Feminists decry "The Pill Kills the Environment Day"; only politically correct toxins allowed

the pill kills the environment day.png

I am one of American Life League's The Pill Kills Day proud cosponsors, which is today.

So I've been watching with interest the reaction of liberals and feminists to ALL's theme this year, "The Pill Kills the Environment." Here is an excerpt from a post I have up at BigJournalism.com on this...

... The Pill Kills Day... focuses on the various harmful effects of the birth control pill. ALL's focus on this 3rd annual event is the Pill's harmful effects on the environment.

But it turns out, just as Feministing.com founder Jessica Valenti wrote in a May 30 Washington Post op ed that one cannot be a feminist without supporting abortion, neither, apparently, can one be an environmentalist without supporting the right toxins....

Carol King at the Ms. magazine blog was "amused" by the pro-life side's "antics" to draw attention to the fact that waste estrogen from the birth control pill is harming the environment, a point which, King wrote, "sent me into howls of laughter."

King went on to downplay estrogen's impact on the environment because, she erroneously claimed, it is confined to certain waterways, as if that matters anyway....

Continue reading my post, "For 'real' feminists, only politically correct environmentalists need ppply," at BigJournalism.com.

Also see a June 4 CBN interview with ALL's Marie Hahnenberg on the dangers of The Pill here.


Comments:

Valenti and King and Marcotte and all the others would probably be secretly delighted to turn men into women. A planet full of women would be just about perfect to them.

Once again, they prove that logic and reason are only welcome if you're pro-abortion, pro-birth control, pro-promiscuity, and anti-God.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 5, 2010 2:50 PM


I must say I was amused by this Fish protection push as well today (we had a gathering outside of DC PP). I took notice of the "feminizing" of the fish which, you have to admit, is a humorous notion. Of course, a more correct term would be the fish are undergoing heterogamy or parthenogenesis but I'm not expecting etymologically correct statements from the movement and we all use simpler terms in conversation anyways. They are having a sex change is the jest of it but the term feminizing is funny.

Amphibians do this, naturally. This isn’t some crazy mutation and is an evolutionary defense to keep the population stable. However, the ‘pill kills’ squad isn’t completely off base. The fish's evolutionary defense is being triggered when it shouldn't be and pollution is being linked to the cause. Of course, it isn't just BC estrogen that triggers this, modern society is 'addicted' to pharmaceuticals and most of them are not fully absorbed and pass into our sewage. Also paints, plastics, detergents and soaps mimic estrogens effects and it is the synthetic estrogen cited in controlled studies in America that is affecting the fish, as noted by the Pill Kills website. We go through a lot more of that than we do BC but we won’t let that deter us on the road to end BC usage.

Of course, what all these means to us, we don’t know so insert whatever crazy slippery slope you want while tests are under weigh.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 3:57 PM


Before starting to read this blog, I didn't know people were against the pill. I still don't think I understand - I would think high use of the pill would lead to less unwanted pregnancies, thus less abortions. And I thought that was the plan. No?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at June 5, 2010 5:21 PM


"The Pill Kills"

A male WGN radio host (who happens to be French) had a totally inane 2-hour show today about the Pill.

His main point was that sex is great and the Pill is SO much better than having to use a condom.

If a caller brought up their religious views he'd counter with the fact that we live in America, under the Constitution, not God's law. (Do we really want to be like France? )

Parents for the most part said, "They're going to do it anyway". One woman conned her daughter into going on the pill by convincing her that it would improve her complexion.
One man said that the menstrual period was "nature's abortion" - so what's wrong with abortion? How do you argue with that logic?

No conversation about the abortifacient effects of the pill, the long term cancer risks, STD's, etc.... Planned Parenthood would be proud.

Posted by: Janet at June 5, 2010 5:31 PM


@ Ex-GOP Voter
While I am not a supporter of the movement, I can act to clarify a few things. "The Pill", refering to COCP, acts in three ways.

Medical terms aside, it supresses eggs from being released, inhibits sperm penatration if an egg should be released, and lastly prevents implantation on the uterus should the first two fail. This last action of preventing the fertalized embryo from implanting is what the movement is against.

Life starts at conception and the movement places a value on this life straight from the beginging of fertilization. As such, they object to the pill preventing implanting of the embryo since it is then killing the embryo.

Now, on the issue of less unwanted pregnancies, yes it has the effect of allowing people to plan their lives and allows women to control their bodies better. However, BC and other forms of birth control (you'll find many advocates taking this further to include a majority of methods) can lead an ignoring of potential consequences of sex.

Birth Control measures can fail and while they are useful in preventing unwanted pregnancies, they also lead to couples (and strangers) have more sex, increasing the likelyhood of BC methods failing, statistically speaking. This one of the primary objections that the movement has.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 5:39 PM


Before starting to read this blog, I didn't know people were against the pill. I still don't think I understand - I would think high use of the pill would lead to less unwanted pregnancies, thus less abortions. And I thought that was the plan. No?
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at June 5, 2010 5:21 PM
------------------

Okay, first, and this is just a personal pet peeve of mine and totally not relevant, so please bear with me. It would be "fewer" not "less". When you are discussing a set number of things, whatever the number, the word "fewer" is appropriate. So, there would be "less" rain... but "fewer" puddles of rain... hope that makes sense.

Okay, back to the actual point. I can see why one would think that... however, what happens is that the pill and other birth control severs the natural thought process of "sex leads to pregnancy" and causes people to think that they can have sex without ever having to worry about pregnancy. This has two effects. The first one, given that no form of birth control outside of abstinence is 100% sure, is a rise in pregnancies. Secondly, these are pregnancies that are happening to a person whose mindset is that she is immune to the possibility of pregnancy and therefore far less likely to be a welcome event. It also devalues the concept of pregnancy as a whole, increasing the idea that it is something that can be "gotten rid of" with an abortion without any consequences, either physical or emotional.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 5, 2010 5:43 PM


And abstinence discussions are a pet peeve of mine so if you don't mind for a moment here.

Abstinence is touted at being 100% effective which it is since there are no sperm within the vagina to fertilize the egg cell, with a few exceptions in mythology. Generally, abstinence carries no risks, but may cause a degree of psychological frustration and short sightedness.

My issue is that this method, while reducing the number of sexually active youth as studies have shown, increases unwanted pregnancies in the population (this can be seen in recent trend data where the number of sexually active teens has decreased yet the number of unwanted pregnancies is still on the rise). Abstinence only education, most often supported by the religious right, provides no education regarding preventing pregnancy or disease if passion unexpectedly gets the upper hand.

These "education" programs often actively discourage the use of contraception that is known to be effective, particularly by twisting or quote mining the data on effectiveness or even by outright lying about it. Other sex education programs, ones which aren't endorsed by the religious right, teach abstinence in combination with conventional contraceptives and disease prevention methods.

My Peeve though is that saying abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy is a bit like saying that the pill is 100% effective when they do not fail. When abstinence does fail (which happens, we’re human’s and young adults have hormones), there is absolutely nothing preventing pregnancy or STDs - unless some form of contraception is used, which it often isn't due to the narrow scope of sex education provided within abstinence movements.

Multiple BC measures, on the other hand, can be used to reinforce each other should one fail.

Thankfully, the internet can act to educate the youth whose knowledge is suppressed by some idolized moral pedestal people are trying to sit on.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 6:01 PM


Parents who resign themselves to "kids are going to do it anyway" are failures to their children. It's a loser attitude. Kids respond positively to achievable and high expectation put upon them. It's like saying, "Son, since you're going to sit on your ass all day anyway, here's an Xbox to go with your Playstation."

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 5, 2010 6:50 PM


you're pro-abortion, pro-birth control, pro-promiscuity, and anti-God.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 5, 2010 2:50 PM

And the problem is???? "Promiscuity" - is that sex? And if so, y'all need to realize that it's been around since time immemorial. Even the biblical patriarchs were into serious, I mean, serious boot-ay (not exactly one man - one woman, if you catch my drift). The idea that sex is just for reproduction (done in dark rooms and strictly missionary) is just so passe. I guess the idea that folks can do what they want is just so anathema to those of you who are seriously, I mean seriously, messed up about this stuff - sexual pleasure is sinful and if you commit the sin, you need to be punished with a baby. (And yeah, it's a total drag if you get preggers when you don't want to be so thankfully we have the pill which - eww, gasp - frees us gals from unwanted pregnancy. Eww, gasp - sexual emancipation and empowerment of women. What would Holy Father say...

Oh, and for all of you who are now becoming environmentally friendly. Here's the thing. Unfettered reproduction is one of the greatest threats to the environment. And those who are reproducing at an unsustainable rate don't fare too well, either. Just ask those families, in Manila, living off of the garbage dumps. Their local Catholic bishops, living like royalty, oppose contraception but they're not living on garbage dumps. But yeah, let's have lots of babies.

And if folks just want to have sex, it's none of your business - unless they're forced to have the babies (oh, joy) at which point it should be your problem. Thing is - it's not.

"couples (and strangers) have more sex, increasing the likelyhood of BC methods failing, statistically speaking"

And it's your business, how? Sex - ewww, baddd..You guys are really funny!!!! Thanks for the laughs

Posted by: Mary Magdalene at June 5, 2010 7:00 PM


Parents who think "my kids not going to do that and neither will yours" are naive or blinded by ideology. It's an ignorant attitude and is setting up kids for failure. Your comparison is inadaquate in comparing teaching strategies but you already know that.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 7:08 PM


@Mary M

I hadn't considered the arguement of weighing the carbon footprint of a human with the alleged damage of the BC pill (since we're suddenly being environmental about the abortion arguement). Good talking point for future discussions.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 7:12 PM


Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 7:08 PM

True that. It's interesting that the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and the lowest rates of high school graduation are in the Bible Belt where abstinence is pushed. It's funny that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the highest educational rate and the lowest divorce rate (the highest are in the South) while permitting gay marriage which was supposed to destroy life as we know it. But back to your point, can we talk Bristol Palin - who is now committing herself to a life of pre-marital celibacy. Uh-huh!

Posted by: Mary Magdalene at June 5, 2010 7:15 PM


Posted by: Mary Magdalene at June 5, 2010 7:15 PM
I stay as far away from the warped world the Palins prescribe to as I can but, yes, she does serve as an example for how abstinence-only is not, as a practical method, 100% effective.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 7:27 PM


Okay, first, and this is just a personal pet peeve of mine and totally not relevant, so please bear with me. It would be "fewer" not "less". When you are discussing a set number of things, whatever the number, the word "fewer" is appropriate. So, there would be "less" rain... but "fewer" puddles of rain... hope that makes sense.
Posted by: Elisabeth at June 5, 2010 5:43 PM
______________________________________________
Me too, Elisabeth! :)

Posted by: Pamela at June 5, 2010 7:41 PM


Mary M. Apparently YOU are the one that is 'seriously messed up about this stuff'. You don't even know what 'promiscuity' is? No, it's not just 'sex'...it's sex with multiple partners. I don't know where you got your view of what (Christian?) people think of sex, but no, it's not 'dirty'. God created sex for procreation AND for pleasure...within the marital relationship.I hope one day you mature, and perhaps your view of God, The Bible, and sex will mature with you...let's hope so.

Posted by: Pamela at June 5, 2010 7:55 PM


The opposite of expecting your child "to have sex anyway" is not "my kids are NOT going to do that." Rather it is "I expect my child to NOT do that."

You can either set a negative standard or a positive one. And if teenagers are "going to once in a while cheat in school anyway" then the lousy parent will provide better cheating tools so as to prevent his child from getting caught.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 5, 2010 8:02 PM


@Pamela

I don't know where she got her view but I know where you got yours. It comes from a romanticized version of the modern fundamentalist.

Paul's writings advocate for little concern to be put into sex and instead chastity was a virtuous thing to maintain throughout life. Granted his writings were based on the imminent second coming of Christ. When that didn't occur the Christians changed their tune.

Early Christians took the NT to be condemning illegal sex such as adultery and bestiality. Nothing at all about promiscuity, that was thrown in by the church around 1300s or so. The resurgence of this around the Victorian era and again in the 50's leads to today’s view.

@CC

The analogy is getting better. We're probably not going to come to an agreement because, while I maintain that expecting your kids to not have sex until they are mature is the proper thing for parents to do, making this the public health policy is not correct. Texas draws more money for Abstinence only education than any other state and has the least of all states to show for it.

Parents can set these expectations for their kids but you can't set it for other kids. The public policy should be towards preventing STD transmission and unwanted pregnancies in a practical matter supported by scientific grounding in success. A-only hasn’t been able to give this but safe sex has. I’m fine with letting the schools teach health and I’ll teach morality.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 8:40 PM


Hey pro-aborts, you can't have a real discussion cause you know you'll lose so by all means throw in the standard "you guys think sex is yucky!" one-liner.

I am pro-life. I also really really really really really really really love sex. Its awesome! I even have a higher drive than my husband. I tire that man out! And the best part, Dave, is as a teen my mother let me know sex is for marriage and that she would not put up with me fooling around with boys. So I was able to give my virginity to my husband and he gave his to me. So abstinence is NOT setting up your children to fail. Considering 1 in 4 Americans has an STD do you really want to entrust the health of your precious, beloved children to a flimsy rubber that can easily break?

And the pill, that doesn't even protect against STDs. So...yuck. Monogamy is not synonymous with boring, non-fulfilling sex.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 5, 2010 9:11 PM


Dave, Ex-GOP, etc.,

First, there is a difference between contraceptive methods and the reasons for opposing them. From a pro-life perspective many hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient - they act in a way that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. It says this specifically in the medication's packaging. That's why many in the pro-life community (religious or not) oppose those contraceptive methods.

Many religious people also oppose what we call the "contraceptive mentality" - that is the notion that sex can be divorced from its procreative purpose. It's not that sex is ONLY for procreation, but that sex ALWAYS has the potential to lead to procreation. The use of contraceptives attempts to divorce sex from the possibility of reproduction - something that is, in fact, impossible from a medical standpoint. It feeds the lie that sex is something that exists apart from it's biological end; that it exists for pleasure alone. With that mindset, abortion becomes an attractive back-up plan - after all, you didn't sign up for reproduction. Just sex. It's not about being "punished" with a baby for having sex or divorcing sex from pleasure. It's about facing the reality of the situation which is that pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility with sex.

With that said, I don't mind kids being informed about contraception and STD prevention in a factual manner. However, it should be taught in the context of an abstinence expectation b/c that is truly the safest and best thing (unless there's anyone out there who actually thinks it's GOOD for teenagers to be having sex - in that case we have bigger problems). Cranky Catholic is right. People fall short of expectations all the time, but that doesn't mean that you encourage them to fall short or tell them it's no big deal to do so. You give them the facts (ALL the facts) they need and encourage the best behavior.

Posted by: CT at June 5, 2010 9:25 PM


I got mine from THE BIBLE, Dave. I was a virgin until I got married...at age 40. So was my husband, and he was 42. Nothing about sex was 'romanticized' for me.

Posted by: Pamela at June 5, 2010 9:35 PM


Cranky @ 6:50,
You crack me up. :))

Posted by: Janet at June 5, 2010 9:51 PM


@Sydney

I thought I was engaging in actual discussion instead of throw down one liners as you proclaim. Perhaps you are refering to Mary M but without the @Mary and in light of the plurality on 'pro-aborts' I assume you are including me in the group. In which case, I do not think I have been engaging in such a manner.

I am pleased to hear that abstinence worked out well for you. Of course this isn't the case for the general public but you are an example of a positive outcome. So abstinence did not cause you to 'fail' and I did not mean to imply that every child taking a ring pledge would. I am stating that is stacking the chips against kids and promoting ignorance of medical advances.

@CT

I think you are repeating what I stated before in responding to EX-GOP. I appreciate the verification of my perception though.

We seem to agree about sex-education.

@Pamela

Yes, I know you get yours from the current interpretation of the Bible. I had stated this before.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 10:35 PM


I suppose what bothers me about the whole abortion debate these days is how shady both sides are on the argument. Pro-choice folks can't use the word baby or even acknowledge the fact that even at some point, we have a human on our hands. Pro-lifers argue that the pill hurts the environment...oh, but we're not concerned about the environment really - it's just a fake front that the pill is considered a different form of abortion.

Just man up people, state your actual position, and move on. It's a bit Bill Clinton like with the word "is" - yes, we don't like the pill because it screws up fish. Come on.

Elisabeth - thanks for the grammar pointers - I've seen various blogs/sites ban spelling flames before. I've been known to poke fun at people who screw up the there/their/they're stuff...but seriously, a little over the top there? Do you think fewer of me? :-)

I, for one, think they ought to just put birth control pill hormones right in the water like they do with fluoride. I've seen the truth trucks and they have convinced me that if an abortion needs to happen, it needs to be early on in the pregnancy.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at June 5, 2010 11:09 PM


I smell Poe's Law :)

However, legitimate point about the tap dance routine both sides engage in. It's an effort to brand the issue black and white and as many tangents in arguements will point to, it's not that simple.

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2010 11:16 PM


Parents can set these expectations for their kids but you can't set it for other kids.

You see that as a good reason that sex education be taught in school. I see it as a good reason why that should be a decision left to the parent and not the school system.

Posted by: myrtle miller at June 5, 2010 11:43 PM


I stated my reasoning about public policy beneath the portion you selected. Despite your quote mining, the highlighted portion is not the reason I think sex education should be taught in health courses.

Posted by: Dave at June 6, 2010 12:10 AM


The anti-life crowd is also abou pushing promiscuity and BC cause it is such a lucrative part of their agenda. It is how they can manipulate young girls into buying into injecting or swallowing high doses of hormones. I fear for the detrimental health effects this is surely causing to the girls who take these hormones over extended periods of time are not a primary concern to the industry that pushes them...Planned Parenthood etc. By representing their agenda as a societal norm PP makes some people feel safe about doing things they otherwise would avoid, like ingesting high levels of hormones, without concern for the health consequences.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 6, 2010 12:13 AM


Dave,
Dave,
"Sex" education in public schools should involve nothing more then awareness of the physical differences between men and women, how babies are made, and the gestational developement of humans. That is unbiased information. It really should not include the Planned Parenthood sex for pleasure agenda. I would prefer they didn't teach "sex" education like sex for pleasure and it is certainly a conflict of interest when the drug pushers who profit so much from promiscuity are so heavily vested in creating the curriculum for our children.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 6, 2010 12:22 AM


The denials of estrogen compounds in water being at fault, and the blaming of other pollutants indicates the lack of historical perspective on the part of those laughing at us.

Back in the 1960's the pollution of our rivers, lakes and streams was at its worst. Detergents, DDT, other pesticides, toxic dumping were rampant. EPA regulations over the past 45 years have produced waters that are orders of magnitude cleaner than before.

Striped bass have been back in the NYC Hudson River area for 20 years. Osprey and falcons are back in large numbers.

Estrogen is secreted unchanged in the urine, and makes it into our water systems.

At their worst, and in the two-decade aftermath, we never saw the intersexing of fish that we see today. Sperm counts among human males have been going steadily downhill for years. To blame antibiotics, as one commenter has, seems...

a little fishy.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 6, 2010 12:23 AM


I, for one, think they ought to just put birth control pill hormones right in the water like they do with fluoride. I've seen the truth trucks and they have convinced me that if an abortion needs to happen, it needs to be early on in the pregnancy.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at June 5, 2010 11:09 PM

You, for one, should start ingesting these steroids yourself and feeding them to your children for the first 40 years of their lives so that we can guage the effects they have on them. And we can weigh that against the benefits of your daughter miscarrying early if she gets pregnant.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 6, 2010 12:28 AM


Hello Gerard
Always good to see you posting.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 6, 2010 12:30 AM


Planned Parenthood is not an industry, just to clarify. They are a non-profit, funded by community members and the federal government in part (though no federal money goes to abortions thank goodness since there is a federal law prohibiting that). I am completely against the practice of abortion now, but I used to support planned parenthood. 96% of their funding is for gynecological health care, cancer screenings, communicable disease testing (which is sadly essential in today's society) and pregnancy prevention. Some clinics do NOT perform abortions, and truly do provide necessary services for women who have no other medical care options due to financial difficulty or otherwise. I just want to present this as objectively as possible, because I believe that the only way to shut down all of the clinics is to educate people. Kids will have sex, unless brought up in a household with strict morality or religious teachings and practice. Biologically, humans ARE hardwired to procreate, we have hormones so that we can meet mates and have sex. God may have a different opinion, but that is science. We must teach our children to respect their bodies, the divine, and make choices that are morally responsible. In order to do so, it is not necessary to condemn the "other" side, for if our cause is worthy enough then all shall see that it is the right path, without spreading propaganda and hatred toward those who do not agree. Compassion, Christ has taught me, is paramount. So let's all have some and pray for those still lost, preach our truths, and do no harm while were at it. On a side note, Planned Parenthood does not condemn our faith, so why must everyone on this blog continue to condemn the entire organization? The media is responsible for promiscuity, as well as prevalent absentee parents, I'm absolutely positive PP isn't encouraging anyone to go out and have sex with multiple partners. It is more effective to fight FOR a good cause than to merely fight AGAINST an evil.

Posted by: leslie at June 6, 2010 2:40 AM


leslie,

planned parenthood hates Christianity. I think this is obvious at Christmas time with their "choice on earth" cards.

The organization was founded by a racist, eugenicist that wanted "more from the fit, less from the unfit" and had an agenda to get "colored minsters" involved.

Planned Parenthood does NOT like large families, either. And who USUALLY has large families? Christians.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 6, 2010 7:12 AM


hi leslie,

I cannot be "objective" about an organization that kills innocent unborn human children!!! And also wounds women!!

Here is a publication for you. Order hundreds of copies and blanket your town with them. The evil of PP needs to be exposed and we need your help to do it.

http://www.plam.org/Products/WTPP.htm

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 6, 2010 7:19 AM


Once again, they prove that logic and reason are only welcome if you're pro-abortion, pro-birth control, pro-promiscuity, and anti-God.

Maybe that's because there's no logical reason to be against abortion, birth control and "promiscuity" (i.e. being for idiotic Biblical standards for sexuality). And there's no rational proof for god either. He's just a figment of his creator's and your imagination.

Posted by: Jessica Sideways at June 6, 2010 7:37 AM


Well now Jessica, that is a bit over the top now, don't you think? It's quite logical to be against abortion - in fact, I think it is more logical to be against abortion than for it - all you need to do is say that you believe at some point before birth that you are dealing with a human, and at that point, it isn't too hard to say you shouldn't be able to kill that human. My guess is that you would say that five minutes before birth, a person shouldn't be able to fire a bullet into a womb and walk away with no punishment - and if you believe that, than the main difference between you and a strong pro-life person is timing.

I do agree with you on birth control - I suppose I see the letter of the law reasoning of the far right pro-lifers (I don't think it's a mainstream belief though - being against the pill) - but it just seems backwards reasoning to me.

In regards to promiscuity, think of it as lying. Should we outlaw it general - no - but if a person engages in the behavior a lot, are their typically consequences - sure.

God? There's a ton of people much smarter than you or I who fully and honestly believe in a creator. What is funny is that your statement (and my guess is that in real life, you have more of a complex thought process around it) is as casual and careless as the most far right religious person. "Sure, there's no God - just a figment of imagination". You seem to have your own dogmatic statement and belief pattern (again, I admit I'm blasting on just two little sentences) that you use to blast a viewpoint that you see as dogmatic. If you step back and look at it, it is kind of cute and silly what you just did!

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at June 6, 2010 8:09 AM



Posted by: Leslie Hanks at June 6, 2010 8:47 AM


Ex Gop,
I liked your comment! :) Thanks.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 6, 2010 8:56 AM


Maybe that's because there's no logical reason to be against abortion, birth control and "promiscuity" (i.e. being for idiotic Biblical standards for sexuality). And there's no rational proof for god either. He's just a figment of his creator's and your imagination.
Posted by: Jessica Sideways at June 6, 2010 7:37 AM

sure there is!

Abortion kills babies.

Birth control works against the nature of the feminine body. Plus it's harmful to women and the environment.

Promiscuity leads to heartache, disease and destroys society.

see now, wasn't that easy?!!! :)

Posted by: angel at June 6, 2010 9:15 AM


Has anyone who refuses to even consider the possibility of estrogens in the environment causing feminization of fish ever worked as an environmental scientist? Worked in a lab? Done fish sampling? Just asking.

When I was a student, I was part of an experiment that examined the effects of adding hormones to fish meal. I was the lucky person who got to dissect them and record the gender and the feed they got (fish were tagged for anonymity until we tabulated the results). Estrogens feminize male fish. Try a university library for peer reviewed journals that discuss this vs feminist blogs if it really makes a difference to anybody.

Posted by: sabella at June 6, 2010 9:30 AM


Note: This comment is facetious.

I'm LGBTI-friendly, so I don't see a problem with boy fish growing lady parts, and I'd fight for them if they were teased at school (pun intended).

Posted by: Nulono at June 6, 2010 9:45 AM


Posted by: Mary Magdalene at June 5, 2010 7:15 PM

Gee.... whiz! I graduated High School in a small, rural, "Bible Belt" community. Yes, some of the teens in my class were sexually active. Many of these were also into drugs and alcohol. But guess what... this will blow your mind... abstinence wasn't "pushed" on us! We had no sex ed, abstinence-only or otherwise. I don't remember a single person in my entire high school, let alone my particular class, who got pregnant before graduation. Some of us were farm kids who watched animals enough to KNOW how babies are made. The rest of us weren't stupid and knew how babies are made and how to prevent that from happening. We all knew about condoms and the Pill, etc. (Yes, I'm now aware of the failure rate and the fact that one CAN get pregnant by still using those - but at the time of course we all figured we wouldn't get pregnant as long as we "used protection" - gee, sounds like what contraceptive-teacing sex-ed teaches, huh?). Some of the kids in my class chose (wisely) not to be sexually active.

I was sexually active as a teenager. Shortly after I married, I became a Christian. I have experienced both married, monogamous sex and "unattached" sex with a few boyfriends and "casual friends" during the years previous to my marriage. I can tell you without a doubt that premarital sex IS most certainly a damaging, destructive thing to do whether there is unwed pregnancy or disease involved or not.

Married, monogamous sex is BY FAR the best sexual and relational experience there could be. God tells us not to engage in premarital sex because it is NOT GOOD FOR US and He has something BETTER waiting for us - within marriage.

I agree with the fact that it is demeaning to teenagers that people say "well, they're going to do it anyway, so...". Way to have low expectations of somebody. When I was a teen growing up, I *hated* being accused of doing something wrong when I didn't do it, or just being expected to automatically do the wrong thing by default. I always figured if people didn't expect any better of me, or if they were going to accuse me anyway, I might as well go ahead and do it. If I were going to be punished anyway, might as well. Teens have a way of LIVING UP TO OUR EXPECTATIONS of them, good or bad. If we expect them to do the wrong thing, they will. They're far less likely to do the wrong thing if we raise them with the understanding that they make their own choices, that there are consequences to their choices, what our expectations are, and that we are confident that they will choose to do the right thing. Raising them "right and responsible" isn't a guarantee (we all have free will and the choice to go our own way) but it ups your odds of raising a good kid considerably.

Posted by: army_wife at June 6, 2010 9:47 AM


Dave, sorry for the confusion. I should have clarified...the first part of my post was for Mary Magdalene who was trying to paint us pro-life Christians as somehow hating sex or thinking sexual pleasure is "sin".

In Hebrews it says the marriage bed is undefiled. Loving sex with your spouse is what God intended. Its His gift to married men and women. Why would God give women a clitoris if sexual pleasure is wrong? The clitoris has no function but to give a woman sexual pleasure. If sex were ONLY for having children women would have no need of a clitoris. The fact that sex is powerful and is HOW children are created is WHY God said it is BEST for us to keep it in marriage.

Dave, the second part of my previous post was for you. I'm just saying abstinence is totally possible for teens. You are absolutely having a respectful conversation and I appreciate that.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 6, 2010 12:16 PM


Planned Parenthood is not an industry, just to clarify.
Posted by: leslie at June 6, 2010 2:40 AM

Leslie, Planned Barrenhood is the abortion industry. They are the organization that fought appeal after appeal to keep partial-birth abortion legal as long as possible. They are the organization that has kept the Illinois Paental Notification of Abortion Act tied up in courts and unenforceable for the past fifteen years. Planned Parenthood is the organization that spends resources building abortuaries throughout the USA and they are building a baby-killing industry and commit the vast majority of all abortions. So how do you figure they are not the face of the abortion industry.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 6, 2010 12:17 PM


Anything that causes damage to the environment ought to be examined from that perspective. I have to ride in a car in order to go to vote, but I wouldn't claim people were disputing my right to vote if they were concerned about the car causing pollution. And if birth control pills really are putting more estrogen into the water supply, and the increased estrogen really is at least partially responsible for lowered sperm counts, that should be of concern to everyone. Even if you reason, "I don't care because the world is overpopulated anyway," human beings have to keep reproducing in order to survive as a species, period. You can't just skip reproduction for a generation or two without some serious problems.

Look at China. The bulk of their population is either middle-aged or elderly, and due to sex-selective abortions, there are far, far more Chinese boys and young men than there are girls and young women. They're turning into a country of old people, and young men who have greatly reduced chances of finding a wife and starting a family. Drastic population dips are not good.

Posted by: Marauder at June 6, 2010 1:32 PM


Dave
I was just making the point that those who advocate for sex education are usually very hypocritical. They have very little regard for what parents(taxpayers,citizens)want and are for more interested in their own agenda. Sex education promotes safe sex and the only sex that is safe is abstinence. If true choice were present then parents would be given a choice as to what their child were taught. This is just my own conclusion I have no facts to support it but I believe any state that has a high birth rate it's because there not aborting there babies to the degree other states are. I also believe that as a nation if we teach abstinence as the only safe sex then we've given our best to students and what they do with that is their business. I think for any student to think they are incapable of self control is to lie to them which is exactly what teaching safe sex is a lie. And I'm sure statistics would show that sexual activity among teens and all the problems that go with that, have increased since safe sex teaching was introduced into our public school systems. And thank you for mentioning quote mining it reminded me of what mining does it goes through a lot of trouble to obtain something that is precious. I believe an individuals sexuality is precious it's something that is very private and does not need to be cheapened by those who think otherwise. I also believe that if they teach safe sex and a teenager contracts a sexually transmitted disease that there parents should address that in civil court.

Posted by: myrtle miller at June 6, 2010 1:32 PM


Carla @ 7:19 AM, THANK YOU for the link to the PLAM pub! I was glad to see that they discussed PP's cover for child predators. I noticed though that in the section on subversion of parental authority they didn't mention PP's use of minor subjects in about a third of their clinical trials. I hope they'll include that in their next revision of the publication. Thanks again for the link!

Posted by: Fed Up at June 6, 2010 4:15 PM


In looking at it further, I see some but not all of the clinical trials involving minors conducted at PP require parental/guardian consent. I wonder if they are as lax in obtaining parental consent for research as they are in getting it for their other "services."

Posted by: Fed Up at June 6, 2010 5:11 PM


Dave: "When abstinence does fail (which happens, we’re human’s and young adults have hormones), there is absolutely nothing preventing pregnancy or STDs - unless some form of contraception is used, which it often isn't due to the narrow scope of sex education provided within abstinence movements."

If people stop being abstinent, then it obviously isn't abstinence that has failed.

Not that I join those who lump pregnancy in with STDs, of course...

Posted by: bmmg39 at June 6, 2010 9:57 PM


"Raising them "right and responsible" isn't a guarantee (we all have free will and the choice to go our own way) but it ups your odds of raising a good kid considerably."

Posted by: army_wife at June 6, 2010 9:47 AM

"Right and responsible". Excellent!

* * * *

"If people stop being abstinent, then it obviously isn't abstinence that has failed."

Posted by: bmmg39 at June 6, 2010 9:57 PM

Good observation! School administrators should take note.


Posted by: Janet at June 6, 2010 10:14 PM


Sabella
I'm not an environmental scientist but I'm majoring in Environmental and Sustainable Resources.

Please everyone keep me in your prayers. I'm taking Algebra 100 this summer and hopefully will do well.

Posted by: myrtle miller at June 6, 2010 10:39 PM


the pill has nasty side effects, abstinence doesn't.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 6, 2010 10:48 PM


Elisabeth - thanks for the grammar pointers - I've seen various blogs/sites ban spelling flames before. I've been known to poke fun at people who screw up the there/their/they're stuff...but seriously, a little over the top there? Do you think fewer of me? :-)
---------------------
You considered that a flame? Wow, you're really thin skinned. Especially as I made sure not to make any type of personal comment about you and prefaced it kindly.

A spelling "flame" would be, "Hey, moron, learn some basic grammar!"

And it would be hard for me to think less of you. There are those on here with whom I disagree but still respect. You haven't yet made that list.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 7, 2010 2:25 AM


@ myrtle miller -- Best of luck with your environmental studies. I'll pray for you, but you sound intelligent enough to do it.

Are you far enough along to be able to do an internship in water sampling where you live? It will look good on your resume and teach you a lot.

Hint re Algebra 100 - whatever you do to *one* side of the equation, do *exactly* the same thing to the other. You'll do fine :)

Posted by: sabella at June 7, 2010 3:21 AM


Sabella
Thanks. We haven't done water sampling yet. I think that's a little further down the road. I'm a freshman still in junior division. This is my third semester. Thanks for the encouragement.

Posted by: myrtle miller at June 7, 2010 7:09 AM


Lots written yesterday, I will try and touch on a few points brought up.

@trhuthseeker 12:22 and @myrtle 1:32
I don’t think I would be opposed to a health course which taught only the biology of reproduction along with diseases that are linked to intercourse. So long as schools aren’t pushing the abstinence ring pledge or some other reincarnation of A-only, I don’t think I would be opposed to leaving out BC methods either. I also don’t think parents should go suing the nurse though if the students inquire about BC methods. The information can be kept available in the nurse’s office but not promoted by the school.

I certainly agree that the only safe sex is abstinence and I am also in agreement with abstinence being 100% effective. I just don’t like when people look at the previous sentence and then say, “Okay, since it is 100% effective, let’s make this a program for kids and they won’t have sex” and seek to obscure or hide BC information from them.


@Gerard 12:23 and @sabella 9:30
Finally someone back on the topic of the feminizing of fish . It is true that pollution, in general, has gotten better over the years and that estrogen makes it into our waterways. The estrogen from BC would have been entering the system since the 60’s but, as you note, it is only in the most recent of times that the intersexing is occurring at these alarming rates. Something new has to have been added.

Coincidentally, our consumption of plastics, anti-biotics, pharmaceuticals, and other estrogen mimicking materials have never been higher. Considering the timeframes, I think more than BC in the water is occurring. That estrogen effects in the water, and environmentalism in general, (and, of course, ignoring the carbon footprint of the soon to be human) is of sudden concern to this debate is… a little fishy.

@Ex-GOP 8:09
I don’t find it logical to have a blanket opposition to abortion. It is true that we are dealing with a developing human whose life began at conception. However, I disagree that just being of the human race inherits a right to life. My personal stance is that ending a pregnancy before the development of the fetus is acceptable because the embryo hasn’t developed any mental capabilities that we would attribute to a person. While the human being is there and developing, nothing of its consciousness has developed and it is, in a gross simplification, mentally not existing yet.

Given time, it will develop, yes. However, until it reaches that stage, I do not place a right to life value on the human and leave the decision to the mother to place a value on the life of the pre-born.


I find that a blanket belief in valuing life from conception leads to absurdities in other areas of life such as end-of-life debates, veganism (though not absurd but a consequence of some logical reasoning), and research.


@bmmg39 9:57
When people stop being abstinence, you are correct that abstinence hasn’t failed. It would be the youth has failed in maintaining the abstinence only policy (assuming the youth was participating in such a program). Similarly, not wearing a condom, having sex, and conceiving doesn’t mean the condom failed but that the youth has failed in maintaining the BC method.

Granted though, condoms do not have the success rate of just not having sex.

As for your last sentence, I presume we can both agree that pregnancy and STDs are both possible consequences of sexual activity. The ‘lumping’ together ends there though.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 8:28 AM


I'm no fan of the Pill, and it has nothing to do with religion or babies (I'm not religious, and I'm pro-choice). I mean, I guess you should take it if you want, but there's no way ingesting steroids and messing with your body's natural system for decades can be good.

And does anyone else catching a whiff of sexism in support for the Pill? Many, many people have speculated that if a "male birth control pill" ever came out, no one would take it, even if it were just as effective. Why? Men would never mess with their bodies and their masculinity like that. Suppressing testosterone? Sorry, no takers. Women are the ones who are expected to alter their bodies with chemicals. And thanks to the Pill, we're now considered 100% responsible for pregnancy. "You're accidentally pregnant? Why weren't you on the pill?" So it gives people an excuse to blame us instead of blaming the men, too. Even the liberal authors of "Red Families vs. Blue Families" said that.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 8:28 AM


@Ashley

Identical posting times it seems!

As a male, I just wanted to say that I would applaud a male BC pill that had the testings of the female pill to back it up. I'm surprised there isn't one already though the culture implications you mentioned are probably partially to blame.

I've also read papers talking about the difficulties of a male version to attack sperm production and it is certainly a different task when you consider that the female pill just needs to effect one egg a month or so and the male needs to affect thousands of sperm a minute. I hope that research continues on such a path because, as a male, I would like to have more options availabe than either surgery or condoms.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 8:33 AM


Dave,

I hear what you're saying, but the truth is that a lot of people scoff at the very idea of men using a birth control pill. They just don't expect men to be willing to mess with their bodies like that.

And if someone says men can be blamed for not wearing condoms, that's not a good analogy. Condoms aren't a "male birth control" method (none of them are, really). It's a barrier. If you're not using a barrier, you could blame both partners equally for 1. not buying them or 2. not putting them on. But only women can be blamed for not taking the pill. And I'd say almost all of my female friends are on it. So if they have an accident, it's going to be considered their fault. The men can just say "hey, not my problem she missed her pills." It takes blame off the men, even though accidental pregnancy takes two people.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 8:39 AM


Ashley,

It is true that many double standards are pervasive in our culture and a bit one is in regards to BC method usage. All I can add is my opinion and support should a male pill and/or an awareness campaign be started.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 8:41 AM


Personally, I won't take the Pill because of the side effects. Looking back at my years of experimenting with different pills, it angers me that I put myself through that: acne, depression, wild mood swings, etc. The only thing it ever helped with was my attention deficit disorder. (I have a pretty bad case of adult ADD.) Very few men would put up with that shit for two seconds. The pill has shifted our culture to force pregnancy prevention onto women's shoulders, and we're expected to ingest hormones that might make us miserable just so we don't ruin some guy's life with a pregnancy.

I know not all women are miserable on the Pill, but a lot are. My mom told me one of her pills made her "sleep all day" and "get really depressed." Then why are you taking it?

No man would ever be expected to lay around all day and feel depressed just to prevent pregnancy. Men are just that more special, I guess.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 8:49 AM


"As someone who went to Catholic schools and goes to Catholic church with my very Catholic boyfriend,"
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 30, 2010 3:04 PM

"I kind of want to be a liberal pro-life advocate."
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 31, 2010 3:42 PM

"I'm not religious, and I'm pro-choice." Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 8:28 AM


Ashley, I think you want to be whatever you think others want you to be. Riding the fence misleads others and borders on sociopathic behavior. It is not fair to lie to your prolife BF and lead him to believe that you are both religious and prolife. Does he even know you've had an abortion?

Research all the reasons the Catholic Church supports NFP and opposes birth control methods. It has much to do with women being treated with dignity and respect.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 9:04 AM


Yes, he knows. And I've not once pretended to be religious, here or anywhere else. I was raised Catholic but haven't been to church since Christmas, since my parents make me go.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 9:06 AM


Honestly, I gave church a few tries back in the fall, but the excommunication of that nun disgusted me to the point of never returning. It's clear that fanatical Catholics (which, by the way, weren't the ones I was educated by) would happily let women die in pregnancy.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 9:10 AM


Ashley....I agree 100% with your posts. I stopped taking the pill because of the danger it posed to me and my body chemistry. The more research I did on it the more I realized I should not be putting these synthetic hormones into my body!

I also didn't like the pill COULD cause an abortion.

I was on the pill when I got pregnant with my three year old. Though my husband was very supportive and though nervous and scared he supported me in my pregnancy, there were other family members who made rude comments to me about how I (not my husband and I, just me) had gotten pregnant and that I must have done something "wrong" or "messed up" my birth control to get pregnant. They made me feel like the dumb one. Like I got pregnant on my own which kinda pissed me off. Especially since, even though the timing was terrible, I was really really excited about my baby! Their comments hurt me terribly.

Anyhow, I always thought it was sexist too that women had to risk heart attacks, blood clots, stroke and cancer and lower their libido just so men could have sex and not be bothered with condoms.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 7, 2010 9:26 AM


"As someone who went to Catholic schools and goes to Catholic church with my very Catholic boyfriend,"
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 30, 2010 3:04 PM

"I'm not religious, and I'm pro-choice." Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 8:28 AM

These two statements are contradictory. Omitting that you only go to Mass several times a year and then only because "my parents make me go" and that you are opposed to the Church to "the point of never returning" is quite different than your statement on May 30th.

Anyway, with all due respect, maybe you need to work through why you, as an adult, allow your parents or BF to make you go to something you are so opposed to. I totally understand how family members and friends can throw guilt around to "make" you do something you don't want to do. I think this is how many women are pressured into abortion as well.

I totally agree with your statements about the pill. I was on it for years. PP never told me it could cause abortion and I wasn't willing to listen to the Catholic church on much of anything in my 20s. I never thought deep enough to realize how degrading, sexist and unempowering the pill really is to women.

Keep speaking up for women. We need more strong voices like yours!

Peace.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 10:07 AM


I wrote a blog post about the pill. Let me know what you think.

http://ashleyherzog.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-birth-control-pill-sexist.html

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 10:13 AM


Ashley, I agree with you that the Pill is sexist. But when you label faithful Catholics as fanatics, as you did at 9:10AM, and then slide even further into anti-Catholic bigotry, you lose your credibility with me. I'd be more inclined to take you seriously if you'd make your case against the RCC's position in a more objective fashion. But I respect your right to free speech, even if you use it to insult Catholics and misrepresent the Church's teachings.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 7, 2010 10:38 AM


I AM Catholic. My grandma's twin is a Catholic nun. She even wrote a book about it called "One Nun's Story." I went to Catholic school for 9 years. Also, plenty of Catholics are liberals, especially where I live. It's the Orthodox Catholics who are obviously pro-death, who I talked about in my blog post, that absolutely disgust me. My home parish has recently become more conservative, and I don't like it. They used to be your bleeding heart, yet pro-life, Catholics. Now they're just bending over for the fundies with a thing for suffering (think the Taliban).

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 10:51 AM


This is my great aunt.

http://www.amazon.com/One-Nuns-Story-Then-Now/dp/158982475X

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 10:53 AM


I AM Catholic.

Label yourself any way you wish, Ashley, but if you refuse to adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium, you have separated yourself from the Church. Doesn't matter whether you have a Catholic pedigree a mile long.

It's the Orthodox Catholics who are obviously pro-death, who I talked about in my blog post, that absolutely disgust me.

I understand this is your position. You are misrepresenting orthodox Catholicism as "obviously" pro-death when it is not.

I welcome objective criticism of the Church's position, but yours is hardly objective. Your bias diminishes your credibility. At least with me. Others may take a different view.

Peace.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 7, 2010 11:19 AM


"I was raised Catholic but haven't been to church since Christmas, since my parents make me go."

"I AM Catholic."

"I kind of want to be a liberal pro-life advocate."

"I'm not religious, and I'm pro-choice."

These statements are also contradictory. Being born into a Catholic family,attending Mass a couple times a year and having a nun in the family does not make you a practicing, faithful Catholic. Part of being Catholic is learning about, following and believing in all Church teachings not just the ones that work for you. Yes, this would mean becoming totally prolife, confessing your abortion and stopping sexual relations with your "very Catholic" boyfriend.

Sorry to have to be the one to call you out but you are either trying to fool others or you are severely fooling yourself.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 11:38 AM


I already did "confess" my abortion.

Nah, not going to stop having sex. Sounds like no fun to me.

Hey, I thought being pro-life was about babies, not sex?

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 11:54 AM


and in my area "being Catholic" is a cultural background. We went to the schools, our families are Catholic, and we were raised differently than everyone else. It's like being Jewish.

That's why I still say I'm Catholic.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 11:59 AM


Okay, if I get pregnant now, I'm having the baby. (And I mean that, I would.) So can I have sex? Or is being pro-life not ACTUALLY about "the babies," but about forcing your religion on people and trying to threaten the sinners with pregnancy? If so, just admit you don't care about the fetus. You're only concerned with a bunch of other issues that relate to your fear and hatred of sex.

I can respect the pro-lifers who say "do what you want, just don't have an abortion." Then there are the ones who just exploit fetuses in order to push their religious dogma on people.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 12:04 PM


"forcing your religion on people"

Who is forcing religion on people here? I don't claim to be someone I'm not. My parents don't "make" me do anything. I don't proudly and loudly claim to be a member of a religion that I oppose to the point of "never returning."

"and in my area "being Catholic" is a cultural background."

I'm guessing I could find a few faithful Catholics in your diocese who would loudly oppose this ridiculous statement.

I'm agree with Fed Up, your credibility is not sound but I do agree the pill is sexist as well as harmful to ourselves and our environment.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 12:19 PM


On a side note, Planned Parenthood does not condemn our faith, so why must everyone on this blog continue to condemn the entire organization? The media is responsible for promiscuity, as well as prevalent absentee parents, I'm absolutely positive PP isn't encouraging anyone to go out and have sex with multiple partners. It is more effective to fight FOR a good cause than to merely fight AGAINST an evil.

Posted by: leslie at June 6, 2010 2:40 AM
The truth about PP,why they cover up for sexual predators that prey on young girls & fight for sexual rights 4 little kids:
The links below are definitely not for children to read or watch. Kinsey was a very sick individual & Planned Parenthood uses his perverted ‘sex science’. I learned about Alfred Kinsey while reading Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, by Michael Savage. In Mr Savage’s book he wrote about Kinsey’s sick experiments and how Hollywood is aggrandizing Alfred Kinsey. While reading about Kinsey I thought of Planned Parenthood & there is a connection. I’m sharing the links so we can be more informed to fight it.

Salvo History of Sex Ed Laws
Sex Abused Kinsey’s Lies Shaped American Law, So Now what?
Rotten Apple Award~ Sex Ed Based on Lies is Child Abuse
From Kinsey to SEICUS Pernicious Guidelines
Upsurge in STDs
Course Correction
http://bit.ly/bbBIwJ

The Man Who Mainstreamed Perversion
The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose on the Most Influential “Scientist” of Our Time
http://bit.ly/bv1spS

Alfred Kinsey’s THE CHILD EXPERIMENTS http://bit.ly/cmuMqM
Learn more about Alfred Kinsey http://bit.ly/9c4jc2


Dr. Lynn Kerr, an associate clinical professor from the University of California at San Francisco, explains the deadly side-effects of the birth control pill.
http://vimeo.com/5007720
Facing Life Head-on~ Epi 6:No Regrets When It Comes 2 Sex
Talks about abstinence & The PEERS Project
http://bit.ly/8c6M3r
Alert – Birth Control Drugs & Devices Linked to Serious Injury & Even Death http://bit.ly/1DhWdG
Debunking Birth Control Myths - http://bit.ly/26fgza

Posted by: RooForLife at June 7, 2010 12:25 PM


Ashley, you are indeed a very confused girl-child in a woman's body, doing womanly things with your body. You have no idea of the significance of marriage, of love and of love-making. Everytime you have sex with your 'very Catholic" boyfriend you are devaluing your body, your spirit and your heart by giving the most precious and sacred part of yourself to a "boy-child" (BTW he is devaluing himself as well). It is "just sex" because you are deceived, you are using each other's bodies for gratification that do not belong to each other (I am NOT talking about ownership here). There are "married people" who do the same thing, use each other bodies for "having sex" because they don't have a clue of what "MARRIAGE", "LOVE" and "MAKING LOVE" truly means. You and they are selling yourselves so cheaply and don't even have a clue. You are setting yourself up for failing at your future marriage as well and don't even know it. Yes, you may have the "mechanics" of having sex down but you will have cheapened and devalued the sacredness of your body. You may not be able to receive what I am posting here. I pray you will receive a heart transplant by they One who created you, created love, created marriage, and created love-making. I cry for you and for all those who are so deceived by the counterfeit. MARRIAGE, meant to join together for a life-time of commitment a male and female who become completely one physically, anatomically, physiologically, hormonally, emotionally, mentally and most of all SPIRITUALLY in ways that would blow your mind and spirit away. You are more precious and valuable than you know. God created you for true INTIMACY="In-To-Me-You-See" with Him and then one day with your future husband. I pray you will hunger and thirst for Him-the only one who can truly fulfill the longings of your heart. You have a vacuum in your heart that only God can fill and no sexual experience or boyfriend will ever give you what he has for you. I love you but most of all Jesus Christ loves you, Ashley. Please forgive my generation for selling you and your generation a counterfeit of LOVE.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 7, 2010 1:21 PM


Take your preaching elsewhere. This is a pro-life blog. Unless being "pro-life" is about punishing women for having sex, not stopping abortion.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 1:28 PM


You people won't listen to me that of all pro-life tactics, Bible-beating and telling adults (I'm 24) to just stop having sex is the least effective. Unless all you really care about is abstinence, not babies.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 1:36 PM


"You are setting yourself up for failing at your future marriage as well and don't even know it."

Oh, bullshit. My parents have been married since 1981 and had sex before marriage. 92% of Americans do. Also, why does the Bible belt have way more divorces than the blue states, with Massachusetts and Connecticut having the lowest rates in the country?

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 1:45 PM


You had sex with an abusive man and then you aborted the child you made with him. Had you not misused your own and his sexuality, you would have noticed he was abusive and left him without consequence. Chances are, he would have left you because abusive men do not respect women and therefore will not stick around until marriage to have sex. They move on and have sex with non-committed willing females.

No one here wants to punish you for having sex outside of marriage. You have done that to yourself. The child you conceived with your abusive ex paid the ultimate price for your selfishness. He/she took the punishment for your "choice" to have irresponsible sex.

"Nah, not going to stop having sex. Sounds like no fun to me."

Yup, that's what it's all about Ashley, FUN! Bet that abortion was fun too.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 1:52 PM


20% of women getting abortions are married. That's one in five. Also, I wasn't aware it was impossible to be abused by your husband. If I had married the abusive guy and started kicking out babies, would that be better? Also, I already said I wouldn't have a second abortion, in or out of marriage.

Still no plans to stop having sex and start Bible-beating. Any other tactics to convince me?

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 1:56 PM


And if people who have sex outside marriage are incapable of having a good marriage and raising good kids, we're looking at 92% of America. Besides, a ton of people running this site have already admitted they had sex before marriage. Did they all run out and have abortions?

You're stupid.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 2:00 PM


And isn't paraxedes who admitted to getting "oops" pregnant and wishing God would make it go away? What's so great about you? You weren't abstinent.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 2:02 PM


@prolifer 1:21
Surely your argument can be defended without resorting to theology. Ashley has come across as being very put off by religious connotations so I doubt a sermon is the best method.


@Ashley 1:56
"If I had married the abusive guy and started kicking out babies, would that be better?"

From a prolife stance it would have been better than the abortion, yes.

You'll get defensive speech though about adoption and splitting with the guy being an even better alternative but anything is better than abortion to the movement including the scenario you described.

I'm confused though as to what you are trying to accomplish with both the tone and the postings in general.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 2:08 PM


Because I don't respect the pro-lifers who have agendas other than stopping abortion. If your goal is preaching, outlawing condoms, or viewing pregnancy as a threat to keep women from having sex, then your real goal isn't "saving babies."

My favorite pro-lifers are people like Feminists For Life, who don't engage in any of this. They are strictly anti-abortion and truly want to help women who were in my situation, without the "yer a whore and going to hell if you don't accept my religion" Jesus talk.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 2:11 PM


Ashley I do apologize for using the term "girl-child", it was a poor choice of words. I am sorry for that.

But, you are very wrong Ashley, there is a connection between being pro-life and abstinence, (between the sanctity of sex and the sanctity of life) the answer for not having "unplanned pregnancies" in the first place. Although there are non-religious prolifers who post here, most of us are Christian believers and I will not apologize for what I believe. Why do you think we prolifers spending so much energy trying to keep babies out of medical waste containers and incinerators? Because people who are having premarital sex, end up with an out-of-wedlock pregnancy which make up the majority of abortions. Contraception more than half the time does fail (by CDC's own statistics up to 54% of the time women who have an unplanned pregnancy were using contraception) and abortion becomes the "silver bullet" answer to them. I know the reason we have over 1 million abortions in this nation a year and have had over 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade was legallized is because of the mantra "I can have sex whenever I want with whoever I want". And why is "the Pill" so important to this discussion? Because it has changed the entire culture about when it is appropriate to have sex (within marriage or without marriage).

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 7, 2010 2:18 PM


Oh trust me, I know men use "You didn't take your pill and this is your fault, so you need to fix it" as a reason to guilt-trip you into an abortion.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 2:20 PM


@prolifer

No, you don't get to make up your own facts.

"Contraception more than half the time does fail"

This is the kind of misinformation that is fed through A-only courses. Contraception does not fail at a >50% rate. The CDC statistics you cited show that >

What information can we pull from this? That 54% women who had unplanned preganacies were using contraception. Not that contraception fails 54% of the time.

To demonstrate what I am meaning. Say 1000 couples are using condoms and having sex. Lets say condoms claims 90% effective rate. 100 of those couples could statistically get pregnant. If you polled those couples they would say there were using condoms but still got pregnant. You could then claim 100% of those polled were using condoms but still got pregnant. You can't say that condoms must then fail 100% of the time because for 900 other couples, it didn't

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 2:27 PM


Hmm the blog post ate some of my typing.

"The CDC statistics you cided show that "54% of the time women have unplanned pregnancies there were using birth control"

That should have been where the > is

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 2:29 PM


"This is my great aunt."

www.amazon.com/One-Nuns-Story-Then-Now/dp/158982475X

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 10:53 AM

Thank you for the link. I will look for her book. It got very good reviews on Amazon.

A little friendly advice, try not to get too discouraged about the Catholic Church and shut it out completely. I'm twice your age and I still learn something new every day. It's a life-long process. :)

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2010 3:29 PM



Also, why does the Bible belt have way more divorces than the blue states, with Massachusetts and Connecticut having the lowest rates in the country?


Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 1:45 PM

Do you have a link to this info?

Posted by: RooForLife at June 7, 2010 3:37 PM


Come on Ashley. Whenever I start to have an ounce of respect for you you turn into a whiny little brat. WAHHHH!!!!!

No one here hates sex. I posted elsewhere how VERY MUCH I enjoy it. You can have sex. I am not saying its RIGHT or HEALTHY for you to have unmarried sex, but hey, its your body, do what you want. Its YOU who will have to answer to God for willfully disobeying Him. So do it if you can accept the consequences.

Being pro-life is about not using your bodily domain to pass a death sentence on an innocent child.

The fact that most of us here are mature adults who understand the POWER of sex and that the misuse of this incredible gift is what leads to most abortions is why we speak out and caution young fools like you that maybe you ought not to be toying with something you obviously can't understand, respect or handle the consequences of.

You are like a little girl that sees a toy and screams and cries till she gets it. Only the doll is a priceless antique worth thousands and thousands of dollars. But you play with it and in your childish mind frame can only think of your instant gratification and not of how priceless this doll is. So you play with it and break it. You destroy an irreplaceable antique to satisfy your selfish wants. Thats exactly how you treat sex. You're so very short-sighted Ashley.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 7, 2010 3:41 PM


Ashley...I am not that much older than you but really, just think for a minute.

Divorce rates started to sky rocket after the "sexual revolution". Was there always divorce? Yes. Was there always sex out of marriage? yes.

But the correlation between sexual promiscuity in our society and divorce rates is astounding.

Roughly half of all marriages now end in divorce. The rate is 67% divorce rate for second marriages and keeps getting higher for third, fourth, fifth marriages...etc...

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 7, 2010 3:48 PM


Dave: "As for your last sentence, I presume we can both agree that pregnancy and STDs are both possible consequences of sexual activity. The ‘lumping’ together ends there though."

They can both be consequences of sexual activity, yes, but one is a good thing and the other a bad thing, and, yeah, I say that even if we're talking about the natural forms of pregnancy regulation. It's one thing to wish to delay pregnancy; it's another to take the contraceptive manufacturers' approach of saying both in the same breath: "...for preventing pregnancy and venereal diseases!"

And I'm not talking about your post, Dave. This is a general statement. I wish people wouldn't be so nasty towards children conceived by teen parents, too.

Posted by: bmmg39 at June 7, 2010 4:01 PM


Sorry, still not going to stop. If I get pregnant again, I'll "deal with the consequences." I don't really care about answering to God.

Christians have higher divorce rates than atheists. I'm not an atheist, but the Bible-beaters who look down their noses at people who engage in premarital sex have their oh-so-sacred marriages break up at a higher rate. Only people who lay on the Godsauce and save it for marriage can have a strong marriage? Apparently not.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Conservative states have much higher divorce rates than liberal ones.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate

I know you have a massive superiority complex about how much better you are, but the numbers tell a different story.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 4:14 PM


Ashley, there are a lot of people who say they are Christians who are not anything of the sort. They may say "I was raised Catholic" or "I was raised Presbyterian" but may have not set foot in church for years. They certainly don't read their Bible or pray. They don't care what God thinks and they don't live their lives as if they will have to answer to God. Therefore they live very selfish lives and yes, their marriages fall apart. You can't say "Christians have higher divorce rates" because calling yourself something does not mean you are.

Those that attend church, read their Bibles, fellowship with God and follow His roles for their lives have very very low divorce rates. I can attest to that from the remarkable Christian couples I have known from birth on.

And like I said, I'm not condoning it, but its your body. Have sex. Whatever. Please just don't kill any more children. Thats what I care about not who you spread your legs for.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 7, 2010 4:18 PM


I personally believe it is wrong and self-destructive to have sex outside of marriage. I think God tells us not to do it for good reasons. I do not apologize for these beliefs, either.

However, I think it's not my problem if I try to tell people about the harm they are doing to themselves and they don't listen. I've done my duty in presenting the case and the consequences of people choosing not to listen and believe belong to them, not me. When we're talking about people "living in sin", I'm sorry that they are making these poor choices but if they don't believe me then it's only my problem if they are going to get an abortion because of it. When an innocent child is killed, I believe it's everybody's business and everybody's problem.

Want to have sex? Your choice - you know the risks both relational and physical. Want to kill a child you conceived because s/he is "inconvenient" or any other petty reason? That particular choice is not your (or my) right.

Posted by: army_wife at June 7, 2010 4:50 PM


Anyone who uses the phrase "spread your legs" is using a code phrase for "you're a whore." How Christian! At least we know your real agenda is about fearing sex and stopping people from doing it, not saving babies.

Saying premarital sex causes abortions and so you have to shame and punish women for having it is just a front. What about the 20% of abortion patients who are married? How do you plan to stop those?

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 4:55 PM


And by "your agenda" I mean Sydney's and whatever other Bible beaters are posting here, not the entire pro-life movement.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 7, 2010 4:59 PM


"Being pro-life is about not using your bodily domain to pass a death sentence on an innocent child."

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 7, 2010 3:41 PM

...also,

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 7, 2010 4:18 PM

You said it better than I did in many ways. I think premarital sex is wrong, but that's not why I'm pro-life. I don't care if the woman getting the abortion is 15, 50, married, unmarried, a high-school dropout, or an Ivy League Ph.D - whatever and whomever she may be and whatever she may be into - it's wrong to kill an innocent human being at any stage of development.

Posted by: army_wife at June 7, 2010 5:09 PM


"it's wrong to kill an innocent human being at any stage of development." @army_wife 5:09

Why

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 5:14 PM


Is that not self-evident, Dave? I don't belive you really need that to be explained to you. I have a higher opinion of your intelligence than that.

If you don't understand that it is wrong to kill a fellow human being - specifically, a child who has committed no crime whatsoever - then I am honestly curious to know what you thought of Columbine, the Amish schoolhouse murders, and the recent rash of adults attacking small schoolchildren in China.

It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception. An egg is not a human being, a sperm is not a human being - they contain the material that when joined, then creates a new human being. The only difference between a newly conceived human being and the 4-month-old I am at this moment holding on my lap is the level of development. The only difference between this 4-month-old baby and my 2-year-old and my five-year-old is level of development. I don't think it is right to kill people just because they aren't as developed as, say, my five-year-old and I can get away with it. Legal does not equal right/good.

We develop and change all our lives. Living and growing isn't a process that begins at birth, it begins at conception. I am pro-life because to me, the tiny baby shortly after conception is morally/ethically equivalent to my 4-month-post-birth child, my 2 y/o, my 5 y/o, myself, my husband, my grandma, you, and every other human being on this earth. Even those I disagree with. :-)

Ashley H. - I read your blog post and although I obviously disagree with your assertion that pro-lifers would rather women die, etc. etc. - I do agree with you that the Pill does have an aura or "whiff" of sexism by putting all the inconvenience, risk, and misery on womens' shoulders. I wish they would create some type of BC for men but I wouldn't wish the same risks and body-tampering on men either.

Posted by: army_wife at June 7, 2010 5:36 PM


@army_wife

No, it's not at all self-evident. I refer you to my comment at June 7, 2010 8:28 AM.

I disagree that it is wrong in every instance to kill a fellow human being. I also see that you are committing the Fallacy of equivocation in identifying the Embryo with a Child as evident by your request of my thoughts on child murder cases.

My knowledge of human biology is no different from yours and I understand development and that life begins at conception. I am asking why it is wrong to kill a human being in the early stages of development and you have present the equivocation fallacy in identifying the embryo as identical to a 4 year old child. They are not.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 5:47 PM


Ha, also coincidental: divorce rates begin to rise as women bring their experiences with domestic violence and sexual assault to public attention, on a massive scale.

Heaven forbid that women speak up about their bodies. I'm irritated with the sham feminism spewed all over this website. You proscribe use of oral contraceptives as a ruse to punish women who try to control their fertility. Bone up to it--that argument has nothing to do with fish. By the way, where do all those baby diapers go? Landfills. You also argue that condoms are ineffective. You push Natural Family Planning to the detriment of women whose cycles are irregular, or are sick, or who would have difficulty following the rigors of three combined fertility awareness methods.

Marriage, then, becomes all about children. Forget about the partership between man and woman, about the pursuits and goals of the couple. No wonder the institution of marriage has eroded: children are still just an assumption. By condemning contraception, you imply that women should accept pregnancy without question. If a married woman gets pregnant, she's "selfish" if she doesn't want to adapt to having a child. You people are kidding yourselves. People are having children they don't want because it's supposed to be the moral, Biblically correct thing to do. Again, another selective Biblical reading.

Unexpected pregnancies work out in some cases. And I'm glad many of you have created healthy, functioning families. But I also see a dearth of posts from women who feel tied down with children, whose married lives are still largely concerned with tending to their families and houses.


Posted by: Common sense at June 7, 2010 6:15 PM


"And isn't paraxedes who admitted to getting "oops" pregnant and wishing God would make it go away? What's so great about you? You weren't abstinent."

You're right Ashley I wasn't abstinent. Nothing great about me at all. Concerned others tried to tell me but I wouldn't listen -- after all, I knew better than those dang judgemental preaching bible thumpers!!

I "preach" abstinence specifically because I wasn't abstinent. My choosing to have sex outside of marriage hurt my marriage, myself, and my ex-husband. Most importantly, it hurt the children that deserved to be raised by happily married full-time parents. These children have done nothing to deserve being tossed between two homes. My sexual sins (selfish behaviors if you prefer) continue to affect innocent people 20 plus years later.

"He is wise who gains wisdom from another's mishaps." -Publius Syrus

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 7:06 PM


P.S. Oh and Ashley, you are the one who brought up being Catholic . . . . .

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 7:13 PM


"But I also see a dearth of posts from women who feel tied down with children, whose married lives are still largely concerned with tending to their families and houses."

Common Cents Steve, maybe you could put some of your cents and sense towards helping the women in your life tend to their families and houses. I can sense your true concern for women.

After all, every child also has a father who should be equally responsible for them and their home. More helpful men, less tied down women.

Thanks for your concern for the lot of women.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 9:01 PM


Army wife...you said it beautifully. If Ashley chooses not to listen...whatever.

Ashley...really. Come on.."spread your legs" is not code for anything. I spread my legs to have sex. How else does a woman have sex? Maybe it was a bit crude of me to say it that way, but it wasn't "code" for anything. I don't have to be sly. I will come right out and say it. I think its immoral to have sex with someone you don't care about enough to stand up and commit to FOREVER. And I feel that way not just because its my little idea, but because its what God says. You say you don't care about God. I get it. Got it. I hear ya.

Again...whatever. It will be your problem some day , not mine.

Being against PREMARITAL or better, EXTRAMARITAL sex is not why I am pro-life. They are cousin issues not one and the same. Sheesh Ashley, you wrote a book and all and you can't sort this out in your mind?

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 7, 2010 9:18 PM


Praxedes
Your preaching to others is an indication that you really care about what happens to them. When you really care about people you don't want them to make the same mistakes that you did because you you have a better idea of the consequences involved.


Ashley
Your so young and have your whole life ahead of you. I know you don't like preaching and good advice would be meddling so I won't do either. But if you ever need good advice just listen to what everyone is telling you.

Posted by: myrtle miller at June 7, 2010 9:34 PM


BTW....I must share my exciting news! My older sister has four boys and always wanted a daughter but was told not to have any more children because of circulation problems. She and her husband have been moving forward with adopting for a few months but still were in the planning stage and hadn't settled on an agency or anything. They thought about foster care, foreign adoption etc...

They mentioned their hope to adopt to a friend who in turn had another friend who knew a teen mom due to give birth tomorrow to a baby GIRL! The teen mom may allow my sister and her husband to adopt this baby because the teen mom does not want to parent but is fearful of her child being in "the system" and doesn't have another family lined up. My sister literally just got the news today. Of course we are all nervous and excited and hoping this little girl comes to join our family. My sister remarked how babies conceived by teen mothers are almost always targeted for abortion.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 7, 2010 9:44 PM


Sorry about the double post.

Posted by: myrtle miller at June 7, 2010 9:49 PM


"I am asking why it is wrong to kill a human being in the early stages of development and you have present the equivocation fallacy in identifying the embryo as identical to a 4 year old child. They are not."

You're right: they're not identical. Just as the four-year-old is not identical to the 17-year-old or the 83-year-old. But the human embryo, the four-year-old, the 17-year-old, and the 83-year-old are all human beings and are all equally entitled to the right to life.

Posted by: bmmg39 at June 7, 2010 11:13 PM


"When you really care about people you don't want them to make the same mistakes that you did because you you have a better idea of the consequences involved."

Thanks Myrtle. I really do care and certainly identify with the treatment of women in our world. I try not to sound too "preachy" but hope that if others are unable to see their own mistakes, maybe they can learn from mine.

Sydney, thinking of and keeping my fingers crossed for your sister!

On another note, I just finished watching Maafa 21. Anyone have any ideas on how we can get public high schools across the country to show this?

Posted by: Praxedes at June 7, 2010 11:44 PM


Thank you army wife, Sydney M., Myrtle and Praxedes for your post. I am sorry if my previous posts were misunderstood. I know what I posted about the sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage being connected is not PC or popular but I have seen the devastation caused by premarital sex in my own family. I have seen the devastation caused by premarital sex with teens (girls and boys) and adults alike that I have worked with in healthcare and I have seen the tears of the post-abortive friends and family, who shared their pain with me. I have held the hands of women and hugged women who lost their babies due to miscarriage and stillbirth and seen firsthand how precious life is.

I have seen young moms waiting for boyfriends to pick them upon discharge but he never shows up because he has moved on to the next girlfriend. The young fathers who love their girlfriend and baby and want to become a good husband and father but the girlfriend has moved onto the next boyfriend and she doesn't want him around anymore. Women not sure of the paternity of their baby hauling different men to court for DNA testing to determine who is going to pay child support. I have seen lots of lives devastated by premarital sex (I've seen genital warts on women's bodies, babies being tested and treated for HIV and other STDs with powerful IV drugs) but I have NEVER seen abstinence cause STDs, unplanned pregnancies, aborted babies, emotional heartbreak, fatherless children and the devastation of families. I do know that people will do what they want to do with their bodies and that is indeed their right, but I still contend they will pay consequences.

I love the way the Catholic church has connected these two and the use of the pill and other forms of contraception to the breakdown on morality and marriage. BTW tonight there was an excellent show on EWTN addressing the topic of women, men, families and the impact that contraception and abortion has played in changing our culture. The title of the show is "Women of Grace", the guest was Janice E. Smith author of a book "The Right to Privacy", very interesting.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 8, 2010 12:04 AM


Sydney M. I am praying your sister and her family will be able to adopt, hopefully this baby.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 8, 2010 12:12 AM


@bmmg39 11:13

Again with the equivotcation fallacy.

It is true that the 4 and 17 year old are different in both their physical and mental capacities. I would agree that killing either, in almost every instance, is morally wrong.

It is true that the 17 and 83 year old are different in both their physical and mental capacities. I would agree that killing either, in almost every instance, is morally wrong.

It is true that the embryo and the 4 year old are different in both their physical and mental capacities but with one distinction, the embryo has no mental capacities. Its brain hasn't sparked consciousness, it hasn't come into existance from a psycological aspect. I agree that killing a 4 year old in almost every instance is morally wrong but the same is not true for the embryo.

I do not accept that all human beings are equally entitled to the right to life because I do not see a value on just the ability to replicate cells and grow. I see value in consciousness, awareness, and other mental capacitites. The fetus begins to develop these and I oppose most abortions after 8-10 weeks because of this. The embryo has none of these abilities, to my understanding. Without these, I place little value in the embryo because the human isn't existing yet on a psycological level. I leave the value of the human being to be placed in the mother's hands for her to decide whether to continue the pregnancy.

I have received the Equivocation Fallacy again and stated my cases again, please stop presenting the Fallacy. I ask, why is it wrong to kill a human being in all stages of development.

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2010 6:50 AM


Posted by: Common sense at June 7, 2010 6:15 PM
-The majority of our diapers don't go into the landfill. They go into the washing machine and the solid waste goes into our septic tank. Ever hear of cloth diapers?

-Sydney, I hope things work out for your sister. It can be heartbreaking when these things don't work out. Kudos to the teen mom for choosing to give birth to her child, even though she is afraid! That's true love right there - self-sacrifice in the face of fear or other adverse circumstances.

-Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2010 5:47 PM
So, it's illogical to say that every human being has equal rights. How so? I didn't say they looked the same, I said that an embryo or fetus is MORALLY the same as any born child, i.e. that they are both human beings deserving of the same rights.

Posted by: army_wife at June 8, 2010 6:52 AM


@army_wife

You responded just after me so I won't repost my thoughts unless you have a different point as I believe I answered your question about why they don't have equal rights.

"I said that an embryo or fetus is MORALLY the same as any born child, i.e. that they are both human beings deserving of the same rights."

Is the only reason they are morally the same due to the fact that they are both human?

If so, why does just being of the human race impart a right to life?

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2010 6:59 AM


"The fetus begins to develop these and I oppose most abortions after 8-10 weeks because of this."

Dave, What about women who don't know or lie about how far along they are? What about abortionists who don't tell women how far along they really are and don't care anyway? A specific hour cannot be pinpointed in your 8-10 weeks to fit your idea of what constitutes important human life. "I can kill your child today but tomorrow at 2:39 pm I cannot because he will then exist on a pyschological level."

Do you believe it is morally alright for Planned Parenthood to earmark funds specifically to abort black babies? Do you believe it is morally OK for a family with two daughters to abort a third daughter because they want a boy? Do you believe it is morally alright for a woman to abort if the father begs to raise the child himself without any of her help?

Why don't you answer the question of why being of the human race should not impart a right to life?

Posted by: Praxedes at June 8, 2010 8:24 AM


Wow. Dave, thats scary. You don't think being part of the human race imparts a right to life? So who gets to decide? What are the criteria? If you are of the wrong race, or your brain function doesn't meet other's criteria or you are the wrong gender...

All of these types of human beings have been exterminated by others. You support genocide Dave? You must believe in eugenics. Frightening.

My sister is still waiting to hear about this baby girl! The mother is 14. I cannot believe how young she is. My oldest niece is 14 and I can't imagine her pregnant. But this girl chose to have sex and now she must grow up and deal with the results of her illicit sexual experiences. Thankfully she did not choose to kill another human being because of her poor foresight. Now this baby girl will live and my sister will hopefully get her much longed for daughter. And I hope the 14 year old mother will now understand how powerful sex is and why she shouldn't be having it at this stage of her life. Better to get pregnant than contract an incurable STD. Having this baby may save this young teen's life. I hope from now on she will make healthier choices.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 8, 2010 1:46 PM


The 14 year old and her daughter will probably regret the adoption for the rest of their lives. My friend's (let's just call her Lauren) mom got pregnant at 15 and had Lauren snatched from her under pressure from her parents and church and given to an approved older couple. The bio-mom suffered severe depression and alcoholism, and Lauren went through years of promiscuity and drug use before finally meeting the bio-mom. Still doesn't get along with her adopted parents. She's trying to start an anti-adoption blog right now.

But of course, girls who have sex must be punished by having their babies taken away and given to a nice Christian family.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 2:08 PM


You're hateful Ashley. I guess its so much better to rip the unborn children limb from limb like in your case, right? How did abortion solve your problems Ashley? You seem like a warped, bitter person. You can't even be happy for a family adopting a baby. You find reason to seethe and vomit venom over that too. I guess its tough to see a girl younger than you be courageous and brave and give life to her child when you couldn't find that courage yourself and you were much older.

I am sure this will be tough for the 14 year old. I can't imagine how tough it will be. But she will at least know that her baby is ALIVE. That will be a comfort.

I have other adopted members of my family. They are grateful that they were adopted. I have many friends who have aborted. They are angry, hurt, grieving, guilty, anguished, drunk and have eating disorders. Adoption is not the best circumstance. Again, this is why God meant sex for MARRIED HUSBANDS AND WIVES and not for unmarried people. In this case, adoption is absolutely the best thing. My sister and her husband have been married over a decade and are loving. They have a nice home. They have four boys who they parent terrifically! This fourteen year old doesn't have the maturity to be a responsible mom in all probability. She doesn't have the financial resources to parent. Should her daughter die because she can't parent? I guess thats your solution huh, Ashley? Just kill the kid and get on with your selfish life?

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 8, 2010 2:15 PM


She's 14, she doesn't know what she wants. There's a really good chance she'll grow up in a few years and wish she had kept the baby herself.

Or her experience could be like these women's.

www.thenation.com/issue/september-14-2009


Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 2:18 PM


oops.

http://kathrynjoyce.com/2009/08/27/shotgun-adoption/

Nice Christian people guilt-tripping women into surrendering their babies under duress. Just judging from my friend's experience, if you want to give birth, raise the baby yourself.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 2:22 PM


And I don't see what my comment had to do with "ripping up babies." It was about adoption, period. You can't address any other point without screaming about ripping off babies' limbs! murder! even if it has nothing to do with that.

I'm off to hang out with the boyfriend! We're probably even going to have the dirty, evil premarital sex before we go out. Later.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 2:29 PM


Ashley...you imagine yourself so smart but you can't seem to grasp anything logically. The point is that this fourteen year old CANNOT PARENT THE CHILD. Do you understand that point? On to the next...

Since the biological mother cannot parent what is she doing? She is giving her daughter to an adoptive family that can financially and emotionally take care of her. What would the alternative have been since you shriek and scream your objections to adoption. The alternative would have been what you chose. Abortion. Which IS ripping limbs off babies.

This isn't rocket science Ashley. You detest adoption which means you think this baby girl should have been killed.

I'm glad my sister, who is a loving, gentle mother and YES a Christian :-) will be able to raise this little girl with morals and faith. My sister also wants to minister to the mother because this adoption will probably be very emotionally hard on her. How can it not? But the bottom line is this baby girl is ALIVE!

Go have evil premarital sex Ashley. Give it away without a commitment. How suave of you.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 8, 2010 2:35 PM


@Praxedes
“What about women who don't know or lie about how far along they are? “

Doctors can tell how far along a pregnancy is fairly accurately if a woman is unsure of how far along she is. Heart Tone can be heard at 7 weeks by Doppler. At 10-12 Genitals can be recognized At 13-16 active movements begin. If a woman doesn’t know or lies about how far along she is. These are just some of the indicators doctors can use to determine the embryonic age.

“What about abortionists who don't tell women how far along they really are and don't care anyway?“

It would have to be a case by case scenario but the reasons for abortion after the Fetal Period begin, in my opinion, drop off significantly as to what is morally acceptable. I don’t know much about malpractice law but punishment should be put upon those who deceive patients in such a manner.

“A specific hour cannot be pinpointed in your 8-10 weeks to fit your idea of what constitutes important human life. I can kill your child today but tomorrow at 2:39 pm I cannot because he will then exist on a psychological level."

The line at psychological development is, indeed, a grey area. The brain begins making active movements and responding to stimuli after 12 weeks but brain development in 10-11 weeks is difficult to determine. That is the grey area to me. I set a time frame of 8-10 weeks because by this point the divisions of the brain have begun and will grow rapidly after.

“Do you believe it is morally alright for Planned Parenthood to earmark funds specifically to abort black babies?“

I presume you are referring to the magazine calling PP across the nation and finding a few people who didn’t hang up immediately on them. To my knowledge, PP does not earmark funds to abort specific children and it is against their mission statements to do so. I would be opposed to such a distribution of funds.

“Do you believe it is morally OK for a family with two daughters to abort a third daughter because they want a boy?“

I believe that the gender ultrasound is best done around 16 weeks so no, I would not agree with a couple wanting to abort at this stage. I’m not sure how early CVS can be done but if it is after fetal development I have the same issue.

If a couple wants a boy I suggest they pay the money for IVF with Microsort or PGD.

"Do you believe it is morally alright for a woman to abort if the father begs to raise the child himself without any of her help?"

If the child is still in the embryo stage, yes. It is up to the mother to assign value to the developing human inside her and no one else gets to force that upon her. She could choose to honor the father’s wishes and carry to term for him but it is not a moral obligation in the early weeks.


"Why don't you answer the question of why being of the human race should not impart a right to life?"

I believe that without the brain the human body does not have a right to life. An embryo has not entered into a state of consciousness or awareness and should not receive the same stature as a later developed fetus or born individual. After this state of existence is reached, the pre and post born have a right to life. Without this state, I don’t see the significance being placed on the human being outside of some spiritual notion of a soul. Without the brain’s activities and consciousness we are literally a pile of cells, highly organized though they may be.

During my typing, I see Sydney’s response follows the similar equivocation fallacy but adds the inductive fallacy of hasty generalization. I do not support Genocide though I’m not entirely opposed to eugenics as it relates to genetic engineering. I think it is a good idea, for example, to continue research into ways to remove genetic diseases through gene manipulation.

So I ask again, why does being of the human race impart a right to life?

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2010 2:38 PM


That's great. Let's just hope no one's coercing this girl into surrending her child because some fundies think she can't parent. I don't trust fundies though; they have a superiority complex that says they can do things like snatch babies from unwilling girls because God likes them more.

"Give it away without commitment"--lmao. We're very committed. More than all the holy rollers who have their marriages break up at a way higher rate than atheists' (see above).

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 2:38 PM


Sorry to have inserted a wall of text in your conversation. I should have refreshed the page.

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2010 2:42 PM


"Nice Christian people guilt-tripping women into surrendering their babies under duress."

What are you actually doing Ashley to help women that have unplanned pregnancies? Saying things like:

"Better abort honey, the kid will turn out just like his dad."

"If he embarasses you at all or abuses you in any way, better kill the baby. Appearances are EVERYTHING!"

"You just said you wish you weren't pregnant at this time, you should be put in jail for child abuse."

"Don't give that baby up to that loving, stable family! I know, I know you want to finish middle school but you might regret adoption later! Either kill the kid or keep it!"

"omg, Make it all about you! If it feels good just say yes!"

"Keep having sex without marriage girls! It's fun! I just had an abortion a short time ago with a jerk. But I've moved on to this new fun, non-committed relationship with a new boy who totally respects me because he is very Catholic!"

"Look at me. Look at me, dangit! I had an abortion and I'm just fine."

You have become my new poster girl for the contributions abortion has made to our youth.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 8, 2010 2:56 PM


"An embryo has not entered into a state of consciousness or awareness and should not receive the same stature as a later developed fetus or born individual."

Dave, with all due respect, you have not yet entered into the state of conscientiousness or awareness that I have. Rest assured, I will never condone aborting you.

Hang tough. You have the potential to get there if just given the chance.

Peace bro.


Posted by: Praxedes at June 8, 2010 3:12 PM


Your sarcasm aside, I am open to enlightenment and my question remains unanswered.

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2010 3:14 PM


Dave,

I believe bringing up the human soul is not what you want to hear.

You are set on the fact that human life begins when you say it begins. For you this means when there are brain waves (which is different for every individual just as we all are potty-trained at different stages).

You put yourself in the role of Creator and state somewhere between 8-10 weeks is OK to abort. What about those who argue that abortion is OK until labor begins? Or those who believe they can kill their born children because they see them as property? Are you right and they are wrong? Abortion is a slippery slope as we have certainly seen for some time now.

If you take the time to really foster a close relationship with Him, you will understand that "Thou shall not kill" means just that.

I just don't know how to answer a question that I don't believe you really want answered in the first place.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 8, 2010 3:41 PM


If the question can’t be answered without invoking religion, then yes, we have reached a point where our conversation is over.

Human life begins at conception but just being alive and having cells that replicate is not what I see as having a right to live and I am honestly asking for reason to place that measure of value in a human being. I say “honestly asking” but as stated above, if you need to invoke a god to get your point across we are spinning wheels.

I believe that it is okay to abort leading up to the switch from embryo to fetus for the reasons I’ve already given. For those same reasons, I would argue against those supporting the scenarios you have offered, infanticide, women killing their children to save them from sinning, etc. The position is not at odds with methods of contraception or research into genetic material.

Why does being of the human race impart a right to life? I am, in part, asking my questions to hear responses and listen to ensure fallacies and misinformation are not being spread. I am also asking because I want to ensure that my position does not invoke the very things I try to correct.

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2010 3:57 PM


"Human life begins at conception but just being alive and having cells that replicate is not what I see as having a right to live"

Your right, the law should be based on what you see. You are your own god and god to those up to 10 weeks after conception. Feels good doesn't it?

Like I knew when you first asked your question, there is no way to answer a question that you really don't want answered in the first place. It was not reasonable for me to expect reason from the unreasonable.

You're not where I'm at. Not even close.

I still don't condone killing you though.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 8, 2010 4:08 PM


The Pill Kills in Canada too

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10060804.html

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 8, 2010 4:45 PM


Dave...at what definable moment does the "switch" get flipped and the baby becomes a fetus. What happens at that moment that now suddenly imparts personhood to the preborn human being?

There is no other definable moment in a human life other than conception where you can clearly say there was no human being and now there is. Conception is that moment.

True, the newly conceived human is not as developed as you and me but that does not mean he/she is any less complex or any less valuable.

The problem with saying that JUST because you are a human being does not automatically guarantee you the right to be alive is that you may only apply that to embryos today. But then who is to stop those who would take your reasoning and apply it to 3 month old infants? To elementary school kids? To teenagers? To the old, the retarded...oh wait! They already are...

We see what they did to Terri Shaivo. She was obviously a human being. But they argued away her PERSONHOOD. Who are YOU to decide who lives and dies?

On what basis are we to grant life? I got a 1400 on my SAT's (this was 12 years ago of course). I was a good student. Do I get to live or must you have a perfect 1600 to attain personhood? I am white. Do I get to live? Is a non-white a non-person? We've been there done that in our country.

I am a woman. Are men the only ones who are PEOPLE? Once upon a time women had no rights. No right to vote, own property etc...who decided? Men decided because they were in power. Blacks were non-people because whites were in power.

Now those in power say unborn are not people. So whoever has the power makes the rules for personhood. But that is a terrible situation to be in. What if there are those who come to power and no longer consider YOU to be a person Dave?

That happened to the Jews in Europe. Who would have thought when Hitler first came to power that he would be able to decide life and death for millions of innocent families? But he did. HE set the rules for personhood.

I am a Christian. God made man in His image. He set man above the animals because He breathed a soul into man. You don't want to hear it Dave, but that is why it is wrong to kill another human being (barring self-defense which God allows). If you are a human being you are a person because God says so and God is the Creator Who grants us certain inalienable rights...the chiefest among them is LIFE. GOD grants it. Not YOU, not the STATE. GOD.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 8, 2010 4:58 PM


And you're my new poster child for "Bitter broads who didn't abstain and got 'oops' pregnant themselves, making them not just hypocrites, but obnoxious holier-than-thou hypocrites.'"

I already said I'd never have an abortion again, which I thought was what the "pro-life" movement wanted. But you all mostly seem hysterical that I have a sex life. Pro-choicers are always saying that you're motivated by religious fanaticism and a desire to punish women for having sex, not "the babies." In your and Sydney's case, that seems to be extremely true.

Are you people so pompous that you think I personally owe you a vow of chastity? You remind me of the people in the book "The Girls Who Went Away," the Christians who isolated pregnant girls in maternity homes, tied them to the delivery tables, then snatched away their babies and gave them to a married couple.

PS. I had sex tonight. It was fun. Sorry, no guilt here!

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 6:01 PM


As of last week I was thinking of being a counselor, maybe for a CPC or something...someone young and non-religious these girls could relate to. But you know what? I don't think I can stand working with people who sound more interested in pushing abstinence and religious fanaticism.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 6:06 PM


Dave: "I have received the Equivocation Fallacy again and stated my cases again, please stop presenting the Fallacy."

I am free to present the embryo and the four-year-old as equivalent with respect to the right to life, because, contrary to your claim, it does not involve a fallacy. In fact the party here guilty of presenting a fallacy would be you, yourself. As many who would deny rights to the human embryo are guilty of doing, you are working backwards from a predetermined "conclusion."

Posted by: bmmg39 at June 8, 2010 6:15 PM


Abstinence is actually a very healthy lifestyle and allows a girl to achieve her goals. Abstinence (from ALL sexual activity) is also the only 100% sure way of not getting an STD. Pills and rubber don't provide adequate protection from STDs. And no, pregnancy is NOT an STD. Pregnancy is the natural end result of sexual intimacy (when a woman is in her fertile days), an STD is NOT.

Also, you don't have to be religious to promote abstinence.


I'd rather marry a man who saved himself for his future wife then one that went with the crowd of "everyone's doing it" and slept around. Then I would know my future husband cared enough to save himself for ME and didn't sleep around.

Oh, and anyone who thinks its okay to abort a baby because the baby will be a girl instead of a "wanted boy" is sick. China has a gender imbalance because of their obsession with a male society.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 8, 2010 6:40 PM


Ashley. You're funny. I hardly think anyone here is "hysterical" that you have a sex life. We are trying to offer you some wise advice. But you can do whatever you want. You insist on being a fool, so be it.I am busy being a wife (having hot sex myself, thanks...and with a man who loves me enough to stand up and tell the world he will be with me forever.) and too busy being a mom to really care about your sex life.

But keep convincing yourself that we just can't think of anyone but you...You are a narcissist my dear. You really remind me of my 14 year old niece, but you can't blame my niece. She is a teenager after all. Whats your excuse?

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 8, 2010 6:46 PM


The man I make great passionate love with goes to sleep with me every night and wakes up with me every morning. Seems like you have an issue with my sex life, not the other way around.

You sound like a teenage boy who feels the need to tell everyone he gets laid occassionally. If the "Wam, Bam, Thank you Mam Booty Call" is more your style, who am I to judge? It's your life.

Just stop killing other people in the process because I am obligated to speak up for those who can't.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 8, 2010 7:38 PM


Ashley,
If you have written about any abortion regret or remorse that you have and I have missed it, I apologize. If you have not been through any abortion recovery you would have to seek that first before you counsel women who are struggling after their abortions. Your voice is needed.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 8, 2010 7:42 PM


No one here is saying that teen girls HAVE to give their children up for adoption. They are certainly free to parent them if they choose to do so. Hopefully in those cases they will have a great deal of family and community support.

What we are saying is that if they do not feel capable or ready to parent a child, they do not have to murder it... there are plenty of families who would love to give it a home.

In today's open adoptions, birth mothers can remain in touch with their children and have the security of knowing that their child is doing well in their lives.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 8, 2010 7:52 PM


I haven't been through professional training, no. I'd like some though. I'd hate to see another smart and capable 20-something woman walk through the door and say she "has no choice" but to abort.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 8:28 PM


@ Praxedes 4:08

I can see you are getting frustrated based on your switch from the discussion to ad hominem attacks.

Of course the law should not be based on what I see. Law is a set of morals turned into rules by our elected officials. We can both present our case and work to enact laws that more closely align with our differing moral codes.

I have also not claimed to be a god. I am trying to engage in a discussion and have present my side as such. If your side rests solely on religious views, which I beginning to think they do based on your inability to continue the discussion, than we arrive at a wall and the discussion needs to switch to your god.

There is no need to personally attack me. I believe I have offered reason, I am awaiting yours.

I am also confused as to why you see a need to add that you do not condone killing me at the end of your posts now. I share the same thoughts about you but do not feel a need to include it. Is it a kind of self-reinforcing statement?


@Sydney 4:58

I have already answered the questions you list about infants, children, where the line is, woman, intelligence, and all the other non-sequitor arguments.

Thank you for presenting your opinion. It isn't that I don't want to hear it, it's just that it is where we can't continue discussion anymore on this topic since the topic of god must then be confronted and this isn’t the blog for that.

I always tilt my head in amazement when I hear the pro-lifers outside the clinic tell me this has nothing to do with religion.

@bmmg39

I have identified both the fallacy and the reasoning why it is a fallacy for you. A reasonable response would be more in the lines of showing why it isn't a fallacy or a restructuring of the argument, instead of a presentation of the same argument.

Could you elaborate more on "working backwards from a predetermined conclusion"?

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2010 8:34 PM


Agreed, Ashley.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 8, 2010 8:38 PM


Dave,

I believe murder of born humans, rape, theft, dishonesty, drunk-driving and a host of other illegal, unethical and immoral behaviors eventually come down to the God as well.

According to your brain waves, I know this doesn't make me as enlightened as you. However, you can't prove it.

"since the topic of god must then be confronted and this isn’t the blog for that." Did someone forget to give me the memo that I shouldn't discuss God on this blog? Dave, I respect your choosing not to bring up God but don't ask the questions if you don't want to hear the answers.

Peace.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 8, 2010 9:10 PM


"According to your brain waves, I know this doesn't make me as enlightened as you. However, you can't prove it."

And from your perspective, my position is not enlightened either, nor can you "prove it". So we arrive at the dilemma.

You are free to discuss your god here, I am merely stating that I think it is inappropriate to delve into theological debates on a site meant for the abortion debate.

As for "not wanting to hear the answers", I have already said that it is not accurate. I am fine listening to your theological reasonings but that the abortion debate needs to be suspended at that point with the issue of god is discussed. If you would like to talk about god, I would be willing to give you my email during more private discussions.

I don't know why we need to go through a song and dance to arrive at supporting arguments. Isn't it more liberating to simply state your case? You seem reasonable praxedes and I have enjoyed our conversation so far.

If you wish to engage about god, I am happy to do so. My email is dvahdrok@gmail.com. Otherwise, I don't think we have much else to discuss on the issue of abortion.

Thank you for engaging me on this board.

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2010 9:28 PM


I'm off to hang out with the boyfriend! We're probably even going to have the dirty, evil premarital sex before we go out. Later.
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 2:29 PM

way to brag about sinning.
and having no shame about it either.
You have both my sympathies and my prayers Ashley.

Posted by: angel at June 8, 2010 10:29 PM


Well Dave, its not a religious issue per se. Its a common decency issue. Most people have instilled in them a moral conscience. This is talked about in the Bible and even new studies show newborn babes have moral leanings (Jill discussed it on this website)

That is why you will hear atheists (Xalisae used to comment on this board. She is an atheist and yet pro-life) so why an atheist may not believe in God they see that killing an innocent human being is wrong. I believe that MOST people possess this basic concept of right and wrong because the Bible says we were created with this. The Bible also says the heart is desperately wicked so even though we have a conscience we tend to gravitate towards things that are wrong. I believe it because the Bible says so but that is not why I think it is wrong to kill another human being. I think it is wrong to kill another innocent human being because my conscience dictates it. And because I see from history when you start denying basic rights to SOME people, it eventually spreads to ALL people and that concerns me. I fear that by degrading life in the womb I may someday face a) forced abortion by the state like in China or b) being a victim of euthanasia in my old age by a society that places no value on my life even though I am a human being.

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 8, 2010 11:07 PM


Ashley: "PS. I had sex tonight. It was fun. Sorry, no guilt here!"

Okay.

I took a crap about an hour ago. In case, y'know, we're supposed to check in with our bodily functions.

Dave: "Could you elaborate more on 'working backwards from a predetermined conclusion'?"

Yes. Your conclusion is that "embryos aren't worthy of human rights and protections the same way four-year-olds are," and then you work backwards to figure out something embryos cannot yet do or haven't fully developed yet. Sentience or a fully developed brain or nervous system are not prerequisites for status as a human being, and they are not requirements for possession of human rights, either. Hppe this helps.

Posted by: bmmg39 at June 8, 2010 11:13 PM


Actually, I was afraid a baby would be a way for the guy to lord over me and keep controlling my life. Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 12:55 PM

I can understand that. Not too long ago, I was talking with one of our staff social workers about that very issue. I asked if there is a national organization to help pregnant women who need legal assistance protecting their children and themselves during and after pregnancy.

It seems there are national referral mechanisms to direct a woman to local legal services, but at least in my area, local resources are strained and unable to provide timely assistance. In my area, if a pregnant woman who's suffered abuse cannot afford to hire counsel, she's at the mercy of a legal aid society's waiting list. If she's in danger, so is her unborn child and her already-born children. They deserve better than a waiting list! It's hard to imagine that being on a waiting list inspires much hope in a woman who's contemplating abortion.

(being unmarried, he had no legal rights to begin with)

Unless he'd have filed a paternity claim, right? In that case, you could potentially find yourself in a position where the family court makes a decision that doesn't allow you to distance yourself from the abuser to the extent you need. So the matter of access to prompt legal assistance arises again if the abuser violates the judge's visitation order or uses access to the child to further intimidate or threaten.

Ashley, I'm curious. Would access to legal assistance related to issues of your own and your child's safety have had an impact on your decision to abort? If the answer is yes, what do you think prolifers should be doing to make legal assistance more readily available to pregnant women who've been abused and are considering abortion? If the answer is no, what do you think prolifers should be doing to help women address safety issues during pregnancy and afterward? Thanks in advance if you respond to my question.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 8, 2010 11:15 PM


bmmg39 --ha ha ha! :-)

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 8, 2010 11:17 PM


I think it would have made a huge difference if I had been aware of all my options and had people supporting me. As soon as I saw the pregnancy test (on Thanksgiving day, no less), I couldn't get on the phone any faster to schedule an abortion. Why? Because it was frightening. If someone had held my hand and walked me through different things I could do--including filing restraining orders and getting help to continue school--it would have been different. I would love to be that person holding a woman's hand.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 8, 2010 11:35 PM


Thanks, Ashley. Your response intrigues me. On the one hand, you acknowledge that your first impulse was to call for an abortion. On the other, you say that supportive exploration of resources and options might have made a difference in whether you actually went through with the abortion. Am I understanding right?

What could a prolifer have done to reach out to you after you scheduled the abortion, Ashley? Were assistance hotlines, CPC numbers, etc not adequately publicized? Or were you aware of them but felt they didn't offer what you needed? Or was it something else?

Posted by: Fed Up at June 8, 2010 11:55 PM


@ Sydney 11:07

You claim it is not a religious issue per se and then go on to justify this by stating people have a morality given to them by a god and described in the Bible. After a few Kohlberg stages you might find more reason than that for morality. Your acknowledgement of a self conscience dictated morality is promising.

Most people that I’ve encountered in my discussion with pro-life and pro-choice are muddied stances due in no small part to the political framing both sides engage in:

“They’re killing Babies!” is yelled out in an effort to channel the disgust people have with infanticide at the abortion debate but it isn’t true because the embryo and the fetus in early stages are not babies though the line is blurred at the end of fetal development and birth.

“It’s my body!” is yelled out in an effort to channel our sense of self autonomy and freedom at the abortion debate but it isn’t true because, while the woman’s body is giving nourishment, the developing human is not her body but it’s own.

Likewise, when people think, killing an innocent human is wrong; they usually mean a human person. Debates for end and beginning of life show that the difference between a being and a person are recognized and agreement isn’t reached. As for the slippery slope, we can still fight the battles to prevent it. Just as I am opposed to the state making the choice for a woman that she cannot abort, I am also opposed to the state making the choice for a woman that she must abort.

And maybe, with a little stem cell research and gene therapy, we can help grandma live a little long too.


@bmmg39 11:13

My hypothesis was that, I personally do not see a problem with contraception or what is labeled as emergency contraception, but I do see an issue with partial-birth abortion. I then asked myself, why.

What is the distinction between these? This led me to think about what is valuable in life. There are many things but they come down to emotions, interactions, and experiences. These have little to do with the body; it is just a vessel for the mind. This is what we value when we talk about human life and when we discuss harming others. Psychological trauma from events or the future experiences of having to cope with disabilities from injuries are things we try to prevent.

Sentience is not a prerequisite for status as a human being, simple DNA is, but Sentience is needed for the possession of human rights, in my opinion. That is what I have been arguing. I have asked why that position is wrong and you are welcome to answer it rather than assert that I am wrong.

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2010 11:08 AM


Dave, you are on very shaky ethical ground. Religion is not necessary for me to say that, btw.

At conception sperm and egg undergo a transformation that creates a brand new set of DNA, unlike any other DNA that has ever existed or will ever exist. At that point we have life... and it is worthy of protection.

Drawing the line ANYWHERE else is very, very dangerous and leaves room for eugenics. The unborn are not deserving of life because their brain waves are not developed enough? There are medical conditions that can cause an inability for your brainwaves to be properly quantified... are you no longer human?

The unborn are not deserving of life because they are wholly dependent upon the care of others? Does that mean that my elderly patients who require total care are no longer human? Or the teenager in a coma (even temporarily) is not human?

Every single standard that can be set, outside of the standard of the first formation of unique DNA, can be used in some way to deny the humanity of the born as well as the unborn. That thinking has led us to many, many atrocities during the course of history. Some day, abortion will be viewed with as much disgust as we view the mass graves in Iraq or Serbia-Croatia.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 9, 2010 11:14 AM


@Elisabeth 11:14
Looking past the gross use of the Equivocation Fallacy:

“At that point we have life... and it is worthy of protection.”

Why. Your answer seems to be, because that is where it is easiest to make things black and white.

The embryo does not have a right to life because the person it will become hasn’t even come into being. I know you guys don’t like to hear that it is a sack of cells but without a mind that is what we are, granted a ‘sack of cells’ is an ignorant way of describing the complexity of the human structure even during development. I see the line at this point and maybe one day we will be able to pinpoint that moment in human development when the brain sparks to life. Until then, the issue is grey and so I set a personal morality stance at a time earlier than this developing moment to ensure it hasn’t been reached yet.

Are there medical conditions in which you lose brain functions? Yes, whether they be comas or head traumas. Is that the same as not having a mind at all? No.

There is one state in which the developed humans mind begins to match that of the embryo. It is after the brain gives a final burst of activity during sustained oxygen deprivation, loss of cranial blood flow, and electrical activity ceases. The condition is irreversible though the body can be maintained for sometime after, usually for organ donation.

“The unborn are not deserving of life because they are wholly dependent upon the care of others?”

I haven’t stated this.

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2010 11:37 AM


"And maybe, with a little stem cell research and gene therapy, we can help grandma live a little long too."

Really Dave. I don't know why we had to go through several songs and dances to arrive at what the real reason your brain waves won't let you acknowledge the personhood of unborn humans under a certain age.

I can see clearly now. . . . .
Peace.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 9, 2010 11:40 AM


@praxedes
If you think I am in my current position due to some desire to promote stem cell research, you need disgard the straw man and focus on the discussion.

I think, though possibly incorrectly, that you are unable grasp my position and need to rework it so that it is something ridiculous, like a desire to bring in 20's eugenics movement, or otherwise easier to comprehend and combat.

You have presented nothing to demonstrate the unborn having a claim to personhood straight out of conception. Your prior ad hominem attack and continual use of informal fallacies indicate a lack of arguements beyond the theological, a desire to end the conversation by continuing with misrepresenting my position, or an inability to formally discuss the issue.

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2010 11:52 AM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "y" in the field below: