Saline abortions, obsolete?

by Valerie Jane

We've had many discussions on this blog about saline abortions. Abortion proponents claim saline abortions are not committed anymore, so our pictures of them are obsolete or faked.

But according to the CDC in 2004, there were 4,574 saline abortions for 43 out of 52 reporting area's. Saline abortions took place in approximately 1% of abortions since 1989; 2% of abortions from 1983 - 1988; and that it has been taking place under 3% of all abortions since 1981.

All of that sounds low, right?

Take a look at this:

1995 - 6,000 (approx) saline abortions
2000 - 3,400 (approx) saline abortions
2002 - 6,800 (approx) saline abortions
2003 - 7,600 (approx) saline abortions
2004 - 4,500 (approx) saline abortions

When it is put in numbers it makes a bit of difference, doesn't it? Now let's break it down further.

In 2004 there were:

375 saline abortions every month
87 saline abortions every week
12 saline abortions every day

That doesn't sound like something that is never done anymore does it?

****

Note: The medical term for this procedure is "Intrauterine Instillation abortion" The chemicals used can be consisting of either saline, urea or prostaglandin.


Comments:

Wow - to have that sad, sad picture just pop up on my computer screen. I am completely sickened and saddened.

(I'm not complaining about the fact that it's posted, just saddened by the fact that the subject of the picture even exists. I'm angered by the abortion, not the photo).

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 8:19 AM


Anonymous, I know how you feel. It is so sad to have to look at these pictures and know that there was someone who killed that precious baby! I would have loved and taken care of that baby.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 8:23 AM


Me too, Bethany. I wish I had a new one right now! My boys want a little sister!

But I think I'm too old :(

Anyway, I actually think the pictures are important, not just because they show the truth, but also because it's also important to acknowledge these victims, to acknowledge that they existed and died (for no real reason or purpose). Somebody needs to remember them.

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 8:30 AM


Amen,S!

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 8:41 AM


The picture is heart wrenching but those that are PC will argue about the pictures authenticity etc. OR change the subject. That is hard for me as well.

Posted by: Carla at April 9, 2008 8:45 AM


It's so hard to believe that people go to medical school and decide this is what they want to do for their life's work. What a disgrace.

Posted by: Janet at April 9, 2008 8:53 AM


Morning everyone!

My heart just aches for that lsweet little precious baby. How anyone could ever think this is a choice is beyond me. This would be a crime if it involved an animal.

I need to go get a kleenex.

Posted by: Sandy at April 9, 2008 9:09 AM


Anyone who disputes the photo or the procedure's relevance
should go to giannajessen.com

Posted by: lesforlife at April 9, 2008 9:09 AM


Yes, Carla, they will try to change the subject. But let's try to keep the PC'ers on point today, OK?

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 9:25 AM


According to the CDC in 2004, there were 4,574 saline abortions for 43 out of 52 reporting area's.
************
Could we please get a link for these statistics? Ive never seen the CDC break down METHOD of abortion used before.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 9:52 AM


One thing to think about.....

These numbers do not include 9 reporting areas, one of which is California - when they did report their stats they were 17% - 20% of all US abortions.

On thing that shocked me was that Massachusettes uses this method the most. They are reponsible for 3,330.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 9:52 AM


But, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, who cares how it is done?

Do we pass laws on the most humane removal of cancer, so as to cause the least amount of damage to the tumor?

Same with PBA. If it's "just tissue" then why try to distance yourself from the procedure?

Or could it be that even pro-choice people admit, if only to themselves, that the "product of conception" is actually a person who can feel pain?

Posted by: Milehimama at April 9, 2008 9:53 AM


Here is an addition to the note at the bottom of the post -

According to Websters medical dictionary:

Urea: : a soluble weakly basic nitrogenous compound CH4N2O that is the chief solid component of mammalian urine and an end product of protein decomposition and that is administered intravenously as a diuretic drug -- called also carbamide

Prostaglandin: any of various oxygenated unsaturated cyclic fatty acids of animals that are formed as cyclooxygenase metabolites especially from unsaturated fatty acids (as arachidonic acid) composed of a chain of 20 carbon atoms and that perform a variety of hormonelike actions (as in controlling blood pressure or smooth muscle contraction)

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 9:55 AM


I read the statistics - there is no break down for saline abortion. There is no way of knowing from those statistics how often its used or even IF its still used. Insisting all those figures reflect 'saline abortions' and are 'proof' of 'the number' of saline abortions performed in the US is typically dishonest.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm?s_cid=ss5609a1_e

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 10:35 AM


Note: The medical term for this procedure is "Intrauterine Instillation Abortion" The chemicals used can be consisting of either saline, urea or prostaglandin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"CAN BE consisting of either saline, urea or prostiglandin?"

So you have no clue if ANY of the stats you cited were actually "saline abortions."

Posted by: Laura at April 9, 2008 10:52 AM


TR, from the link you posted:

"Intrauterine instillation involving use of saline or prostaglandin was used rarely (0.1% of all abortions), primarily at 16 weeks' gestation."

Compare that to what Valerie said:

"Saline abortions took place in approximately 1% of abortions"

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 10:57 AM


TR said

Insisting all those figures reflect 'saline abortions' and are 'proof' of 'the number' of saline abortions performed in the US is typically dishonest.

Observation: I think it's absolutely fascinating that when it comes to numbers and "facts" pro-life evidence must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but when it comes to looking at the scientific evidence for the humanity of the unborn, that can be readily be ignored because "no one knows when life begins", or "it's not a person until it's showing sentience and brain activity." "It's a mother's right to do what she wants with her body."

Likewise the display of photographic evidence of violence of abortion is rejected because "no one should be subjected to those kind of pictures."

Wanna compare dishonesty? - Let's begin:

Is the body depicted in the photo real?

That doesn't look like a pregnant woman to me.

Who's body is it?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 9, 2008 11:52 AM


All of which just shows how the PCers will go to any lengths to prevent the TRUTH from getting out.
They're running out of ways to do it now.

Posted by: Mike at April 9, 2008 12:03 PM


Well why was this baby aborted? Was the pregnancy killing the mother? And what killed it? Being born too early or the saline? Saline is just a slat solution, how is it supposed to burn? And how does burning a fetus make you go into early labor? Could someone please explain this to me?

Posted by: Jess at April 9, 2008 12:06 PM


"Well why was this baby aborted? Was the pregnancy killing the mother?"

I can't comment as to the mechanics of how "saline" can kill the baby... but as to your other questions, it would appear, just based on the picture alone, that if the mother was in danger and labor had been induced (or a c-section performed) this baby could very well have been viable. At the very least, wouldn't it have been more humane to simply induce labor to save the mother, then provide comfort care to the baby until it died, if not viable (and you never know, sometimes very early gestation babies surprise even the best doctors and live).

So as I see it, there could have been no good reason to end the baby's life in this way. Why not give it a chance, or at least let it die peacefully and naturally?

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 12:16 PM


The baby was probably aborted simply because MOMMY didn't want it...so she waited way too long and this is the result. All perfectly legal and under the protection of Roe.

The saline is injected after the amniotic fluid is withdrawn. The baby then ingests the saline, which burns it's insides, it's skin, and essentially "pickles it" while it's still alive.

It can take up to three DAYS to kill a baby this way.

Meanwhile, "MOMMY" feels the babies violent reaction to this torture as it fights to live.

Some of these babies SURVIVE the procedure and are born alive, but die shortly thereafter.

How ANY woman can do this is beyond me.

I personally know a girl who had this done at 7 months. She said it was the worst thing she's ever been through and still has nightmares about it 20 years later...and what an "ordeal" it was for HER. She simply decided she didn't want the baby anymore, and the doctor told her it would be NO BIG DEAL.

I felt that baby kick numerous times before she had it killed. It made me sick to my stomach when I found out she had done this.

She had PLENTY of money, so finances weren't an issue. The baby (a boy, btw...) was perfectly healthy. She and "DADDY" just didn't want to be "bothered with a kid".

They divorced 4 months later.

Posted by: Mike at April 9, 2008 12:30 PM


TR -

The link you provided has all the numbers of type of abortions from 1973 - 2004. It is Table 1 "Charecteristics of women who obtained legal abortions".

It is very difficult to read on the link you provided...here is the PDF version:

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5609.pdf

The information starts on page 16.

"Insisting all those figures reflect 'saline abortions' and are 'proof' of 'the number' of saline abortions performed in the US is typically dishonest."

This is why I put the note in and the definitions of the other "methods". As you can see the other two are acidic which will cause the same type of burning for the fetus. The wording "saline" was used because that is how everyone knows it. (Again, why I put the note in).

Also, Saline is the cheapest of the three, However, Prostaglandin is used to induce childbirth; so in abortions it is usually used with mifepristone as this is the most affective method of abortion at less than 7 weeks. It is also used in combination with mifepristone and gameprost in abortions at 13 - 24 weeks gestation. Therefore an abortion of intrauterine instillation of prostaglandin would then be labeled as a medical abortion because of the combinations of the drugs needing to be used. This is also in the CDC report "§ Medical (nonsurgical) procedures differed by weeks of gestation (i.e., methotrexate and misoprostol or mifepristone and misoprostol were reported for abortions performed at

And Urea is used to induce abortion but doesn't guarentee the fetus death, therefore it is usually used in combination with other methods to insure fetal demise. (Urea isn't even listed in the CDC report but is on a Guttmacher report which stated it is used less than just straight saline because of health of mother - I can't find that report, I'm still looking.)

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 12:39 PM


Observation: I think it's absolutely fascinating that when it comes to numbers and "facts" pro-life evidence must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but when it comes to looking at the scientific evidence for the humanity of the unborn, that can be readily be ignored because "no one knows when life begins", or "it's not a person until it's showing sentience and brain activity." "It's a mother's right to do what she wants with her body."

******************
One has nothing to do with the other. How could anyone even try to pretend otherwise?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 12:49 PM


I did some research and I do have to correct my above post.

From Emedicine (WebMD):

"Urea instillation abortions are reported to be safer than saline abortions. Prostaglandin-induced second-trimester abortions are safer than saline abortions and have a lower induction-to-completion time."

And a better description of Intrauterine Instillation:

Instillation agents include hypertonic saline, hypertonic urea, and prostaglandin. All instillation agents function by inducing uterine contractions, which end in the evacuation of the uterine contents.

The instillation technique is performed in a similar fashion for all agents. Selected patients are in the second trimester of pregnancy. The patient empties her bladder, and the abdomen is cleansed with an antiseptic solution. An amniotic fluid pocket can be identified using ultrasound. Alternatively, the skin can be anesthetized using a local anesthetic. An 18-gauge spinal needle is transabdominally introduced into the amniotic sac. Free flow of amniotic fluid is confirmed. (Fluid can be tested with pH paper; urine is acidic, amniotic fluid is basic.) The abortifacient is injected, as follows:

Hypertonic saline: Inject 40 g (ie, 200 mL 20% saline).

Hypertonic urea: Inject 80 g in 5% D5W.

PGF2a: Inject 20-40 mg. Use a test dose of 2.5-5 mg, followed by 17.5-35 mg.

In instillation techniques, the cervix is made inducible by the use of passive dilators (laminaria, Dilapan inserted in cervix) or use of intravaginal prostaglandins (eg, misoprostol, prostaglandin E2 [PGE2] suppositories).


Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 12:51 PM


TR, from the link you posted:

"Intrauterine instillation involving use of saline or prostaglandin was used rarely (0.1% of all abortions), primarily at 16 weeks' gestation."

Compare that to what Valerie said:

"Saline abortions took place in approximately 1% of abortions"

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 10:57 AM
***************
That's the point. That 1% were not 'saline abortions' and saying they were all 'saline abortions' is dishonest. They were abortions performed by a method called interuterine installation which includes but is NOT LIMITED TO saline abortions. The method causes the woman to dilate and pass the fetus intact. Insisting all those abortions were 'saline abortions' is not telling the truth. Abortions using prostaglandid are not 'saline abortions' and the statistics do not differentiate between those three methods.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 12:54 PM


TR, from the link you posted:

"Intrauterine instillation involving use of saline or prostaglandin was used rarely (0.1% of all abortions), primarily at 16 weeks' gestation."

Compare that to what Valerie said:

"Saline abortions took place in approximately 1% of abortions"

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 10:57 AM
***************
Thats the point. That 1% do not all represent salline abortions. And trying to pretend that it does is dishonest. An abortion using prostaglandin is not a 'saline abortion'. All of those three methods cause the woman to go into labor and delivery the fetus intact. But saline is very rarely used because its dangerous for the woman. That 1% represents three different methods of abortion.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 12:57 PM


All of which just shows how the PCers will go to any lengths to prevent the TRUTH from getting out.
They're running out of ways to do it now.

Posted by: Mike at April 9, 2008 12:03 PM
************
The truth is that 1% does NOT represent 'saline abortions' and thats a lie told by the antichoice side. Youre looking really foolish right now.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 12:59 PM


Jess:

"Well why was this baby aborted? Was the pregnancy killing the mother? "

I am doing research on the 2007 Kansas report that just came out. The majority of the years 1998 - 2007 the mother's life nor the fetus life was in any danger. Actually in that time span there was only 11 fetal abnormalities and 1 mother's life in danger for all the abortions on viable fetus. Also in that time span of 1998 - 2007 there were 2,687 abortions on viable fetus.

www.kdheks.gov/hci/absumm.html

TR -

Sorry, I forgot to link to the website I quoted:

www.emedicine.com/med/TOPIC3311.HTM#Surgicalabortion

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 12:59 PM


All of which just shows how the PCers will go to any lengths to prevent the TRUTH from getting out.
They're running out of ways to do it now.

Posted by: Mike at April 9, 2008 12:03 PM
************
The truth is that 1% does NOT represent 'saline abortions' and thats a lie told by the antichoice side. Youre looking really foolish right now.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 12:59 PM


I don't mind pictures being shown.

What I do mind, is if they are dishonest, misleading, and/or being shown in an inappropriate setting (ie outside an elementary school or outside of Disneyland is NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE).

And by dishonest, I mean the pictures are of miscarriages or are faked. And just for the record, I am not saying that this picture is dishonest, but I would like a verifiable medical source (at least a link).

Sometimes I feel the only way I can really trust if a photo is accurate is when I can actually see an abortion myself.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 1:00 PM


You need to be honest about the difference between a viable fetus and a potentially viable fetus.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 1:02 PM


TR -

How is it a lie when I put in a note the different solutions used. The method is all the same, and the solutions do the same to the fetus as saline does. The other two are just safer to the mother, but once again, the same thing happens to the fetus. All solutions are acidic which is what causes the burning to the skin ... etc....

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 1:03 PM


TR -

"You need to be honest about the difference between a viable fetus and a potentially viable fetus. "

If this is directed towards me and my info on Kansas, I recomend you go to the link provided. They differentiate between viable and non-viable.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 1:05 PM


www.kdheks.gov/hci/absumm.html

*****************
This says that there were 10836 abortions in Kansas, 293 were 22 weeks or over which made up 2.7% of the total. You cant say 22 weeks is viable. You have a very small chance of viability but the majority of births at 22 weeks wont survive. The last statistics I can recall said there was a 15% chance of survival at 23 weeks but I'd have to find the reference. It may be outo f date. It also said 283 abortions were by induction. Thats not necessarily saline.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 9, 2008 1:09 PM


On and on and on it goes....the constant snit about sources and percents and numbers and...and...babies are killed in a variety of ways. All sick. All sad. All horrifying.

Stephanie,
So would you want to see an abortion with your own eyes you mean? Or on video?

Posted by: Carla at April 9, 2008 1:18 PM


Stephanie -

Can you provide some unbiased sources proving that all, or most, abortion pictures are fakes?

Are you always in such distrust and disbelief of what your eyes actually show you?

And, Carla, you are correct. Who cares which percentage was killed in what way? The end result is the same. All needless, all horrible.

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 1:22 PM


TR -

*sigh*

Read further down the report.

The Abortionists list which of the 22 + weeks gestation were viable.

Page 10 15a

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 1:31 PM


Sometimes I feel the only way I can really trust if a photo is accurate is when I can actually see an abortion myself.

Watch "The Choice Blues" at this link...you'll get to see a real abortion. Watch chapter 1 and 2.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/audiovideo.html

It is not a saline abortion, but it's an early abortion where the baby is being scraped out with a curette. If you have a strong stomach, feel free to watch. Bring a barf bag if you don't.

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 1:31 PM


Besides the overall nitpicking here, I think it's possible to be pro-choice and believe that certain types of abortions are more inhumane than others. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw abortion, but perhaps we should look at our methodology and find more humane ways of doing it.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 1:37 PM


Stephanie, suppose for a moment that the picture was faked. What do you think babies look like at this stage in the womb exactly? Is it fetal development that you are confused about?

My baby who miscarried looked like a baby at 6 weeks gestation. I have no problem believing that a baby in the womb looks like a baby at 16-18 weeks gestation.

What exactly is it that you are confused about, when it comes to these pictures? Is it the fact that they look so much like babies?

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 1:38 PM


Stephanie -

Here is a picture on the Florida State University College of Medicine - The internet Pathology Laboratory for Medical Education. It is a pic of a D & E in the 2nd trimester.

library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PEDHTML/PED028.html

You will note that the fetus has a neural tube defect which may be the reason for the abortion.

You will also note that it looks alot like the pics shown by the PL side.

In my opinion, being torn limb by limb like this is quite horrible.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 1:44 PM


Edyt,
Your comment gave me chills. And not in a good way.

Posted by: Carla at April 9, 2008 1:44 PM


Anonymous - I never said that all or most abortion pictures are fakes. I said that I don't think it's ok to do it. It's not just with abortion photos, I don't readily trust anything I see on the internet anymore because it is just too easy to photoshop or fake something that looks real.

Carla - I'm not sure, but since I am looking into medicine I suppose I will see what one looks like eventually. I've seen them on video, and they look real enough, but I still can't seay I know for sure until I see one in person.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 1:45 PM


Well, Carla, I suppose you want to put your pets to sleep by chopping them up in bits, and you want everyone on death row to be burned to death then, huh?

Abortion is legal. That doesn't mean it has to be cruel.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 1:57 PM


Bethany - I just don't trust photos on the internet posted by random people, especially when it's a sensitive issue such as this. There's nothing confusing about it. I've also already seen The Choice Blues, and it looks real enough, although I don't know any woman who would allow herself to be filmed having an abortion and then allow the doctor to poke around it afterward. Like I said, until I see one for myself. I'm thinking of interning at PP this summer to see what it's like. Who knows, I may (however unlikely it is) end up become PL afterward.

Valerie - I've seen those. If you're going to show pictures at protests, show these and cite where they are from (a medical website). Like I said, I don't have a problem with pictures that are from a reputable source and are in a appropriate setting.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 2:00 PM


I agree wit Edyt.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 2:01 PM


Edyt,
When the end result is the same...dead baby...I find it ALL inhumane.

Yes, lets chop up a pet and burn a death row inmate alive and see what the reaction would be ok? I could guess who would go ballistic over that.

Why no outrage for the most helpless among us?

Bam Bam Bam...my head hitting the computer screen.

Posted by: Carla at April 9, 2008 2:07 PM


Anon says:

I feel that arguments with pro-death proponents like TT is a waste of time. I think people who wish to only create disruption on this blog no matter what evidence you present gives them a sick form of pleasure. IMO your time would be better spent with those who have a point to discuss not argue just to argue. Casting your pearls of wisdom before swine Matthew 7:6 is the Biblical phrase because no amount of argument will persuade them. The right to life, the right to even exist is the most fundamental right without it there is nothing. There are some who may be pro-choice who have a point to discuss but persons like TT IMO are not worth arguing with, ignore them, pray for them that they will have an encounter with God.

Posted by: anonymous at April 9, 2008 2:10 PM


What is so confusing about the pictures being shown? Bethany is right. We all know what babies look like at each stage of development.

We all know the horrific ways babies are murdered.

What is it that is not believable about the photos?

Posted by: Sandy at April 9, 2008 2:14 PM



Anon says,

sorry I meant TR not TT

Posted by: Anonymous at April 9, 2008 2:14 PM


TT?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 9, 2008 2:16 PM


Stephanie,


Want to see a real-life abortion, fetus and all, late-term? Spain televised one for all their viewers several months back as part of an investigation of illegal abortions in their "reputable" facilities, something we can only dream about in the U.S. It was conducted by a national Spanish TV network, similar to our CNN or MSNBC.

Think you could find the link, Bethany?


The drawback for you is that it's all done in Spanish, but there are English subtitles. And as for the reason for the abortion, the doctor shrugged and said "Just because." No mother-at-death's-door excuse.


I invite you to watch it and if there's anything you didn't get because of the language issue, I'd be happy to clarify.

As an aside, the investigation resulted in several doctors, nurses, and staff of other abortion facilities throughout Spain to be arrested and charged.


Even the investigator posing as the new employee commented that in all his years of journalism, he had never seen anything like it.


But I don't want to ruin it for you. See for yourself.

Posted by: carder at April 9, 2008 2:19 PM


Carla, I understand your point, and I'm not trying to belittle it in any way. I do believe in defending human rights, even if the only right is to die peacefully and painlessly.

But we're arguing two different points, so we can't really ever come to agreement on that basis!

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 2:20 PM


Stephanie -

Someone posted on here before that the national right to life organization (?) has gone to court over these pictures to show proof of authenticity - or they are about to go to court.... Does anyone else remember this?

Edyt -

It is legal to euthanize a pet, but there are laws restricting how this can be done because of humanity reasons (some states are far behind on this though). When these laws were bills and being decided on by congress the Animal Rights people weren't saying that it took an owners right to choose away from them by dictating how it be done. However, everytime we try to get bills into congress in attempt to make this procedure more humane we are accused of trying to take a woman's rights away.

I guess animals deserve to be treated more humanely in the Choice world.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 2:27 PM


Anon -

The reason it is important to debate with posters like TR is because other posters may be interested in what we have to say. There are many people who just read and do not post. Because of TR I posted to links on this thread with alot of info on it. I take my information for granted because I look at it everyday, but someone else doesn't. It could be that person who looks at this thread, read what we say, go to the links and possibly a life may be saved.

Sometimes TR can be rude, but many times the conversations can become thought provoking. However, we would never know how much there was to think about without the initial comment.

Did that make any sense?

;-)

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 2:38 PM


Valerie, can you provide me some examples of bills that were passed or written for the purpose of making abortion more humane?

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 2:47 PM


TR -

How is it a lie when I put in a note the different solutions used. The method is all the same, and the solutions do the same to the fetus as saline does. The other two are just safer to the mother, but once again, the same thing happens to the fetus. All solutions are acidic which is what causes the burning to the skin ... etc....

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 1:03 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bulls**t.
We use prostiglandins all the time to cause smooth muscle conrtactions. They can be dropped in the eye to cause the muscles to affect the shape of the corneas during surgery. Prostiglandins don't "burn."

Posted by: Laura at April 9, 2008 2:58 PM


Edyt:

You're kidding right?

Partial Birth Abortion
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

This makes it so an abortionist cannot kill a baby just moments before the baby is completely born. I would say this makes it more humane for the baby, wouldn't you?

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-356

This states that the mother should be aware of different studies showing that their is a possibility that the fetus can feel pain. In some of these acts it allows for the mother to choose anesthesia for the fetus. Making it more humane for the baby.

Sanctity of Life Act
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2597&tab=summary

well.....I'm sure this one is self explainatory.

Informed Choice Act
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-223

This says that a woman should be fully informed of her decision and if she wishes to see an ultrasound picture before the abortion. This makes it more humane for the mother especially if she is uneducated and doesn't fully understand the stages of pregnancy.

Actually if you go to www.thomas.gov and search for the word abortion there will be a list of pro-life and pro-choice acts that are in the legislation right now. Many are to make abortion more humane for either the baby, the mother or both.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 3:20 PM


We use prostiglandins all the time to cause smooth muscle conrtactions. They can be dropped in the eye to cause the muscles to affect the shape of the corneas during surgery. Prostiglandins don't "burn."

Posted by: Laura at April 9, 2008 2:58 PM

Please read the context of this thread. We are not talking about prostaglandin in the eye or as a vaginal suppository or with an IV drip. We are discussing intrauterine Instillation. I'm sure you understand that this means the medicine is administered into the uterus.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 3:25 PM


Edyt,
You do not belittle me.
You will defend human rights. Got it. Not human baby rights. I am talking about the right to live, Edyt. They deserve the right to live and grow and be toddlers and teenagers and adults. I guess what I hear you saying is that we should come up with a painless way of killing little babies. It would then make it easier on the babies and on our consciences. Maybe you would "feel" better about it. I would not.


Posted by: Carla at April 9, 2008 3:30 PM


Partial birth abortion is not a recognized medical term. It was invented by a Congressman to push limitations on abortion.

Why should a woman be informed of the pain the fetus would feel? Why not simply ask if she would like anesthesia for both herself and the child?

Sanctity of life ... of course, anti-abortion.

Informed choice I agree with, but I don't believe a woman should be forced to be informed.

I've heard of all these laws but I'm failing to see where they're expressly for helping the fetus and are not subtlely limiting the rights of the mother.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 3:32 PM


Edyt -

Exactly. YOU don't agree so therefore it is not for the humanity of the fetus. HOWEVER, I believe that it is for the humanity of the baby and the mother. Also, please look on the thomas website, you will be surprised of the ones that are pro-choice.


Laura -

The confusion may be with the different types of Prostaglandin. There are several. the one used for this procedure is Prostaglandin Type F subscript 2a

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 3:38 PM


Carla, I completely agree
3:30

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 3:54 PM


Valerie, the only ones that seem slightly for the mother are the ones trying to "inform" her of something.

Yes, I believe people should have the right to be informed, but I don't believe they information should be forced upon them. That is what seems to be anti-abortion, because it seems like information to be used to pressure the woman into not having an abortion.

If the woman asks for the information, it should be given to her. If a doctor asks to provide it, he/she should give it only if the patient agrees to hearing it.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 4:13 PM


I'm sure you understand that this means the medicine is administered into the uterus.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 3:25 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, and it causes smooth muscle contractions that cause the placenta to separate from the uterine wall and the uterus to expell the fetus.
No burning...

Posted by: Laura at April 9, 2008 4:24 PM


Edyt:
I'm sorry but this comment is totally SICK:"Besides the overall nitpicking here, I think it's possible to be pro-choice and believe that certain types of abortions are more inhumane than others. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw abortion, but perhaps we should look at our methodology and find more humane ways of doing it."

Somehow I CAN go back 60 years and imagine Dr. Josef Mengele saying " you know I dont' want to stop killing those damn Jews. If we could just find a quicker, more efficient, humane way of doing it...... Ah, gas! Gas. That's it!"

You really need to seriously THINK about what you wrote here today.

Posted by: Patricia at April 9, 2008 4:45 PM


Hmm, interesting, but Jews don't live off the bodies of other people. Try again.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 4:50 PM


Carder, no problem. Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpIJd7tIpUo

Stephanie, watch this video, till the very end where they show the whole abortion. You can see EVERYTHING, the woman in full, and the doctors, and everything. You will get to take in the full abortion experience. Have fun!

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 4:54 PM


Hmm, interesting, but Jews don't live off the bodies of other people. Try again.

sure they did, according to the germans. They were taking up space that was meant for the more important people. They were eating "their" food, drinking "their" water, breathing "their" air, and costing "them" money.


Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 4:55 PM


Hmm, interesting, but Jews don't live off the bodies of other people. Try again.

BTW, are you in favor or opposed to the born alive infants protection act?

Posted by: Bethany at April 9, 2008 5:15 PM


Edyt

Partial birth abortion is not a recognized medical term.

What's the relevance for requiring the use of medical terms in normal conversation?

Please describe the Intact Dilation and Extraction procedure for us Edyt.

That's the "medical name" that Dr. Haskell came up with. Tell us about the cranial contents being extracted prior to collapsing it, and exactly where that's performed and with what.

Tell us how 95% of the infants cannot be extracted "intact" because the amount of force required to turn the infant will generally dislocate limbs.

Tell us about fetal farming Edyt - where organs are harvested from the live babies, prior to cranial collapse and extraction.

Why bother being humane at all Edyt? You understand it's all about power - why not just wait and deliver the baby, because really after 22 weeks that's the safest form of "abortion" and that's how PPA's lawyers presented it to SCOTUS during the Partial Birth Abortion Ban hearing (Like it or not, that's how the D&X has been labeled.)

In 1995 Naomi Wolf, a pro-choice feminist said:

And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life.

Edyt - you're acting exactly like that.

The love of many really has grown cold.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 9, 2008 5:17 PM


Edyt:

Do you hold the same opinion regarding infomation if let's say a surgical procedure were being performed, like an appendectomy?

Don't you think that malpractice insurers would find that somewhat risky if the patient or their repesetative were not informed of the risks and choices associated with a procedure.

You don't think it proper that a woman be informed of what she was really allowing an abortionist to do or that she could let's say risk suffering years and years of mental anguish if she did this?

And why does a mountain of paper have to be signed even if I just go the dentist?

Posted by: HisMan at April 9, 2008 5:28 PM


Edyt:

C'mon, you're getting carried away. Please really think about what you mean before you write it.

You do a much better job at explaining yourself when you do that.

Posted by: HisMan at April 9, 2008 5:34 PM


OH so it's because the unborn baby is DEPENDENT upon the mother's body - that gives the mother the right to destroy it by any means possible.
We are all dependent upon one another to some extent Edyt. Our humanity and right to life are not dependent upon where we exist, how we exist and the nature and condition of our bodies. That is a very subjective criteria. The fact that the baby is a human being gives it the right to life.

Your view of a human baby is extremely distorted - considering it a parasite. And, that is EXACTLY how the Jewish people were viewed by members of German society in the 1930's. They were parasites who sucked the wealth and resources away from their fellow countrymen. The German people proved this by their actions towards the Jewish people, not only by killing them but also by robbing them of their property and personal possessions.
My analogy holds.

Posted by: Patricia at April 9, 2008 5:36 PM


Patricia:

Your analagy is true.

The Jewish holocaust and the abortion holocaust have the same prime mover whose aim is to at best, hurt the heart of God, or at worse, to kill God Himself. That prime mover is satan himself, lucifer, beelzebub, the lord of the flies.

The real tragedy, even in the presence of the overwhelming evidence of the existence of the love of God, even as expressed in the eyes of a newborn, is that many follow him knowingly or unknowingly but with the same consequence.

It is hard to reach those who don't believe that there is an unseen world that is more akin to reality than our world of space and time.

Truth and love resonate so keep speaking it fearlessly.

Posted by: HisMan at April 9, 2008 5:56 PM


enough of this continuous 'arguing-in-circles',

here's a new perspective: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229

I'd love to hear your comment!


Posted by: John McDonell at April 9, 2008 6:11 PM


HisMan,
Your post is so correct. How many women have felt duped by the abortion industry because they were told that what they were aborting was "just a blob of tissue." They later came to find out just how wrong that statement was and how they were lied to. Women have every right to be fully informed about the decision they are making.

Would it be acceptable for a woman opting for breast augmentation to not be told of all of the information on procedure, surgical risks and long term risks? Absolutley not. Women would not stand for that.

Women don't always know what they don't know, so they don't know to ask.

All women should have the right to be informed of everything involving abortion.

Posted by: Sandy at April 9, 2008 7:35 PM


Yeah, and it causes smooth muscle contractions that cause the placenta to separate from the uterine wall and the uterus to expell the fetus.
No burning...

Posted by: Laura at April 9, 2008 4:24 PM

Laura,
PLEEEAAASSEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The result is the same. A murdered baby.
Did this baby suffer any less?

Posted by: Sandy at April 9, 2008 7:37 PM


Edyt:

"Partial birth abortion is not a recognized medical term. It was invented by a Congressman to push limitations on abortion. "

I am going to expand on what Chris said. It was a legislative act that gave the procedure the name, not one congressman pushing limitations on abortion.

You are right, it is not a medical terminology. It IS a LEGAL term used to describe a particular procedure. This happened because during the first PBA ban act in 1995 the medical community did not accept the procedure and did not have the term D&X in their dictionaries yet.

Here is what happened.

On page 5 of this report you will find:

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_reports&docid=f:hr267.104.pdf

(T)he term partialbirth abortion is a legal term defined clearly in H.R. 1833 as any ‘‘abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.’’
This definition includes procedures that have been coined ‘‘dilation and extraction,’’ ‘‘intact dilation and evacuation,’’ and ‘‘intrauterine cranial decompression,’’ by individual abortionists. Just as the term partial-birth abortion is not found in medical literature, these terms are not found in medical literature because these
horrific procedures are not generally accepted by the medical community.
In fact, Dr. Pamela Smith, an obstetrician at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that when she described the procedure to other physicians,
‘‘many of them were horrified to learn that such a procedure was even legal.’’ Dr. Smith also stated:
[T]here is no uniformly accepted medical terminology for the method that is the subject of this legislation. Dr. McMahon does not even use the same term as Dr. Maskell, while the National Abortion Federation implausibly argues
that there is nothing to distinguish this procedure from the D & E abortions. The term you have chosen, ‘‘partialbirth abortion,’’ is straightforward. Your definition is also
straightforward, and in my opinion, covers this procedure and no other.

______________

If you want to read more information on this and see how desperate the pro-aborts got while trying to keep this procedure legal you can go to:

rpc.senate.gov/_files/51397Abortion.pdf

What you might find of interest is page 9 "Partial Birth Fetus - Alive or dead"

Also there is this:

supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/05-1382/05-1382.mer.ami.prolifephys.pdf

Also, I have to address this:

"Yes, I believe people should have the right to be informed, but I don't believe they information should be forced upon them. That is what seems to be anti-abortion, because it seems like information to be used to pressure the woman into not having an abortion. "

Just re-read what you wrote. Now tell me any other medical procedure where it is up to the patient to ask the questions and not up to the doctor to provide all information.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 8:09 PM


Thanks for the link, Bethany, I'm sure I'll have fun. *rolls eyes*

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 8:21 PM


Yeah, and it causes smooth muscle contractions that cause the placenta to separate from the uterine wall and the uterus to expell the fetus.
No burning...

Posted by: Laura at April 9, 2008 4:24 PM


No burning for the mother because the uterus wall is not skin in the first stages of development with no protection on it. However, I will re-post what the procedure is - originally posted at 12:51:

The instillation technique is performed in a similar fashion for all agents. Selected patients are in the second trimester of pregnancy. The patient empties her bladder, and the abdomen is cleansed with an antiseptic solution. An amniotic fluid pocket can be identified using ultrasound. Alternatively, the skin can be anesthetized using a local anesthetic. An 18-gauge spinal needle is transabdominally introduced into the amniotic sac. Free flow of amniotic fluid is confirmed. (Fluid can be tested with pH paper; urine is acidic, amniotic fluid is basic.) The abortifacient is injected, as follows:

Hypertonic saline: Inject 40 g (ie, 200 mL 20% saline).

Hypertonic urea: Inject 80 g in 5% D5W.

PGF2a: Inject 20-40 mg. Use a test dose of 2.5-5 mg, followed by 17.5-35 mg.

____________________

The amniotic fluid is drained while the abortafacient (one of which is prostaglandin) is put in as a replacement. The baby is now in a fluid that he/she cannot breath in and the skin is not equiped to handle such chemicals. this is burning to the developing skin and other organs as the fetus attmpts to breath in this fluid and it enters into the body.

When my son was born at 31 weeks I was not allowed to rub or stroke him in any fashion because of the pain it would cause him. His skin had to get used to being touched because he was not prepared to be out of the amniotic fluid. So, explain to me how removing the amniotic fluid and replacing it with oxygenated unsaturated cyclic fatty acids would not be painful to the fetus.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 8:34 PM


That actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting.

Yes, there were some questionable things being done at the clinic (like paying money under the table). Otherwise, the clinic looks clean, the doctors seem well trained and professional.

What did they do? Did they perform abortions when it was illegal to in Spain?

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 8:43 PM


Stephanie,
Clinic-clean
Doctors-well trained, professional
Baby-alive and then dead
Mother-wounded for life

Posted by: Carla at April 9, 2008 8:54 PM


Clinic - yes, it was clean, as a clinic ought to be.
Doctors - Correct, well-trained and professional.
Baby - Yes, that's what happens with abortions
Mother - You don't know that, but you'd like that to be true, wouldn't you?

I'd also like to look at a first-trimester abortion, since it's more representative of what the majority of abortions look like.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 9:01 PM


@Valerie: What do you mean that fetuses breathe amniotic fluid? They don't really breathe amniotic fluid, they get their oxygen from the placenta.

Sorry if this is not what you meant. :-/

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2008 9:01 PM


Rae -

Hopefully the March of Dimes is considered an unbiased source:

www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_4536.asp

The amniotic fluid that surrounds a fetus (unborn baby) plays a crucial role in normal development. This clear-colored liquid cushions and protects the baby. By the second trimester, the baby is able to breathe the fluid into the lungs and to swallow it. This promotes normal growth and development of the lungs and gastrointestinal system. Amniotic fluid allows the baby to move around, aiding development of muscles and bones.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 9:31 PM


@Valerie: Ooooooooooooooooooooooh. Gotcha. I guess I keep thinking of breathing as inhalation of oxygen, it makes sense that a fetus/unborn baby practices "breathing" even though the baby gets the oxygen from the mother.

I totally forgot about the movie "The Abyss". My bad. ;-/

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2008 9:37 PM


@Valerie: Why would you think I would think "The March of Dimes" was a biased source?

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2008 9:38 PM



Informed choice I agree with, but I don't believe a woman should be forced to be informed.

Posted by: Edyt at April 9, 2008 3:32 PM


The law requires that patients be "forced" to be informed by doctors for all kinds of procedures. You have to sign consent forms and they all say that the signature indicates the patient has read and understands it.

It is entirely appropriate to educate patients about all aspects of a procedure, even if they don't ask. Some people have no idea what they it will really be like and they have a right to be told, not just if they ask.

What other legal agreement would you like to sign where you are only informed of the specific items you asked about?

Posted by: hippie at April 9, 2008 9:43 PM


Stephanie,

Late-term abortions are permitted under certain circumstances i.e. mother's health at stake. For situations that the mother's physical health is not at risk, a psychiatrist must sign off that it would be detrimental to the mother if she continued to carry the baby to term.

In the case of the investigation, the reporters found that these late-term abortions were being signed off by an "in-house" psychiatrist, certainly not an objective third party.

So when the abortionist shrugs and states that the particular abortion she was doing was only for "just because", that, under Spanish law, is considered an illegal late-term abortion.

Don't know if you picked up on how one girl there was accompanied by her father. Hmmmn.


And at the very end, the abortionist confesses she no longer examines fetuses after expulsion because she doesn't like it.


You weren't in the room, Stephanie, but here you see a beautiful human being looking much like the other human being illustrating the post. Not much fakeness. In a hefty bag, even.

But if you really had to ask "what did they do" after something like that, well, Stephanie, a softer conscience may be in order.

Posted by: carder at April 9, 2008 9:48 PM


John McD:6:11:

I watched your recommended video, but having a hard time commenting on it. Interesting and confusing. I'm not sure why she choses the one side over the other as preferable (I won't say too much, so as to not give too much away.). Let's see what other people think, and I'd like to know what your thought are.

Posted by: Janet at April 9, 2008 9:55 PM


Rae -

"I totally forgot about the movie "The Abyss"."

HAHAHAHA - So did I! At first, I couldnt' figure out what you meant by that, I have to rent that movie - it's been so long since I've seen it.

"Why would you think I would think "The March of Dimes" was a biased source?"

I'm just grumpy and being sarcastic, sorry.

Posted by: valerie at April 9, 2008 10:13 PM


Steph,

That was late term abortion, saline and all. You've expressed an interest in seeing early abortions for yourself. Here's one in the PBS documentary "Abortion Clinic". Shows two teenagers having abortions, one shows how the suction machine is whisked away immediately after the procedure, rushed to the exam room, and contents dumped on the counter. If you're fast, you can catch what looks like a limb. I'm guessing it's an arm. Tiny. Adorable.

Try viewing the whole documentary. It's interesting to compare the pro-choice response to these girls versus the pro-life doctor's alternative.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/hjgj.html#comments

(If you're having difficulty, Bethany can help out)

Posted by: carder at April 9, 2008 10:14 PM


@Valerie: No worries, we are all entitled to be grumpy every once and awhile. :)

I haven't seen the Abyss in awhile either, I was reminded of it in a few weeks ago when I was reading through my physics textbook and they used it as an example (can't remember why, I think it was a friction problem). I just remember that they explained the method of their new oxygenation protocol for diving in really deep water was like how a fetus breathes in utero...although it's not entirely correct as fetuses get oxygen from the placenta (which is why fetal hemoglobin has a higher affinity for oxygen than maternal hemoglobin), but hey, what do I know? :-p

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2008 10:32 PM


I'd also like to look at a first-trimester abortion, since it's more representative of what the majority of abortions look like.
Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 9:01 PM
*******

Stephanie, go to www.abortionno.org and you watch a first trimester abortion.

Posted by: truthseeker at April 9, 2008 11:16 PM


Carder - I was asking what they did because you mentioned that there were people arrested. As far as I could tell, the only thing that was wrong was that they were taking money under the table. I did not know that late-term abortions were illegal in Spain. Don't worry, I did watch the entire thing although I did not pick up that one girl was accompanied by her father. I got the impression that there was some shady things going on with the psychiatrist, and if what you say is true that is defiently not okay; this kind of decision should not be pushed one way or the other and I'm disappointed this clinic was doing a dishonest thing. I'll get to the other link after I write my paper.

Valerie - I'll get to it later.

Truthseeker - I've seen it already.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2008 11:43 PM


Okay, I'm going to attempt to explain this in a much more succinct fashion since it was so politely asked.

Not all medical procedures are explicitly explained by doctors. Sure, you sign consent forms, but how many people actually read them? I fully believe in a patient's right to be informed and I believe the doctor should volunteer to inform the patient. What I do not believe is that the patient must be forced into hearing or reading this information. And that is my fear about these laws -- that they will force the patient into hearing something they do not want to know.

If someone is going to have a kidney transplant and does not want to hear about the process, then I would say the doctor should not inform the patient of the process! I don't have differing views of the subject... the patient should be given access to information and make his or her own choice as to whether they want to know more.

I do believe doctors should be required to provide information in the case that a patient requests it.

Personally, I've never had a doctor (or even a dentist) explain ANY procedure to me unless I asked. What's up with that?

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

I do not think it is valid to compare the legality of abortion to the Holocaust. Not only is that analogy incredibly dispassionate to Holocaust survivors, but it paints all women who do not want to birth a child as a Nazi.

Aborted human beings die faster and with less mental anguish than did Holocaust victims. They are not terrorized, raped, beaten, devalued on the basis of their ethnicity and then murdered. Holocaust victims were people deemed "unworthy of life." I am not arguing the unborn are unworthy of life. I am arguing the unborn are unworthy of a life more important than that of the mother. This is an critical distinction to make.

Abortions were mandatory during the Holocaust for Jewish women. Today, the mother may decide on whether she wants to preserve the life of her unborn child or not. Because of abortion and birth control, infanticide has largely become obsolete.

While I acknowledge that more unborn children are aborted than people died in the Holocaust, it doesn't change the fact that the scenarios are very different.

People don't have abortions because they hate babies. They have abortions because they don't feel able to care for the child. Our society has demeaned women for getting pregnant before marriage. That's not some kind of fantasy I made up... how many of you had parents who said they'd disown you if you ever got knocked up? How many women were sent away to have their children and forced to leave school? Why do women "suffer" the consequences of having sex and men get away with little more than an orgasm?

As a feminist, I'm at least working to change the way we see women, including those who are pregnant, so that women don't have to feel guilty for having sex or for getting pregnant. I'm working toward child-friendly schools and workplaces. I'm working toward better health care for women and the man's representation within the household as an equal partner in child-rearing and housekeeping.

Because I believe if we make the lives of women better, we'll improve the lives of their children, and maybe THEN we can make abortion illegal.

Oh, and just to be honest: I'm not in favor of abortions after viability except in cases of medical health risks. However, I don't think there should be a ban unless abortions are readily available and relatively inexpensive, so that women who want to have an abortion do not have problems trying to attain one.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 12:40 AM


A small thing little thing a loving mother can do for her baby, just say no to saline injections into the womb. No burning babies alive with alkaline based (it is not acidic) saline solution. Yes to prevention of burning the inside of the babies lungs as she inhales the saline. Say no to a long,slow,painful death for your baby. That's the "soft" side of pro-choicer without faith.

Posted by: truthseeker at April 10, 2008 3:14 AM


Hi Stephanie,
Would like to reply to your comment about a wounded woman after an abortion. "You don't know that, but you'd like that to be true, wouldn't you?" I am sorry to say that it is true. I know firsthand. I have met hundreds of women through Operation Outcry, Silent No More, and Rachel's Vineyard. They regret their abortion. So do I.
I know it is easier to figure we are all NUTJOBS and had MENTAL ILLNESS long before our abortions. Easier simply does not bring you to the truth.

Are you planning on being an abortionist? Would you ever have an abortion? Why or why not?

Hi Edyt,
You can continue to look at the clinical facts and figures and hide behind the medical terminology....would you ever have an abortion? Why or why not?

Posted by: Carla at April 10, 2008 6:45 AM


That actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting.
Yes, there were some questionable things being done at the clinic (like paying money under the table). Otherwise, the clinic looks clean, the doctors seem well trained and professional.
What did they do? Did they perform abortions when it was illegal to in Spain?

Stephanie, I thought you said you wanted to see the video to test whether babies who are aborted "really look like babies". What does this have to do with the clinic's appearance or the appearance of professionalism?
You were supposed to be judging whether the baby comes out truly looking like a baby or not.

What exactly was "not so bad" about the baby being killed by it's mother in this way? Covered in a sheet immediately because the nurse herself can't bear to look at it.
What's "not so bad" about that?

As for you wanting to see a first trimester abortion, you already saw it. What more can you possibly need to see?

Do you want me to make you a copy of "a matter of choice", which includes footage of a woman having a suction abortion? You can see her body shaking violently as the nurses have to hold onto her (she's unconscious and still manages to let out a scream), and you can see Edward Allred sticking the curette into her body over and over again and then using the suction machine to suck the baby out through a tube into the machine.

What exactly is it that you desire to see so badly? Is it fun for you to watch people's lives being snuffed out while people stand there not giving a crap?

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 6:49 AM


People don't have abortions because they hate babies. They have abortions because they don't feel able to care for the child. Our society has demeaned women for getting pregnant before marriage.

Then wouldn't that mean that "choice" is not what you are fighting for? The situations you keep bringing up have nothing to do with CHOICE. They have to do with a woman FEELING FORCED to abort her child!
You may not realize it, but you are fighting to keep women pressured, you are fighting to keep women desperate, you are fighting to keep women feeling as though keeping a baby will make them demeaned by society, and you are fighting to feel as though being a mother will make them less of a woman.

Why don't you fight society's "rules"? Why don't you say, Society should not be able to pressure a woman into abortion! Women should never have to feel that abortion is the answer to their problems. They should never be told by society that they cannot keep their pregnancies. Colleges should not pressure women to abort, in order to keep their education. Jobs should not pressure women to abort, in order to keep their jobs.

Women should not feel as though keeping their child is something that society looks down on!

You claim to be a feminist, but your actions say you do not love women and are not truly concerned with how they truly feel. Your actions say you will let society continue to dictate who they will become!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 6:54 AM


As a feminist, I'm at least working to change the way we see women, including those who are pregnant, so that women don't have to feel guilty for having sex or for getting pregnant. I'm working toward child-friendly schools and workplaces. I'm working toward better health care for women and the man's representation within the household as an equal partner in child-rearing and housekeeping.
Because I believe if we make the lives of women better, we'll improve the lives of their children, and maybe THEN we can make abortion illegal.

No. The first step is making abortion illegal. Allowing it to continue day after day is the same as enabling women to continue to be pressured day in and day out. And you know that.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 6:57 AM


People don't have abortions because they hate babies. They have abortions because they don't feel able to care for the child.

So feelings are more important than how we treat one another. Sometimes I feel angry at my children, but I don't kill them. Sometimes I feel angry at the next driver, but I'm not allowed to kill him. Feelings don't cut it in a court of law.

Feelings are what a selfish bratty 2-year old focuses on.

Our society has demeaned women for getting pregnant before marriage. That's not some kind of fantasy I made up... how many of you had parents who said they'd disown you if you ever got knocked up?

Recently we learned my wife was conceived out of wedlock, and so her parents got married. What you are arguing is that my deceased mother-in-law, the one who suffered from MS for years and depended on my wife for care, should have aborted her. That my mother-in-law should not have "suffered" for my wife, who, when she was "suffering" through MS, loved and cared for her.

Further - my wife and I conceived our son out of wedlock - he's now in his second year of college and I'm proud to be the father of such a fine, outstanding young man. His presence in my wife's womb matured me in ways I never would have imagined, and demanded that I begin seeing what kind of world I was creating for him and our family.

Is abortion personal? Yes - you're insulting the hell out of me and my family, and every other person who was conceived out of wedlock because you make an argument that aborting them is morally good!

And don't you dare tell me about choice. My choice should have been responsibility and maturity before my son's conception. I chose to ignore the consequences too, but I embraced those consequences, and held him in my arms. Now my choice, and his is to grow and prosper and eliminate elective abortion.

I don't know if you realize this, but men are pro-choice because it means that can get as much as they can and not be responsible. So abortion is a prescription for the irresponsible abuse of women and children, because the consequences are so graphically displayed at the top of this post. It's ugly, Edyt. Ugly. UGLY!

How many women were sent away to have their children and forced to leave school?

How many men grew up, took responsibility and became passionate fathers and leaders?

How many women didn't become pregnant in the first place? How many waited until they had a wedding ring? How many men matured and worked hard to establish themselves early in life, so they could find the woman of their dreams, settle down and have a family. You have a very myopic view of life.

You're confusing promiscuity with promises.

Why do women "suffer" the consequences of having sex and men get away with little more than an orgasm?

Pregnancy is "suffering". Children are consequences.
Thanks, you just acknowledged for us that you understand consent to sex is consent to the risk of pregnancy, which is a child within the womb, a consequence.

You want a world where you don't have a womb to worry about, disconnected from the very thing that makes you most feminine. You want consequence-free sex, no strings attached.

You and every other power hungry feminist will kill to have it.

But there are consequences. Because the only consequence-free sex is the sex that never takes place.

I can't imagine what it would have been like had my wife aborted our son. My full involvement in his life, the joy that he brings to our family, the expectations of grandchildren, and wonder of life.

I'll take that kind of suffering any day. And if my involvement ended at my orgasm, then I would have missed the joy and love that our whole family brings us.

What you're calling a consequence is the very essence of life itself. Besides our Creator, our children are the only thing that makes life worth living, and they are worth dying for. It's the only true unselfish act I can make.

But you're saying she alone should carry the burden of that choice. And that weighed on her, as it does every women who faces the same situation. That's not loving, because it releases men from procreative responsibilities. In your own words, "men can get away with little more than an orgasm."

Because I believe if we make the lives of women better, we'll improve the lives of their children, and maybe THEN we can make abortion illegal.

Do you see a problem here? Women have to work with men. You're leaving men out of the picture, but without men - no children. Women can't have all the say regarding pregnancy. It emasculates men. It legally lops off our penises and takes away any desire to sacrifice our lives for woman and families. It makes us angry and resentful. Some become violent. Most simply abuse women. Men "virtually" masturbate, where bedding the hottie is a game, but responsibility and maturity (which women want men to be) can be rejected because abortion is legally available. It lacks true "love".

Our children have become pawns in a selfish, immature, power struggle and feminists think that's how to solve the problem.

It's not, because elective abortion lacks love. It's not loving to the man, it's not loving to the woman, it's not loving to the child.

It says to every child born since 1973, that we don't love or desire children. That they're not really humans until we say they are.

And you are one of them.

You need some professional help Edyt. Whatever happened to you when you were young has deadened you. Your love, if you still have some, is cold and dim, it may even be an ember.

I can't continue to reply to you, but I can only pray that God might touch your heart, that you might live to see the beauty and joy of every human being, even the unborn.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 10, 2008 6:58 AM


Carla, Carla, my heart so goes out to you.


Edyt,


I must have missed where we may have a prospective professional preg. terminator in you, but IF that's the case, perhaps immersing yourself in post-abortive groups may help to balance out the scales, so to speak.


And getting in touch with Society of Centurions would, IMO, help to emotionally digest what professionals in that field experience before, during, and after life in the abortion industry.

And I am saying this respectfully, by the way, lest this be interpreted as a taunt, cause it's not.

You, too, Stephanie. In addition to a PP internship, try a CPC internship as well. And other PL venues.

When doing research for a role in a play, I visited an abortion facility, even though I was pro-life. No procedures that day, but I got a tour and was able to interview the Clinic director. Helped to see life their way for a moment.

Posted by: carder at April 10, 2008 7:55 AM


Because of abortion and birth control, infanticide has largely become obsolete.

ARE YOU KIDDING?

After 1973, when abortion was made legal, infanticide SPIKED upwards dramatically!

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, after 1975, the infanticide cases for white people went from approx. 300 to approx. 420 a year. The infanticide cases for black people went from about approx. 230 to approx. 360!

The numbers have dropped since then, which is great, but infanticide is DEFINITELY NOT obsolete.

We hear cases of women killing their infants almost every day. Where do you get this idea that it is "obsolete"? And especially, where do you get the idea that if the numbers went down at all, it had anything to do with abortion?

Not only is infanticide not obsolete as a result of abortion, but child abuse is also not only not obsolete, but it has risen dramatically since abortion was made legal.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 8:35 AM


Chris, 6:58. Your post was most excellent!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 8:38 AM


Edyt:

I know right now you are probably really ticked off at some of the things said to you. However, what you might want to do is save Bethany's and Chris responses to you so you can read them when your emotions may not be so high.

Also, you said: "Our society has demeaned women for getting pregnant before marriage. " You have got to be kidding here. Yes, in the 1950's this was true, but not today.

According to the CDC: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf

"The proportion of infants born to unmarried women rose to 36.9 percent in 2005."

So your saying that appx 37% of pregnancies in America are looked down on? I just don't think so, considering the unmarried birth rate rose 12% between 2002 - 2005. I just don't think that many women would be having children out of wedlock if they were going to be demeanded for doing so.

As a feminist you might be interested in the Elizabeth Cady Stanton pregnant and parenting student services act of 2007.

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1088.IH:

This is a bill proposed by PL AND PC together. It will actually allow college students a choice. Right now the choice is abortion or drop out of school (hoping to return, but statistically it doesn't happen that way.)

Posted by: valerie at April 10, 2008 8:40 AM


Aborted human beings die faster and with less mental anguish than did Holocaust victims. They are not terrorized, raped, beaten, devalued on the basis of their ethnicity and then murdered.

Oh okay, I see what makes it okay. So if one day I got divorced and didn't have any money to live on, and I was struggling, and didn't "feel" like I could take care of my children any more (and didn't want to have to give them up to a foster home), as long as I made sure they didn't suffer (I could put them to sleep or something), I could kill them. As long as they didn't feel any pain, it would be morally justifiable. Right? Oh wait, no, I guess the fact that they're out of my body would make that wrong. *Rolling eyes. *

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 8:41 AM


I'm sorry if I'm getting a little impatient here, but my goodness, please read the things you are saying and really consider what you are justifying, Edyt.
These thoughts you constantly justify are so horrible.

No matter how polite and sweet you may be (and I do think you are nice), you are justifying some of the most awful and horrid things imaginable. And the worst part for me is that I think you know it...I think you know how bad it is.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 8:57 AM


Bethany, Chris, Valerie and Carla...

Bravo. I can barely read, let alone stomach the statements that Edyt is putting out there. I am very well read on the Holocaust (despite Edyt's claims of my ignorance) and the parallels in justifications for horrific actions are beyond creepy…you all have done a mind-blowing job of backing your positions (Wow, Chris….what a story—thank you for sharing.) and keeping a saint’s patience with both Edyt and Stephanie.

Regarding Stephanie’s obsession with watching abortions....I can only surmise that either she has a morbid fascination or else she’s taken skepticism to a new level of art form. (Like managing to fiddle with your fingers in your ears at the same time while Rome burns….) Either way, again you have all done a commendable job of sticking with the discussion.

Kudos.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 10:59 AM


I would not be married today if my mother in law had decided on an abortion when she was pregnant out of wedlock. She moved, lived in a pregnant women's home, had her son and left him in foster care. His baby pictures are taken by his foster mother. 3 weeks later she could not bear to be apart from her boy. She brought him home. That boy grew up and I married him. My MIL talks about her fears quite openly but NEVER regrets having her baby and raising him. Me either. :)

Posted by: Carla at April 10, 2008 11:19 AM


Thanks Carder and Hooves. :)

Posted by: Carla at April 10, 2008 11:21 AM


Hooves, thank you and I appreciate your post as well. It is SO very hard to stomach. Stephanie's obsession with wanting to see abortions is probably very much like you said...and it does make me feel queasy.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 11:38 AM



Edyt: As a feminist, I'm at least working to change the way we see women, including those who are pregnant, so that women don't have to feel guilty for having sex or for getting pregnant. I'm working toward child-friendly schools and workplaces. I'm working toward better health care for women and the man's representation within the household as an equal partner in child-rearing and housekeeping.

Where did you learn your brand of feminism? Much of what you say sounds textbook. What is man's repesentation in the household? You must have learned that in a " feminism" class somewhere. In my opinion, "schooled" feminists are women who feel uncomfortable in their own femininity, spend their time studying their "plight", overthinking everything instead of getting on with life. Why do that?

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 11:38 AM


and the man's representation within the household as an equal partner in child-rearing and housekeeping.

That's not a man.
That is a girlfriend.

A man is absolutely and equal partner. His role is to provide for and protect his woman and his children. (Abortion strips him of that role, as does militant feminism.) A man is not a housekeeper or a nanny. He is the breadwinner, dragon slayer and protector. Honor his role as you demand your role as wife and mother to be honored.

On a tangent note, how do you expect a man--who’s been reduced to the role of girlfriend with a penis—do give a rat’s patootie about doing “his share” in a relationship? You’ve just made the point that “his share” amounts to paying for the abortion after he’s gotten his jollies….our society provide no motivation anymore for doing any more than that.

Quit neutering the men. They deserve our respect. And we deserve our dragon slayers.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 12:15 PM


Amen!

Posted by: Carla at April 10, 2008 12:27 PM


Hooves in Maw WELL said!!!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 12:39 PM


"Because of abortion and birth control, infanticide has largely become obsolete."

I would doubt the truth of this statement. In fact, I'd guess that infanticide (or killing of one's children who are older than infants) is more common today that it was pre-Roe.

Anyone have stats?

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2008 12:42 PM


oops, I see someone already answered my question!

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2008 12:50 PM


and the man's representation within the household as an equal partner in child-rearing and housekeeping.

That's not a man.
That is a girlfriend.

A man is absolutely and equal partner. His role is to provide for and protect his woman and his children. (Abortion strips him of that role, as does militant feminism.) A man is not a housekeeper or a nanny. He is the breadwinner, dragon slayer and protector. Honor his role as you demand your role as wife and mother to be honored.
Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 12:15 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Hooves-in-Maw was rescued from the compound earlier this week. Don't laugh at her pinafore...)

Posted by: Laura at April 10, 2008 1:27 PM


Quit neutering the men. They deserve our respect. And we deserve our dragon slayers.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 12:15 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're a FASCINATING WOMAN, Hooves.

Posted by: Laura at April 10, 2008 1:47 PM


You're a FASCINATING WOMAN, Hooves.

Why thank you.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 2:19 PM


Were those supposed to be insults, or do you admire her, Laura? I can't tell.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 2:20 PM


Where did you learn your brand of feminism? Much of what you say sounds textbook. What is man's repesentation in the household? You must have learned that in a " feminism" class somewhere. In my opinion, "schooled" feminists are women who feel uncomfortable in their own femininity, spend their time studying their "plight", overthinking everything instead of getting on with life. Why do that?

Well, I'm sorry if you think I feel uncomfortable in my own femininity. In all actuality, I'm just uncomfortable being treated like a subordinate human being.

I happen to self-educate for the most part. I read a lot, ask a lot of questions, gather information... It's part of my job, you see, but I'm sorry if my education offends you.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 2:22 PM


Hooves,

I aspire to be more than a housekeeper and a mother. I do not want to be "provided" for and "protected." I want to be cherished and loved and seen as an equal.

I respect other women's choices to be a housekeeper and mother though. And if you want to live in a traditional patriarchal family, that's your choice.

All I am asking is that I be allowed a choice too, and that is what you seem to have a problem with. And if I don't have a choice, then am I really equal? If I'm "allowed" to have a job, but I still have to bear all the housekeeping and child rearing, am I really equal?

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 2:26 PM


Valerie,

I know right now you are probably really ticked off at some of the things said to you. However, what you might want to do is save Bethany's and Chris responses to you so you can read them when your emotions may not be so high.

Nah, I'm used to having people spew hatred on this board. For the most part I try to just state my position and then go on with my happy life. It's not my fault you guys are so hateful.

Also, you said: "Our society has demeaned women for getting pregnant before marriage. " You have got to be kidding here. Yes, in the 1950's this was true, but not today.

Maybe not to the extent it was in the 50s, but I have still seen MANY examples of it!! Just because more women are having babies before marriage doesn't mean it's accepted. In fact, it probably has more to do with the fact that women now don't feel like they have to get married to the man that knocked them up. Something to think about.

I have read about that act and I think it's a fabulous initiative. And proof that when PLers and PCers set down the knives, sometimes good work can get done... :)

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 2:59 PM


Edyt,

My point is that you can find your own path in life, just as I have without demeaning a man to the point of being a dildo with a heartbeat….which is what you do with the statements you make about wanting sex with no consequences. (But don’t you just fly into a tizzy if a man looks at a woman as a sex-object…)

FYI—I am a working wife with a career in a male dominated industry. (Land Surveying lest you think I’m fibbing about male dominated…and the next time you feel the desire to insult my intelligence why don’t you put your noggin to some boundary math and then shut up…). I am not dominated by my husband, and frankly neither are most stay at home wives and mothers. Subservience is a lie believed by those suckled at the Berkley breast. It’s about mutual respect for our differing roles. I chose not to become a mother because I didn’t feel like being a mommy. But I assure you, should I have found myself pregnant, my husband has always understood and supported my desire that I would stay at home and raise my children. There is no more important role a woman can fulfill than being there for her children and husband…just like there is no more important role a man can fill than providing for and protecting his family.

If you do not wish to live as a wife or stay at home mother than fine, but don’t drag children into your life and don’t berate women who disagree with you as “subservients in a patriarchal family”…that’s just insulting. My point is that you and your ilk need to stop demeaning those of us who “betray the sisterhood” by holding the opinion that men are not monsters, dominators or salivating sex maniacs. They are human beings who are being culturally neutered by militant feminism in our society. There is nothing wrong with equal opportunities and equal pay, but we have totally crossed the line into utter misandry….and we are reaping the consequences.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 3:10 PM


Oh, and to all of you who seem to think I think everyone should have an abortion... you're wrong.

I don't believe getting pregnant out of wedlock means you should have an abortion.

In fact, I'm not saying anyone should or should not have an abortion. I think abortions should be safe, done early on in the pregnancy, and as painless as possible. But my personal feelings about it have nothing to do with what other people's circumstances may be and I do not want to make judgments about other people's lives and what they think is best for their life.

If someone thinks never driving a car is best for their life, then fine. Let them walk or bike or take public transit. I don't have any business telling someone they should or should not drive a car.

And that's how I feel about abortion.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 3:11 PM


Hooves in Maw:

I understand your stance and respect your opinion on traditional gender roles....but I have a serious question. Would you be against a man choosing to be the one to stay home and raise children, keep house, and do all the traditionally "female" jobs while his wife goes back to work as the "breadwinner"?

Edyt brings up an excellent point- is it really freedom to be "allowed" and "tolerated" as a professional outside the housework and childrearing (which are unbelievably valuable, don't get me wrong)?

We seem to forget that all the accomplishments of men in the past were made possible by the amazingly undervalued sacrifices of women in "traditional" roles. Dr. Martin Luther King was able to travel and give his earth-moving speeches because his wife took care of the home and the kids. The success of men is directly based on the unpaid and often undervalued traditional work of women, who take the jobs that many men feel are "beneath" them. I agree that the work that women in traditional roles perform is UNBELIEVABLY valuable, but I find it to be a double-standard opinion from some people who find it unacceptable for men to assume those roles so the women in their lives can achieve and progress outside the home. Both sexes can do both undeniably important jobs, jobs that don't have to be exclusive according to traditional roles, in my humble opinion.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 10, 2008 3:15 PM


. In all actuality, I'm just uncomfortable being treated like a subordinate human being.

I aspire to be more than a housekeeper and a mother. I do not want to be "provided" for and "protected." I want to be cherished and loved and seen as an equal.

So the truth comes out, again. You DO see women who choose to be mothers as subordinates, who are living a lowly life of nothingness, while you want to strive for "more". Now maybe you can understand why I didn't really fall for it when you said, "oh no, I don't feel that way at all. I really respect women who have children".

Why is being provided for a bad thing? Do I feel that I am less equal than my husband in worth because I choose to let him provide for me? Certainly not. Do I feel that his nature to desire to protect me is condescending? No, I find it flattering. Do I feel that his nature to not want to be a housekeeper is insulting? No, I find his manliness and willingness to work to provide for the family to be quite sexy. He works at a job sometimes all day long. Why would I then want to tell him, "you can't come home and rest. You must now do your part with the chores at home too". Wouldn't that be unfair, and making HIM a subordinate? Why should he be my slave? Why should I not be expected to do my part? After a hard days work, I believe my hubby is entitled to a good meal, to be able to rest and relax and play with the kids, and if I feel like it I might even give him a foot massage, because I LIKE it. I LIKE being there for my hubby.

I have a job here, and he has a job where he works. I take my job seriously, and I am happy!

And I can tell you, I am NOT inferior to you simply because your desires are different than mine. I am not a "subordinate". I am not merely an "incubator". I am a woman who LOVES life and LOVES the body she was created in and the things that I was designed to do. Being able to have children and be a mother is a BLESSING and a GIFT and I am PROUD to be given the ability to do these things.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:16 PM


So the truth comes out, again. You DO see women who choose to be mothers as subordinates, who are living a lowly life of nothingness, while you want to strive for "more". Now maybe you can understand why I didn't really fall for it when you said, "oh no, I don't feel that way at all. I really respect women who have children".

... I was using Hooves' words. I did not imply anything to the sort. Stop trying to read into what I said.

PERSONALLY I DO NOT WANT TO BE PROVIDED FOR OR PROTECTED. OKAY?

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 3:19 PM


It's not my fault you guys are so hateful.

Contradicting you is not synonymous with being hateful, Edyt. I actually like you.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:20 PM


Bethany, there's a big difference between what you and I are arguing.

You're saying you're happy with the traditional man goes to work, woman stays home and takes care of the kids.

That's cool.

What I'm saying is that I'm not cool with both man and woman going to work, then woman taking care of kids, and doing housework, and man sitting around drinking beer.

I don't care how you run your life. If you're happy, you're happy! But don't try to take away what would make me happy by saying I must have the wonderful children and I must love the housework, because I don't and it's not right for me.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 3:23 PM


... I was using Hooves' words. I did not imply anything to the sort. Stop trying to read into what I said.
PERSONALLY I DO NOT WANT TO BE PROVIDED FOR OR PROTECTED. OKAY?

Okay Edyt. I can see I have touched a nerve, and I am sorry.

Let me see if I can help you see what I am seeing. Please read this again:

"I do not want to be "provided" for and "protected." I want to be cherished and loved and seen as an equal."

Your statement says three things.

1.) What you want for yourself in life.
2.) That being "provided for" and "protected" is one thing.
3.) That being "cherished and loved and seen as an equal" is quite another thing entirely.

Can you see why I would infer from your comment that you think that a housewife cannot be loved, and cherished, and seen as an equal?

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:23 PM


What I'm saying is that I'm not cool with both man and woman going to work, then woman taking care of kids, and doing housework, and man sitting around drinking beer.
I don't care how you run your life. If you're happy, you're happy! But don't try to take away what would make me happy by saying I must have the wonderful children and I must love the housework, because I don't and it's not right for me.

Who in the world said you couldn't live that way?

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:24 PM


Amen Bethany.

Lyssie,

I never said anything about a couple who chooses to reverse roles (and I have known some who had very compelling reasons for doing so)...so no, to answer your question I do not have a problem with that. And I have never felt "allowed" or "tolerated" in my profession. On the contrary, every single man I've ever had the priviledge of working with has been extremely supportive easy to work with....in my industry it's your skill set that speaks, not how you zip your fly. Now, I have on occasion run into jerk clients who assume I'm the secretary on the phone, but so what? There are jerks everywhere...if you can't handle the occasional jerk then you need to readjust your reality.

So I never said it was unacceptable for a man to help with the dishes. What I said was it is unacceptable for a woman to expect that she should be able to climb the corporate ladder, leave her kids in daycare, neglect her husband as a human being and THEN expect him to pick up the living room, wash the dishes and do the laundry without complaint. That is the pot calling the kettle black when you start throwing the word "subservient" around.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 3:27 PM


Thank you for clarifying, Hooves,3:27 I think you put it so well!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:30 PM


Hooves in Maw, Bethany: you and I are on the very same page. :D Awesome. Personally, I want to do what makes me happy, and obviously you do too. I really am happy for both of you.

And let me say, as a feminist....I LOVE MEN. I THINK THEY ARE WONDERFUL, GORGEOUS, AMAZING, BRILLIANT, AND MOST OF ALL, HUMAN...I am not a man-basher (I'm completely in love with my boyfriend, and I have more male friends than female). I'm just more about raising society to our standards than crushing men underfoot to achieve ends. Achieving things should NEVER be about putting other people down to rise above...it should always be about proving and earning and raising society to meet a standard that you set. Men need not suffer so that women can be recognized by society as equal for the intrinsically valuable work they do, whether as wonderful mothers and housekeepers or as professionals such as Hooves in Maw. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at April 10, 2008 3:37 PM


Lyssie,

Thank you for your hearfelt clarification! I do not sit in the feminist camp, however you are obviously a compassionate and thoughtful woman who has worked very hard to clarify her parameters and I would gladly share a feminist discussion over a Mocha with you!!

Now, as much as I hate to go...I have GOT to get some projects accomplished today!! I will check back later.

Lyssie--it was VERY nice to make your aquaintance!!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 3:44 PM


Edyt: I happen to self-educate for the most part. I read a lot, ask a lot of questions, gather information... It's part of my job, you see, but I'm sorry if my education offends you.

I'm, not offended, I just don't like the word feminist, personally. When I hear that word, I immediately think "man-hater". You don't sound like that type of person. I'm sorry if I've been hard on you. Mea culpa!

Lyssie:3:37: Well said!

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 3:44 PM


Lyssie:

Is there a better word we can use to describe your brand of feminism? It certainly is not comparable to the radical kind of the 1970's.

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 3:48 PM


Lyssie, that was a great post. I'm so glad we agree on this!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:50 PM


Bethany, I'm feeling old right now!

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 3:55 PM


Oh Janet you are soooo not old!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 3:57 PM


Janet: I prefer to think of myself as more of a humanist than a feminist...all human beings deserve an equal footing in society, with equally-valued roles. Feminism is just one aspect of my beliefs. I have no idea how to describe my brand of feminism, just that I'm not a "feminazi". I can believe that society has not risen to meet the needs of its citizens (female, male, black, white, whatever) without bringing down citizens that have a currently higher status (such as men in this case). I wholeheartedly intend on earning my way in society in typically male-dominated fields (I'm a biology major), and adding to the ranks of women that are working toward true professional equality in actions, not just words. I don't believe we should just be "given" jobs because we're women so that we're "equal". We should earn them just like men do. What I want is to achieve a society where I'm not passed over for a job simply because I AM a woman. There's a difference between feeling entitled and being qualified- I'd rather be the latter and earn a job on merit, and not be turned down simply because of my uterus.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 10, 2008 4:00 PM


Janet: I wouldn't really know a whole lot about the feminism of the 1970's firsthand...I was born 20 years afterward. But I can tell you for sure that I won't be burning my bra anytime soon....hell, I FINALLY have boobs and I need SOMETHING to control them.

I call it "putting my ponies back in the corral". :)

Oh, and to be completely honest, I can't say I'm completely free of making stereotypical wisecracks about men...but it's in a way that people KNOW I don't mean what I say. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at April 10, 2008 4:07 PM


Lyssie,

We should earn them just like men do. What I want is to achieve a society where I'm not passed over for a job simply because I AM a woman. There's a difference between feeling entitled and being qualified- I'd rather be the latter and earn a job on merit, and not be turned down simply because of my uterus.

I wholeheartedly agree for the most part. But I think there's a factor that's missing... There are still places in America where male employers hire men because they don't want "emotional, hormonal, women with children" in the workplace. Women of equal qualifications are turned down or paid less because they are "interested" in having children, or may already have them.

I think that's wrong.

But there are some places where I think women should be represented in equal numbers. For example, if the House and Senate have near-equal numbers of men and women, we can feel sure that both opinions are represented, similar to how each state should have representation based on their populations. And I believe the House and Senate should be racially diverse as well. In the sciences or the arts, it's not as important to have men or women equally represented. But when law is being created, it's in our best interests that even minority voices are heard.

P.S. No one burned bras. ;)

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 4:19 PM


Sorry to throw so many posts at you, Janet...but I get what you mean when you associate "feminist" with "man-hater". I'm not ashamed to tell people I'm a feminist, even if I get weird looks. It's all because I would rather change the face and outlook of feminism than completely denounce it. Knowing and striving for societal acceptance of the equality of the sexes IS feminism...how you approach it, whether by demeaning men or raising society's opinion of women's worth...those are completely different topics entirely. I would rather change the definition of what people believe feminism is than to drop the title entirely...why turn your back on something that has the potential to be SO GOOD for society because of several bad apples? I use MK's example of the Catholic Church's sex scandal with priests...she didn't turn her back on the Church because a of a few people in it...she wants to change it, make it better, and earn back its respect. It's the same with me and feminism. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at April 10, 2008 4:20 PM


Edyt, I entirely agree. I purposely strive for the day that women are passed over solely on merit, not on the fact that they are capable of bearing children or already have them. I don't think I emphasized that enough. I don't want to be hired as a "token uterus", but I don't want to be denied a job or a raise because I am a woman, either.

We're working toward the same goal, hun. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at April 10, 2008 4:24 PM


Lyssie:

I understand completely, thanks for taking the time to explain.
You could get a button to wear that says, "I'm a feminist for the new milliennium" or something like that. :D

Thanks you for your comment on the the Catholic Church. That's a mature way to look at things.

You've got to be careful about mentioning bra burning around here, because it's kind of a dirty word. I guess it didn't really happen, who knew? I wasn't old enough back then to be concerned one way or another!

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 4:33 PM


:) I've heard you call yourself a humanist before, but I really want to encourage you to keep calling yourself a feminist too, since the perception really needs to change.

I have had several long conversations with my boyfriend about it since his idea of a feminist was the typical angry, man-hating, baby-killing lesbian who just wants to lord over men... so I had to work to convince him that I just wanted to walk in a world where I wasn't constantly objectified or where I didn't have to live up to a certain standard of beauty/sexuality to be valuable...

Tough conversation, but I'm hoping this generation of feminists will continue to create positive changes for women in the world.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 4:34 PM


Janet, from my understanding, the bra burning myth started from draft card burnings and women throwing bras and other lingerie into trash cans during the 1968 Miss America contest (as a critique of the beauty culture). The images must have overlapped somewhere.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 4:38 PM


*grabs an old, worn-out bra and a lighter*

Care to actually put credence to the myth, Edyt? *giggles*

Posted by: Lyssie at April 10, 2008 4:43 PM


Hahaha, bras are too damn expensive these days to just burn 'em!!

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 4:46 PM


Carla – no, I am not planning to perform abortions as a doctor, although I am going into the medical field. There’s no reason other than it’s just not my cup of tea. As for myself having an abortion, I have no idea what I’d do, but I’m pretty sure the answer would be yes at the present time.

Bethany – I never said such a thing. I think you misunderstood me when I said I wanted to see an abortion. I was just curious as to how the process looked, and it wasn’t so bad because from the way some PLers talk about it, I expected blood and guts to be flying everywhere. In addition, I wasn’t watching them because I wanted to see if the fetus looks like a baby. I wanted to see if the photos from a real abortion were consistent with the photos that PLers blow up and stick onto posters. I also wanted to see for myself what an abortion is. You’re a big proponent of that, aren’t you? Letting people “see the truth”. I’ve even seen the videos you posted recently on my own time, as well as the abortions of Helen and Barbara. But thanks for trying to make me out like a monster, that makes you look so much better.

Hooves-in-Maw and Bethany – I do not have an obsession with watching abortions. It wasn’t until Bethany; Carder (and I believe Valerie as well) PROVIDED me with the links that I began watching them yesterday. I’m doing what you PLers all say we should do – see for myself what an abortion actually consists of and get educated.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 10, 2008 5:20 PM


I find it ironic how someone can watch a helpless human being be ripped apart and say:

“I was just curious as to how the process looked, and it wasn’t so bad…”

And then pull off a drama-queen statement like:

But thanks for trying to make me out like a monster, that makes you look so much better.

If it wasn’t so sick I’d be laughing my butt off.

As far as trying to make you look like a monster...if you can watch something so monstrous and be blasé about it then I’d say the shoe fits and you don’t need any help from us.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 10, 2008 6:38 PM


I would never go to a doctor who I know was PC.

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 7:48 PM


Janet, from my understanding, the bra burning myth started from draft card burnings and women throwing bras and other lingerie into trash cans during the 1968 Miss America contest (as a critique of the beauty culture). The images must have overlapped somewhere.

Posted by: Edyt at April 10, 2008 4:38 PM

The card burners must have enjoyed that.

Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 7:50 PM


I'm missing MK right about now. She really needs add fuel to these fires.

Go ladies.

Posted by: carder at April 10, 2008 8:08 PM


Janet 7:48, me either!!

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 9:45 PM


Bethany – I never said such a thing. I think you misunderstood me when I said I wanted to see an abortion. I was just curious as to how the process looked, and it wasn’t so bad because from the way some PLers talk about it, I expected blood and guts to be flying everywhere. In addition, I wasn’t watching them because I wanted to see if the fetus looks like a baby. I wanted to see if the photos from a real abortion were consistent with the photos that PLers blow up and stick onto posters. I also wanted to see for myself what an abortion is. You’re a big proponent of that, aren’t you? Letting people “see the truth”. I’ve even seen the videos you posted recently on my own time, as well as the abortions of Helen and Barbara. But thanks for trying to make me out like a monster, that makes you look so much better.

Stephanie, let me just "ditto" Hooves' comment at 6:38 PM. I think that anyone who can sit there and look at a baby being killed and say "oh its not that bad", simply because blood isn't spraying all over the room, is just callous and heartless, and honestly, I would wonder if their soul was still in existence.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 9:47 PM


I think it's sad that Edyt was told she needs to go to therapy. I didn't know that having differing beliefs was a mental disorder. Wait, let me check my handy copy of the DSM-IV-TR...nooope, not a mental disorder!
It's just tough to really say how we feel- no matter what our stance- through the Internet. Tone isn't understood, nor are intentions. We can't use body language. Things get twisted.
I wanted to comment on the thread way up there about male and female gender roles. I love my boyfriend dearly, but he could never slay a dragon (he's wayyy too skinny). He'll probably never make enough money to be a true "breadwinner"- if we marry, I'll always have to work so we can have a decent life. However, he can cook for himself, can clean for himself, and does yoga to calm his nerves rather than yell or get angry (opposite of my old-school dad and many in his generation who can't find the fridge without their wife's guidance). He treats me with respect and integrity. This is why I think traditional gender roles could use a bit of bending.
Also waaay up there, the Bethany/Edyt controversy over subserviency/inferiority. If I interpreted it correctly, I think Edyt was saying more that making abortion illegal is more of the "powers that be" dictating her life, telling her what path to take, not giving her a choice in carrying an unwanted child (I heard an intriguing argument recently about how being forced to carry an unwanted baby violated the 13th ammendment, involuntary slavery- we can discuss that puppy later!). The point is that mostly men run this government, and if they made serious anti-abortion legislation, yes, I too would be made to feel like an inferior being to them. I don't think she was dissing your lifestyle Bethany. I never would- I can't wait until I get married and have babies! It's what I've wanted since as long as I can remember.
I'm ready to come clean with my identity!
I'm Ali, I'm a senior in college, from New York.

Posted by: am "ali" at April 10, 2008 9:49 PM


Stephanie, let me just "ditto" Hooves' comment at 6:38 PM. I think that anyone who can sit there and look at a baby being killed and say "oh its not that bad", simply because blood isn't spraying all over the room, is just callous and heartless, and honestly, I would wonder if their soul was still in existence.

Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 9:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, it's called "clinical detatchment."
She wants to study medicine, and she witnessed a medical procedure. Nobody wants to run into an ER professional who shieks, wails, and climbs under the furniture at the sight of trauma.
Are you suggesting that professional demeanor is callous, heartless, or a symptom of having no soul?

Posted by: Laura at April 10, 2008 10:22 PM


and no one knows more about detatchment than Laura.

Posted by: Mike at April 10, 2008 10:36 PM


Bethany and Hooves in Maw,

No matter what I say, you're just going to think whatever you want about me without even knowing who I am as a person. I remember you (Bethany) were always telling people that if they knew what an abortion looked like for real, they wouldn't support it. I looked at all the clips that you provided for me and I still haven't changed my mind.

So far, every time I have posted I have been met with little courtesy when I have done nothing to provoke it. I've tried to be polite and explain myself to you, but if you aren't going to listen you can take your comments and shove them up your ass.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 10, 2008 11:59 PM


Laura - thanks for your comment.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 11, 2008 12:00 AM


Ok, now that I've had a chance take a shower, cool off, and think about it, I really should not have lost my temper.

Bethany, I am sorry for blowing up at you, and I would like a rational discussion without the name-calling.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 11, 2008 12:29 AM


am "ali" 9:49: The point is that mostly men run this government, and if they made serious anti-abortion legislation, yes, I too would be made to feel like an inferior being to them.

Welcome, ali! Don't measure your self worth by what others say, or by how someone else makes you feel. Waste of time!

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 2:51 AM


If I interpreted it correctly, I think Edyt was saying more that making abortion illegal is more of the "powers that be" dictating her life, telling her what path to take, not giving her a choice in carrying an unwanted child.
Posted by: am "ali" at April 10, 2008 9:49 PM
*******

Ali, If you are forced to have sex, then I would agree that could be interpretted as a form of slavery. But in your case you are not a slave. You are a free woman determining your path when you make the choice to engage in sexual intercourse. You should understand ahead of time that should you choose to engage in sexual intercourse, the results of your choicea may be placing a baby in your womb. That baby is not a part of your body. Yes you made the choice to put them them in your womb, but they are NOT part of your body, they are a unique life of their own. You do not have the right to kill that new life created in your womb. The "powers that be" have every right to protect human life, it is a tenet of any civilized society.

Posted by: truthseeker at April 11, 2008 2:56 AM


Bethany and Hooves in Maw,
No matter what I say, you're just going to think whatever you want about me without even knowing who I am as a person. I remember you (Bethany) were always telling people that if they knew what an abortion looked like for real, they wouldn't support it. I looked at all the clips that you provided for me and I still haven't changed my mind.
So far, every time I have posted I have been met with little courtesy when I have done nothing to provoke it. I've tried to be polite and explain myself to you, but if you aren't going to listen you can take your comments and shove them up your ass.
Posted by: Stephanie at April 10, 2008 11:59 PM
Ok, now that I've had a chance take a shower, cool off, and think about it, I really should not have lost my temper.
Bethany, I am sorry for blowing up at you, and I would like a rational discussion without the name-calling.

Yes, Stephanie. You are correct. I request that those who are ignorant of what an abortion looks like, to take a look for themselves, to educate them about what it truly is. Many abortion proponents claim that the baby is simply a blob of tissue when aborted. Those videos clearly prove this is not the case.

You must understand that it is not the fact that you desired to educate yourself about abortion that is the problem here. The problem is your reaction to the videos.

Just imagine that you were trying to convince me rape is wrong. You tell me, "These disgusting guys will lay on top of women, against their will, sometimes beating them to keep them quiet, and will force them against their will."

Imagine that I said, Well, I'd have to see it to believe it.

So, your response is, okay, I actually found this video of a man raping a woman, and want you to view it, so that you can understand fully how despicable it is.

I say, Okay Stephanie, let me see that video.

So, I watch the video, and I say...Oh, well that wasn't so bad. Actually, the woman invited herself into the guys home...what did she expect? She was consenting to have sex with him. I don't see that he really took advantage of her that much, and also, I didn't see him "beat" her. He just held her down. It wasn't so bad after all.

Would you not be angry with me, if this was my reaction to seeing the woman being held down and raped against her will?

It doesn't matter if he's beating her or not, it doesn't matter if he calls her names while he's doing it or not, and it doesn't matter if he's not pulling her off the street randomly against her will or not. Having sex with a woman against her will is rape and wrong, no matter if it's done gently or not. Likewise, in abortion, it doesn't matter if blood isn't shooting around everywhere (no one ever said it did), it doesn't matter if the abortionist is polite as he works the abortion, or if he's rude and demeaning, none of that matters. A baby is still being killed, and anyone who sees that should look at it and say, that is WRONG.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 6:59 AM


Truthseeker, 2:56, exactly!

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 8:25 AM


I know I'm opening up a ginormous can of worms here...but I think 99% of people will agree that rape is wrong (that 1% is for the rapists themselves!). The verdict on whether or not abortion is wrong is still out (not on this blog- that I understand! I just mean, there isn't a general consensus in textbooks or anything). And it probably will always be, since not everyone can attach themselves to religious arguments, and not everyone will believe that abortion is murder before the age of viability. It's just a fact of life. Ohh, I'm so punny.
ever.

Posted by: ali at April 11, 2008 8:40 AM


Also, a response to truthseeker: What you told me I already know. The woman totally does make it possible that she'll get pregnant when she has sex. Which is why I'm making it my life to teach people safer sex practices and the value of abstaining. Everyone knows that having sex means you might get pregnant. Getting inside peoples' heads to REALLY get that message in is what's hard- that's why it's so important to have committed educators who can tell students why they should wait, and if they wont, how to best prevent pregnancy.

Posted by: ali at April 11, 2008 8:44 AM


I know I'm opening up a ginormous can of worms here...but I think 99% of people will agree that rape is wrong (that 1% is for the rapists themselves!). The verdict on whether or not abortion is wrong is still out (not on this blog- that I understand! I just mean, there isn't a general consensus in textbooks or anything). And it probably will always be, since not everyone can attach themselves to religious arguments, and not everyone will believe that abortion is murder before the age of viability. It's just a fact of life. Ohh, I'm so punny.
ever.

Ali, thank you for your post. If you'll remember from our American history, it wasn't always a general consensus in textbooks or in the people's minds, that black people should have the same rights as everyone else. In fact, if you said that negros should have the same rights as everyone else back when slavery was legal, you might have been laughed to scorn, depending on who you talked to. It was "common knowledge" that the black people were inferior to the whites. People many times used religion or the Bible to show people that slavery was wrong, and in their speaking out against it. Yet, the consensus of the public was, slavery was okay and black people did not have the same rights, and were not equal.

Did the fact that it was generally accepted make it okay?

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 9:22 AM


Were those saline abortions in the US? Not saying they weren't, but formerly the CDC figures I'd seen for the US indicated a greater rate of decline.

Either way, what is the reason for them? I didn't know that the procedure was favored in the US anymore, regardless of the stage of gestation.

Posted by: Doug at April 11, 2008 9:51 AM


Were those saline abortions in the US? Not saying they weren't, but formerly the CDC figures I'd seen for the US indicated a greater rate of decline.

Either way, what is the reason for them? I didn't know that the procedure was favored in the US anymore, regardless of the stage of gestation.

Posted by: Doug at April 11, 2008 9:52 AM


Hi Janet,
"
John McD:6:11:

I watched your recommended video, but having a hard time commenting on it. Interesting and confusing. I'm not sure why she choses the one side over the other as preferable (I won't say too much, so as to not give too much away.). Let's see what other people think, and I'd like to know what your thought are.
Posted by: Janet at April 9, 2008 9:55 PM
---------

sorry - one of the reasons it has taken me so long to respond, is that this video has had such a profound effect on the way I view reality. As well, it does seem to fit right in here (will explain 'how' below).

Decades ago my oldest brother started as`an-adult to become an artist. In one of his most memorable courses, the difference between the right and left brain hemispheres is explored. One aspect of note seems to be that right-brain thinking seems to be the domain of 'beauty' while 'accuracy and geometry' seem to be the main concern of the left-hemisphere.

Not until this video did I realize that there were all sorts of lessons to be applied to PL thought processes as well! Since Doug came on he (like many PC) accepted: the past; the future (as a projection from the past'; and, verbal LOGIC. ((I argued that human life was not solely within these parameters .... the aspects of emotional reasoning being the largest 'problem' here.))

Not until this presentation did I perceive a split for the PC'ers .... a domination/preference of 'left-brain' thinking over 'right-brain' activation. I find Mike's blurb of ... 'Ugly. Ugly' interesting. Because would a left-brain thinker even know what he is talking about? And Laura's 'professional distancing', is it not a suspension of right-brain emotive activity?

There is so much here ....

One of the biggest problems I see in this abortion debate is a decided under-valuing of just what it means to be human. Abortion says we are a throw-away/trash reality .... the video says we had better re-think this position.

Similarly, we have an unusually high number of university-age adults who find 'science' as a sort-of-refuge for radical thought. But because thought = speech .... it is all left-brain.

Posted by: John McDonell at April 11, 2008 11:05 AM


Were those saline abortions in the US? Not saying they weren't, but formerly the CDC figures I'd seen for the US indicated a greater rate of decline.

Either way, what is the reason for them? I didn't know that the procedure was favored in the US anymore, regardless of the stage of gestation.

Posted by: Doug at April 11, 2008 9:52 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did you check out the last paragraph? Her "saline abortions" might never have happened:

"Note: The medical term for this procedure is "Intrauterine Instillation abortion" The chemicals used can be consisting of either saline, urea or prostaglandin."

Posted by: Laura at April 11, 2008 11:19 AM


John McD,

Profound. Perhaps that is why we shake our heads (at least I do) when Stephanie et al view the child expelled from its mom for no other reason than someone didn't want it. Yet it was "no big deal".

Perhaps that's what Bethany was describing with her lack of soul comment. And my own "softer conscience" rebuke.

So, tell me: Is there a "cure" to this left-brain psychosis? ;-)

Posted by: carder at April 11, 2008 12:12 PM


"So, I watch the video, and I say...Oh, well that wasn't so bad. Actually, the woman invited herself into the guys home...what did she expect? She was consenting to have sex with him. I don't see that he really took advantage of her that much, and also, I didn't see him "beat" her. He just held her down. It wasn't so bad after all."

But that's the thing that was making me upset. I never made such comments about the woman. I just said I thought the actual abortion process was not as bad as I thought (based on how people on this site was talking about it).

I didn't make any commentary on the woman herself. You came up with that all on your own.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2008 12:25 PM


That was me.

I didn't say I liked watching the videos. I didn't say it was cool or fun or awesome. I just said it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Does that mean I didn't think it was still gross? No.

It just confirms my views that a woman should not be pushed into an abortion and should be provided all the support and opportunity she needs in order to avoid having one. For instance, Helen. I was very sad for her, because it was obviously something she was unsure about or was pushed into. I just was wishing that our society did not have such a stigma against pregnant teens and provided more support to them so that when it comes time to chose, they would not have to choose abortion.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 11, 2008 12:37 PM


Hi carder,

not quite at any 'cure' stage yet!!! thanks, for those insights!

I've always wondered about Jesus came 'at the fullness of time'. What does this mean? Perhaps it was the point of shifting from right-brain - experiential domination to left-brain analytical thought. St. John's descriptions of being 'one' and 'in' God make all kinds of sense to a right-brain but a ???? only to the left

Posted by: John McDonell at April 11, 2008 1:22 PM


If I interpreted it correctly, I think Edyt was saying more that making abortion illegal is more of the "powers that be" dictating her life, telling her what path to take, not giving her a choice in carrying an unwanted child (I heard an intriguing argument recently about how being forced to carry an unwanted baby violated the 13th ammendment, involuntary slavery- we can discuss that puppy later!). The point is that mostly men run this government, and if they made serious anti-abortion legislation, yes, I too would be made to feel like an inferior being to them.

Thanks Ali, you are correct.

You are a free woman determining your path when you make the choice to engage in sexual intercourse. You should understand ahead of time that should you choose to engage in sexual intercourse, the results of your choicea may be placing a baby in your womb. That baby is not a part of your body. Yes you made the choice to put them them in your womb, but they are NOT part of your body, they are a unique life of their own. You do not have the right to kill that new life created in your womb.

Truthseeker, If I am using contraceptives, no I am not making the choice to get pregnant. I should not have to get pregnant every time I have sex. I understand the pro-life position thinks that motherhood is the ultimate blessing, but the pro-choice argument thinks it's a blessing if she wants a child. Not just randomly and accidentally. That's like giving me the "gift" of a book and forcing me to read that book for 18 years. Yes, I like reading, but I don't want to be forced to read the same book for 18 years. Maybe other people want to read the same book for 18 years. Great! They should be able to! But I should have a choice too, and just because I learned how to read doesn't mean I should have to be forced into reading the same book for 18 years. Make sense?

The "powers that be" have every right to protect human life, it is a tenet of any civilized society.

Read the 14th Amendment. It clearly bestows the right to life, liberty and property to citizens born or naturalized. Not the unborn.

When you give rights to the unborn over the born, you are potentially taking away the mother's right to life, since pregnancy isn't just a walk in the park for every women.

You are taking away her right to liberty -- now she must adhere to a strict diet and not drink/smoke/etc. She may be bedridden -- you are taking away her right to go to work or express herself in daily activities. If she is diabetic, she could experience blindness. She is not free to behave as she normally would.

You are taking away her right to property -- most people do not see their body as who they are, but the capsule that holds their spirit/soul/consciousness. The body, by that understanding, is property of the spirit/soul/consciousness and when the fetus is developing, that property is being used by someone else without permission of the owner. (Of course, some women do give permission, but that is their right to do so, just like a person can lend out their home)

Women make a lot of sacrifices to bear children. They should not be forced to make those sacrifices, no matter how or when or why they had sex.

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 1:43 PM


John 11:05,

Thanks for your response. I was going to say in my first post that the only experience I had was with the drawing book "Drawing with the right side of the brain". (I know it really works!), but it's a little confusing to understand how other modes of thinking relate to that right side as well. I follow some of what you are saying, but I want to go back and take a look at the video again. Interesting! I'll comment later, ok?

I find Mike's blurb of ... 'Ugly. Ugly' interesting.

What post are you referring to? Explain? Thanks. God bless you.

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 2:16 PM


Hi Janet,

it's another of these quirky 'side-issues', The word 'ugly' is meant as the opposite of 'beauty'. Very often PL'ers will use such words as 'beauty' and 'precious' and 'gift' which are for the most-part right-brain terms of reference. Such phrases mean little to the left-brain except in some perverse fashion. Inclusion of these words is good because they might evoke right-brain thinking. Perhaps a PC insistence on the word 'fetus' vs 'baby' is an insistence on left-brain dominion over right-brain thought patterning ????

Interestingly even well before the advent of Christianity, the concepts surrounding 'beauty' made this a major focal point of thought. I find it intriguing that PC'ers never mention 'beauty' and their posts are often crass. It's as if, use of right-brain words = sucking-up.

Posted by: John McDonell at April 11, 2008 3:16 PM


Doug -

Sorry, I thought the CDC link was posted on the article.

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5609.pdf

It is for the United States and is for 1973 - 2004. Not all states gave this specific information so it isn't even an exact count. It might be higher, but isn't lower. It starts on page 16 under types of abortion.

You will note, as Laura mentioned, that it is listed under Intrauterine Instillation. What Laura is failing to understand is that if I had put "intrauterine Instillation" no one would have known what I was talking about. Go on the streets and ask them what an intact dilation and extraction procedure is and most won't know, ask them what Partial Birth Abortion is and they know. The method is the same, the outcome is the same. etc...... I used the generic terminology that all would understand. And so not to confuse anyone on this I noted up front the difference forms of chemicals used. Not trying to "hide" something as Laura is trying to accuse me of.

Also in the CDC's Hanbook on the reporting of induced pregnancy termination it defines Intrauterine Instillation:

"Intrauterine Instillation (saline or prostagandln)--This procedure involves either withdrawing a portion of the amniotic fluid from the uterine cavity by a needle inserted through the abdominal wall and replacing this fluid with a concentrated salt solution (known as saline instillation, saline abortion, or saline amniotic fluid exchange) or injecting a prostaglandin-a substance with hormone-like activity-into the uterine cavity through a
needle inserted through the abdominal wall (known as intrauterine prostaglandin instillation). The saline instillation process induces labor, which results in the expulsion of the fetus approximately 24 to 48 hours later.
The interval between prostaglandin, injection and expulsion tends to be shorter than in a saline abortion."

You can use saline and prostaglandin together, which isn't uncommon, but those abortions are listed under the "other" types of procedure. (go to the end of the Handbook and this is explained).

Prostaglandin is expensive. Saline is not.

Both prostaglandin and Saline cause fetal demise. How do you think the prostaglandin instillation terminates the fetus life? Because it is poisonous to the fetus just as the saline is.

Do we even want to get into Urea instillations? Urea is the nitrogen containing substance that is filtered through the kidney and into the urine for the body to dispose of. If the Urea (BUN) doesn't leave the body then you will go into renal failure because urea is poisonous to us. Now I'm sure they use synthetic urea which is ammonium cyanate. Ammonium cynate is an inorganic white crystalline salt NH4CNO that can be converted into organic urea. OOPs, did we just get back to a saline solution?

So, is there really such a huge difference between saline, prostaglandin or urea? The baby is poisoned to death and the mother goes into labor. I used the generic term that everyone understands.


Posted by: valerie at April 11, 2008 3:21 PM


John, (I was just getting ready to post this, and then I read your 3:16 post...It made a lot of sense - please ignore my questions here that you just answered - That way I won't have to take time re-writing it. Hope that's OK. Thanks)

I had a chance to re-read your comments as well as carder's, so....

Are you saying that each of us has a dominant left or right side, but on top of that there's "societal" dominance as well, and that you think there's been a "societal" shift from right-brained thought to the left?

For the woman in the video, apparently her brain kept shifting back and forth from left to right and back. Does she believe we can control it, that it's a conscious choice for us? Or do we train our thought processes? Is a more philosophical approach to thought more of a right brained function? What about faith? I know these are a lot of questions, don't feel like you have to answer them all.....

John: 1:22: I've always wondered about Jesus came 'at the fullness of time'. What does this mean? Perhaps it was the point of shifting from right-brain - experiential domination to left-brain analytical thought. St. John's descriptions of being 'one' and 'in' God make all kinds of sense to a right-brain but a ???? only to the left

Do you have bible verses for this?

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 3:30 PM


sorry Janet,

the 'ugly, ugly' comment was from Chris Arseneault and not Mike at:

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 10, 2008 6:58 AM

Posted by: John McDonell at April 11, 2008 4:29 PM


Chris Arsenault: April 10, 2008 6:58 AM:

Awesome post!

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 4:53 PM


Truthseeker, If I am using contraceptives, no I am not making the choice to get pregnant. I should not have to get pregnant every time I have sex. I understand the pro-life position thinks that motherhood is the ultimate blessing, but the pro-choice argument thinks it's a blessing if she wants a child. Not just randomly and accidentally. That's like giving me the "gift" of a book and forcing me to read that book for 18 years. Yes, I like reading, but I don't want to be forced to read the same book for 18 years. Maybe other people want to read the same book for 18 years. Great! They should be able to! But I should have a choice too, and just because I learned how to read doesn't mean I should have to be forced into reading the same book for 18 years. Make sense?

If you one day went to a casino, and place a bet for a large amount of money, being positively sure that you are going to win some money- but then you shockingly realize that you lost and you owe them money- would you exclaim, "But I only consented to the gambling, not THIS! I didn't want to end up broke! That's not what I signed up for."

Do you think that, if this was your reaction, that the other people in the casino would be understanding, because you consented to having fun by placing the bet, but not to actually losing money?

Do you think that you can consent to gambling without consenting to the consequences of gambling, be they good or bad?

Why can it be that way in your sex life? You have sex, knowing that the packet says "only 95 percent effective", and you think to yourself, "Well, I'll place a bet that it will not happen to me. I won't be in that 5 percent." But then it happens. You get pregnant. Do you decide, "Well, this isn't what I signed up for, when I had sex! All I wanted was to have fun. I didn't want to end up pregnant!" Then you end the baby's life that you created by YOUR actions, and that baby has to pay with his or her LIFE because you wanted the convenience of being able to have sex without consequences.

Do you see the correlation here? It's just not right, what you're saying. Your view is completely irresponsible, and so cruel to the unborn children who didn't even ask to be conceived in the first place.

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 5:26 PM


John McD: 11:05: Decades ago my oldest brother started as`an-adult to become an artist. In one of his most memorable courses, the difference between the right and left brain hemispheres is explored. One aspect of note seems to be that right-brain thinking seems to be the domain of 'beauty' while 'accuracy and geometry' seem to be the main concern of the left-hemisphere.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" The Church's appreciation of beauty as part of God's creation is reflected in the strong support for Life - right brain dominance, while the left-brain is pragmatic, concerned with consequences for PC'r.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Carder 12:12: So, tell me: Is there a "cure" to this left-brain psychosis? ;-)

Appreciation of Beauty in Culture, Art, Music, Nature, Emotion?


Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 5:44 PM


John McDonnell, I'm curious...are you left handed?

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 6:03 PM


But that's the thing that was making me upset. I never made such comments about the woman. I just said I thought the actual abortion process was not as bad as I thought (based on how people on this site was talking about it).I didn't make any commentary on the woman herself. You came up with that all on your own.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2008 12:25 PM

It was an analogy, Stephanie. My point was that if I viewed a woman being raped and said it "wasn't so bad" as I'd expected, wouldn't you take that a little bit offensively? It doesn't matter exactly what I say. If I say that a video of someone being raped "isn't that bad", wouldn't that make you mad?

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 6:05 PM


Bethany: Are you a lefty? I am!

Posted by: Janet at April 11, 2008 6:31 PM


Yes, Janet! I am!! Ambedextrous. :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 11, 2008 6:45 PM


Bethany, so you're saying that if someone NEVER wants to have children, they should never have sex?

Also, are infertile people off the hook? Do they get to have sex whenever they want?

Posted by: Edyt at April 11, 2008 7:04 PM


@Bethany,

nope ... all right-handed ... although one sister is a lefty and my older-brother/the-artist ... although also right-handed writes backwards the same way most lefties do, only using the right hand.

Posted by: John McDonell at April 11, 2008 8:02 PM


Bethany, so you're saying that if someone NEVER wants to have children, they should never have sex?

If someone is not willing to deal with the consequences should they accidentally become pregnant, yes.

Also, are infertile people off the hook? Do they get to have sex whenever they want?

I fail to see how this relates. As long as you're not going to kill a baby you created by your actions, have as much sex as you please!

Posted by: Bethany at April 12, 2008 7:44 AM


John, that is really interesting. I didn't know rightys could twist their hand when they write, like leftys! I get comments on the way I write all the time. LOL

Posted by: Bethany at April 12, 2008 7:51 AM


Hi Bethany,

this writing-style is extremely unusual from the people I've talked to ... they too have never seen a right-hander write that way! My brother IS quite a unique and loving man. It's as though he's a truly dominant right-brained person, ill suited in a left-brain dominated society. Can hardly imagine anyone, short of my own Mom, who impacts my life as much as he does.

Posted by: John McDonell at April 12, 2008 8:59 AM


ali: I know I'm opening up a ginormous can of worms here...but I think 99% of people will agree that rape is wrong (that 1% is for the rapists themselves!). The verdict on whether or not abortion is wrong is still out (not on this blog- that I understand! I just mean, there isn't a general consensus in textbooks or anything). And it probably will always be, since not everyone can attach themselves to religious arguments, and not everyone will believe that abortion is murder before the age of viability. It's just a fact of life. Ohh, I'm so punny.
ever.


Ali, welcome!

You're right - there is enormous commonality of opinion about rape, whereas with abortion it's a much different story. Even on this blog there's no such consensus.

When we talk of "a baby being ripped apart" - it does make a difference to me, and I'm Pro-Choice. IMO an early term abortion is preferable to a late term one. I'm for abortion being legal to viability, and thereafter restricted to cases where the pregnant woman is in substantial danger or there is such fetal deficiency that the argument is much more moot.

When I see pictures of aborted fetuses at 20 or 24 weeks, I do think it's sad. Better to have had the abortion earlier in gestation, or better yet to have prevented the pregnancy. Good points have been made about the "pictures" we often talk about not representing most abortions. There's a heck of a difference between a developed fetus and an embryo, zygote, etc.

Posted by: Doug at April 13, 2008 11:47 AM


(John, hope we talk more about the right brain/left brain deal in the future.)

John M: Decades ago my oldest brother started as`an-adult to become an artist. In one of his most memorable courses, the difference between the right and left brain hemispheres is explored. One aspect of note seems to be that right-brain thinking seems to be the domain of 'beauty' while 'accuracy and geometry' seem to be the main concern of the left-hemisphere.

John, I hear you on the left/right brain stuff, but there is also the beauty of logic, mathematics, etc. I do think there is an emotional/intellectual split between the sides of the brain.

------

Not until this video did I realize that there were all sorts of lessons to be applied to PL thought processes as well! Since Doug came on he (like many PC) accepted: the past; the future (as a projection from the past'; and, verbal LOGIC. ((I argued that human life was not solely within these parameters .... the aspects of emotional reasoning being the largest 'problem' here.))

I don't see any real problems there. If you want to go with emotion then it often comes down to our empathy - is it more for the pregnant woman or for the unborn?

------

Not until this presentation did I perceive a split for the PC'ers .... a domination/preference of 'left-brain' thinking over 'right-brain' activation. I find Chris's blurb of ... 'Ugly. Ugly' interesting. Because would a left-brain thinker even know what he is talking about? And Laura's 'professional distancing', is it not a suspension of right-brain emotive activity?

I think everybody can see what he's talking about. Chris has his likes and dislikes, regardless of where in his brain they come from, exactly. And why should Laura emote more for the unborn, versus for thinking, feeling people?

______
One of the biggest problems I see in this abortion debate is a decided under-valuing of just what it means to be human. Abortion says we are a throw-away/trash reality .... the video says we had better re-think this position.

No, legal abortion says that we are valued enough to make our own decisions about some things, even though not everybody is going to like what we decide. It is not that any certain value is placed, it is that the individual pregnant woman gets to decide for herself.

Posted by: Doug at April 13, 2008 11:48 AM


@Doug,

Perhaps you do this thought process an injustice by 'rationalizing' (a left-brain activity) what I've said to fit your own paradigm ... notice what she says about left-brain activity! The whole notion of rights = 'I am' ... and the belief that 'I (pregnant woman)' am complete enough to judge the worthiness of my-own life, let alone the life of my offspring.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229


Posted by: John McDonell at April 13, 2008 2:00 PM


John - thanks - will view it later and respond - out the door now....

Posted by: Doug at April 13, 2008 2:56 PM


fwqxvkbml lkhisy zlpbfmsdu flkigqan irxt lgrd riocwhpea

Posted by: uzmnw trfzmk at May 5, 2008 3:01 AM


ofpgdtk wumeg vlnusxyp tjkg tonprwmec hxzln hdlti http://www.tnuy.cfmhqia.com

Posted by: pjkbamtyw jeyoahlgd at May 5, 2008 3:02 AM