that child to the best of my ability.

    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 5:31 PM


    "Hello, Gerard. Gosh, you sure do flip-flop a lot, hm? Once day I'm stone cold and evil, the next I'm in abject denial"

    Well Megan, that's not me flip-flopping. That's a function of how you present on any given day, like when you lead off a post by telling me to "Shut up, Gerard".

    Are you suffering? I'd say a dead conscience is about as bad as it gets. Killing your baby because YOU couldn't provide for it as you would have wished is as prideful and arrogant as it gets.

    You denied your baby life itself by killing it.

    You denied a beautiful couple the opportunity to provide for your child.

    You denied the world the beauty of that child, its children and children's children.

    YOU may not be suffering Megan, but your baby did. So did the childless couple who today remain childless.

    And that's the epicenter of it all. The misery ripples out from there.

    In your pride and arrogance, you still don't see the impact of your behavior, do you? No, because it's all about Megan and Megan's feelings.

    It's called narcissism, which is actually a misnomer, as narcissists are NOT characterized by self-love, but by self-loathing.

    Love is the anti-Megan. Love finds a way around the obstacles, and is not given to acts of despair such as abortion. It is sacrificial in nature. Parental love even more-so than spousal love. I pray that one day you get to see that from the inside.

    You don't even know just how bad you are suffering Megan. Guilt would be a healthy step in the right direction, and Carla is the perfect woman to lovingly show you the way home.

    Abortion is far from the worst sin Megan. I actually believe that God imputes little subjective guilt to most women because they were lied to and bullied into it. The terrible fury of God is reserved for the abortionists and auxiliary personnel who prey upon women and their babies.

    Through your ferocity Megan, there is an undeniable beauty about you. Don't let that die. E-mail Carla, or call Rachel's Vineyard some day. The last casualty from your abortion is your beauty, and you are beautiful Megan. All of the ancillary rationalization and defensiveness have not blotted that out.

    God Bless.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 4, 2010 6:47 PM


    At the close of this Resurrection Day, I wonder how many people realized how great God is, how much He loves us, and what Jesus did on the cross for us.....the ultimate pro-life story?

    When all is said and done, when all the arguments are made, the simple question each one of us will have to answer is, "who do you say that I am".

    As for me, I say, "you are the Christ, the Son of the living God, save me from myself and.....thank you'.

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at April 5, 2010 12:47 AM


    Good God. The complexity of my situation, reduced to one word: arrogance. Do you not think I considered how the lives of those around me would be changed if I continued my pregnancy? How unfair it would have been to ask my parents to help me raise a child when they've just finished raising their own? How psychologically crushing it would have been for my partner (and myself) to have brought a child into the world and allowed somebody else to raise it? You claim you're an advocate for women's well-being, but your reductive characterizations of our experiences do nothing but infantilize.

    Six weeks. Why does our legal system not recognize the personhood of six-week-old pregnancies? Is this the work of Satan? Were Roe v. Wade feminists secretly men dressed in women's clothing?

    I continue to explain (and defend myself) to highlight YOUR arrogance.

    Posted by: Megan at April 5, 2010 10:04 AM


    PLEASE do not equate slavery with pregnancy. The analogy disrupts the unity of the mother/fetus dyad and implies that fetuses are "trapped" or "imprisoned" inside their mothers. The analogy cheapens motherhood. Women are not simply holding cells for unborn children. This kind of thinking opens the floodgates for all kinds of government intrusion. Are we going to start criminalizing pregnant women for taking Prozac out of fear that psychotropic meds will hurt unborn children? Are we going start fining women who miscarriage for suspicion of malfeasance?

    Women deserve to make informed decisions about their bodies and their pregnancies. Even if fetuses WERE conferred the rights of personhood, a woman shouldn't be forced to sustain a developing fetus. If women who seek abortions are characterized as delusional or helpless, then how can we expect them to be competant mothers?
    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 11:26 AM

    Megan, it is YOUR side that uses this argument, not ours. We are arguing against the use of slavery as an argument. The pro-abort side says that by "forcing" women to continue a pregnancy we are making THEM slaves.

    I'm not sure if you've ever heard of this option called adoption? It is this amazing way of NOT killing a child in utero but still recognizing that some women simply aren't ready to be raise a child yet. A family that DOES want to raise another child steps in and provides all of the care for that child. Nowadays, the birth mother can even be given regular updates and pictures of the child.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 5, 2010 10:31 AM


    "How psychologically crushing it would have been for my partner (and myself) to have brought a child into the world and allowed somebody else to raise it?"


    Precisely the proof that many justification for abortion are very narcissitic.

    If a mother kills her new infant child right after birth when she realized she and her boyfriend, who is father of the child, cannot support the child and she does not want anyone else raising the child since it would be psychologically crushing to her, what would you think of that?

    Your argument is reduced to your claim you don't want the child but you don't want anyone else raising the child so let's not give the child the chance to live. It is purely self-centered and twisted.

    If that's the justification to use, then you cnanot even condemn mothers who kill their children after birth for same reasons you stated without condemning yourself.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 5, 2010 10:33 AM


    "Megan, it is YOUR side that uses this argument, not ours. We are arguing against the use of slavery as an argument. The pro-abort side says that by "forcing" women to continue a pregnancy we are making THEM slaves."


    It is correct that it's her side equating pregnancy with slavery. But our side do from time to time (as I do) point out parallels between right to abortion with right to own slaves, since abortionists and slaveowners strikingly used pretty much the same rhetoric: 1) right to own another as right of privacy, 2) right to own another as right of property to dispose of as see fit, 3) define another as property to justify this stance, 4) those who object are forcing their morality and religion unto them, 5) if we see it is wrong to do either, don't do it, but let them have that freedom to do so, under banner of either states' rights or individual rights.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 5, 2010 10:37 AM


    "I'm not sure if you've ever heard of this option called adoption?"

    She sure has since she wrote this argument: "How psychologically crushing it would have been for my partner (and myself) to have brought a child into the world and allowed somebody else to raise it?"

    Posted by: Punisher at April 5, 2010 10:39 AM


    Here me: I'm post-abortive and I'm not suffering. I terminated a six-week-old pregnancy because I do not have the financial or emotional capability of supporting a child. I could not have provided for that child to the best of my ability.
    Posted by: Megan at April 4, 2010 5:31 PM

    So, it's better to destroy your child than to allow someone else to raise it? That has got to be the sickest perversions I've ever heard of.

    And selfish... you make it all about you. YOU wanted to have sex without consequences. YOU didn't want to raise a child. YOU didn't want to give a child up for adoption. And so an innocent must die so that you can live the life you wanted to live.

    How very, very sad.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 5, 2010 10:50 AM


    Posted by: Megan at April 5, 2010 10:04 AM Do you not think I considered how the lives of those around me would be changed if I continued my pregnancy? You just forgot to consider how the life of the one INSIDE you would not just be changed, but ended.

    How unfair it would have been to ask my parents to help me raise a child when they've just finished raising their own? [emphasis added] So "fairness" and "consideration of others" were your motivation? Do you think your parents would be obligated to help you raise a child? That they would see their granddaughter/son as a burden? Your decision was neither fair nor considerate to your child, Megan.

    Posted by: klynn73 at April 5, 2010 10:51 AM


    "I'm not sure if you've ever heard of this option called adoption?"

    She sure has since she wrote this argument: "How psychologically crushing it would have been for my partner (and myself) to have brought a child into the world and allowed somebody else to raise it?"
    Posted by: Punisher at April 5, 2010 10:39 AM

    Yeah, I saw that afterwards.

    How sad... how selfish... better that the child die than that she have any inconvenience or potential psychological pain.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 5, 2010 10:56 AM


    Punisher: there is no slippery slope. A mother isn't justified in killing (born) children because, expelled from the body, the child is conferred with the rights of autonomy and personhood. Didn't Congress enact the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002?

    We treat children as children, not embryos. EMBRYOS.

    Posted by: Megan at April 5, 2010 11:17 AM


    Punisher: there is no slippery slope. A mother isn't justified in killing (born) children because, expelled from the body, the child is conferred with the rights of autonomy and personhood. Didn't Congress enact the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002?

    We treat children as children, not embryos as children. EMBRYOS.

    Posted by: Megan at April 5, 2010 11:18 AM


    "there is no slippery slope. A mother isn't justified in killing (born) children because, expelled from the body, the child is conferred with the rights of autonomy and personhood."

    You are baiting and switching arguments here. Your post did not say you should have right to abort because the unborn is not a person. You argue you should have the right because it is too psychologically damaging for you to give birth and let someone else take care of that child. That statement in of itself can be used to justify anything that those like Susan Smith and Andrea Yates did.

    "Didn't Congress enact the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002?"

    Yes, and it did so to protect infants who escaped death despite the attempts to abort them. Just that fact shows those being aborted are real life human beings.

    There is no material difference between babies that are about to be born any second and babies just born, yet your side see no problem aborting right up to the point of delivery.

    That act refutes your claims as well then.

    Posted by: Punisher at April 5, 2010 11:23 AM


    Punisher, I don't have to justify myself to you. Let me clarify: six-week-old fetus=NOT a person. Continuing pregnancy=my prerogative. And no, Andrea Yates did not have the right to kill her children because she gave birth to them. Expelled them from her womb. A pretty clear distinction.

    (Also, while we're on the Andrea Yates topic, let us consider WHY she killed her children. Was it the mentality that women should feel compelled to continue pregnancies they don't want? An overbearing husband who insisted on having X amount of kids? I wonder!)

    Also, if you're not aware, there are some pretty hefty restrictions on late-term abortions--they're not common, and when they do happen, it's usually for good reason. If you were pregnant and discovered in the seventh month taht your fetus had severe multiple congenital abnormalities or, say, Trisomy 13, would you continue with the pregnancy and wait for the child to die after a few days of agonizing existence?

    Posted by: Megan at April 5, 2010 1:44 PM


    Also, please see this article, testimony of a devout Christian who pursued a second-trimester abortion:

    http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html

    Posted by: Megan at April 5, 2010 1:53 PM


    Please see this video, testimony of devout Christian parents who pursued life for their son after learning in the 7th month of pregnancy that he had trisomy 18.

    Posted by: Fed Up at April 5, 2010 3:08 PM


    Obviously, not a devout Christian.

    Megan, go to:

    http://www.ehd.org

    Click on "Watch The Movies". They have a great little video of a 7 week BABY (and I do mean BABY), who is roughly equivalent to your child.

    Take a look at who you killed. Have the courage and honesty to face the truth.

    Posted by: Joe at April 5, 2010 3:10 PM


    "Andrea Yates did not have the right to kill her children because she gave birth to them. Expelled them from her womb. A pretty clear distinction.

    Megan,
    You're making no sense with this argument of expulsion...

    This may not be a perfect analogy, but - Is the creature that comes out of a cocoon NOT a butterfly even ONE minute before it breaks open the cocoon? Or when it is half-way out of the cocoon?? Only if you answered that it still is not a butterfly would your argument make sense regarding a human baby in the womb who is ready to be born.

    Posted by: Janet at April 5, 2010 3:11 PM


    Hi Megan,
    Bethany, another moderator here miscarried a baby at 6 weeks.
    Here are photos of Blessing. Please take note of the close up photo of Blessing's fingers.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/miscarriage/blessings-photo.html

    Your posts break my heart, Megan. I will be praying for you.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 5, 2010 3:40 PM


    Fed Up,
    LOVE 99 Balloons! I watch it when I need a good cry.
    Thanks for sharing.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 5, 2010 3:47 PM



    "Good God. The complexity of my situation, reduced to one word: arrogance. "

    That's not true Megan. I also used 'narcissism'.

    But, that's not hard to do when guided by moral clarity.


    "Six weeks. Why does our legal system not recognize the personhood of six-week-old pregnancies? Is this the work of Satan? Were Roe v. Wade feminists secretly men dressed in women's clothing?

    "I continue to explain (and defend myself) to highlight YOUR arrogance."

    Megan, arrogance is the unlawful usurpation of rights, such as the right to life. So yes, arrogance fits your action well.

    Don't dare appeal to the US Supreme Court to justify the butchering of babies merely because the Court gave its tacit approval.

    Not here.

    Not with me.

    Not unless you apply the same logic, the same standard to the Court in the following cases that also were handed down by savages in black robes:

    Dred Scott, which even declared free blacks to not enjoy personhood status.

    Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld the segregation laws of the South.

    Buck v Bell, which upheld eugenic sterilization laws in 37 states, laws aimed at people like my son.

    Koramatsu v US, which upheld the right of the government to seize the property and assets of Japanese-Americans and throw them into concentration camps for the duration of WWII.

    In every case, savages in black robes arrogated to themselves rights they did not have.

    In every case, these savages condemned millions of lives to misery, many to murder.

    In every case, the rights arrogated were the VERY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS spoken of as belonging to God in the Declaration of Independence.

    Yes Megan, Satanic fits very well what these brutal men did in every generation of the Supreme Court. Though the field of Embryology has spoken consistently of the human identity of the embryo and fetus, the Court in Roe abrogated the personhood rights of the unborn, while simultaneously admitting that they did not know when human life begins.

    That's arrogance. Your apologias for this barbarism are cut from the same bolt of cloth.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 5, 2010 4:11 PM


    "It's ONLY a 6 week old fetal human."

    "It's ONLY a 12 hour old infant."

    "It's ONLY a 2 year old toddler."

    "It's ONLY a 7 year old girl."

    Yeah, Megan...NOW I can really see where you're coming from. Susan Smith and Casey Anthony, too.

    Posted by: xalisae at April 5, 2010 5:48 PM


    Posted by: Robert Berger at April 4, 2010 4:51 PM


    "If any of the founding fathers had even mentioned abortion at one of their meetings to
    discuss the constitution,let aone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind!"

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

    burbler,

    The founding fathers did get around to discussing slavery and that is were that 3/5's of person thing comes from in the constitution. That is the only oblique reference to the topic.

    The abolitionists knew they could not get the slave states to ratify the constitution if they tryed to include the slave within it's protection.

    But they also knew if they allowed the bigots in the south to count their slaves in the census then the south would be way over represented in congress and the abolitionists would never be able to legislate an end to slavery.

    They compormised to get the constitution ratified and a nation established.

    Henry Lloyd Garrison, a rabid abolitionists, called the resultant document a 'compact wih the devil and a covenant with hell'.

    Oppostion to slavery and the effort to abolish it never ceased from the day of the ratification of the consitution to the commencement of the Civil War.

    Just because abortion is not mentioned in the document does not automatically mean that the founding fathers were appathetic or of no opinion on the matter.

    Though I do not expect there would be uninamity of opinion on the subject I do believe even the bigots of the south would have recognized the humanity of the prenatal child and accordingly there would have been a plurality, if not a majority, who would have moved crimialize the procedure.

    Subsequently, nearly all the sates did criminalize it individually in the late 19th century and the early 20th century.

    yor bro ken


    Posted by: kbhvac at April 5, 2010 9:02 PM


    When I was working in postpartum doing breastfeeding counseling, I had the most amazing young couple. They had had several miscarriages and this, their first living child, had trisomy 18. They carried the baby to term. He was missing much of his skull and therefore his brain tissue was exposed. He was also missing orbital sockets and eyes.

    Not only was he given life, his mother pumped breastmilk to feed him. Rather than dying in just a few hours, we watched this little man's cheeks get rosier and chubbier and he got stronger, rather than weaker. After three days he was discharged to a local high acuity children's long term care facility where mom and dad could learn how to care for his medical needs.

    I have often wondered how long he lived. He was so loved. Not just mom and dad, but their entire extended families.

    Two moments stand out to me. One, a PCT (patient care technician) walked past me taking the baby from the nursery to his mother. She whispered in my ear, "Have you seen this monster?" I glared at her, smiled at him and said, "His name is XXXX." (Name removed for patient privacy reasons.)

    But the most precious moment to me was walking in to mom and dad's room the first time to assist her in learning how to use the breast pump. I walked in and you could see mom (who was only about 20 or 21) tense up wondering how I would react to her son. I looked down at the little one, smiled, looked at mom and said, "He has your cheeks... look how rosy they are!" Her eyes filled with tears as she smiled at me.

    This child could not have lived very long. I do know, however, that what life he had was full of so very much love.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 5, 2010 11:04 PM


    Elisabeth,

    You are a beautiful woman!! Thank you for sharing this with us, and for the witness you gave to the human dignity of this little boy.

    His life may have been brief, but his mission was undoubtedly accomplished in a very short time. Through his weakness, his parents perfected themselves in love, rising above the defects and embracing the very essence of their little baby boy.

    You and the PCT were also afforded the opportunity to further perfect yourselves in love. The PCT failed. You advanced in the spiritual life.

    Being the father of a son with autism, I cannot bless you enough for your holding the parent's fragile emotional state in such loving safekeeping!!

    Thanks again.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 6, 2010 12:06 AM


    Gerald:

    If your son has autism, perhaps you are aware of the progress being made against autism using Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), one of the so-called "energy therapies"?

    These techniques can also be used for a very wide variety of psychological and physical ailments.

    Go to:


    www.emofree.com

    and under "search" punch in "autism" or "autistic" and see what EFT practitioners and people by themselves have been able to accomplish using this technique. Good luck.

    Posted by: Joe at April 6, 2010 6:38 AM


    Joe,

    Thank you for the information. I'm going there right now.

    God Bless

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 6, 2010 10:32 AM


    Gerard,
    My almost 14 year old son has Asperger's Syndrome. He was diagnosed autistic as a preschooler but is today a happy, healthy (if somewhat quirky) and brilliant mathematician.

    Also, my 4 year old daughter has Sensory Integration Disorder which is part and parcel of the autistic spectrum.

    It definitely can be a challenge to raise these children... but honestly, it is a challenge to raise any child. These are just different challenges.

    I would recommend anything put out by the Sonrise Institute. In addition, I found great value in "The Out of Sync Child" and "What to Do About Your Brain Injured Child." The latter is by Glenn Doman, I can't put my hand on my copy of the former just now, but I know it's available on Amazon.

    I consider myself the one blessed by my interactions with this young, precious family. I have always stated that I leave my family planning up to God himself. Seeing the truth of that carried through what had to be a most difficult situation challenged and strengthened my faith in that area.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 6, 2010 10:45 AM